Iran's Conflict with Israel…A Dangerous Spiral of Violence in the Middle East
The danger of all-out war in the Middle East is greater than ever. How did Israel and Iran get into this mess? And can they still find a way out? (Der Spiegel-Today)
A Planetary Crisis Awaits the Next President
New York Times article by Stephen Markley, Today.“I fully admit, Mr. Biden was not my first, nor even my seventh, choice in the 2020 Democratic primary. Yet when it came to the immense challenge of confronting this crisis, I am forever grateful that he proved me wrong, delivering a game-changing victory with the narrowest of congressional margins. Even as much of the rest of Mr. Biden’s ambitious policy agenda got hacked away in Congress, one thing remained: re-industrialization through clean energy investment.
This led to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate legislation the country has ever seen and a more important achievement than the Paris climate accord. In just two years, that bill has galvanized clean energy investment in the United States and set a pace for the rest of the world to compete in the growing clean energy economy. These investments are expected to create more than nine million jobs over the next decade. That growth in clean energy is not only breaking records by the year but also by the quarter, with the end of 2023 seeing a 40 percent increase in investments in clean energy and transportation over the last quarter of 2022….
Read the full articles in this edition.
All rights of artwork by Germán & Co.
“The Dark Day: Europe's Energy Crisis Unveiled… "Th3 Delicate Balancing Act of Political Reckoning: 'The Unpredictable Consequences of Fundamental Political Matters'"
In the realm of politics, there exist certain matters so sensitive, so inherently fragile, that their mere existence can send shockwaves through the social and political fabric of a nation. These issues, oftentimes underpinned by deep-rooted historical, cultural, or ideological tensions, have the potential to disrupt the delicate balance that holds societies together.
https://energycentral.com/c/og/exclusive-%E2%80%9C-dark-day-europes-energy-crisis-unveiled%E2%80%A6Wishing you all the very best, and above all, abundant health at the end of this Sabbath.
It's becoming evident that European leaders are actively working on strategies to address the gas supply challenges plaguing the continent. Why? The transition to a new renewable energy source has caused bureaucratic challenges, including extended permit procedures, technical issues with the grid, and opposition from the environmental movement. Believe it or not, The Sámi in Swedish Lapland have protested against the construction of wind farms, arguing that the noise from the generators' blades has a psychological impact on the reindeer population in that serene and picturesque region.
The concept of the "unforeseeable consequences of fundamental political issues" is frequently overlooked, as evidenced by the detonation of the Nord Stream pipeline in the North Sea. Despite Washington's advice against detonating this strategic facility, the decision was not overturned. The explosion on 22 September 2022, occurred in a matter of seconds, causing an estimated 7.5 billion euros in damage and, worse, cutting off the only gas supply to the continent. This major geopolitical incident is distinct from the recent bombing at the Iranian embassy in Damascus by Israeli forces.
Washington's counsel to avoid detonating this strategic energy facility was disregarded. In the blink of an eye, an explosion occurred, resulting in an estimated 7.5 billion euros in damage and, more significantly, the cessation of the continent's sole gas supply. It is possible to posit that the pipe was devoid of gas due to the Kremlin's supply restriction. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the world and life are not static entities. Change is an ever-present aspect of our existence that we must embrace and adapt to. However, it is difficult to envision President Vladimir Putin remaining indefinitely in the expansive realm of Eurasia. The most recent bellicose geopolitical event, which was arguably both reckless and mean, involved the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, causing widespread concern and condemnation from the international community. It comes as no surprise that Washington was not informed about this particular incident, as doing so could have potentially hindered the operation's progress.
Finally, the primary concern is not solely the "Talion" law, which stands between opposing forces, but rather Putin's mindset. Mr. Henry Kissinger articulated this perspective during a profound interview with Portofalio magazine, conducted at the renowned French restaurant Jubilee in downtown Manhattan, New York, on July 27, 2018. Kissinger observed that although Putin does not mirror historical figures such as Hitler, he does exhibit traits akin to characters from Dostoevsky's esteemed novels. This insight highlights the extensive impact of Putin's choices, resulting in what Kissinger describes as "imperial contamination." The effects of this are evident in current disputes like the one between Venezuela and Guyana, which exemplify the enduring human inclination to place power above everything in the quest for dominance.
AES Dominicana has significantly enhanced the efficiency of the Dominican Republic's electricity system through the utilization of diverse fuels and renewable energy sources.
