Red Lines and Green Lines

As is the usual practice at this time of year, the world's focus turned last week to the hallowed halls of the General Assembly of the United Nations.  The events there have, by now, become an annual ritual.  Eyes became trained upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as his travelling circus rolled into New York City.  Everybody was awaiting his next insult directed at Israel and other western countries.  He did not disappoint.  He did the rounds of the TV talk shows who were falling over themselves to get him on their stages.  He poked his finger in the eye of his American hosts and continuously threatened Israel's existence and place in the community of nations.  US President Barack Obama made his speech at the General Assembly, and left town as soon as he possibly could.  Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas pleaded for the establishment of a Palestinian independent state, without addressing any of the main sticking points that are preventing him from achieving this objective.  Prime Minister Netanyahu put on his usual show, defending the rights of the Jewish nation to exist in peace and security (for his speech to the UN click here).  All of these actions have become fairly well-rehearsed over the past few years.  This year, however, there were some subtle differences.

The assessment of one of the Israeli newspapers was spot-on when it wrote that the international leaders seemed to be talking straight past each other, and aiming their addresses at people who were a long way from the General Assembly halls.  The newspaper decided that Obama aimed his address at his Jewish voters in Florida, who he hopes will help to swing the vote to re-elect him for a further presidential term in November.  They thought that Abbas was aiming his speech at Hamas leaders who, he hopes, will find a way to further Palestinian unity and implement the agreement that was signed some time ago.  It was decided that Netanyahu aimed his speech at the central committee of his ruling Likud party in his attempt to convince them that he is not compromising his red lines on Iran's nuclear weapons, nor his position regarding conditions under which he would reach an agreement with the Palestinians.  Despite the world leaders being in close proximity to one another, nobody seemed to be talking to each other.

Illustration by Eran Wolkowski courtesy of Haaretz

Another newspaper described the Netanyahu and Abbas speeches as "one talking about green lines and the other talking about red lines".  The green lines refer to the borders originally drawn up for the State of Israel, and in effect until the Six Day War in 1967.  In his speech to the UN, Abbas again complained that the Israeli settlements are the main obstacle to peace.  With the support of many in the international community, Abbas believes that a future Palestinian state should be established on the borders of the "green line".  Netanyahu is firmly opposed to returning to the green line, and has made this clear on a number of occasions.  In an attempt to bring the international community around to his way of thinking, his government continues to act against settlers trying to establish new outposts in the West Bank, in places which are not properly authorised and legal.  The steps that Netanyahu has taken against these new and illegal settlements have gained the wrath of many in his Likud party.

Photo by Reuters

The red lines refer to the fact that Netanyahu feels that Iran is being allowed to behave with a free hand while the international community waits for the sanctions to take effect.  He is insistent that red lines should be drawn, which would create limits on Iran's behaviour.  The clear implication is that the international community should be prepared to draw these red lines, and should also be prepared to take military action against Iran in the event that it transgresses the red lines.  At the UN General Assembly on Thursday, Netanyahu made his point about red lines on Iran very explicitly using a prop showing a neatly-drawn nuclear bomb (in the shape of a hand grenade).  On this sketch, he used a red marker to add where he thought  the red line should be drawn.

There can be no clearer indication that the these  leaders are on completely different pages, and thinking about completely different things.  There appears to be no common purpose or urgency about what needs to be achieved next, in order to bring about the much sought-after peace in the Middle East.  Abbas is enjoying a period of stability within his West Bank stronghold.  A routine of some sort has been established for daily life within his constituency.  Few attacks on Israel have been perpetrated by Palestinians, and this has resulted in far less intervention by Israeli troops in Palestinian society.  Quality of life has been improved by the relative stability.  Abbas has greater support of his people (as evidenced by the lack of any real shows of dissatisfaction), and he has no interest at the moment to be put under pressure to call an election.  Hamas is weakened by its leadership struggle for somebody to replace the outgoing Khaled Meshal, and this has substantially reduced the tension between Abbas and his Hamas rivals.  It seems as though Abbas has little intention or reason to upset this situation.

Netanyahu's attention and focus is almost entirely devoted to Iran's nuclear program, when he is not stealing time for domestic matters.  Between Iran and working on his campaign for elections currently scheduled for 2013, Netanyahu seems to have little time or inclination to deal with Palestinian matters.  The same is true for President Obama, who has not shown any inclination to spend much time on the Middle East conundrum in his four years in office to date.  Although all the speeches referred to work that needs to be done on the "peace process", actions speak louder than words.  The actions indicate that all three leaders are not unhappy with the status quo, and that none of them are poised to do anything dramatic to change it.  This perhaps explains the lack of coordination in the various speeches.  It almost appears as if the lack of coordination was coordinated!

