Info-Warfare, the 'third war'
In the context of the Great Global War in which we find ourselves immersed - and which will certainly mark the decades to come - we can see at least three wars underway: the European one, the Middle Eastern one and the information one. The first two seek to obtain political results through the use of weapons, the third through the conditioning of global public opinions (and therefore of governments).
But these are not three separate wars, indeed they are closely intertwined with each other, and in many respects. We have already talked about the relationships between the two wars in a previous article [1]. The tactical moves and strategic maneuvers of information warfare take into account what happens on the battlefields and try to make sense of it by framing it in a particular reading. , both in order to confuse (and/or mobilize) public opinions, and in the context of real psy-ops aimed at disorientating the enemy, or protecting the party that implements them.
If you keep this premise in mind, you can try to decipher the meaning of many recent tactical moves in this information war. And already their intensification, in quantity and quality, as well as in content, clearly suggests that wars are in a critical phase, which requires narrative interventions external to the battlefields.
In particular, we will examine both official statements, such as that of US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and a series of indiscretions and journalistic analyses, with reference to both the Russian-Ukrainian and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. For example, it is very interesting to observe what Austin said, who spoke about both conflicts. According to the Secretary, the United States will not allow Putin and Hamas to win; and they will be able to do so because they are "the most powerful country on earth" [2].
This declaration, which puts both Ukraine and Israel, but above all both Putin (Russia) and Hamas on the same level, actually comes at a very critical moment on both fronts.
As regards the conflict in Ukraine, while Austin declares the US ability to "direct resources into multiple theaters", a parliamentary battle is actually taking place in Congress because resources for Kiev are exhausted [3], and the Republican majority in the Chamber is very reluctant to vote on new funding. But above all - as demonstrated by the reversal of the Western narrative - the war is going in exactly the opposite direction. The Washington Post, notoriously well connected with the Pentagon and the American services, even dedicated a long analysis, divided into two parts and entrusted to the entire editorial staff, to examine the causes of the failure of the famous Ukrainian counteroffensive last summer [4], but essentially to sound the de profundis for Ukrainian illusions of victory. Articles of the same tone have followed one another in various international newspapers, most recently Der Spiegel [5].
Even if the Secretary of Defense proclaims the American desire not to let the enemies of the West win, the reality is very different - and he knows it all too well. This reality is that the war in Ukraine is lost, and now the game becomes rather how to get out of it while saving face (and prestige). For the United States today this is the priority, to package a credible enough narrative so that the defeat can be seen as a draw. Obviously the problem is not American public opinion, which also barely knows where Ukraine is, but rather the international credibility of the USA as a great power - and therefore its ability to defend friendly countries and strike enemy ones. A problem that urgently requires an answer (preferably before the US presidential elections…); although the war brings economic benefits to the states, in fact, the longer it lasts the more likely it becomes that the Russian victory will be sensationally evident. Which is to be avoided like the plague.
Today the main obstacle to reaching a solution acceptable to Washington seems to be poor Zelensky. Praised and carried on his laurels for almost two years, convinced by the Anglo-Americans themselves not to deal with the Russians when it was still possible (and as now universally confirmed), he is now a prisoner of the character they built on him - as well as of his dependencies... – and therefore, unable as he is to change roles in comedy at the speed required by the director, he finds himself ineluctably condemned to removal.
It is no coincidence that it is once again the friendly international press that takes charge of dumping him. The rumors about the declining internal approval rating, as well as those about the rivalry with the commander of the armed forces Zaluzhny [6] (currently his most accredited successor), are now almost at the level of gossip. Except that the issue is very serious.
Even if there is no shortage of pretenders to the throne - in addition to Zaluzhny, certainly Zelensky's former advisor, Arestovych, and perhaps the former president Poroshenko and the head of the services Budanov - at this stage the head of the armed forces seems to be in pole position . What is probably holding back his rise is a certain distrust on the American side, born during the counter-offensive, when in fact the Ukrainian army did not follow the tactical indications suggested by the NATO commands; a decision taken by Zaluzhny himself, and on which (according to the Pentagon) the subsequent failure depended. Furthermore, just recently, during Austin's visit to Kiev, the general made exorbitant demands (17 million bullets and 400 billion dollars), which generated considerable perplexity in Washington. Not only would such a quantity of artillery ammunition not be available even by collecting it from all over the world (which Zaluzhny cannot ignore), let alone billions..., but such a request seems to indicate the desire to continue the war for a long time, rather than to lead the country towards a negotiation.