In December 2023, Energy Central celebrated top contributors in the Energy & Sustainability Network at the 'Top Voices' event. Winners were featured in 6 articles, demonstrating community recognition. The platform enables professionals to share their work, interact with colleagues, and collaborate with influencers. Congratulations to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for demonstrating their expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Don't miss out on the chance to show us some love by tossing a coin our way and signing up for our newsletter. Your support is like a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day, fueling our passion to keep churning out awesome content just for you. We're beyond grateful to have you as part of our tribe!
Thank you for your kind contributions…
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Iranian drones have been utilized by Russia to target Ukraine. All artwork rights are held by Germán & Co.The danger of all-out war in the Middle East is greater than ever. How did Israel and Iran get into this mess? And can they still find a way out?
"Der Spiegel," authored by Susanne Koelbl, Christoph Reuter, Thore Schröder, and Bernhard Zand, dated April 19, 2024.The uranium enrichment plant in Natanz is located halfway between the cities of Isfahan and Kashan. The only things visible from the highway are warehouses and workshops. Most of the plant is buried in tunnels, well over 60 meters below the surface – difficult to destroy even with the most powerful American bunker-busting bombs, it is said.
It is almost impossible to see what is happening underground here from the outside. What is known is that this is the site where Iran is further developing its nuclear program, which the international community had hoped to end using diplomatic means – and which Israel and many of Iran's Arab neighbors feel threatened by.
This is truer than ever following Iran's attack on Israel in the night of April 14, when the regime in Tehran launched a salvo of more than 300 drones, rockets and ballistic missiles in the country's direction.
Outside of Israeli security circles, no one knows exactly what possible targets in Iran the military planners are currently discussing in the event that war with Iran does indeed break out one day. But it is likely that, in addition to military bases, airports and oil facilities, the locations of the nuclear program will also be considered.
Around 170 kilometers north of Natanz, between Tehran and Qom, the city that is the world's largest center of Shiite scholarship, is the Fordo nuclear facility, also hidden underground. Some 150 kilometers further to the west, near the industrial city of Arak, there is another nuclear facility with a research reactor and a heavy water reactor.
An Israeli military strike against the Iranian nuclear program is the maximum variant of retaliation that is currently conceivable. It would be a bold move, feasible, if at all, only with the help of the United Sates – and with incalculable consequences for the rest of the world.
The danger of a major war in the Middle East is currently greater than ever. The risk remains just as high now that Israel apparently responded with a limited strike early on Friday morning.
It still isn't entirely clear what happened. According to Iranian reports, there were several explosions near the city of Isfahan in central Iran. Reports from the U.S. media, which cite unnamed Israeli and Iranian sources, indicated that it could have been an attack involving drones, possibly near an air force base. Iran initially played the incident down. It also remained unclear whether Israel would follow up with further strikes – or whether Iran would react once again.
The New York Times reported that four options had been discussed in Israel in the preceding days: a strike against an Iranian facility outside Iran, such as a Revolutionary Guard base in Syria; an attack on a "symbolic target" inside Iran; a cyberattack on the country's infrastructure – and an intensification of acts of sabotage or targeted killings inside Iran, of the type Israel's foreign intelligence service has allegedly been carrying out for years.
Reports coming out of Isfahan point to the second option. And it does seem fitting given that in military retaliation operations, states are usually keen to "thematically link" the counterstrike, as Fabian Hinz of the think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) puts it. To strike a specific unit or base that they believe to be responsible for the original attack, for example. That concept is at least one common denominator shared by countries as different and hostile as Israel and Iran.
Ever since the Hamas terror attack on Israel on October 7 and the war in Gaza, there has been an increased possibility of a broader war pitting Israel, the U.S. and their allies against Iran and its proxy forces in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. But despite the fact that Iran has co-financed the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, or that Israel is involved in battles with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah or that Houthi militias allied with Iran are launching drones from Yemen towards Israel, a larger conflagration has yet to be sparked.
It would be a war that could set the entire region between the Levant and the Hindukush on fire. "A war with Iran could destroy emirates such as Abu Dhabi or Dubai within 24 hours," the American Iran expert Vali Nasr said in an interview with DER SPIEGEL. Such a war could jeopardize global oil supplies, disrupt international trade and strengthen Russia and China.
