Mitt Romney mute on foreign soil

Here are the paragraphs that stuck in my mind after reading Mitt Romney’s interview in Ha’aretz: 

Because we are on foreign soil, I will refrain in this interview from being critical of the president or open[ing] up new avenues of foreign policy that might be seen to be in contradiction to that of the current government

“I don’t want to make any comment about the president.”

 “I am afraid that any discussion of settlements would lead me into waters of showing a distance between me and the president. That will not be appropriate for me to do while on foreign soil.”

Mitt Romney believes that while on foreign soil he cannot say anything against the policies of the Obama administration whose appeasement of Iran has put Israel and America in the most dangerous situation in history. Since Obama’s absurd policies, both domestic and foreign, are the crux on which Mitt Romney should win, he should have refused to be interviewed outside the United States where he cannot elaborate on them. 


We need the American presidential candidate to articulate the dangers of living in the world where the Mahdi seeking mullahs who cannot be deterred may set the world ablaze.

Does he have what it takes?

On the eve of his visit to Israel, in an exclusive interview with Haaretz, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney asserts that Iran is the biggest threat to the world, reaffirms Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and reiterates his respect for Benjamin Netanyahu.

By Ari Shavit | Jul.27, 2012 | 12:31 AM 

LONDON – The man sitting on the other side of the table may be the president of the United States next year. According to the most recent public opinion polls, his chances are almost 50-50. But in the midst of the major campaign for Ohio, Florida and Virginia, Mitt Romney abandoned everything in order to spend a few days in England, Poland and Israel. That’s why he is now sitting in a steamy room in one of the historic buildings in the Tower of London compound. That’s why he is devoting half an hour of his time to me, removing his jacket and shaking my hand, and giving me a big smile. He says a few words about the surprising heat in England, asks what’s going on in Israel. He radiates old-fashioned American warmth.

But when the recording device is turned on, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate immediately becomes tense. He is careful not to say anything superfluous. He refrains from making any commitments. Like a diligent student at an oral exam, he carefully weighs every word he is about to utter. But the interviewee is even more focused on what he is not allowed to say than on what he is about to say.

He is not allowed to say how he loathes U.S. President Barack Obama. He is not allowed to say that he thinks Obama has pulled America down into the depths. He is not allowed to express his concern over what he sees as America’s domination by un-American ideas.

Although Romney sees himself as the next Ronald Reagan, who has come to save his homeland from the hands of a failed Jimmy Carter, he lacks Reagan’s passion. Nor does he have Reagan’s maturity and sense of mission. The former governor of Massachusetts is an intelligent, professional and good-hearted businessman, but he lacks charisma. If a fire is burning in his bones, he hides it well.

Big drama. This time the debate is over the decline of America and the battle is over America’s identity. For old America, the 2012 elections may be the last chance to reclaim the hegemony; for liberal America, the 2012 elections constitute an attempt by benighted forces to run a vapid candidate against the progress represented by Obama. The former regard the latter as Americans who have deviated from the path, and the latter regard the former as fanatics and racists who want to turn back the clock. Because the two forces are colliding with intensity and violence, the election campaign is expensive and polluted. The two Americas wrestling in the arena are beating each other to a pulp.

The man sitting opposite me is a very surprising candidate for the role of the Great White Hope. For most Republican voters, he is too rich, too liberal and too reserved. He is also a Mormon. So what Mitt Romney has to do now is to ensure that the elections won’t be about him, but about Obama. That the elections will be a national referendum about the economy and about Obama’s worldview. Only by being anti-Obama does the elitist from Boston have a chance to win the votes of conservative Southern Evangelists who don’t really like him. Will he succeed? Does he have what it takes?

When I observe the tall, handsome man who is answering my questions so cautiously, I have a feeling that the drama surrounding him is even bigger than he is.

Governor Romney, President Obama gave his formative foreign policy speech in Cairo in June 2009. It was basically about appeasing Islam. Should you be elected president, where will you hold your formative speech and what would it say? What would be the fundamental values and principles of Romney’s America in the international arena and how will they differ from Obama’s?