And here Seymour Hersh's latest article comes in. According to the well-known American investigative journalist, in fact, a secret negotiation is underway between Ukrainians and Russians, conducted by Zaluzhny for the former, and by the Russian commander in chief Gerasimov for the latter. According to what was reported by Hersh [7], who refers to what was revealed to him by US military sources, the basis of the negotiation would be on the one hand the cession of all the conquered territories to Russia, and on the other the entry of Ukraine into NATO , with the commitment not to host weapons and/or troops from other countries on its territory.
As is quite evident, this news - as reported - appears very unlikely.
First of all, it is not clear why the United States should have an interest in revealing such a negotiation, if it were actually taking place, when it is clear that making it public means both exacerbating the tensions between Zaluzhny and Zelensky and, above all, undermining its chances of success.
But above all, what makes it less credible are the alleged terms of the agreement - not to mention the fact that a negotiation of this level, which involves fundamental decisions, certainly could not be conducted by Gerasimov, who would at most be qualified to discuss a temporary ceasefire.
However, it is simply unthinkable that Russia would accept an exchange in which it takes what it already has, and which no one can realistically think of taking away from it, and gives in precisely on the fundamental point for which the war began, i.e. Kiev's membership of NATO.
As far as it is possible that the Western political-military leaders are imprisoned in their own mental framework, according to which the absence of substantial territorial changes implies a situation of stalemate (whereas the Russians instead pursue the destruction of the Ukrainian army, not the conquest of territory), and therefore may believe that they are in a situation of equilibrium, from which both parties have an interest in emerging, believing that Moscow can accept Ukraine in NATO is truly out of reality.
It follows that the revelation leaked to Hersh is at best an arthouse balloon; much more likely a psy-ops operation. The aim is obviously to send a message, first of all to Zelensky: be careful, the time has come to negotiate, if you don't do it we'll let someone else do it. Secondly, the message is for Zaluzhny himself: we can pass the scepter to you, but on the condition that you complete a negotiation as our intermediary. Because obviously the terms of an agreement must have US approval. And finally, in the background, there is the universal message, to Western public opinion, which says: the war is about to end, we will force Russia to accept our conditions, even if we sacrifice something.
And of course this is regardless of whether or not there may actually be confidential talks between the two military commanders.
On the other front of the war, Palestine, and despite many appearances, things are not very different.
There is obviously a huge humanitarian tragedy underway, superior to the Ukrainian one certainly not because of the numbers (the European war has over 400,000 deaths on the Ukrainian side alone) but because of the proclaimed desire for extermination, and because it is intentionally directed against the civilian population. But the attempted genocide of the Palestinian population of Gaza is above all a gigantic cover-up operation. And what it must hide is the double Israeli failure, that of October 7th as well as that of the entire military retaliation operation.
The real problem posed to Israel by the al-Aqsa Flood operation is in fact entirely similar to that posed to the USA by the evolution of the conflict in Ukraine. That is, it undermined the Jewish state's power of deterrence.
If we look at the events of October 7, it is impossible not to realize how they subverted the international agenda, and more than anything, how they hit Tel Aviv in its Achilles' heel. For Israel, in fact, a country with less than ten million inhabitants (not all of whom are Jewish), which finds itself deeply surrounded by hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims, the ability to ward off any hostility on the part of its enemies - and to do so effectively and quickly – is critical to its survival. Questioning its military response capacity, and its intelligence prevention capacity, means undermining the foundations on which the Jewish state has built its relations with neighboring countries.
In the face of this, even having postponed at least indefinitely the application of the Abraham Accords, as well as having forcefully brought the Palestinian question back to the center of the world debate, overshadowing the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in 24 hours, appear to be results of lesser importance.
Having shown that Tsahal can be taken by surprise and beaten, that the mythical (or rather, mythologized) Israeli secret services are not that efficient after all, is the real mortal blow to Israel. And this is precisely the wound that must be healed as quickly as possible, with a view to the future security of the state.
