Those Who Forget the Past... Should We be Worried?
“In the black world, that is, in the covert world, there aren’t any ‘good guys’ – just varying degrees of evil.” …..
1940s and 1950s, the Israeli regime targeted Jews in Iraq to pressure them into emigrating to Israel.
Yes, this is a claim that has circulated among historians and political analysts, particularly in discussions about the exodus of Iraqi Jews to Israel in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Here's a balanced overview of what is known, along with the more controversial claims:
Historical Background
Between 1949 and 1951, nearly 120,000 Jews emigrated from Iraq to the newly established State of Israel, a movement known as Operation Ezra and Nehemiah. This was one of the largest and most dramatic Jewish exoduses from an Arab country.
Before this, Iraq had one of the oldest and most vibrant Jewish communities in the world, with roots going back over 2,500 years. By the 1940s, Baghdad was home to about one-third of Iraq’s urban population, and Jews were integrated into society—though anti-Semitism, especially after the rise of Arab nationalism and the influence of Nazi Germany, began to increase.
Mainstream View
According to the mainstream historical narrative, the Jewish exodus from Iraq was largely due to:
-
Rising anti-Semitism and violence, including the Farhud pogrom of 1941 in Baghdad.
-
Increasing legal and economic restrictions against Jews in the wake of the Arab-Israeli War in 1948.
-
Fear for personal safety and a lack of future in Iraq.
In 1950, the Iraqi government allowed Jews to leave the country if they renounced their citizenship. Israel organized airlifts to bring them over.
Fringe & Controversial Claims
Some Iraqi Jews, scholars, and revisionist historians have alleged that Zionist operatives may have staged bombings of Jewish targets in Iraq in 1950 and 1951 to instill fear and encourage emigration to Israel. These include attacks on:
-
A synagogue.
-
The Mas'uda Shemtov Jewish school.
-
A Jewish-owned café.
These claims suggest that:
-
Some Zionist agents believed the only way to secure a Jewish majority in Israel was to “manufacture” the emigration of Jews from Arab lands.
-
Iraqi Jews were not initially eager to leave their homeland, and some felt betrayed after arriving in Israel and being treated as second-class citizens.
However, evidence for these claims remains circumstantial and heavily disputed. Investigations into the bombings at the time did not lead to conclusive findings, and both Iraqi authorities and Zionist leaders have denied involvement. The Iraqi government blamed Zionist agents, while Zionist groups blamed Arab nationalists or anti-Semitic militants.
Assessment
-
No definitive proof has emerged to confirm that Israeli agents were behind the bombings, though declassified materials, testimonies, and scholarly work continue to stir debate.
-
It is clear that many Iraqi Jews left reluctantly, under pressure, and amid increasing insecurity.
-
The claim, while not provable, highlights the complex ethics of early Zionist strategies, where state-building imperatives clashed with diaspora community realities.
A newly leaked cache of documents—allegedly taken from Israeli military intelligence servers in a recent cyberattack—has stirred fresh scrutiny over Israel's secretive nuclear policy, especially regarding the long-rumored “Samson Option.”
Though Israeli officials have neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the documents, their contents appear to validate long-held suspicions in geopolitical and intelligence circles: that Israel maintains a last-resort nuclear doctrine designed to ensure national survival at any cost—even if it means bringing catastrophic consequences to the rest of the world.
The term “Samson Option” refers to a strategic deterrent modeled after the biblical figure Samson, who collapsed a Philistine temple upon himself and his enemies. In practical terms, it implies that if Israel faces total annihilation—whether through a nuclear first strike, coordinated regional attack, or catastrophic invasion—it reserves the right to unleash its nuclear arsenal globally, not just regionally.
What the documents allegedly reveal is chilling: a tiered launch protocol detailing not just retaliatory strikes against immediate threats in the Middle East, but potential pre-targeted nodes in Europe, Asia, and even remote Pacific regions. These targets reportedly include economic chokepoints, military bases of hostile nations, and symbolic centers of power—presumably to signal that the cost of eliminating Israel would extend far beyond its borders.
Some of the materials also reference foreign policy manipulations that would keep global powers perpetually invested in Israel’s survival, a strategy that might explain the country’s exceptional diplomatic immunity in some international forums. There are even hints of cryptographic communications protocols set up with sympathetic elements embedded in Western command structures—indicating that in the event of a decapitation scenario, certain systems could auto-trigger a final act.
Critics have long claimed that Israel’s refusal to confirm or deny its possession of nuclear weapons (under a policy known as "nuclear opacity") masks a much more aggressive strategic calculus than is openly acknowledged. The new revelations, if verified, give weight to these theories—suggesting not just a defensive arsenal, but a doomsday equation designed to bind Israel’s fate with that of the wider world.
International response to the leak has been subdued, which analysts suggest is either due to coordinated media suppression or the geopolitical consequences of acknowledging the doctrine outright. While mainstream outlets focus on the cyber breach itself, the contents of the leak are circulating heavily in diplomatic backchannels and defense forums, signaling a renewed urgency in reassessing nuclear stability in the Middle East and beyond.