“I don’t have a current plan for where my first address related to foreign policy might be, if I am lucky enough to be elected president. But my objective will be to describe a foreign policy that shows confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in the application of our might. I believe that over the centuries this nation wisely had a great deal of confidence that our cause was just and that the endeavors we undertook were for good purposes. The clarity of our purpose was described to our citizens and people around the world. When we applied our military might, it was with resolve to be successful and to fulfill a mission. I hope that I will be able to maintain that tradition and that these principles can be applied in today’s world.

“Because we are on foreign soil, I will refrain in this interview from being critical of the president or open[ing] up new avenues of foreign policy that might be seen to be in contradiction to that of the current government. That being said, I have spoken many times about my view that this coming century must remain an American century. By that I mean that America should maintain the moral, economic and military leadership that will allow it to remain the leader of the free world and insure that the free world remains the leader of the entire world.”

Throughout the world and in the Middle East as well, America’s allies feel that the U.S. is not as strong as it was and that it does not stand by its friends as it used to. Do you share this notion and how are you going to address it?

“I can tell you that it is my firm belief that it is a benefit to my country and the world to show our friends and allies that it’s better to be a friend than a foe. To stand by our friends at all times and particularly when a friend is in great peril. Secure commitments to values and allies formed our sphere of influence over the past years, and so it should be in the future.”

Governor Romney, when you arrive in our region, you will find that what is on everybody’s minds − Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Turks, Israelis − is the fear of Iran going nuclear. As president, would you prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, whatever it takes?

“I have said in the past and I can reiterate now that it is essential that Iran does not become nuclear. A nuclear Iran represents the greatest threat to the world, to the United States and to the very existence of Israel. A nuclear Iran would mean that Hezbollah or other actors would potentially someday be able to secure fissile materials which would threaten the world. Five years ago I spoke at the Herzliya Conference and I laid out seven steps that I felt were necessary to keep Iran from becoming nuclear. These included crippling sanctions, indicting [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide, standing for voices of dissent within Iran, and developing reliable military options were they the last resort that had to be exercised. I continue to believe that these principles are vital, and are perhaps more urgent today.”

Would you support regime change in Iran? If the Iranians should rise against Ahmadinejad as they did in June 2009 − would you stand by them?

“America is wise to stand by people seeking freedom − particularly in nations that regularly chant ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’”

We are wise to listen to the words people say because, frightful as these words may be, history proves thatsometimes they are carried out.

“If there are voices for change and hearts yearning for freedom, America will stand by them.”

But time is running out. Engagement failed, sanctions have not yet worked, regime change has not yet occurred. Therefore we find ourselves in a dramatic situation: Iran has enriched uranium for five to six bombs, and is only a year away from the ability to produce a first bomb. It might be that by now the only option is the military one. Should it be considered and employed?

“I think I made it clear in my address in Herzliya [in January 2007] that a military option is by far the least attractive option, but it should not be ruled out. The military option should be evaluated and available if no other course is successful.”

Senator John McCain said some time ago that there is one thing worse than a military attack on Iran and that’s a nuclear Iran. Do you agree?

“President Obama has said that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. I feel a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. The term ‘unacceptable’ continues to have a meaning: It suggests that all options will be employed to prevent that outcome.

“I am personally committed to take every step necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capablity.”

Some fear that America has lost it. After the traumas of Afghanistan and Iraq and the financial crisis, it does not have the stamina needed to deal with the Iranian challenge. When faced with the ultimate dilemma, it will choose containment. It will live with a nuclear Iran just as it lives with a nuclear North Korea.

“I think there is recognition in America that a nuclear Iran is different than North Korea. Both are very dangerous and destructive. We know North Korea has been … providing nuclear technology to Syria. That being said, a nuclear Iran will certainly usher in a period of nuclearization throughout the region. Given the fact that Iran is the leading sponsor of terror and has various surrogates such as Hezbollah … one is concerned that fissile material may fall into the hands of a group like Hezbollah, which is now on the ground in Latin America. That could affect not only our friends around the world but actually our own country. We are weary of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the majority of the American people recognize that Iran is of a different character.”

In the past you said there is some truth in the statement that President Obama − unintentionally − is pushing Israel to war because it feels so desperate. Is this still true?

“I don’t want to make any comment about the president.”

‘Butcher in Damascus’

So let me ask you about your friend Benjamin Netanyahu. He feels it’s 1938 all over again. Like in the 1930s, the West fails to rise to a historic challenge. Like in the 1930s, the Jewish people are in jeopardy. The combination of an unconventional regime with unconventional weapons is disastrous. Hence, Netanyahu might feel he must strike. Were this to happen, what should be the American reaction?