It is a war that few people want. But wars don't always arise because someone decides to start them, sometimes they are the result of events that develop a momentum that no one can escape. Sometimes it is overreactions or miscalculations that set off a spiral of escalation.
What is the history of the current crisis?
On the night of April 14, an event occurred that had the potential to start a major war: It was Iran's first direct military attack on Israel. Iran's regime launched a massive airstrike with more than 300 drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. The Shahed drones flew west for hours. It didn't take long to detect them, but it was nonetheless an attempt to demonstrate military power.
None of the drones and very few missiles reached their targets. Most had been shot down by Israel, the U.S. or their allies before they reached Israeli airspace, even by neighboring Arab country Jordan. Israel's missile defense took care of most of the rest. Considering the scale of the attack, the civilian and military damage was minor. The only victim known by name: a seven-year-old Bedouin girl in the Negev desert who was injured.
The geopolitical consequences, however, are enormous. For the first time in the decades-long shadow war between the two hostile countries, both have now attacked the other from their own territory. The former Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, Ahmad Dastmalchian spoke of a "paradigm shift" in Iran's "defense policy." "Now, at the latest, Iran has passed the point of no return," said Michael Roth, the chair of the Foreign Policy Committee in the Bundestag, Germany's federal parliament.
But the Iranian attack wasn't the first cross-border assault in this conflict. An Iranian consulate and residence building in Syria's capital city Damascus was destroyed in an April 1 airstrike, presumably by Israel. Sixteen people, including Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, and other high-ranking officers and civilians were killed. Attacks on diplomatic missions are considered to be taboo by the international community, but for Iran, it was a public humiliation. As usual, Israel did not claim responsibility for the attack, but also made no effort to deny it.
That's how the logic of strike and counterstrike began. After Iran's attack last weekend, Israeli Army Spokesman Daniel Hagari said on Tuesday: "We cannot stand still from this kind of aggression." Iran will not "get off scot-free."
In the event the Israelis struck, the regime in Iran said it would strike back. And that this retaliation would be "much more serious" than the attack on April 13, an adviser to Iranian President Ebrahim Rasi said. If Israel "makes another mistake," said Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri, the country "will not have 12 days, a day or hours. The next strike will take place within seconds and has already been approved."
And even if the Israeli reaction now appears to have been rather mild and Iran has so far shown no signs of a renewed counter-reaction: The conflict between Israel and Iran is now being played out openly. The shadow war is no longer in the shadows. And the danger remains great that the conflict will escalate further – if not now, then in the coming weeks, months or years.
Israel's path to this escalation is closely linked to one name: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the rise of the political right.
But how did Iran, the major Shiite power in the Middle East, become Israel's archenemy? Is there a way to slow down this extreme confrontation, which threatens to erupt into an open, and possibly one day nuclear, war? The question lingering over everything is this: How can Iran still be prevented from building a nuclear bomb?
At what point could Iran have a nuclear bomb?
When asked whether Iran was already capable of building a bomb, the former head of the Iranian nuclear authority, Ali Akbar Salehi, recently replied in a television interview: "Imagine what a car needs; it needs a chassis, an engine, a steering wheel, a gearbox. You're asking if we've made the gearbox, I say yes. Have we made the engine? Yes."
The physicist and weapons expert David Albright, a former inspector with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), puts it more precisely. According to his estimate, Iran needs around six months to produce what is called a "crude" bomb that could be carried on a ballistic missile. However, this would require a decision from Revolutionary Leader Khamenei to lift the ban he imposed in 2003 on the production of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. A growing number of voices are now urging Khamenei to do precisely that. But so far, according to Albright, this decision apparently has not yet been made.
For a long time, it appeared that Iran could be dissuaded from building a bomb through diplomatic means: In 2015, the regime, which was ruled by a reform-oriented president at the time, concluded an agreement with the backing of the U.S., the European Union, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the Iran deal, called for Tehran to forfeit 97 percent of its low-enriched uranium. The stockpile of enriched uranium was to be exported almost entirely to Russia.
All of this took place in a different, more hopeful world: The West, Russia and China were still working together back then. In the meantime, the geopolitical situation has changed considerably. China and Russia are now firmly on Iran's side against the American-led world order. At a recent crisis meeting on Iran involving the U.S. and other countries, China and Russia were not even present.