The Ahmadinejad show at the UN is extremely unfortunate.  It seems as though the world has come to accept that this is the way that things are, and is prepared to tolerate his bad behaviour.  It is OK for him to bash Israel from the UN podium (and anywhere else), despite prior warnings by the UN and the USA for him to tone down his rhetoric.  The USA and Canada were the only two countries to walk out of the General Assembly when he rose to speak.  All of this bodes extremely badly for the world's response to Iran's nuclear weapons.  Will this be taken for granted as well?  If so, it is entirely appropriate for Bibi to be focusing on red lines, even if the rest of the world prefers him to concentrate on green lines.

Non-Aligned, But Extremely Maligned

Iran is playing host to the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) during the course of this week.  The meeting sees 120 developing nations of the world attend, with special attendance by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon.  Although the original intention of the NAM was to provide a home for countries who were not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc, it has always represented something of a political hot potato.  This is because its membership includes the so-called "axis of evil" countries, and many other pariah states of the world.  The NAM has, perhaps unwittingly, acted as a club for countries that are persona non grata in the developed world.  The best example is the the host of the 16th meeting of the NAM this week, Iran.

Since the NAM was established in 1961, a great deal has changed in the make-up of the world's power blocs.  Despite this fact, it seems as though many of the original members of the NAM remain members to this day.  The changes in the political power blocs have not succeeded in changing  the countries that are aligned with them.  The term "non-aligned", while accurately reflecting the fact that the member countries are not part of any major international power bloc, conceals the fact that many of the member states are aligned with each other in different ways.  It seems as though being non-aligned is not sufficiently compelling to link the NAM countries.  Even these countries need a common cause to create a more substantial link between themselves.  Iran has succeeded in creating a common issue for the NAM countries to rally around, and this is the issue of hating Israel and bringing into question her right to continue to exist.

Iran's policy of publicly humiliating and deligitimising Israel is already not a new phenomenon.  Iranian President Ahmadinejad has been allowed to get away with behaving like a thug on this issue for many years.  He has stood at international gatherings at every opportunity, and ranted against Israel's right to existence amongst the family of nations.  The international community has silently sat back and watched the spectacle without taking action.  This has even been the case when Ahmadinejad has had the audacity to stand up at the United Nations General Assembly, the place that is supposed to protect the rights of nations to exist in peace and harmony, and spew vitriol about the destruction of Israel.   Once again, the UN stands accused of failing to protect the basic rights of member nations by allowing UN Secretary-General Ban Kim Moon to travel to Tehran to attend the NAM.  In so doing, he has legimitised the attendance of all the other countries at the meeting, all of whom will be subject to tirades promoting the destruction of the State of Israel in the usual Iranian way.

Surely, this enough to convince the world of Iran's ban intentions regarding its nuclear program?  The evidence that Iran intends to construct a nuclear weapon is irrefutable.  The subject of Iran's wrath and aggression is equally irrefutable.  The fact that the world allows Iran to threaten Israel in every public forum in the most unashamed manner, is now supported by the world's unwillingness to take tougher action against the nuclear program.  Instead, the world has decided to hide behind the sanctions to defer action on this matter.  It has been clear for some time that the sanctions will neither prevent the countries of the world from buying oil from Iran, nor prevent Iran from continuing to build a nuclear bomb.  Once again, it seems as though it will be left to Israel to take on the world's responsibility in acting against a tyrant.  It is true that Israel is at the front of the line of countries at risk by Iran's aggression, but it is also true that Israel is not the only country at risk.  It is clear that any action by Iran to construct a nuclear weapon will place all of the western world, and beyond, in the firing line.  Perhaps the threat to these countries is not sufficiently pressing now to force them into action.  As has been the case a few times in the past, it will be Israeli soldiers whose lives will be risked to clean up the mess that others are not prepared to take care of.

Israel has acted in the past without the blessing of its allies to take care of problems.  Twice before, Israeli aircraft have destroyed nuclear reactors under construction.  It was notable that the US government opposed Israeli action against both the Iraqi reactor and the Syrian one under construction.  We now know that Israeli action saved some extremely nasty situations from arising, and history books could have looked extremely different had the timely and brave action not been taken in the nick of time.  Fortunately, all Israeli soldiers and equipment was returned to base safely on both previous occasions.  Where Iran is concerned, the operation looks to be infinitely more complicated and risky.  This is partially because the world has failed to take timely action to destroy the threat at a much earlier stage.  Any operation that Israel will mount against Iran is likely to be extremely risky, and will almost certainly result in Israeli loss of life.