“I cannot speak for the president and for the nation. But as allies and nations that share profound values, we will work very closely together to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear. We will employ every means short of military power. We recognize that if all means are exhausted and fail, a military option will have to be considered.”

As you are so close, would you say to the prime minister: Bibi, relax, you can trust America. America will eventually deal with Iran. Don’t do anything hasty.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu always has to do what he feels is in the best interests of his own nation. I know that our nation will always feel the same about ours.”

Iran is the important regional issue, but Syria is the more urgent one. If chemical weapons fall into the hands of Hezbollah or jihadist organizations, should America intervene and take military action?

“I think it is important for the responsible nations of the world to seek to understand which forces in Syria represent real change, rather than the kind of destruction that might occur if Al-Qaida were to seize the development of chaos and assert leadership in some significant way in Syria. I would hope that nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia and others would identify responsible voices of dissent within Syria, provide them with the arms they might need to protect themselves and further their cause. We must do our best to prevent the most radical Al-Qaida or Al-Qaida-like Jihadists from trying to secure a role in the reshaping of a new Syria.”

Are you not appalled by the fact that the international community is so impotent in dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad’s atrocities? Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is actually supporting and arming a war criminal who’s butchering his own people − and gets away with it.

“I was very disappointed with the vote of condemnation at the United Nations being vetoed by Russia and China. I was appalled at the decision by Russia as reported in the media to provide attack helicopters and other armaments to the ‘Butcher in Damascus.’ The world looks with horror at the devastation being caused by Assad.”

Coming closer to the country you are about to visit: Are Israel’s settlements legal or illegal? Should Israel build more of them or dismantle them?

“I am afraid that any discussion of settlements would lead me into waters of showing a distance between me and the president. That will not be appropriate for me to do while on foreign soil.”

Do you support the two-state solution? Do you think that a Palestinian state should be established?

“I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state. I respect Israel’s right to remain a Jewish state. The question is not whether the people of the region believe that there should be a Palestinian state. The question is if they believe there should be an Israeli state, a Jewish state.”

‘Time of turmoil’

Facing Putin’s aggressive policies, China’s rise and radical Islamic threats − did President Obama really lead from behind?

“I have got no comment on President Obama.”

Obviously, you will not repeat now what you said not long ago − that the president ‘threw Israel under the bus.’ But would you say in a positive manner that Israel should not be thrown under the bus?

“In a time of turmoil and peril in Israel’s neighborhood, it is important that the security of America’s commitments to Israel will be as clear as humanly possible. When Israel feels less secure in the neighborhood, it should feel more secure of the commitment of the United States to its defense.”

Isn’t it in everybody’s interest that there be some daylight and distance between the two countries?

“I believe that with regards to our allies, we are always wiser to lock arms and to stand as one for the world to see. There will be, of course, times of disagreement and disparity in our respective interests − but those we are best in keeping to ourselves, in private.

“If I will be president, there will be no confrontations between our nations  before international institutions.there will be no public denouncing of Israel by the U.S. in the UN. Israel’s friendly and unfriendly neighbors will know we stand with you. I believe that is the real way to achieve peace-by working with Israel, not creating distance between Israel and America.”

Why Israel? Why now? What is the statement you are making in this critical time by traveling specifically to the U.K., Poland and Israel?

“The purpose of my trip is to listen and to learn. I do want to hear from individuals who are in places of strategic significance, who share our values and who have perspectives of significance relating to the tumultuous events throughout the world.”

Governor Romney, you’ll be arriving in Jerusalem on Saturday night, on the eve of the day on which we commemorate the destruction of the First and Second Temples. Many Israelis feel that the fate of the ‘Third Temple’ relies on its strong bond with a strong America. Can you assure them that should you be president, you will reverse the trend of American decline? Can you guarantee that both America, and Israel’s bond with America, will be strong once again?

“American strength is an ally for peace, unparalleled in world history. We must strengthen America through strong values, a stronger economy and a military that is second to none. I believe that our friends and allies support our strength by linking with us. We in turn reinforce them as they face various foes that seek to weaken them.”

Apart from the question of America and Israel, there is the question of Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu. Is the special friendship between the two of you a political asset or a political liability?

