Reaction to Netanyahu’s UN speech from John Bolton and General Jack Kaene

Joining me now to the reaction to the prime minister’s Netanyahu’s address  -- two men with extensive foreign policy and military experience -  John Bolton, who of course is the former US ambassador to the United Nations and a Fox News contributor and general Jack Keane who's a retired four star general, former vice chief of staff of the army and a Fox News military analyst.

You have some interesting thoughts on this.  Number one, general, you were saying a shift in the timing, in terms of what the prime minister views as the ultimate date on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Well, the prime minister consistently has been saying we are we're out of time and a number of months ago he said we have six to eight months left and I think now pushing that time line back to the spring or summer of next year is probably a little closer to where our current administration has it, I think our administration is actually beyond that time frame, but he has clearly moved closer to where this administration is that we do have more time.

And also you mentioned we, saw the prop that he had, you know,  he actually busted up the prop,  with the bomb and the fuse  which does make you pay attention, I mean,  some of us will think it's a little hokey,  but it makes you pay attention, all three of us started looking.

And seems to be drawing the Red Line at they can't get beyond 90% uranium enrichment?

Yeah, I was surprised by that. I think if I was drawing that red line I’d  draw it to when they begin to move to highly enriched uranium for weaponization, in other words, when you go from 20% to 90% you begin to move towards that and that I think gives you that weapon and why wait until they’ve  completed it ,is where he's drawing that red line, if I understand what he is saying -- I think the use of that graphic is brilliant,  to get people to understand  what's really taken places here, in such a complicated sophisticated subject, he's broken it  down I think so that any person can understand.

It reminds me of Saturday morning cartoons, that's how the bombs would look with a little fuse- anyone can get what he's trying to show us.

Ambassador Bolton -- your thoughts on this subject

Well I thought he made one very important point that people don't understand and that is that the economic sanctions may have caused Iran pain economically but they have not stopped or  materially impeded the nuclear weapons program.

So, you can have sanctions till the cows come home. North Korea is the most heavily sanctioned country on Earth, bar none, and it is already exploded two nuclear devices.

And I think that's an important argument to make because people are prone to say just why don’t we just toughen the sanctions up a little bit.

Under his timeline, under the Netanyahu timeline the sanctions are not gonna bring Iran to its knees before they have crossed his red line, so I thought that point was important to make and I think people need to understand that especially if military action follows.

Where I think he made a mistake was on the Red Line I think I agree with Jack on that point. You know, the Security Council of the vaunted United Nations set a red line in 2006. It said stop all uranium enrichment activities.  And Iran has blown right past that red line effectively with no consequences for its nuclear weapons program. So to me the very concept of a red line - it has dubious effect because the Iranians have seen previous red lines repeatedly ignored

We’ve seen in this country somewhat of a debate about what we should be doing with respect to Iran's nuclear program and we heard a lot of it during the Republican primary quite frankly. Ron Paul was saying what business is it of ours. If  Iran wants to develop a nuclear weapon and that's its business and we have no right to tell them no.

When we were listening to the prime minister you knew at one point his speech he was going to get to a quote from Bernard Lewis, and he did and the quote was something the effect of - for the Ayatollahs mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent to getting nuclear weapons it's an inducement to getting and using them.

Right, if you prize life in the hereafter more than you prize life on Earth the threat of being destroyed isn't going to deter you -- one thing you can say about the Communists during Cold War days is they were atheists they knew they were only going around once in life and they weren't about to throw it way too quickly.

That's not a calculus that applies to Iran and that's why the entire notion that it would be bad if Iran got nuclear weapons but we could contain and deter a nuclear Iran is delusional, very dangerous and even if I'm completely wrong on that, it doesn't stop with Iran, as secretary of state Clinton herself has said Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will get nuclear weapons as well making an already volatile region even more dangerous.