Hardliners on all sides always wanted to torpedo the Iran deal: in Israel, the forces around Benjamin Netanyahu, the conservatives in Iran – and right-wing Republicans in the U.S. The main argument against the deal was that it didn't include Iran's missile program or its aggressive proxy forces in the Middle East. Proponents of the deal believed that they would be able to negotiate these issues in the next steps. But in 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew his country from the deal. His successor Joe Biden has tried to revive it, but those efforts have so far been in vain.
The International Atomic Energy Agency still has access to Iran's nuclear facilities, but entry has been severely restricted since the termination of the deal. "In the current chaos in the Middle East, they could try to use an excuse to deny the inspectors access to the enrichment facilities for a few days, as they did on the day of the drone attack on Israel," says former inspector Albright. It's not very difficult to increase the enrichment from 60 to 90 percent, meaning the amount needed for producing weapons-grade material.
Albright believes it is possible that Khamenei will reverse his decision "if the survival of the nation is at stake. They are so close that this alone could make it tempting to build the bomb. Still, the Iranians will have to weigh up what that means" – a likely war with Israel and possibly also with the U.S.
Conversely, Israel and the U.S. would also have to ask themselves what Iran's renewed response might look like. In any case, Israel has only limited possibilities for destroying Iran's nuclear program. "I think it is more likely that Israel will give a response that strengthens its deterrent but does not challenge Iran to a major attack."
Why were protests by women unable to topple the regime?
In the West, we have recently heard almost exclusively about protests in Iran: about the women in Tehran and other cities who threw off their headscarves a year and a half ago, about demonstrations in Kurdistan and Baluchistan, where participants were repeatedly killed with targeted shots.
The protests didn’t topple the regime, but they did demonstrate how great is the chasm between large segments of the population and the country’s rulers. Most Iranians don’t think much of the regime, and many don’t consider themselves to be in a conflict with Israel. At the same time, however, a faction of ultra-hardliners has developed in recent years – in parliament, among the clerics and among commanders of the Revolutionary Guards – called Jebhe-ye Paydari, or the Front of the Stability of the Islamic Revolution. And for them, the leadership of the aging Khamenei is too lax.
Instead of compromise, this group is demanding toughness, born out of a messianic tradition. The Front of the Stability of the Islamic Revolution, the Economist recently wrote, "are to Iran what the religious hard right are to Israel."
Step by step, these extremists are pushing the pragmatists out of the country’s circles of power. They are even enforcing the hated hijab requirement for women once again: On the day of the Iranian air attacks on Israel, the regime once again sent the morality police into the streets. And these hardliners are upping the pressure to transform the anti-Israeli and anti-Western propaganda into a real military conflict. Faced with the decision between losing face or getting Iran involved in a large war in the Middle East, they tend to favor the latter.
Where did the animosity between Iran and Israel come from?
The acrimony between the two countries is not rooted in a long, bellicose history. It began as a propaganda project of the Iranian Revolution, which put an end to the country’s monarchy in 1978-79.
Under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran became one of the first countries to recognize Israel in 1948. The secret services of the two countries cooperated, and both states were united by their distance to their Arab neighbors. The young country of Israel helped Iran develop its agricultural sector and bought oil from the country.
Historian David Menashri, 79, was born as the son of Jewish parents in Tehran before emigrating with his parents to Israel, but he also spent several years in Iran in the 1970s. At that time, he says, the two countries had a relationship "like a marriage without a license" – a rapport that was shaped by religion from the very beginning. On the one hand, both countries considered themselves to be "chosen by God" by virtue of their long histories, says Menashri. But on the other, anti-Semitism had a long history in Iran.
There was, for example, a rule according to which Iranian Jews were not allowed to leave their homes when it was raining, because they were considered najis, ritually unclean, and water dripping off of them would allegedly impurify the streets. The shah, says Menashri, knew that he couldn’t be particularly open about his ties with the Israelis. The Israeli Embassy in Tehran did not fly the country’s flag and while the airline El Al had daily flights to the Iranian capital, those flights were not publicly displayed at Mehrabad Airport.
It was revolutionary leader Ruhollah Khomeini who declared Israel to be "Little Satan." The designation "Great Satan” was reserved for the U.S., which had provided the shah with military support for years. Kohmeini accused Israel of being an "enemy of Islam" and declared an annual Al-Quds Day, calling for the liberation of Jerusalem – though during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Khomeini had no compunctions about importing arms from Israel through secret channels. Israel’s leadership likewise kept open the possibility of resuming closer cooperation with Iran at some point in the future. For Khomeini, the Jewish state was a useful tool for whipping up the fervor of his followers. "If Israel hadn’t existed," says David Menashri, "his regime would have had to invent it."