“I have no idea what political impact it has, but nevertheless, this is a personally rewarding relationship which he and I will share, win or lose. I am no more involved in your politics than he is in ours. But I respect him, I respect the strength of his character and I respect the clarity with which he speaks. I believe strong leadership is always the best defense.”

If I may ask, Mr. Governor, does the Holy Land, to which you’re heading now, evoke religious feelings in you?

“As I run for political office, my policies are not shaped by my religious feelings. That being said, I have grown up in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I have read and studied what my faith refers to as the Old and New Testaments. I’ve been on a boat in the Sea of Galilee. I’ve been to the Garden Tomb and other sites which I deem as having religious significance. Yes, for me Jerusalem and Israel are places of divine significance.”

One small question as we end this interview. Will you win on November 6? Will Mitt Romney be America’s 45th president?

“I certainly hope so.”

Who’s Afraid of Moshe Ya’alon?

Two weeks ago when I read Moshe Ya’alon’s interview and saw the Ha’aretz Magazine cover page with the red BOMB OR BE BOMBED I was convinced that it probably must have  nearly given heart attacks to the foreign diplomats  accredited in Israel and must have caused a flurry of encrypted cables to their respective governments.   

But how will the US press handle this?, I asked myself. Now I know. Two weeks have passed and now I know. The US press has completely ignored it.

It is not that American columnists did not write about Iran and Israel the last two weeks. They did, but when they did  they either quoted Meir Dagan and Ehud Barak  ( Jeffery Goldberg in the Atlantic  ),  Efraim Halevy and   Ehud Barak  ( David Ignatious in The Washington Post ),   Shaul Mofaz ( Daniel Halper in The Weekly Standard , Robert Wright in The Atlantic  and Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post blog).  None mentioned Moshe Ya’alon. 

   

What is going on?

How is it that this watershed interview given by a member of the Israeli cabinet at a time when the threat of war with Iran is looming went completely unreported in the US press?  Here is an excerpt from the interview:

But the Iranians are rational, and the use of nuclear weapons is an irrational act. Like the Soviets, they will never do that.

“A Western individual observing the fantastic ambitions of the Iranian leadership scoffs: ‘What do they think, that they will Islamize us?’ The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us: The ambition of the present regime in Tehran is for the Western world to become Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have to understand that their rationality is completely different from our rationality. Their concepts are different and their considerations are different. They are completely unlike the former Soviet Union. They are not even like Pakistan or North Korea. If Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and the feeling of strength of a nuclear power, there is no knowing how it will behave. It will be impossible to accommodate a nuclear Iran and it will be impossible to attain stability. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic.”

In contrast, the Israeli press noticed:

Moshe Ya'alon: Strategic thinker and leader  by  Isi Leibler:

A major component is devoted to the Iranian nuclear threat. Ya’alon stresses that we must not, under any circumstances, stand by and enable “the apocalyptic-messianic regime of the ayatollahs” to obtain the bomb. Although hopeful that Israel will not be obliged to go it alone, Ya’alon insists that “we are not bluffing” and that despite the likelihood of considerable Israel casualties should armed conflict ensue, it is unquestionably preferable for us to bomb rather than to be bombed

I can only conclude that the American press is just incapable of handling the truth about the Iranian threat and chooses to ignore it. The frankness displayed by the Ya’alon interview in Ha’aretz is just too much for the uninformed and sleepwalking US public to handle.

Dennis Ross, dummy or dhimmi?

Something has happened in Israel. People cannot take the nonsense of foreign "Middle East experts" any more. Last week it was Moshe Ya'alon with his interview in Ha'aretz ( see previous blog post), this week it is Martin Sherman with his article worthy of George Orwell. But how is this related to MAD?  It's not, except to show that Israelis have had enough, and that will determine how they will react to the death of MAD.

Here is an excerpt from Martin Sherman's piece:

Dummy or dhimmi?                

But Ross’s counsel on Turkey is if anything even more outrageous. Ross said that it was in Jerusalem’s long-term strategic interest to try to patch up the relationship, even at the cost of issuing an apology over the Mavi Marmara incident, as Ankara has demanded.