General…  

Yeah, I totally agree I think one of the great values of the speech was laying out the true threat of radical Islam and it not just threatens Israel, it threatens the world because of what their objectives are and we have a nation state of the espouses that as well and wants a nuclear weapon and a thirty year history here of terrorism killing us. I mean the last commander we had in Iraq believes that the Shiite militia, sponsored by the Iranians, trained by the Iranians in Iran,   given weapons by the Iranians, killed close to two thousand of our 4400 American  dead. Plus blew up two embassies plus blew up two barracks and then this nation takes on a nuclear weapon. I think his characterization of that threat and what that means not just of the region but to the world is absolutely clear. One of the best presentations I've seen on the subject

Thank you both so much. I appreciate you being here.

At the UN General Assembly Netanyahu quotes Bernard Lewis on MAD

It’s a pleasure to see the General Assembly presided by the Ambassador from Israel, and it’s good to see all of you, distinguished delegates.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Three thousand years ago, King David reigned over the Jewish state in our eternal capital, Jerusalem. I say that to all those who proclaim that the Jewish state has no roots in our region and that it will soon disappear.

Throughout our history, the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who have sought our destruction. It’s their ideologies that have been discarded by history.

The people of Israel live on. We say in Hebrew Am Yisrael Chai, and the Jewish state will live forever.

The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years. Even after most of our people were exiled from it, Jews continued to live in the land of Israel throughout the ages. The masses of our people never gave up the dreamed of returning to our ancient homeland.

Defying the laws of history, we did just that. We ingathered the exiles, restored our independence and rebuilt our national life. The Jewish people have come home.

We will never be uprooted again.

Yesterday was Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year.

Every year, for over three millennia, we have come together on this day of reflection and atonement. We take stock of our past. We pray for our future. We remember the sorrows of our persecution; we remember the great travails of our dispersion; we mourn the extermination of a third of our people, six million, in the Holocaust.

But at the end of Yom Kippur, we celebrate.

We celebrate the rebirth of Israel. We celebrate the heroism of our young men and women who have defended our people with the indomitable courage of Joshua, David, and the Maccabees of old. We celebrate the marvel of the flourishing modern Jewish state.

In Israel, we walk the same paths tread by our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But we blaze new trails in science, technology, medicine, agriculture.

In Israel, the past and the future find common ground.

Unfortunately, that is not the case in many other countries. For today, a great battle is being waged between the modern and the medieval.

The forces of modernity seek a bright future in which the rights of all are protected, in which an ever-expanding digital library is available in the palm of every child, in which every life is sacred.

The forces of medievalism seek a world in which women and minorities are subjugated, in which knowledge is suppressed, in which not life but death is glorified.

These forces clash around the globe, but nowhere more starkly than in the Middle East.

Israel stands proudly with the forces of modernity. We protect the rights of all our citizens:  men and women, Jews and Arabs, Muslims and Christians – all are equal before the law.

Israel is also making the world a better place: our scientists win Nobel Prizes. Our know-how is in every cell-phone and computer that you’re using. We prevent hunger by irrigating arid lands in Africa and Asia.

Recently, I was deeply moved when I visited Technion, one of our technological institutes in Haifa, and I saw a man paralyzed from the waist down climb up a flight of stairs, quite easily, with the aid of an Israeli invention.

And Israel’s exceptional creativity is matched by our people’s remarkable compassion. When disaster strikes anywhere in the world – in Haiti, Japan, India, Turkey Indonesia and elsewhere – Israeli doctors are among the first on the scene, performing life-saving surgeries.

In the past year, I lost both my father and my father-in-law. In the same hospital wards where they were treated, Israeli doctors were treating Palestinian Arabs. In fact, every year, thousands of Arabs from the Palestinian territories and Arabs from throughout the Middle East come to Israel to be treated in Israeli hospitals by Israeli doctors.

I know you’re not going to hear that from speakers around this podium, but that’s the truth. It’s important that you are aware of this truth.

It’s because Israel cherishes life, that Israel cherishes peace and seeks peace.

