Telling the truth about the Iranian threat, drop by drop

Ari Shavit continues with his series on the Iranian threat. Today he interviews the "decision maker".

Excerpts:

The decision maker  is a controversial person. There was a time when he was regarded as a savior, but right after he was seen as a pariah. But even those who loath the decision maker admit that he is exceptionally intelligent . Even his detractors are aware that he possesses unique strategic experience.

....

But you haven't answered my main question . Even you admit that Iranian nuclearization is inevitable, the counter argument is that Iran's nuclearization will be much more dangerous to Israel if we bomb Iran than if we don't . Even Yehezkel  Dror  warned about a vengeful nuclear Iran. Better an Iranian nuclear bomb with no Israeli bombing in 2015 than an Iranian nuclear bomb in 2020 after an Israeli bombing . 

The decision maker does not like the question. He grows impatient: " There is a logical fallacy here. People presume that if we do not act, Iran will not go nuclear. But that is not the situation. If we do not act it's almost certain that Iran will go nuclear. If we do act , there is a good chance that Iran will not go nuclear for a long while.

....

A country does not go to war in hope or expectation that another country will join it. Such an act is an irresponsible gamble. But the question is how do you define backing. Was there backing in the Six-Day War? Do you think that in 1967 the Americans told Foreign Minister  Abba Eban and Mossad chief Meir Amit anything different than what they are telling us now?  But then Ebban saw difficulty in the opportunity and Amit saw an opportunity in the  difficulty, and the Eshkol government made a decision. And what was that all about? About the closure of the Strait of Tiran? The sword hanging over our neck today  is a lot sharper than the sword that hung over before the Six-Day War.

....

If Israel forgoes the chance to act and it becomes clear that it no longer has the power to act, the likelihood of an American action will decrease. So we cannot wait a year to find out who was right: the one who said that the likelihood of an American action is high or the one who said that the likelihood  of an American action is low. We can't wait to find out one morning that we relied on the Americans but were fooled because the Americans didn't act in the end. We need to look at the reality right now with total clarity . Even a cruel reality must be looked at with total  clarity. Even a cruel reality must be looked at with total clarity. Israel is strong and Israel is responsible, and Israel will do what it has to do."

Total clarity? Historians of the future will be puzzled by the fact that Israel even while  facing an existential threat, greater than the one on the eve of the Six-Day War in 1967,  was still reluctant to discuss the true nature of the Iranian threat.  The crucial religious/ideological angle which would  give clarity to the Iranian motives is being deliberately avoided. Why?  

* 

David Grossman vs. Bernard Lewis. Whom do you trust more on Iran?

Israeli writer David Grossman has written an article in Ha’aretz titled On silence about the Iranian threat and Israeli reaction. Here are a few excerpts: 

As things stand, the prime minister enjoys the support of a broad coalition and is not pestered by a solid opposition. In a sense, he is functioning as an autocrat – King Bibi, as Time Magazine called him. Meaning that when fateful decisions have to be made, the Israeli’s people’s future and destiny will be subject, above all to the judgment of Netanyahu’s extreme, rigid and unbending world view.

In other words, even the many Israelis from all over the political map who do not want Israel to attack Iran – along with certain security chiefs – are now trapped, in the most fateful way, within the prime minister’s hermetic world view.

Yet Netanyahu has loyal partners in the government, people who are meant to share  in the outlook  and decision-making. Their advantage over the average citizen supposedly lies in their “superior knowledge” as they have been presented with “all the facts and considerations”. True this is how a democratic government works, but Israelis have learned from hard experience that heir leaders are not immune to serious mistakes, and that , like everyone else- and perhaps even a drop more – they are vulnerable to self deception and getting carried away with hawkish euphoria.

….

Certainly, an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is a real danger, not just a paranoid figment of Israeli government imagination. But even in the present situation there are other avenues, other possibilities for action or non action , and of course there is always the unequivocal American assurance that Iran will not become a nuclear power. 

Why aren’t ministers and defense officials, people who are serving here and now, not those who have completed their terms, standing up and speaking their minds?

Netanyahu’s extreme, rigid, unbending and hermetic world view?  But isn’t  David Grossman precisely describing the world he lives in?  Have we ever heard David Grossman quote Bernard Lewis about Iran?