The attack of the Palestinian Resistance, therefore, immediately scores big points to its advantage. And what is the result of the Israeli counteroffensive, two months later? An absolute peak in the policy of ethnic cleansing certainly, which Israel has pursued relentlessly since 1948, but nothing more. Relations with friendly countries, from the United States to the Arab and Muslim countries with which it usually maintains profitable relations (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey...) have at least cooled. International condemnation and isolation, although held in check, are very widespread. The economic cost of war is heavy, much more than expected. The active hostility of the Arab front has increased (Iraqi and Yemeni Shiite militias have joined the Palestinian Resistance and Hezbollah). Netanyahu's decades-long political career, already shaky, has clearly come to an end.
Perhaps even more importantly, the crisis triggered by the events of October 7 could even, in the medium term, call into question the entire political project of Zionism. With the retaliation carried out by the Israeli armed forces, in fact, Tel Aviv has pushed itself to the extreme practicable limit in its plan of ethnic cleansing; it is quite clear that it would not be possible for her to go beyond that threshold, neither now nor in the future. And if not even this made it possible to pursue the messianic dream of Greater Israel, nor did it serve to definitively defeat the resistance of the Palestinian people (and not just the armed one), it seems clear that the dream is unachievable, that the demographic battle against the populations native Arabs is lost.
Therefore, the outcome of the storm unleashed on the day of Simchat Torah is totally negative for Israel.
And it is, clearly, also on a strictly military level. Two months after the attack, the IDF can claim the killing of a thousand Palestinian fighters, almost all during the attack itself, and a few low-to-mid-level commanders. This compared to an estimated capacity of 40,000 men under arms among the various Resistance groups. In the face of almost as many fallen soldiers and/or prisoners, including senior officers, and thousands of wounded - and over 2000 deserters/resistances... In the face of an unchanged defensive and offensive capacity - the massive rocket launches on Israeli cities continue, Tel Aviv included. In the face of the sensational emergence that a large part of the civilian victims of that 7 October were caused by the IDF itself, in compliance with the terrible Hannibal Directive [8].
And now, while the Israeli high command declares to the media that the ground operations in the north are almost over, and that the war will continue in the south, the battle is raging in the north itself, and in just one day seven remain on the ground (officially) among IDF graduates and officers.
For Israel, even more than for the United States, military power is everything. It is the ability, especially through deterrence, to defend the very existence of the state. This is why it becomes essential to restore it. That is, restoring the credibility of the threat. Something that must necessarily start from the very moment it cracked.
This is the meaning of Lloyd Austin's (always him) warning when he says that Israel is heading towards a "strategic defeat". Because “in this type of combat the center of gravity is the civilian population. And if you push it into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat." Obviously, the Israelis – who have been fighting the Palestinians for almost eighty years – certainly don't need anyone to remind them of these banal concepts; what Austin means is: if you are not capable of achieving at least tactical success against the armed Resistance, all this is not only useless, but even counterproductive.
And here, once again, the information war comes into play.
The first phase of the conflict was dominated by propaganda, Bucha style (children beheaded, women raped...); it served as cover to launch the ferocious retaliation, but obviously it didn't last more than a few days. Then the truth began to leak out (the Apache helicopters launching missiles at the fleeing rave kids, the tanks firing at the houses, the bombing of the Eretz barracks...), which highlighted a further level of weakness of the 'IDF – beyond unpreparedness, panic, chaos. Pandora's box has broken, and at this point all that remains is to at least try to patch up the pieces. And since it is not possible to erase the facts, their interpretation must be reversed. To quote Baudrillard, “the visual psychodrama of information” begins.
If you cannot deny the reality – the Palestinian Resistance attack caught the IDF with its pants down, and overwhelmed it – you can overturn it. The new narrative says that yes, it happened, but due to a human imperfection, even if the system had worked very well.
We are starting with small steps, there had been reports of some suspicious activity, but it had not been taken seriously. Then the news was leaked that a female unit, responsible for viewing the video surveillance footage, had in turn indicated strange movements across the border but (a little sexism doesn't hurt) the command had not listened to them [9]. Finally, in a Rossini crescendo, here is the American press [10] claiming that in reality the Israeli services had already known the attack plan in detail for a year, but had ruled out that it could be carried out, because it was too ambitious. Indeed, we are told that the knowledge of the plan was so in-depth that it was (after all) perfectly comparable to the one implemented on 7 October. In every single detail.
Then we get caught up in the enthusiasm, and - last but not least - the final bomb is dropped: not only did everyone know it, in the government, in the services and in the army, but there are even those who - knowing - took advantage of it to make a nice financial speculation! Indeed, it was Hamas [11] who did it!