We seek to preserve our historic ties and our historic peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. We seek to forge a durable peace with the Palestinians.

President Abbas just spoke here.

I say to him and I say to you:

We won’t solve our conflict with libelous speeches at the UN. That’s not the way to solve it. We won’t solve our conflict with unilateral declarations of statehood.

We have to sit together, negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the one and only Jewish State.

Israel wants to see a Middle East of progress and peace. We want to see the three great religions that sprang forth from our region – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – coexist in peace and in mutual respect.

Yet the medieval forces of radical Islam, whom you just saw storming the American embassies throughout the Middle East, they oppose this.

They seek supremacy over all Muslims. They are bent on world conquest. They want to destroy Israel, Europe, America. They want to extinguish freedom. They want to end the modern world.

Militant Islam has many branches – from the rulers of Iran with their Revolutionary Guards to Al Qaeda terrorists to the radical cells lurking in every part of the globe.

But despite their differences, they are all rooted in the same bitter soil of intolerance. That intolerance is directed first at their fellow Muslims, and then to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, secular people, anyone who doesn’t submit to their unforgiving creed.

They want to drag humanity back to an age of unquestioning dogma and unrelenting conflict.

I am sure of one thing. Ultimately they will fail. Ultimately, light will penetrate the darkness.

We’ve seen that happen before.

Some five hundred years ago, the printing press helped pry a cloistered Europe out of a dark age. Eventually, ignorance gave way to enlightenment.

So too, a cloistered Middle East will eventually yield to the irresistible power of freedom and technology. When this happens, our region will be guided not by fanaticism and conspiracy, but by reason and curiosity.

I think the relevant question is this: it’s not whether this fanaticism will be defeated. It’s how many lives will be lost before it’s defeated.

We’ve seen that happen before too.

Some 70 years ago, the world saw another fanatic ideology bent on world conquest. It went down in flames. But not before it took millions of people with it. Those who opposed that fanaticism waited too long to act. In the end they triumphed, but at an horrific cost.

My friends, we cannot let that happen again.

At stake is not merely the future of my own country. At stake is the future of the world. Nothing could imperil our common future more than the arming of Iran with nuclear weapons.

To understand what the world would be like with a nuclear-armed Iran, just imagine the world with a nuclear-armed Al-Qaeda.

It makes no difference whether these lethal weapons are in the hands of the world’s most dangerous terrorist regime or the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization. They’re both fired by the same hatred; they’re both driven by the same lust for violence.

Just look at what the Iranian regime has done up till now, without nuclear weapons.

In 2009, they brutally put down mass protests for democracy in their own country. Today, their henchmen are participating in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians, including thousands of children, directly participating in this murder.

They abetted the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Before that, Iranian proxies killed hundreds of American troops in Beirut and in Saudi Arabia. They’ve turned Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds, embedding nearly 100,000 missiles and rockets in civilian areas. Thousands of these rockets and missiles have already been fired at Israeli communities by their terrorist proxies.

In the last year, they’ve spread their international terror networks to two dozen countries across five continents – from India and Thailand to Kenya and Bulgaria. They’ve even plotted to blow up a restaurant a few blocks from the White House in order to kill a diplomat.

And of course, Iran’s rulers repeatedly deny the Holocaust and call for Israel’s destruction almost on a daily basis, as they did again this week from the United Nations.

So I ask you, given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons. Imagine their long range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs.

Who among you would feel safe in the Middle East? Who would be safe in Europe? Who would be safe in America? Who would be safe anywhere?

There are those who believe that a nuclear-armed Iran can be deterred like the Soviet Union.

That’s a very dangerous assumption.

Militant Jihadists behave very differently from secular Marxists. There were no Soviet suicide bombers. Yet Iran produces hordes of them.

Deterrence worked with the Soviets, because every time the Soviets faced a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival.

But deterrence may not work with the Iranians once they get nuclear weapons.

There’s a great scholar of the Middle East, Prof. Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.