Particular importance should be attached to the policies, and perhaps still more the attitudes, of the present rulers of Iran, who seem to be preparing for a final apocalyptic battle between the forces of God [themselves] and of the Devil [ the Great Satan--the United States].  They see this as the final struggle of the End of Time and are therefore undeterred by any level of slaughter and destruction even among their own people . "Allah will know his own" is the phase commonly used, meaning that among the multiple victims God will recognize the Muslims and give them a quick pass to heaven.

                In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning.  At the End of Time, there will be general destruction  anyway.  What will matter is the final destination of the dead-- hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement...

What does David Grossman know about the Twelvers and Shia eschatology?  How can he and so many others engage in discussions about Iran without mentioning the ideological/religious reasons that make the Iranian threat what it is? Isn’t David Grossman himself rigid, unbending and hermetic in not trying to learn more about how the Iranian mullahs think?

The whole discussion in Israel and the US about Iran is absurd. We are actually the most irrational party. Everything is being discussed except what should be discussed first, and that is the Shia eschatology that motivates the Shia faithful.  Even Ari Shavit who did a pretty good job interviewing ex generals, including Moshe Ya’alon,  refuses to interview people who know most about Iran and Islam like professor of Islam at Hebrew University Raphael Israeli.  How can a journalist of Ari Shavit’s  stature not realize  that his whole series on Iran is incomplete and therefore inaccurate if he does not give a perspective from a scholar of Islam?  

On silence. Should not ministers and defense officials be protesting that the real discussion on the nature of the Iranian regime and what motivates them is nonexistent? How can we estimate the threat if we refuse to discuss its essence? 

It boils down to whom do you trust more– Islam ignoramus David Grossman or one of the leading scholars of Islam in the West, Bernard Lewis?    

Works on Islam/Middle East
David Grossman	Bernard Lewis
The Yellow Wind [הזמן הצהוב / Ha-Zeman ha-tsahov, 1987]. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1988, ISBN 0-374-29345-7	The Origins of Ismailism (1940)
Sleeping on a Wire: Conversations with Palestinians in Israel [נוכחים נפקדים / Nokhehim Nifkadim, 1992]. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1993, ISBN 0-374-17788-0	A Handbook of Diplomatic and Political Arabic (1947)
Death as a Way of Life: Israel Ten Years after Oslo [מוות כדרך חיים / Mavet ke-derech khayyim, 2003]. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2003, ISBN 0-374-10211-2	The Arabs in History (1950)
Lion’s honey : the myth of Samson [דבש אריות / Dvash arayiot, 2005]. Edinburgh; New York: Canongate, 2006, ISBN 1-84195-656-2	The Emergence of Modern Turkey (1961)
	Istanbul and the Civilizations of the Ottoman Empire (1963)
	The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam (1967)
	The Cambridge History of Islam (2 vols. 1970, revised 4 vols. 1978, editor with Peter Malcolm Holt and Ann K.S. Lambton)
	Islam: From the Prophet Muhammad to the capture of Constantinople (1974, editor)
	History — Remembered, Recovered, Invented (1975)
	Race and Color in Islam (1979)
	Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society (1982, editor with Benjamin Braude)
	The Muslim Discovery of Europe (1982)
	The Jews of Islam (1984)
	Semites and Anti-Semites (1986)
	Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople (1987)
	The Political Language of Islam (1988)
	Race and Slavery in the Middle East: an Historical Enquiry (1990)
	Islam and the West (1993)
	Islam in History (1993)
	The Shaping of the Modern Middle East (1994)
	Cultures in Conflict (1994)
	The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years (published in U.K. as The Middle East: 2,000 Years of History from the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day) (1995)
	The Future of the Middle East (1997)
	The Multiple Identities of the Middle East (1998)
	A Middle East Mosaic: Fragments of Life, Letters and History (2000)
	Music of a Distant Drum: Classical Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Hebrew Poems (2001)
	The Muslim Discovery of Europe (2001)
	What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East (2002)
	The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror (2003)
	From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East (2004)
	Islam: The Religion and the People (2008, with Buntzie Ellis Churchill)
	Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East (2010) Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514421-5
	The End of Modern History in the Middle East (2011) Hoover Institution Press.
	Notes on a Century: Reflections of a Middle East Historian (2012) ISBN 978-0-670-02353-0

  

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.