Tyrants are never rational
Op-ed: We should all thank Olmert for recognizing Assad’s madness, bombing Syrian reactor
In the recent “Friends of Syria” conference that included the United States and Britain – but not Russia or China – all Arab states took the rebels’ side. Most Arab countries demanded Western military intervention that would end the carnage. Only the non-Arab Iran still supports the bloody regime of Assad Junior.
As to myself, on occasion I look up to the heavens and express silent gratitude. Thank you, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, for apparently having the courage and leadership to decide one dark night on an aerial assault that - according to foreign reports - destroyed a Syrian nuclear facility shortly before its activation and killed several North Korean engineers.
In an intelligence failure that could have dwarfed the one before the Yom Kippur War, Israel apparently discovered the existence of this nuclear site dramatically late. Prime Minister Olmert could have adopted several steps: Convene a secret commission of inquiry, leak the story to the foreign media, accuse the IDF of failure, enlist global diplomacy to the cause, and so on.
Yet Olmert apparently chose a different option. After looking into practical alternatives, he did what one would expect of a prime minister: He assumed full responsibility and decided to bomb.
Many Israelis today thank late Prime Minister Menachem Begin for his order to bomb Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Few remember to thank former PM Olmert, may he live long, for his order on September 6th, 2007.
What would experts say?
It’s horrifying to think what would have happened in our region today had Olmert avoided a decision and bequeathed it to the next prime minister. Where would Assad be, when he possesses nuclear arms, what kind of intervention would the West be able to consider, and where would we be?
Israel’s civil society was not privy to the drama that likely preceded the operation. We can assume that most media commentators would have spoken out against it. Syria experts would tell us that Bashar Assad, a graduate of Britain’s education system, is a rational statesman. Should he be bombed late at night by Israeli jets, in the midst of Turkish-mediated peace talks no less, he would respond furiously and order a heavy bombardment of the Golan and Galilee regions.
On the other hand, the experts would have said, should we refrain from bombing the nuclear site, the rational Bashar Assad will face pressure and sanctions. He would be forced to embark on negotiations with the international community, which would demand that he shut down his nuclear facility. If not immediately than in a year, two years, or three years…
When making his decision, Olmert ignored the basic premise that prevailed at the time in respect to Syria, whereby Bashar Assad is a rational politician. Olmert reached the opposite conclusion, which leaders of the civilized world only reached this year, at a regrettable delay: Assad is an irrational leader. He is “detached, “delusional,” and “only understands force.” Hence, one would be right and justified to use force to curb Assad’s nuclear aspirations.
Olmert is believed to have issued the order, the Israeli jets took off, and their operation succeeded beyond expectations. Without this Olmert decision, the world today would not even be able to consider military action against Assad.
The lesson is not that we should always bomb without waiting or that military alternatives should only be discussed behind closed doors. In my view, the lesson mostly pertains to the issue of rationality and is unequivocal: There is no such thing as a rational tyrant.
If you lead a tyrannical regime that brutally suppresses fundamental freedoms in your country, this is the ultimate proof that you are irrational. And this is how you and your caprices should be treated.