Iran’s apocalyptic leaders believe that a medieval holy man will reappear in the wake of a devastating Holy War, thereby ensuring that their brand of radical Islam will rule the earth.

That’s not just what they believe. That’s what is actually guiding their policies and their actions.

Just listen to Ayatollah Rafsanjani who said, I quote:  ”The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, however it would only harm the Islamic world.”

Rafsanjani said: “It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”

Not irrational…

And that’s coming from one of the so-called moderates of Iran.
Shockingly, some people have begun to peddle the absurd notion that a nuclear-armed Iran would actually stabilize the Middle East.

Yeah, right…

That’s like saying a nuclear-armed Al-Qaeda would usher in an era of universal peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I’ve been speaking about the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for over 15 years.

I spoke about it in my first term in office as Prime Minister, and then I spoke about it when I left office. I spoke about it when it was fashionable, and I spoke about it when it wasn’t fashionable.

I speak about it now because the hour is getting late, very late. I speak about it now because the Iranian nuclear calendar doesn’t take time out for anyone or for anything. I speak about it now because when it comes to the survival of my country, it’s not only my right to speak; it’s my duty to speak. And I believe that this is the duty of every responsible leader who wants to preserve world peace.

For nearly a decade, the international community has tried to stop the Iranian nuclear program with diplomacy.

That hasn’t worked.

Iran uses diplomatic negotiations as a means to buy time to advance its nuclear program.

For over seven years, the international community has tried sanctions with Iran. Under the leadership of President Obama, the international community has passed some of the strongest sanctions to date.

I want to thank the governments represented here that have joined in this effort. It’s had an effect. Oil exports have been curbed and the Iranian economy has been hit hard.
It’s had an effect on the economy, but we must face the truth. Sanctions have not stopped Iran’s nuclear program either.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, during the last year alone, Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges in its underground nuclear facility in Qom.

At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That’s by placing a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war.

Look at NATO’s charter: it made clear that an attack on one member country would be considered an attack on all.  NATO’s red line helped keep the peace in Europe for nearly half a century.

President Kennedy set a red line during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That red line also prevented war and helped preserve the peace for decades.

In fact, it’s the failure to place red lines that has often invited aggression.

If the Western powers had drawn clear red lines during the 1930s, I believe they would have stopped Nazi aggression and World War II might have been avoided.

In 1990, if Saddam Hussein had been clearly told that his conquest of Kuwait would cross a red line, the first Gulf War might have been avoided.

Clear red lines have also worked with Iran.

Earlier this year, Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormouz. The United States drew a clear red line and Iran backed off.

Red lines could be drawn in different parts of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But to be credible, a red line must be drawn first and foremost in one vital part of their program: on Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium. Now let me explain why:

Basically, any bomb consists of explosive material and a mechanism to ignite it.

The simplest example is gunpowder and a fuse. That is, you light the fuse and set off the gunpowder.

In the case of Iran’s plans to build a nuclear weapon, the gunpowder is enriched uranium. The fuse is a nuclear detonator.

For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse.

For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb. That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in very big industrial plants. Those Iranian plants are visible and they’re still vulnerable.

In contrast, Iran could produce the nuclear detonator – the fuse – in a lot less time, maybe under a year, maybe only a few months.

The detonator can be made in a small workshop the size of a classroom. It may be very difficult to find and target that workshop, especially in Iran. That’s a country that’s bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined.

The same is true for the small facility in which they could assemble a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. Chances are you won’t find that facility either.

So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

So, how much enriched uranium do you need for a bomb? And how close is Iran to getting it?

Let me show you. I brought a diagram for you. Here’s the diagram.

**************

This is a bomb; this is a fuse.

In the case of Iran’s nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages.

The first stage: they have to enrich enough of low enriched uranium.

The second stage: they have to enrich enough medium enriched uranium.

And the third stage and final stage: they have to enrich enough high enriched uranium for the first bomb.