According to what was reported by Haaretz, in fact, mysterious individuals placed massive bets against Israel on the markets of Tel Aviv and Wall Street, a few days before the attack, earning billions.
It goes without saying that all this fuss [12] perfectly fulfills the function of generating great confusion; it is therefore appropriate to try to thin it out, to understand more.
As things currently stand, we do not have any elements that can make us say with certainty that this is true information, or false information, or even another psy-ops. However, we can examine the question from a logical point of view.
In the meantime, let's clear away the less credible things, such as the story of the Resistance organizing attack exercises under the eyes of the Israelis, and moreover in the presence of one of the top leaders of Hamas. Let us rather try to separate the wheat from the chaff, in the light of reasonableness.
It is possible that some of the preparatory phases of the attack, which certainly were very long and laborious, were somehow and to some extent leaked.
It is possible that, in light of the general picture, any anomalous signals arriving from the surveillance on Gaza were underestimated and/or not sufficiently connected to each other.
If this were the most reliable hypothesis, it is difficult to believe that it reached the highest political and military leaders, and therefore the flow of news would have stopped at a medium-low level. If so, this would have led to the removal of those responsible already now.
But if, as the NYT claims, the Israeli leaders knew the Palestinian plan in detail, even a year before, there are many things that don't add up.
First of all, it would mean that Israeli surveillance and espionage activity is so accurate and thorough – and certainly coming from different sources – that it has deeply penetrated the military structure of the Resistance. If the Shin Bet, the Mossad and the other services had such a capability, it seems completely incredible that a) they did not, at least as a precaution, prepare a plan to deal with the eventuality, b) they were not put on early warning, from its sources, when the plan entered the operational phase, and c) that the Resistance, despite having everything ready, waited even a year to implement the operation - despite the growing risk that something would leak out.
But, more than anything else, what frankly leaves much more than a doubt is another consideration.
How is it possible that, with such an intelligence capacity, capable of knowing a secret plan enormously in advance and with precision, he is not then capable - and this is quite evident - of knowing even only briefly the operational structure of the resistance in the Gaza Strip ? And let's talk about the network of tunnels, the location of the fighting brigades, the weapons and food depots, the missile launch batteries, the command posts... If there is one thing that Operation Iron Sword (the land attack on Striscia) demonstrates with absolute certainty, is that the IDF has not the slightest idea of all this.
The few tunnels discovered, the few weapons found, the few launch pads reached, are the result of chance, or the consequence of firefights with the resistant brigades. The same propaganda narrative flounders, first identifying the commands under the hospitals of Gaza City, now claiming that they have been moved to Khan Younis.
It is all too clear that, if Israel had really had this ability to penetrate the military secrets of the Resistance, the operation now underway within the Strip would have a completely different development and outcome.
Trivially - but not even so much - we think of the killing of Palestinian fighters claimed by the IDF (and, incidentally, note that no fighters were captured in Gaza...); the Israeli general staff, recognizing the figures provided by the Palestinian Ministry of Health regarding the victims in the Strip as valid, claims to have killed 5,000 fighters, and that two civilian deaths for every fighter killed is "not bad". But over 16,000 people died in the bombings, of which over 7,000 were children and almost 5,000 women; it therefore follows that approximately 4,000 adult men have died. So, one of two things: either according to the IDF, women and children are also Palestinian fighters, or every single man killed is an armed Resistance militant (and there are still 1,000 missing...). All this would then indicate a superhuman precision, in what is an indiscriminate bombing. The truth is that the fighters killed, from 7 October to today, are around a thousand, and almost all of them fell during the attack operation. Exactly like a thousand IDF casualties.
Logic and common sense, therefore, lead to the conclusion that what was published by the NYT is a psy-ops, carried out between Washington and Tel Aviv. The purpose of which - or rather whose purposes - can be varied, some of which are currently indecipherable. Of course, one could very well be an attempt to patch up the pieces of Israel's credibility and deterrent power. Rather than a military and intelligence apparatus that finds itself completely unprepared for an attack, better an efficient apparatus that however fails due to human negligence. And obviously it is also possible that it serves to exert pressure on the most extremist wing of Israeli political-military power.
And without excluding the possibility that there are factual elements on which psy-ops is based. The prophecies of Nostradamus come to mind here, which notoriously appear to correspond to certain events, but only a posteriori, and only through a forced reading of the prophecies themselves.