If true, the leak illustrates that Israel’s security apparatus has long planned not just for survival—but for unignorable legacy. In their eyes, the world must choose: allow Israel to live, or face a shared extinction event.
The “Samson Option” refers to an alleged Israeli strategy of massive nuclear retaliation as a last resort in the face of national annihilationen.wikipedia.org. In essence, it means that if Israel were ever about to be overrun or destroyed, it would “bring down the temple” on its enemies – a reference to the biblical Samson pulling down pillars to destroy his captors along with himselfen.wikipedia.org. This doctrine of doomsday vengeance has been shrouded in ambiguity for decades, discussed in hushed terms by analysts and never officially confirmed by Israel (which maintains a policy of nuclear opacity)en.wikipedia.org. Nonetheless, historical events and statements have given the Samson Option almost mythic status in strategic discourse. Recently, the concept leapt back into headlines due to an alleged cyberattack that leaked secret Israeli military documents, purportedly confirming details of this apocalyptic strategy. In this report, we examine the origins and rationale of the Samson Option, how it has been debated over time, and then delve into the claims about the 2025 leak – what was purportedly revealed, the credibility of those revelations, and how the world reacted.
Origins and Historical Context
Israel’s pursuit of nuclear capability dates back to its early years. By the mid-1960s, top Israeli leaders – including David Ben-Gurion, Shimon Peres, Levi Eshkol and Moshe Dayan – had coined the term “Samson Option” to describe a do-or-die nuclear strategyen.wikipedia.org. They deliberately evoked the biblical Samson, who destroyed himself and his foes, versus the ethos of Masada (the mass suicide of Jewish rebels) – signaling that Israel preferred Samson’s route of taking enemies down with it over martyrdom without inflicting harm on the enemyen.wikipedia.org.
Concrete historical episodes have fueled belief in the Samson Option. During the Six-Day War in 1967, with Israel’s survival in doubt at the war’s start, officials secretly prepared for a nuclear demonstration: a plan to air-drop and detonate a nuclear device in the Sinai desert as a warning to hostile Arab statesen.wikipedia.org. In the end, Israel’s conventional victory was so swift that this drastic step was not neededen.wikipedia.org. A few years later, in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Israeli leadership again neared the nuclear threshold. As Arab armies gained the upper hand early on, Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized the assembly of 13 nuclear bombs for potential use, and Israeli diplomats hinted to Washington that if the US did not urgently resupply Israel, “very serious conclusions” would followen.wikipedia.org. This veiled threat – effectively implying Israel might resort to its ultimate option if faced with collapse – is often cited as the first explicit use of the Samson Option as leverageen.wikipedia.org. U.S. intervention (an airlift of supplies) helped stave off that worst-case scenario.
Israel’s nuclear capability grew in secret in the following decades, and so did the mystique around its doomsday plan. By the late 1970s and 1980s, observers widely suspected Israel had built a substantial nuclear arsenal (a suspicion later confirmed in part by whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu’s 1986 disclosures). American journalist Seymour Hersh’s 1991 book The Samson Option further exposed how Israel became a nuclear power and suggested that its leaders indeed had formulated an Armageddon-like retaliatory doctrineen.wikipedia.org. U.S. intelligence estimates and leaks filled in the picture: as early as 1976 the CIA believed Israel had 10–20 warheads, and by the early 2000s estimates ranged from 75 to 200+ weapons including thermonuclear bombsen.wikipedia.org. Critically, Israel had acquired a “triad” of delivery systems – warheads deployable by aircraft, land-based missiles (Jericho ballistic missiles), and submarine-launched cruise missiles – giving it a secure second-strike capability even if the homeland were devastateden.wikipedia.org. This ensured that Israel could execute a Samson Option retaliation (hitting back at enemies or targets globally) even in extremisen.wikipedia.org. Throughout, Israel never officially acknowledged possessing nukes or any Samson plan, clinging to a policy of nuclear ambiguity (neither confirm nor deny)en.wikipedia.org. But the strategic community largely assumed that a “Samson Option” was embedded in Israel’s defense doctrine as the ultimate insurance policy for the nation’s survival.
Strategic Rationale and Debate
The strategic rationale behind the Samson Option is rooted in Israel’s traumatic history and its deterrence needs. In simple terms, it is a doctrine of last-resort deterrence: if Israel faces an existential military threat – a scenario where the state’s very existence is at stake – it warns that Israel would take unconstrained nuclear action against its enemies (and potentially the entire region or world) rather than go quietly into defeatprogressive.orgen.wikipedia.org. This is sometimes described as a form of “mutually assured destruction”, though not in the classic Cold War sense between two superpowers. Unlike U.S.-Soviet MAD, where both sides had nukes, Israel’s posture is aimed even at non-nuclear adversaries: destroy us, and we will unleash our nuclear arsenal upon you and possibly everyone elseprogressive.orgprogressive.org. The logic (from an Israeli perspective) is to deter any coalition of hostile nations from attempting a genocidal war by ensuring such an act would invite an apocalypse. In the words of one arms control expert, the Samson Option implies “deliberate, disproportionate nuclear strikes against non-military targets, such as cities, despite the clear violation of international humanitarian law” if Israel’s existence were imperiledprogressive.org. It is essentially the nuclear doomsday threat to prevent a second Holocaust or the destruction of the Jewish state.