Where’s Iran? Iran’s completed the first stage. It took them many years, but they completed it and they’re 70% of the way there.

Now they are well into the second stage. By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage.

From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.

*****************
Ladies and Gentlemen,

What I told you now is not based on secret information. It’s not based on military intelligence. It’s based on public reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Anybody can read them. They’re online.

So if these are the facts, and they are, where should the red line be drawn?

The red line should be drawn right here…………..

Before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.

Before Iran gets to a point where it’s a few months away or a few weeks away from amassing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

Each day, that point is getting closer. That’s why I speak today with such a sense of urgency. And that’s why everyone should have a sense of urgency.

Some who claim that even if Iran completes the enrichment process, even if it crosses that red line that I just drew, our intelligence agencies will know when and where Iran will make the fuse, assemble the bomb, and prepare the warhead.

Look, no one appreciats our intelligence agencies more than the Prime Minister of Israel. All these leading intelligence agencies are superb, including ours. They’ve foiled many attacks. They’ve saved many lives.

But they are not foolproof.

For over two years, our intelligence agencies didn’t know that Iran was building a huge nuclear enrichment plant under a mountain.

Do we want to risk the security of the world on the assumption that we would find in time a small workshop in a country half the size of Europe?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb.

The red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target.

I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down.

This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether.

Two days ago, from this podium, President Obama reiterated that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be contained.

I very much appreciate the President’s position as does everyone in my country. We share the goal of stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This goal unites the people of Israel.  It unites Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike and it is shared by important leaders throughout the world.

What I have said today will help ensure that this common goal is achieved.

Israel is in discussions with the United States over this issue, and I am confident that we can chart a path forward together.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The clash between modernity and medievalism need not be a clash between progress and tradition.

The traditions of the Jewish people go back thousands of years.  They are the source of our collective values and the foundation of our national strength.

At the same time, the Jewish people have always looked towards the future. Throughout history, we have been at the forefront of efforts to expand liberty, promote equality, and advance human rights.

We champion these principles not despite of our traditions but because of them.

We heed the words of the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Jeremiah to treat all with dignity and compassion, to pursue justice and cherish life and to pray and strive for peace.

These are the timeless values of my people and these are the Jewish people’s greatest gift to mankind.

Let us commit ourselves today to defend these values so that we can defend our freedom and protect our common civilization.

Thank you.

Netanyahu: People who say this set a new standard for human stupidity.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Why can’t Iran be contained just as the Soviet Union was?  There are those in your country and in the United States who believe that a containment strategy would actually work.

I think Iran is very different. They put their zealotry above their survival and suicide bombers are all over the place and I wouldn’t rely on their rationality. You know, since the advent of nuclear weapons, you had countries that had access to nuclear weapons who always made a careful calculation of cost and benefit, but Iran is guided  by a leadership with an unbelievable fanaticism . It is the same fanaticism that you see storming embassies today. You want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?  I mean I’ve heard some people suggest, I actually read this in a magazine - well, you know, if you take action - that’s a lot worse than having Iran with nuclear weapons.  Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East. Stabilize the Middle East!  I think the people who say this set a new standard for human stupidity.

Amos Yadlin trusts Obama?

From Ari Shavit's COUNTDOWN series, excerpts :

Ari Shavit's countdown: Former Israeli intelligence chief breaks his silence on Iran

By Ari Shavit | Sep.13, 2012 | 11:52 PM

On the Iranian issue there are currently two opposing camps in Israel − the Netanyahu-Barak camp and the Dagan-Diskin camp. The former says we must bomb Iran’s nuclear sites in the near future; the latter says we absolutely should not bomb. Between these two polarized schools of thought, where do you stand?

“The issue is complex and tricky, and very serious. So much so that I can’t put it in simplistic terms of whether I’m with Bibi-Barak or Dagan-Diskin. What I believe in is a kind of third way.