Indeed, one reason Iranian propaganda later targeted Israel and the U.S. was because it so accurately reflected the mood on the streets of Arab countries, with which Iran was at odds and whose leaders were generally allied with the U.S.
Who actually rules Iran?
The Iranian regime is stable primarily due to its unique construction. Standing over everything is the country’s religious leader, Ali Khamenei.
In 1979, revolutionary leader Khomeini established the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guards, as a protective force against the country’s regular army, who Khomeini suspected of being disloyal.
Today, the Pasdaran, with almost 350,000 men, is the most powerful military force in Iran and has its own ground, air and naval forces in addition to an arsenal of missiles. The country’s nuclear program is also part of its portfolio as is the large Basij militia, which keeps close tabs on schools, universities, factories and official agencies to ensure that no opposition is allowed to develop.
The Revolutionary Guards are not under the control of the country’s elected president or the parliament, instead answering only to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who took charge when Khomeini died in 1989. He holds vastly more power than President Ebrahim Raisi, though the president is also considered to be a Khamenei ally.
The Pasdaran has become the gravitational center of the Iranian state. In addition to its military strength, it also has gigantic holdings through which it dominates every sector of the Iranian economy, including banks, construction companies, supermarket chains, oil refineries, airports, luxury hotels, eye clinics and newspapers.
But as sprawling as its economic empire is, the Pasadaran keeps its influence largely under wraps. Estimates as to the group’s contribution to Iran’s gross social product vary between one-third and two-thirds. General strikes of the kind that toppled the monarchy in 1978-79 become difficult when the regime also controls a majority of the economy.
Why is Iran spreading its influence across the Middle East?
From the very beginning, Khomeini’s Islamic Republic was anything but a peaceful state. But instead of seeing today’s archrival Israel as its biggest enemy, the focus was more on countries like Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all of which the regime saw as rivals for the political, religious and economic dominance of the Middle East. To secure Iran’s influence in the region, the foreign, elite branch of the Pasdaran, the Al-Quds Brigades, was founded in 1988, named for the Arabic word for Jerusalem.
In the late 1990s, a man named Qassem Soleimani – a largely unknown officer at the time – took over control of the Al-Quds force. Marked by the horrors of the Iran-Iraq conflict, Soleimani set about building something new – a hybrid army made up of other nationalities but which would remain under his control. Soleimani was from the mountains of southern Iran, was fluent in the unwritten rules of the tribes, had experience as a wartime commander, exuded charisma and spoke perfect Arabic.
Over the course of several years, he discreetly built up a shadow army over which the Iranians had full control, but which didn’t involve Iranians themselves fighting and dying. His model foresaw providing financial and military support to fellow Shiites in other countries, religiously indoctrinating them and then deploying them as bridgeheads in the Arab world. The blueprint was the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon. Israel marched into the country in 1982 in order to drive out the leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). In spring 2000, the Israelis withdrew, and Hezbollah posed as the country’s liberators.
Three years later, in 2003, a golden opportunity arose for Iran to expand its power: The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the country’s dictator. The majority of Iraqis are Shiites, and it didn’t take Iran long to fill the power vacuum. A growing number of militias were trained by Soleimani’s men.
The 2011 uprising in Syria as part of the Arab Spring provided the next opportunity. The Assad-family dictatorship in Damascus was Iran’s only Arab ally – and it couldn’t be allowed to fall. Indeed, Syria became the ultimate proving grounds for Soleimani’s creation. As of 2014, Iraqis began fighting at division strength in the region surrounding the Syrian capital of Aleppo, led by Hezbollah officers from Lebanon. Shiites from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen served as cannon fodder for the front lines. And Iran was pulling the strings.
General David Petraeus, who led the U.S. forces in Iraq in 2008, received what he says was a secret message at the time: "General Petraeus, you should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Afghanistan." It wasn’t bragging, it was just the truth.