Quite apart from the fact that if any apology is forthcoming it should be from Ankara to Jerusalem, for allowing its citizens to create the violent confrontation with Israeli forces; quite apart from the fact that it is more than a little offensive to suggest that Israel should have to apologize for its soldiers’ use of deadly force to prevent themselves being disemboweled, the logic behind his suggestion is as impaired as the morality behind it.

Ross waxes delusional, stating: “Turkey and Israel have an enormous common stake in Syria. Is it difficult to make an apology? Yes, I don’t dismiss that. But how does that weigh against wider strategic interests you have in Syria and a region undergoing tremendous upheaval?” He goes on to claim that restoration of the relationship would have an impact on the whole region, and suggests imagining what a sobering affect this type of rapprochement would have on ascendant players such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

What planet does this guy inhabit? Can he really be unaware that Turkey has undergone a fundamental transformation, that it is no longer a Western-oriented secular state but a Islamic-oriented theocratic one, that its relations with Israel are a far more a function of what it has become, than of what Israel does – or doesn’t do.

Of might well wonder: If there are so many strategic interests in common between Turkey and Israel, why doesn’t Ross suggest that Ankara forgo its childish demand for an apology? Is that his “soft racism” of low expectations showing? Or is it the dhimmi in him that feels the need for submission to the Muslim demands? Or perhaps just the dummy?

Why now?  Why did it take so long? Why had it not happened at any time in the past during the series of previous blunders - Oslo I, Oslo II, Taba, Wye, Tenet, Mitchell, Zinni, Sharm El-Sheikh, Roadmap, Annapolis?

This time it is different. The threat of nuclear annihilation clears the mind. Israel cannot afford an error with regards to Iran. It will not follow absurd advice,  be it from Dennis Ross, Secretary Clinton or President Obama.  Americans will decide the future of the US this coming November.  We are deciding ours now, by ourselves.

Moshe Ya’alon: They are completely unlike the former Soviet Union

It seems that the Israeli government has finally decided to educate its own population. About time!  When the words of Moshe Ya’alon sound as if they were part of my blog it means things are moving  fast…

It is interesting to note that even Ari Shavit, whom I respect very much, does not seem to understand why Iran is so different from the USSR during the Cold War.  And  Ari Shavit is not alone. Most of US  and Israeli journalists just do not get it. They do not get it for the simple reason because they have not done their homework on Islam in general and Shia eschatology in particular. Fortunately for Israel and the world, the Israeli government has.

Moshe Ya’alon tells Ari Shavit he is preparing for war. He suggests you do the same.

By Ari Shavit | Jun.14, 2012 | 2:44 PM

Excerpts:

Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon, could a war erupt this year?

“I hope not. I hope that in regard to Iran it will be possible to say, as the old saw goes, that the work of the just is done by others. But obviously we are preparing for every possibility. If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”

If you had to provide a comprehensive intelligence assessment today, would you say that the probability of a war in the year ahead is negligible, low, middling or high?

“The probability of an initiated attack on Israel is low. I do not see an Arab coalition armed from head to foot deploying on our borders − not this year, not in the year after and not in the foreseeable future. Despite the trend toward Islamization in the Middle East, we enjoy security and relative quiet along the borders. But the No. 1 challenge is that of Iran. If anyone attacks Iran, it’s clear that Iran will take action against us. If anyone, no matter who, decides to take military action against Iran’s nuclear project, there is a high probability that Iran will react against us, too, and will fire missiles at Israel. There is also a high probability that Hezbollah and Islamist elements in the Gaza Strip will operate against us. That possibility exists, and it’s with a view to that possibility that we have to deploy.”

What the vice premier is telling me is that we are close to the moment of truth regarding Iran.

“Definitely. When I was director of Military Intelligence, in the 1990s, Iran did not possess one kilogram of enriched uranium. Today it has 6,300 kilograms of uranium enriched to a level of 3.5 percent and about 150 kilograms enriched to a level of 20 percent. When I was chief of staff, in the first decade of this century, Iran had a few hundred centrifuges, most of which were substandard.

“At present there are about 10,000 centrifuges in Natanz and in Kom, which are enriching about eight kilograms of uranium a day. Since this government took office in 2009, the number of centrifuges in Iran has almost doubled and the amount of enriched uranium has increased sixfold. The meaning of these data is that Iran already today has enough enriched uranium to manufacture five atomic bombs. If Iran is not stopped, within a year it will have enough uranium for seven or eight atomic bombs.