Such a stark strategy has been hotly debated by scholars, military strategists, and intelligence analysts. Supporters of a robust Samson Option argue that it has bolstered Israel’s security by making enemies think twice before contemplating Israel’s destruction. For example, Louis René Beres, who chaired an Israeli advisory group (Project Daniel) in the early 2000s, argued that Israel should openly emphasize its Samson Option – ending ambiguity – to enhance deterrence. He suggested that Israel’s ability to threaten overwhelming nuclear retaliation could even be used to support preemptive strikes (i.e. deterring opponents from retaliating against Israeli conventional preemptive wars)en.wikipedia.org. Israeli officials have historically signaled in subtle ways that a doomsday retaliation is in the playbook: Moshe Dayan once famously said “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” This ethos was echoed by Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld, who in 2003 bluntly stated: “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions… We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”en.wikipedia.org. Van Creveld even referenced targeting European capitals and cited Dayan’s “mad dog” maxim as encapsulating Israel’s stanceen.wikipedia.org. Such statements, though unofficial, lend credibility to the notion that Israeli planners have gamed out cataclysmic retaliation scenarios. Some commentators have gone further in speculation: a controversial 2002 op-ed mused about Israel inflicting a “nuclear winter” and bringing “the Jew-hating world” down with it if faced with exterminationen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org – effectively an embrace of Samson-like revenge against not only enemies but a hostile world.
At the same time, critics and skeptics of the Samson Option emphasize its moral and strategic perils. Detractors note that actually executing such a plan – nuking cities and civilian populations out of vengeance – would be a crime against humanity and ensure Israel’s obliteration as well. Some argue the Samson Option is primarily a psychological deterrent and that Israeli leaders would be extremely reluctant to ever use nuclear weapons. Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, for instance, wrote that when it comes to nuclear matters, “Israel would be much, much more cautious than the United States and NATO… [It] would keep the demon locked in the basement.”en.wikipedia.org. This view portrays Israel as a responsible nuclear custodian that treats the Samson Option as an absolute last resort, not a literal plan to flippantly destroy the world. It is worth noting that Israel has avoided integrating nuclear weapons into regular military strategy, preferring to rely on superior conventional forces so that nukes truly remain a final desperation measureen.wikipedia.org. Intelligence analysts also debate how credible the Samson threat truly is – would Israel really fire off nukes at world capitals if it were falling, or is it a bluff? Some worry that if enemies believe it, it could actually encourage them to strike first or try to neutralize Israel’s nukes preemptively in a crisis. In any case, the Samson Option’s existence has never been officially confirmed, but it has been an open secret influencing how both Israel and its adversaries calculate the extremes of conflict. As one summary from the Modern War Institute put it, the Samson Option is essentially Israel’s implicit warning that “if we are going down, we’re taking you with us” – a strategy of national survival through the threat of unfathomable retaliationen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org.
In the end, the Samson Option remains a doctrine shrouded in ambiguity and controversy. The 2025 leak, while sensational, did not conclusively pull back the veil – but it did shine a light on the immense stakes involved. Israel’s alleged willingness to “take everyone else with it” if it faces destruction is simultaneously an extreme deterrent and a terrifying moral question for the world. It forces us to ask: Can a balance be found between a small nation’s right to survival and the broader imperative of averting global catastrophe? The Samson Option, by its very logic, is a failure of all other options – a scenario in which diplomacy, peace, and conventional defense have all failed. The international community’s goal, therefore, should be to ensure we never reach that stage. The uproar over the leaked documents may ultimately be a catalyst for reflection, to double down on preventing the kind of existential wars that would trigger doomsday plans. As of now, the Samson Option remains, thankfully, hypothetical. The world’s challenge is to keep it that way – confined to think-tank discussions and leaked paper scares, never to spill over into reality.
Here’s the list of U.S. cities reportedly identified in the leaked "Samson Option" documents:
-
New York City
-
Washington, D.C.
-
Los Angeles
-
Colorado (referring to the NORAD nuclear command center) hindustantimes.com+9reddit.com+9x.com+9
These four are the primary U.S. targets mentioned in the leaked screenshots, sourced from Iranian-linked disclosures and analyses echoing the same list. While the authenticity of the documents remains contested, these names have consistently appeared across multiple reported leaks.
‘Psychological Operations Is My Specialty’ —
Confessions of A Covert Agent
“In the black world, that is, in the covert world, there aren’t any ‘good guys’ – just varying degrees of evil.” …..
The Brutal Truth June 2025
The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Comments
Post a Comment