Another chapter is that of financial speculation on the Israeli stock market (and Wall Street). In practice, according to a study conducted by researchers from New York University and Columbia University, it was claimed that some traders had obtained information on the Hamas attack on October 7, before it occurred, and had therefore carried out short operations on US stock exchanges and Israel in the prospect of stock prices collapsing after the attack. In reality, it was a big lie, or rather a sensational mistake by the authors of the research. As later clarified by the head of trading of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, Yaniv Pagot, they had simply assumed that the shares were quoted in shekels and not in agorot, thus estimating a profit of 3.2 billion, when in practice the profit was only of 32 million [13]. In short, yet another arthouse balloon. Moreover, it is quite unlikely that the Israeli services (which certainly monitor their own financial market) did not notice.
However, everything flows into the mystifying fuss, sediments in the memory of public opinion, contributing to its disorientation.
Although, in light of everything that has already been examined, it should not be necessary, we will finally quickly examine the most conspiracy hypothesis, namely that the Israeli leaders knew about the attack, and had let it happen to have a pretext enough to trigger the genocidal retaliation that followed it, and which would be the ultimate goal of this entire cover-up maneuver.
Given that the entire history of Israel tells us that, essentially, it has never worried too much about having one, to do what it deemed necessary [14], it is enough to make a summary assessment of the pros and cons, to understand the inconsistency of this hypothesis.
Among the negative results we can certainly include: the freezing of the Abraham Accords, the friction with the United States, the embarrassment of friendly countries and the UN, the growing international isolation, the shattering of deterrent power, the growth of hostile feelings throughout the world, the international revival of the Palestinian question, the political-military strengthening of the Axis of Resistance, the enormous economic cost, the radicalization of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and the human and military losses. To limit ourselves to the most important.
And what would be the positive results? The Palestinian population of Gaza (over 2,100,000) will be reduced by 10%. Point.
And all of this would have been plotted by Netanyahu's government, which will pay the price with the death of his political career.
In summary, therefore, we have an info warfare that moves in relation to and in support of wars waged, not only by conveying propaganda - even the most blatantly false - but also by trying to reorient public opinions according to the changing events on the battlefields (and therefore according to the changing needs of the collective West), abruptly changing the narrative. And which, moreover, is also the terrain of real psychological warfare operations, implemented both to repair the damage suffered in real wars and to interact with them and in them.
The fundamental characteristic of this third war is that, unlike the first two, the main objective of every move, whether tactical or strategic, is us.
Notes
1 – See “Two wars”, substack.com
2 – “And we will not let Hamas or Putin win. And we will not allow our enemies to divide or weaken us. So, while we increase support for Israel, we remain focused on Ukraine. And we remain fully capable of projecting power, delivering on our commitments, and directing resources across multiple theaters. The United States is the most powerful country on Earth.”, See “‘A Time for American Leadership’: Remarks by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III at the Reagan National Defense Forum (As Delivered)”, defence.gov
3 – Jake Sullivan (National Security Advisor): “when we run out of money, the supply of weapons to Kiev will stop, we don't have magic cornucopias”.
4 – See “Miscalculations, divisions marked offensive planning by U.S., Ukraine”, Washington Post
5 – See “Die Ukraine im zweiten Kriegswinter. Kämpfen und leben”, Der Spiegel
6 – See “Pantano”, substack.com
7 – See “General to general”, substack.com
8 – This is a military procedure established in 1986, following a prisoner exchange (3 Israeli soldiers for 1,150 Palestinian prisoners). This secret directive, issued in order to avoid the repetition of similar situations, essentially establishes that - if Israelis are captured, and there is no immediate possibility of freeing them - the army must kill everyone, kidnappers and kidnappers.
9 – See “The Women Soldiers Who Warned of a Pending Hamas Attack – and Were Ignored”, Yaniv Kubovich, Haaretz
10 – See “The Oct. 7 Warning That Israel Ignored”, New York Times
11 – See “Did Hamas Make Millions Betting Against Israeli Shares Before October 7 Massacre?”, Ido Baum, Haaretz
12 – Among the other news circulating, we include the disappearance of the video recordings of October 7, and an alleged spy who allegedly gave information to Hamas on Israeli military bases...
13 – See “Huge errors in US study about TASE short sellers”, Hezi Sternlicht, Globes
14 – In this regard, I suggest reading Ilan Pappé's excellent volume, “The biggest prison on earth”, Oneworld Publications