“I agree with Netanyahu and Barak on two things. One: A nuclear bomb in the hands of a regime that says, day in and day out, that Israel must be wiped off the map, poses a very high risk to our national security. Therefore, if a bombing could indeed prevent this bomb, it’s the correct strategic move. Two: An attack on Iran won’t cause the Middle East to go up in flames and won’t cause Israel to incur a mortal blow.

“Whoever portrays what will happen the day after the strike as some sort of war between Gog and Magog that will cost the lives of tens of thousands of Israelis is overstating the threat. I expect that the Sunni Arab world won’t be sorry to see such a strike, and that the Iranian response will be measured and calculated, and absorbable. The damage it causes will be much smaller than the damage of a nuclear Iran.

“At the same time, I agree with the criticism of the prime minister and defense minister in two areas. They say that time has almost run out, but I say there still is time. The decisive year is not 2012 but 2013. Maybe even early 2014. We have at least half a year left before we reach the true crossroad where we will have to make the fateful decision. But even when we reach the crossroad − in order for an Israeli strike to really prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb for a long time to come, it must enjoy legitimacy.

“Today, Israel does not have enough legitimacy. The world today is averse to the use of force, and the world does not accept the concept of the zone of immunity [whereby Iran’s nuclear facilities would be impervious to military strikes]. Our positions on the Palestinian issue are also weighing very heavily here.

“The international community believes there is still time for diplomacy and sanctions. Consequently, our legitimacy battery is almost empty. Above all, we must cease butting heads with the United States and try to reach a strategic understanding with it. Israel must shape a policy and take action to ensure that, if we are compelled to attack, the world will be behind us on the day we do so.”

So, are Netanyahu and Barak crazy doomsday prophets or responsible adults? Are they behaving rationally or irrationally?

“I don’t think Netanyahu and Barak are crazy. They made important achievements between 2009 and 2011. They strengthened the IDF and enabled it to strengthen the military option, and made it very credible. They made proper and positive diplomatic use of the military option. They managed to spur the international community to impose heavy sanctions on Iran. They contributed to making the American position more assertive, and President Obama explicitly pledged to prevent a nuclear Iran.

“But over the past year, Netanyahu and Barak went too far. They turned the screw one time too many. As a result, exaggerated panic has been created among the public, the Israeli economy has been hurt and oil prices have also gone up. The harsh responses to all this from the diplomatic and military leadership in the United States has harmed deterrence. The impression has been given that Israel is interfering in internal American politics. This is why we now see such tension between the two countries. Instead of Washington and Jerusalem slinging arrows together at Iran, they’re slinging arrows at each other.

“In pilot lingo, I would say that their policy has reached the stalling point. It’s stopped being useful, and in a certain sense has also even become dangerous. Both former IDF Chief of Staff [Gabi] Ashkenazi and current Chief of Staff [Benny] Gantz have done faithful work in building up the military option versus Iran. It was uncalled for to treat them and the senior officer ranks with such contempt and disdain. There is no basis for saying that if the current general staff had been the general staff in 1967, we wouldn’t have won the Six-Day War.”

Allow me to return to the basic question. Perhaps the fear of a nuclear Iran is overblown? Perhaps a nuclear Iran is not necessarily a catastrophe? Perhaps we need to accept it and adjust to it?

“I don’t like the comparisons to the 1930s and to the Holocaust. I don’t think that if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it will launch a nuclear missile at Tel Aviv the next day. I believe in our capabilities and in our deterrence, and I think that this was precisely why Israel was founded: so it would have the ability to defend the Jewish people.

“And yet, a nuclear Iran is intolerable due to four very serious considerations. It’s unclear whether Iran will be a rational player. We may well be dealing with a culture that sanctifies death and glorifies ‘martyrs’ and suicide bombers, and has a wholly different attitude toward life than we do. Of course, there will not be symmetry between big Iran and little Israel: A single atomic bomb will not kill six million people here, but if it explodes in the center of the country and takes 20,000 lives, life here will become very problematic, if it can go on at all.