In the interests of international diplomacy and world peace, the UN Secretary-General will appear alongside the world's thugs including Ahmadinejad, Zimbabwe's President Mugabe and others.  Instead of protecting the interests and the freedom of the democratic world, he has chosen to legitimise the unacceptable behaviour of those countries who present the greatest threat to world peace.

The NAM conference has given Ahmadinejad the perfect opportunity to stand up in front of the non-aligned, and malign them against Israel and the west.  In a few weeks' time, we will expect to see another of his tirades at the UN General Assembly in New York.  All of the actions that turn a blind eye to Ahmadinejad's bad behaviour, simply empower him even further.  He understands that the world does not set any limits in terms of acceptable behaviour, and will exploit this to the maximum extent possible.  As before, it will be left to Israel to draw the line and to take the required action.  It is my hope and prayer that our soldiers and our civilians will not be endangered in the process.

A Damaging Debate

The debate about whether Israel should or should not attack Iran's nuclear facilities has broken out into the public arena in the strangest possible way.  Over last weekend, the press reported a disagreement between the prime minister and the president over whether attacking Iran at this time is the correct course of action.

Indications are that Prime Minister Netanyahu is one of two lone voices calling for Israel to take military action to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb.  Ironically, his only supporter is Defense Minister Ehud Barak.  This is ironic due to the completely opposite ends of the political spectrum that these two politicians come from.  At the moment, however, they are bedfellows in calling for the IDF to act in the near future to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities.  President Shimon Peres is advocating a completely different approach.  He would prefer to allow America to take the lead, and is currently trusting President Barack Obama's approach in waiting to see whether the sanctions will bring the desired result.  Ultimately, Peres is opposed to Israel acting unilaterally against Iran.  Peres, always a dove in his approach over many years, was also opposed to the strike that Israel carried out on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in1981.  We know how crucial that operation ultimately proved to be.

Peres is not alone in Israel in his opposition to an attack on Iran.  From recent press reports, it is understood that the military leadership in the IDF is also opposed to such an attack.  This does not mean that they are not prepared to carry out such an attack, or that they would not do so if the government decided that this is the correct approach.  It is just that military leaders, in their individual and professional capacities, believe that this would not be the best approach.  In addition to this, it is reported from surveys undertaken, that most Israelis also do not support military action.  The Israeli public seems concerned about the safety of the home front in the event of an attack on Iran.  It is well understood that Iran will almost certainly take retaliatory action in the event that there are strikes on her nuclear facilities.  This puts the Israeli public at risk, as Iran's Shihab missiles are armed and ready to fire towards Israeli territory.  Clearly, this nervousness is influencing the view of the general public such that they are opposed to attacking Iran, even if this is by a slim majority.  Some Israelis feel so strongly that we should not be attacking Iran, that an online petition has been launched imploring Israeli air force pilots to reject orders to strike Iran if called upon to do so.  While the prospect of Israel's pilots not carrying out orders is something we could not contemplate, I guess that it does show the strength of the feelings.

The fact that this entire debate is being conducted via the press and in the public, is not positive.  While democratic principles are important in our society, and especially maintaining the right to freedom of speech, I believe that certain discussions are much better held out of the public domain.  This particularly refers to matters of national security, which this clearly is.  It may be true that President Peres should not be interfering in government business, and that he has previously made incorrect calls on whether the IDF should attack targets or not.  I feel, however, that these points should be made directly to him rather via articles in the weekend newspapers.  My choosing to use the media to canvass internal support for their respective positions, the prime minister and the president may have forgotten that our enemies (including Iran) have intelligence officers who are scrutinising every article that is published.  What sort of message are we sending to them?  I believe that sending a message which shows a lack of unity in our government potentially weakens our situation in  the eyes of the Iranians.  If we cannot even agree on the fundamental issue of whether we should be taking military action to protect Israeli sovereignty for ourselves and future generations, how are we expected to agree on more substantial matters?  Iran has reacted as we would expect, by making fun of our internal squabble, and by continuing at full steam to develop a nuclear weapon.