Because Soleimani’s troops didn’t just battle it out with local forces, but increasingly with U.S. units as well, then-U.S. President Donald Trump made a far-reaching decision in January 2020: He had General Soleimani killed at the Baghdad airport using Hellfire missiles. Iran still hasn’t completely recovered from the loss, with Soleimani’s successor lacking his stature. But many of the militias once controlled by Soleimani still exist – and some, such as the Houthis in Yemen, have even grown stronger. "Their proximity to Iran gives them power over their competitors," says Middle East expert Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute in Washington. "Then: the weapon systems, suicide drones, missiles, plus the training effects. It's the complete package. It is truly a network, fascinating. Each of them operates in their own environment. They are part and parcel of a regional network."
Iran reacted to the assassination of Soleimani by firing missiles at U.S. military bases. But the response was far more modest than the attack unleashed on Israel following the killing of its generals in Damascus.
Why didn’t Iran’s allies launch attacks after October 7?
Many Western observers were surprised that Tehran and Hezbollah clearly held back following the Hamas terror attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. In truth, however, such reserve has not been uncommon in recent decades. Despite all the propaganda against the "Zionist entity," Soleimani’s successor in recent years has reportedly argued internally against provocations of Israel. Tehran may support Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, all of which are enemies of Israel, but control over Arab countries has always been more important to Tehran.
According to U.S. intelligence, Hamas launched the October 7 attack on its own and hoped that Hezbollah and Iran would join the war they started.
But that was never their intention, and now – after years of bellicose anti-Israeli and anti-Western propaganda – the Iranians found themselves facing a dilemma. That has been readily apparent by Hezbollah’s attempts since October 7 to lead a limited war across the Israeli border.
Revolutionary leader Ali Khamenei, recalls Israeli Iran expert Raz Zimmt of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a think tank in Tel Aviv, once said that Iran occasionally had to operate "like a boxer" and take punches if it served to achieve larger strategic aims.
What next?
The recent escalation between Iran and Israel – one which appears to have brought the Middle East closer than ever to a large conflict – was apparently the product of a far-reaching misjudgment three weeks ago. Israel’s government and security services came to the conclusion ahead of their April 1 airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus that the leadership in Tehran would react to this strike with a relatively moderate response – as had been the case following a series of similar attacks in recent months.
Even though the Israelis had previously killed more than a dozen pro-Iran militia leaders in Syria and Lebanon, the attack on the consulate in Damascus "crossed a red line,” says Zimmt. "Apparently those responsible hadn’t registered that the Iranians could not accept the killing of such senior commanders, particularly at this place."
An extensive New York Times report confirmed that not only did the Israelis fail to coordinate with their allies in Washington ahead of the attack in Damascus, they also underestimated the fact "that the unwritten rules of engagement in the long-simmering conflict between Israel and Iran have changed drastically in recent months.”
Since October 7, the result has been "escalation after escalation and miscalculation after miscalculation." And that has raised fears "of a retribution cycle that could potentially become an all-out war."
And with Iran and Israel firing on each other more directly than ever before, this danger has not exactly grown smaller.
The Phoenix symbolizes former President Donald Trump. What is coming up in November?
Artwork - All rights reserved by Germán & Co.Do not limit your imagination…
The New York Times article by Stephen Markley, dated April 20, 2024.In the 12 years it took me to write “The Deluge,” my novel of the climate crisis, I watched as chaotic weather, record temperatures and shocking political events outpaced my imagination. The book depicts the human tipping point, when the damage becomes irreversible and the foundations of our economy, our politics and our world begin to crack. The plot points I was concocting in 2010 would become a constant drumbeat of headlines into 2024.
Last year alone, the warning signs included soaring ocean temperatures, a record loss of Antarctic Sea ice and the highest global average temperature in recorded human history. Wildfires, droughts, floods and extreme weather of every variety have come to shock even the scientists who study the shocking stuff. This is not the history we want to be living through.
Yet here we are, and those gears of history will grind together again this year as another presidential election meets our permanent emergency. The stakes of the climate crisis render the cliché of “This is the most important election of our lifetimes” increasingly true because every four years those stakes climb precipitously alongside the toppling records of a radically new climatic regime.
The White House may soon be recaptured by Donald Trump, who called the climate crisis a “hoax” and even when backing off that assertion insisted, “I don’t know that it’s man-made.” He has demonstrated his thinking again and again, as when he told a scientist, “It’ll start getting cooler, you just watch.”
There has recently been a great deal of reporting on Project 2025, a 900-plus-page road map for a second Trump administration assembled by the conservative Heritage Foundation. On climate, the report is succinct: “The Biden administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding.”