“In addition, the Iranians apparently possess a weapons development system which they are hiding from the international supervisory apparatus. The Iranians also have 400 missiles of different types, which can reach the whole area of Israel and certain parts of Europe. Those missiles were built from the outset with the ability to carry nuclear warheads. So the picture is clear. Five years ago, even three years ago, Iran was not within the zone of the nuclear threshold. Today it is. Before our eyes Iran is becoming a nuclear-threshold power.”

But to build a nuclear bomb Iran needs uranium enriched to a level of 90 percent and above. At the moment it is still not there.

“True, but if Iran goes confrontational and goes nuclear, it has the capability to enrich uranium to above 90 percent within two or three months. Even if it does not build a standard nuclear bomb, within less than six months it will be in possession of at least one primitive nuclear device: a dirty bomb.”

If so, maybe it’s already too late. The Iranians won and we lost and we have to resign ourselves to Iran’s being in possession of nuclear weapons in the near future.

“Absolutely not. It will be disastrous if we or the international community become resigned to the idea of a nuclear Iran. The regime of the ayatollahs is apocalyptic-messianic in character. It poses a challenge to Western culture and to the world order. Its scale of values and its religious beliefs are different, and its ambition is to foist them on everyone. Accordingly, it is an obligation to prevent this nonconventional regime from acquiring nonconventional weapons. Neither we nor the West is at liberty to accept an Iranian nuclear bomb. What I am telling you is not rhetoric and it is not propaganda. A nuclear Iran is a true threat to world peace.”

But you yourself are telling me that the Iranians have already crossed most of the red lines. They have swept past the points of no return. Doesn’t that mean that we are now facing the cruel dilemma of bomb or be bombed? [The Ha'aretz English translation has 'bomb or bombing'  which is confusing]  

“We are not there yet. I hope we will not get there. The international community can still act aggressively and with determination. Other developments are also feasible. But if the question is bomb or be bombed, the answer is clear: bomb. [The Ha'aretz English translation has 'bomb or bombing'  which is confusing]  

The answer is clear to you but not to me. We survived the Cold War. We also survived the nuclearization of Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is said to possess strategic capability that is able to create decisive deterrence against Iran. Would it not be right to say that just as Europe lived with the Soviet bomb, we will be able to live in the future with the Shiite bomb?

“No and no and again no. The first answer to your question is that if Iran goes nuclear, four or five more countries in the Middle East are liable to go nuclear, too. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and other Arab states will say that if Iran has a bomb they also need a bomb. The result will be a nuclear Middle East. A nuclear Middle East will not be stable and therefore the world will not be stable. Iranian nuclearization will bring in its wake nuclear chaos.

“The second answer to your question is that a nuclear umbrella will allow Iran to achieve regional hegemony. The Gulf states, finding themselves under that umbrella, will ask themselves which they prefer: distant Washington or nearby Tehran. In my view, they will opt for nearby Tehran. A nuclear Iran is liable to take control of the energy sources in the Persian Gulf and of a very large slice of the world’s oil supply. That will have far-reaching international implications. But a nuclear Iran will also challenge Israel and bring about a series of brutal conventional confrontations on our borders. That will have serious consequences for Israel.

“The third answer to your question is that one day the Iranian regime is liable to use its nuclear capability. That does not mean that the day after the Iranians acquire a bomb they will load it on a plane or a missile and drop it on a Western city. But there is a danger of the use of nuclear weapons by means of proxies. A terrorist organization could smuggle a dirty bomb into the port of New York or the port of London or the port of Haifa. I also do not rule out the possibility of the direct use of nuclear weapons by means of missiles. That risk is low, but it exists. That extreme scenario is not impossible.”

But the Iranians are rational, and the use of nuclear weapons is an irrational act. Like the Soviets, they will never do that.

“A Western individual observing the fantastic ambitions of the Iranian leadership scoffs: ‘What do they think, that they will Islamize us?’ The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us: The ambition of the present regime in Tehran is for the Western world to become Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have to understand that their rationality is completely different from our rationality. Their concepts are different and their considerations are different. They are completely unlike the former Soviet Union. They are not even like Pakistan or North Korea. If Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and the feeling of strength of a nuclear power, there is no knowing how it will behave. It will be impossible to accommodate a nuclear Iran and it will be impossible to attain stability. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic.”