“There is also a danger of unplanned and uncontrolled escalation: There is no hotline between Tel Aviv and Tehran, and no other stabilizing mechanisms between us and the Iranians, so the danger of an unplanned nuclear confrontation is significant. And, finally, nuclear proliferation is a near certainty: If Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and other states go nuclear, a multipolar nuclear system will come into being in the Middle East − and by definition this will be unstable and very dangerous. Such a situation − in which there will also be substate players − will create a big temptation to make use of nuclear weapons and could lead to the occurrence of a nuclear event. So the answer to your question is clear: We mustn’t get carried away with panic or sow anxiety, but Iran must be prevented from going nuclear.”

You’ve convinced me. I’m with you, but right now Iran is quite close to going nuclear. You’ve followed the struggle against a nuclear Iran since 2000 − first as air force chief of staff, then as military attache in Washington and then as head of Military Intelligence. What opportunities did the international community and Israel have to stop Iran? What was done in the last decade, what wasn’t done, and what should have been done?

“The first strategic track that tried to stop the Iranian nuclear program was dialogue. It was tried by the Europeans and it was tried by the Obama administration, but it failed. The second strategic track was sanctions. But the sanctions were applied too little, too late, and even now there are big holes in them − Russia, China, India. As was previously published, the third track was some type of secret campaign against Iran. There were people who pinned great hopes on this, but − if it did indeed take place − it is now clear that it only delayed the Iranians but did not stop them. It may also have had a certain anesthetizing effect, since it gave the illusion that a solution was found. The fourth strategic track was preparation for military intervention, and the fifth track was waiting for a regime change in Iran.

“As of now, the first three tracks and the fifth track have not yielded the desired results. I still think we should wait and see whether the heavy sanctions imposed in July 2012 will bring about a change, but up to now the change has not happened. The sanctions are hurting the Iranians, but they aren’t yet altering their behavior or eroding their determination. So the ‘bomb or bombing’ dilemma could become a real dilemma in the coming year.

“But this, too, mustn’t be understood in a simplistic way. If we do not act wisely, a situation of ‘bomb and bombing’ could certainly arise. We could lose out on both ends and suffer the worst of both worlds. To avoid this, we must have that close cooperation with the United States that I spoke about. That’s what I meant when I said I am seeking a third way.”

I’m not sure I understood. Please explain.

“What worries me isn’t the day of the strike. I know our intelligence and our air force well. I’m certain they have developed the operational capability to deal a serious blow to the Iranian nuclear program. Whoever doubts Israel’s capability will be surprised. The military option that the IDF has prepared is genuine and credible.

“And Israel can also cope with what happens the day after the strike. In a situation where the Sunnis are so fearful of a Shi’ite nuclear power, I don’t believe a regional war will develop. The likelihood that, in their present situation, the Syrians will fire missiles at Tel Aviv is not high. They won’t lay themselves on the line for the Iranians. Hezbollah is a force that we will clash with sooner or later − with or without a strike on Iran. So in my estimation, what we can expect is some sort of small-scale copy of the 1991 Scud attacks, and the 2006 rocket fire [from Hezbollah] and the bombings in Buenos Aires [on the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and a Jewish community center in 1994]. I am not thrilled about that. I do not take that lightly.

“Without a doubt, the day after the strike will be a lot less pleasant than it is now. It may be necessary to evacuate some population centers at the time of the confrontation. But I’m not panicking. I don’t accept the position of those who are paralyzed by the fear of rocket fire on Israel. There is no comparison between the risks of this scenario and the risks of a nuclear Middle East.