The report recommends a repeal of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act, which would shred the tax credits that have led to hundreds of billions of dollars in investments in clean energy, the jump-starting of factory openings and the creation of jobs in virtually every corner of the country. Also lost will be investments in environmental justice, those measures that aim to reduce pollution in marginalized communities, provide affordable clean energy and create jobs in low-income neighborhoods. As for electric cars, which are critical to meeting the nation’s climate goals, the report recommends an end to all federal mandates and subsidies.
A second Trump administration would most likely grant permits for fossil fuel drilling and pipelines basically anywhere it has the say-so, scrap the methane fee on oil and gas producers and dismantle new pollution limits on cars, trucks and power plants. It would almost certainly revoke California’s waiver to approve higher standards under the Clean Air Act, seek repeal of the Antiquities Act used to protect endangered landscapes and attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act.
A changing climate, a changing world
The role of our leaders: Writing at the end of 2020, Al Gore, the 45th vice president of the United States, found reasons for optimism in the Biden presidency, a feeling perhaps borne out by the passing of major climate legislation. That doesn’t mean there haven’t been criticisms. For example, Charles Harvey and Kurt House argue that subsidies for climate capture technology will ultimately be a waste.
The worst climate risks, mapped: In this feature, select a country, and we'll break down the climate hazards it faces. In the case of America, our maps, developed with experts, show where extreme heat is causing the most deaths.
What people can do: Justin Gillis and Hal Harvey describe the types of local activism that might be needed, while Saul Griffith points to how Australia shows the way on rooftop solar. Meanwhile, small changes at the office might be one good way to cut significant emissions, writes Carlos Gamarra.
But perhaps most ominously, a Trump presidency would impede Americans’ ability to find out what’s being done to them. Project 2025 proposes dismantling and privatizing parts of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency that studies and monitors the climate, and using an executive order to “reshape” the Global Change Research Program, apparently to muddy its assessments of the pace of climate change and the potential impact. We would walk into this new dark era with a blindfold on.
Mr. Trump is at heart a billionaire doing favors for other billionaires by cutting their taxes and eliminating or not enforcing rules that protect the rest of us from asthma and cancer. During his four years in office, he managed to dismantle or degrade over 100 environmental rules, which brought real-world death and suffering. The medical journal The Lancet estimated that in the year 2019 alone these policies led to 22,000 excess deaths from heart disease, asthma and lung cancer, among other causes.
For all the damage that was done, Mr. Trump and his administration fortunately proved incompetent at making the government fulfill his intentions. We shouldn’t delude ourselves with thinking that he and his allies will be caught as flatfooted as they were by their surprise victory in 2016. What Project 2025 demonstrates is that an enormous amount of thinking has gone in to how to destroy the government’s capacity to enforce environmental protections, conduct research or even assess the scientific reality of our situation. Of course, the worst-case scenario, a full or partial repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, will depend on the composition of Congress.
My advice is to not tell yourself comforting bedtime stories about the political resiliency of that law when so many of its benefits lie in the years ahead.
One can hold up a document like Project 2025 and shout from the rooftops just how extreme it is. One can attempt to use numbers to describe this danger. But everyone will fall short — and, surely, I’ve fallen short — in describing just how frightening a second Trump presidency could actually be.
Do not limit your imagination…
Mr. Trump himself offered a glimpse in a recent meeting with oil and gas executives at Mar-a-Lago, where, The Washington Post reported, he said, “I hate wind.” He also told the executives that they should contribute to his campaign, that his policies would be much better for oil and gas than President Biden’s and that he’d do much of what they wanted “on Day 1.”
History will fork, and in a single day our window of opportunity for keeping the climate crisis from spiraling out of control could very well slam shut. Global emissions must peak this decade and begin a rapid decline for the world to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic warming. When I began writing my novel, we had something like 20 years to accomplish that task. After the election, we will have 62 months.
This makes the 2024 election a singular event in the climate crisis. Despite a number of headwinds, renewable energy capacity boomed last year, increasing 50 percent globally. According to the International Energy Agency, global renewable capacity is on course to be at two and a half times current levels by 2030, which means the world is edging closer to achieving a key climate target of tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030. The risks of the crisis are growing rapidly, but so is our capacity to confront this challenge at the speed and scale necessary. We must accelerate that momentum at all costs.