Bombing too will have catastrophic consequences: a regional war, a religious war, thousands of civilians killed.

“Anyone who has experienced war, as I have, does not want war. War is a dire event. But the question is: What is the alternative? What is the other option to war? I told you once and will tell you again: If it is bomb or bombing, from my point of view it is bombing. True, bombing will have a price. We must not underestimate or overestimate that price. We have to assume that Israel will be attacked by Iranian missiles, many of which will be intercepted by the Arrow system. We have to assume that Hezbollah will join the confrontation and fire thousands of rockets at us. Rockets will also be fired from the Gaza Strip. The probability of Syria entering the fray is low, but we have to deploy for that possibility, too. I am not saying it will be easy. But when you pit all of that against the alternative of a nuclear Iran, there is no hesitation at all. It is preferable to pay the steep price of war than to allow Iran to acquire military nuclear capability. That’s as clear as day, as far as I am concerned.”

How many casualties will we have? Hundreds? Thousands?

“I cannot estimate how many will be killed, but I suggest that we not terrify ourselves. Every person killed is great sorrow. But we have to be ready to pay the price that is required so that Iran does not go nuclear. Again: I hope it does not come to that. I hope that it will be done by others. In the Iranians’ eyes, Israel is only the Little Satan, and the United States is the Great Satan. But as I told you: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? “

Hezbollah can hit every place in Israel today: population centers, army bases, strategic targets. Doesn’t the scenario of a massive missile attack make you lose sleep?

“My assessment is that Hezbollah will enter the fray. But what happened in the Second Lebanon War will not be repeated. The way to stop the rockets is to exact from the other side a price that will oblige it to ask for a cease-fire. We have the ability to hit Hezbollah with 150 times the explosives that it can hit us with. We can also do it a lot more accurately. If we are attacked from inside Lebanon, the government of Lebanon will bear very great responsibility.”

You answered my question about the home front. But what about the argument that bombing will spark a permanent religious war and will unify the Iranian people around the regime? What about the argument that bombing will in fact cause the collapse of the sanctions and allow Iran to go confrontational and hurtle openly toward nuclear capability?

“First things first and last things last. In regard to a religious war, isn’t the regime in Iran waging a religious war against us today? In regard to the people unifying behind the regime: I do not accept that. I think that an operation could even destabilize the regime. In my estimation, 70 percent of the Iranians will be happy to be rid of the regime of the ayatollahs.

“Let me reply in greater detail to the argument that Iran will hurtle toward nuclearization on the day after the bombing. Those who focus the debate on the narrow technological aspect of the problem can argue that all that will be achieved is a delay of a year or two, not much more. If so, they will say, ‘What did we accomplish? What did we gain?’ But the question is far broader. One of the important elements here is to convince the Iranian regime that the West is determined to prevent its acquisition of nuclear capability. And what demonstrates greater determination than the use of force?

“Therefore, it is wrong for us to view a military operation and its results only from an engineering point of view. I want to remind you that in the discussions of the security cabinet before the Israeli attack on [the nuclear reactor in] Iraq, the experts claimed that Saddam Hussein would acquire a new reactor with a year. They were right from the engineering aspect but mistaken historically. If Iran does go confrontational and tries openly to manufacture nuclear weapons, it will find itself in a head-on confrontation with the international community. The president of the United States has undertaken that Iran will not be a nuclear power. If Iran defies him directly, it will have to deal with him and will embark upon a collision course with the West.”

But the Americans are with us. The Americans will rescue us. Why jump in head-first?

“There is agreement between the United States and us on the goal, and agreement on intelligence and close cooperation. But we are in disagreement about the red line. For the Americans, the red line is an order by [Ayatollah] Khamenei to build a nuclear bomb. For us, the red line is Iranian ability to build a nuclear bomb.

“We do not accept the American approach for three reasons. First, because it implies that Iran can be a threshold-power which, as long as it does not manufacture nuclear weapons in practice is allowed to possess the ability to manufacture them. Second, because in our assessment there is no certainty that it will be possible to intercept in time the precious report that Khamenei finally gave the order to build a bomb . Third, there is a disparity between the sense of threat and urgency in Jerusalem and the sense of threat and urgency in Washington.”