“But what does worry me is the decade after the strike. Even assuming that the technical strike succeeds, as I am convinced it will, it will give us just a few years. And it could be another decade before there is regime change in Iran. So in order to bridge this gap between a successful Israeli strike and preventing a nuclear Iran, we need the international community and the United States. We need a sanctions regime that keeps getting stronger and doesn’t fall apart. We need an Iranian understanding that the strike could be repeated. We need the world to continue the work that we started, and not to sabotage it. As things look now, an Israeli strike at this point in time will not achieve this result since we do not have enough legitimacy and we do not have sufficient strategic intimacy with the United States. Therefore, even if the strike goes well, and even if the day after the strike isn’t a day of utter and terrible destruction, the final result could be that we get an Iranian bombing and an Iranian bomb.”

Okay, now I get it. So I hereby appoint you as our leader and I ask: What are you going to do? If you were the prime minister and defense minister, what would you do?

“I repeat, the bombing option is not out of the question if it achieves its objective, and if it is done with a strong basis of legitimacy. But you have to remember that the objective is not the strike itself, but preventing Iran from obtaining military nuclear capability. Therefore, if I know that one bombing will stop the bomb, I’m in favor. But if the bombing does not bring in its wake a worldwide campaign that turns the military achievement of a successful strike into a strategic achievement of stopping the Iranian nuclear program, there is no point in carrying out this bombing.

“We can accomplish the bombing by ourselves, but we can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program by ourselves. So it all depends on the United States being with us. And what I would do as leader is to enter an honest and genuine dialogue with the United States. I believe that President Obama intends to prevent Iran from obtaining military nuclear capability. But in the environment in which he lives, there are some who feel otherwise. So the chance of the United States using force to stop Iran is little better than 50 percent, I believe.

“The purpose of the dialogue is to raise this likelihood. To ask the Americans to commit themselves now to more than they have committed so far. To find out − honestly and with discretion − where exactly they stand. To formulate binding red lines, together with them. One of the problems facing the Americans is that when they plan a military operation they are planning an operation with broad security margins, so it involves the employment of massive force. They are reluctant to undertake such a broad-scale operation because it means an all-out war on another Islamic country. But if instead of clashing we conduct a dialogue of allies, we can combine American technological capabilities with Israeli powers of improvisation, Israeli creativity and Israeli combat experience. The result could be a surgical strike that is not directed against the Iranian people and does not entail an invasion of Iran or war in Iran.

“If, the morning after the attack, the Iranians awake to find that, aside from their nuclear assets, they still hold all their other assets − the regime, the military, oil − they will know that they have something to lose. They will know that if they respond forcefully, they will lose much more. So it is quite likely that an attack of this kind could stop the Iranian nuclear program without igniting an all-out war. If after the U.S. presidential election [in November] the elected president is presented with an operational solution of this sort, I think it is very likely that he will adopt it. Thus it will be assured that the Iranians will not have a bomb, but if there is a strike, its implications will not be grave − for the United States or Israel.”

Benjamin Netanyahu apparently thinks otherwise. He thinks there is no chance the Americans will use force, and that the right time to act is now.

“We absolutely must not do anything before the election in the United States. We mustn’t try to take advantage of some fleeting opportunity that seems convenient. We made that mistake already in 1956 [the Sinai Campaign]. Ben-Gurion insisted that we wouldn’t go to war without the backing of a superpower. We must do the same now. The zone of immunity is broader and more flexible than some people describe, so there is no need for an immediate action. As a democratic country, we also have the duty to exhaust all other possibilities before embarking on a preemptive war. Therefore, we need to cool things down, wait until after the U.S. election and then develop a real dialogue with whoever is elected. I believe that such a dialogue could yield the right answer to the Iranian nuclear challenge.”

Amos Yadlin’s arguments are rational and sincere. But he did not explain the crucial point on which everything he says hinges — how do you get , not “very likely”, but committed , ironclad support against Iran from an American president who now supports the Muslim Brotherhood, the most virulently anti-Semitic and anti-American organization ? The fate of millions of Israelis should not rely on the “very likely” probability that Obama will do in the future what he has refused to do up till now.  I suggest he read Charles Krauthammer's piece Abandonment

And my final comment: When will Ari Shavit start interviewing scholars of Islam?