The other major candidate in the race, President Biden, has been a steadfast proponent of that acceleration.
I fully admit, Mr. Biden was not my first, nor even my seventh, choice in the 2020 Democratic primary. Yet when it came to the immense challenge of confronting this crisis, I am forever grateful that he proved me wrong, delivering a game-changing victory with the narrowest of congressional margins. Even as much of the rest of Mr. Biden’s ambitious policy agenda got hacked away in Congress, one thing remained: re-industrialization through clean energy investment.
This led to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate legislation the country has ever seen and a more important achievement than the Paris climate accord. In just two years, that bill has galvanized clean energy investment in the United States and set a pace for the rest of the world to compete in the growing clean energy economy. These investments are expected to create more than nine million jobs over the next decade. That growth in clean energy is not only breaking records by the year but also by the quarter, with the end of 2023 seeing a 40 percent increase in investments in clean energy and transportation over the last quarter of 2022.
As those industries of decarbonization spread to every state and to many congressional districts, people’s lives and livelihoods increasingly will become intertwined and invested in clean energy. When a Texas congressman can’t survive an election in a solidly Republican district without the backing of the wind and solar industries, when a battery factory in Hardin County, Ky., is employing 5,000 people, when the fossil fuel economy is falling to the zero-carbon infrastructure we demand, that will change a politician’s calculations. The increasing political and economic clout of those clean energy industries will challenge the fossil fuel status quo. We are at the beginning of an absolute revolution of the American economy that will send manufacturing soaring and pollution plummeting.
Any climate hawk could try to encumber my argument with caveats, unaddressed pet issues and whatabouts, but as far as our shared atmosphere is concerned, there are only three pieces of relevant information: who Joe Biden is, who Donald Trump is, and the urgency of the crisis before us. While it’s true the United States continues to produce record amounts of fossil gas and near-record amounts of oil, these numbers reflect the all-of-the-above energy policies of the past 15 years. The Inflation Reduction Act and several critical regulations from Mr. Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency will drive the decarbonization that should put us within striking distance of our Paris climate agreement target by 2030, something that seemed unfathomable four years ago.
It’s worth dissecting how we achieved such progress. This stunning victory was made possible only by Stacey Abrams’s tenacious work in Georgia to flip two U.S. Senate seats in 2020, giving Mr. Biden a Senate majority on top of a House majority (which he narrowly lost in 2022).
Work is also underway on the state and local levels. In the last four years, Democrats have led efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Washington to pass ambitious climate laws when voters demanded it. In major cities, we see aggressive action like Minneapolis’s Climate Equity Plan and Chicago’s push to end natural gas hookups for new construction.
From small cities like Athens, Ohio, which has a citywide carbon fee, to high school students campaigning for solar panels and electric buses, citizens can drive the movement to electrify everything and crush demand for fossil fuels. State public utility commissions remain ignored players with their hands on the controls of enormous amounts of carbon, ripe for campaigns to elect or appoint climate-oriented members. Whether we’re voting for president or state legislator or dogcatcher, we should vote for a dogcatcher who recognizes the imperative of the climate crisis.
The lesson being that the only thing that has worked, and must continue to work, is democracy at every level. None of us have the option to be cynical, to disdain electoral politics or to pretend we’re not making a distinct moral choice when voting for a third-party candidate or sitting out an election.
Right now, this means electing Democrats. The expiration of many of the Trump tax cuts in 2025 could create the leverage to push climate efforts even farther. We must look at this election and understand that it’s now or never — that we can create the opportunity for the United States to smash past its emission reduction goals and spur the rest of the world to follow. The climate movement can either fight like hell for Mr. Biden’s re-election or watch as Mr. Trump and his allies set fire to the planet.
Climate is not just another issue. I do not deny that we live in a complex and precarious world or that our consciences are torn by a web of domestic challenges and geopolitical upheavals. But we are in denial if we do not recognize that this is the crisis that will define this century, and if we fail, the entire human future. Our fossil fuel system is driving the planet to a set of conditions that humanity has never experienced, where even the imagination of novelists will fail us.
And yet the climate crisis is also the foundation on which we can build a more just, equitable and prosperous world. Every election is precious, every ballot we cast a moral record of what we did in this crucial historical moment. Do not sit on your hands, do not deny the stakes, do not waste that vote.