Yet, Israel is not believed either internationally or domestically. The feeling is that Israel is crying wolf and playing a sophisticated game of ‘Hold me back.’

“Let me say one thing to you in English, because it is very important for English speakers to understand it: ‘We are not bluffing.’ If the political-economic pressure is played out and the other alternatives are played out, and Iran continues to hurtle toward a bomb, decisions will have to be made.”

Is there a danger that the Iranian crisis will reach its peak already in the year ahead?

“There was a time when we talked about a decade. Afterward we talked about years. Now we are talking about months. It is possible that the sanctions will suddenly work. But presently we are in a situation that necessitates a daily check. I am not exaggerating: daily. From our point of view, Iranian ability to manufacture nuclear weapons is a sword held over our throat. The sword is getting closer and closer. Under no circumstances will Israel agree to let the sword touch its throat.”

Article in Hebrew

Center for a New American Security’s report and its weakest link

The Center for a New American Security has come up with a detailed report on the consequences of Iranian nuclearization  titled Risk and Rivalry  - Iran Israel and the Bomb

On page 13 the report cites the famous Bernard Lewis quote:

 According to Middle East scholar Bernard  Lewis, “in this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning.”

But it seems that the report does not consider this statement valid since on the same page it states:

Despite the abhorrent and inexcusable rhetoric of Iranian leaders, the actual behavior of the Islamic Republic over the past three decades suggests that the regime is rational. Consequently, there is a high probability that nuclear deterrence between  Israel and Iran would operate much as it did for the  superpowers during the Cold War.

As the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s  Michael Eisenstadt notes, the perception of Iran as  irrational and undeterrable is “both anachronistic  and wrong.”

 While Iran’s revolutionary leadership has repeatedly supported Islamic militancy and used violence abroad to promote its ideological agenda, Iran has also demonstrated a degree of caution, sensitivity to costs and the ability to make  strategic calculations when the regime’s survival is  at risk.

There is no evidence for the claim that Iran  is a suicidal state that would be willing to incur the  massive retaliation that would inevitably result from the use of nuclear weapons. This is unsurprising since the continued survival of the Islamic Republic  is necessary to achieve every one of the regime’s material and ideological objectives, including the success of the revolution at home and the spread of Iran’s Islamist model abroad.

Even assuming that the threat of annihilating Israel by Iranian religious leaders is rhetoric, the Bernard Lewis quote still applies to Ahmadinejad and his group, as acknowledged by the authors of the report themselves (page 17):

Apocalyptic Cults and a Collapsing Regime

Even if Iran’s current regime is rational, the regime could change in ways that make deterrence less viable.

Some fear that leaders embracing an apocalyptic variant of Shiism (sometimes referred to as the “cult of the Mahdi”) might eventually seize control of the regime. On the surface, this seems plausible because President Mahmoud  Ahmadinejad and some individuals within the  IRGC appear to subscribe to these beliefs.

 Such  messianic leaders might nihilistically welcome  destruction to usher the return of the Twelfth  Imam and the “day of judgment.”

Although it is impossible to predict the precise course of future events in Iran, this scenario seems  unlikely  Adherents to the cult of the Mahdi are a distinct and increasingly marginalized minority  in Iran, largely composed of ultraconservative lay people who are reviled by the traditional clerical establishment (including Khamenei).

 The  entire notion that nonclerics could have contact  with the Mahdi is so inherently threatening to the  clerical establishment and the institution of the  supreme leader that it is hard to see how they could  come to dominate the Islamic Republic. Indeed,  the 2011 power struggle between Khamenei and  Ahmadinejad, in which Khamenei emerged the  victor and the IRGC leadership overwhelmingly  sided with the supreme leader, included a prominent crackdown against Ahmadinejad’s allies for  their supposedly “deviant” views.

So essentially, the conclusions and recommendations of the report hinge on the assumption that the possibility that the apocalyptic variant of Shiism (sometimes referred to as the “cult of the Mahdi”) might eventually seize control of the regime is unlikely. ( At this moment Khamenai and the clerics are in power, although Ahmadinejad is the president).

What is the probability of the worst case scenario? That the apocalyptic variant of Shiism does take control? Five percent? Ten percent?  Considering the catastrophic consequences of such a scenario should not Israeli and US policy be mostly focused  towards preventing  such an outcome?