It is a good thing that we have an environment which supports internal debates and disagreements, and that we have the freedom to be able to express ourselves openly in the national media.  Better decisions are often made when there is a minority that disagrees, and that is strong enough to bring the majority to consider their view before the final decision is made.  Where issues relating to how we deal with Iran are concerned, the debate should be held in the well-secured hallowed halls of government and the IDF, and not in the press.  Although we are very used to playing out party political agreements in the media, there are times when this approach is not appropriate.  This is clearly one of those times, and the national security of the country must surely take preference over all other matters.

A Modern-Day Purim Story

Last week we celebrated the Jewish festival of Purim.  It is a classic Jewish festival which involves bad guys who wanted to murder the Jews.  Somehow, we managed to survive against the odds and a festival was created to celebrate this fact with the addition of delicious food.  As a child growing up, I remember thinking how unrealistic these stories sounded.  Could it really have been the case that the evil Haman was trying to influence the king of Persia to annihilate the Jews?  What reason could he have had for wishing to do this?  After all, most of the Jews that I knew were decent upstanding citizens and quite nice people as well.  So why would somebody have wanted to kill them?

For those of my parents' and grandparents' generation, this story would have been a very real one.  They were unfortunate enough to have witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust.  This was a repeat of the Purim story except, in this story, millions of innocent people were slaughtered.  Only now, 60 years later, can the State of Israel boast a population that equals the number that were murdered during the most barbaric human-cleansing exercise in history.  Despite the fact that the Jews have survived and made a strong comeback, we have not quite decided upon a festival with delicious food to celebrate Hitler's failure.  Perhaps we will have one in the future.  This should, however, not allow our eyes to be taken off the ball.  The Haggadah that we read on Pesach tells us that, "In each and every generation they rise up against us to destroy us. And The Holy One, blessed be He, rescues us from their hands."  We are also instructed to remember how Amalek attacked the Israelites soon after the crossing of the Red Sea following the exodus from Egypt.  Each year, we read the portion known as "Zachor" (remember) on the Shabbat preceding Purim to be reminded of the evil of Amalek, who is traditionally believed to be a descendant of the evil Haman from the Purim story.  The need to read this each year and remember, arises from the fact that we are required to be vigilant to prevent it from happening again.  Now, in 2012, there are strong indications that it is happening again.

The irony of the Purim story cannot be lost on us as we hurtle headlong into an inevitable conflict with Iran.  The Purim story took place in Persia, and we now return to the scene of the crime approximately 2,400 years later to confront Ahmadinejad, the modern-day Iranian Haman.  As far as I can make out, the Jews and Israel have caused no damage nor present any threat to Iran or Ahmadinejad.  Despite this fact, Ahmadinejad has made Israel-bashing the cornerstone of his foreign policy platform.  He has not missed an opportunity to threaten Israel or to predict her demise whenever he has had the ears and eyes of the world trained on him.  He has been good to his word in practice as well, channelling millions of dollars into terror organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas which have indiscriminately attacked Jewish and Israeli targets.  When adding his duplicitous dealings with the Iranian nuclear program, it is clear that this situation cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.  This is the reincarnation of Amalek, of Haman and of Hitler.  This is exactly the sort of person that we are warned against.

Experience that the Jewish people have accumulated over the years, shows that they cannot rely on others to do the right thing to protect them.  Whether it was the failure to bomb Auschwitz, or the criticism over the destruction of nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria, the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to take action at the required moment in order to prevent a disaster.  Viewing things with the benefit of hindsight is too late, and the lessons are somehow never learned.  The Jewish nation have been forced to ensure that they can take care of themselves.

Fortunately, one important thing has changed since the days of Haman and Hitler.  We now have a Jewish army.  This is probably the most substantial element of the equation in the current scenario with Ahmadinejad.  The fact that thousands of Iranians missiles are trained on Israel, and waiting for the first strike on Iran, does not intimidate the Israeli army.  This is simply another danger to be considered, alongside the others, when taking on the significant threat that Iran poses under Ahmadinejad's leadership.  The fight will be ugly and there will be casualties, but there is no choice for the Israeli army in the imperative to put a stop to this threat as soon as possible.

For parents like myself whose children are the soldiers who will be called upon to fight this fight, the prospects are chilling.  We would certainly prefer not to be in this situation, and we would not choose for our children to be placed in harm's way as they battle to protect Israel and the Jewish people.  Ultimately, however, we realise the importance of having an army like the IDF, and we are forced to stand helplessly by as our children willingly fulfil their obligation to protect their land and their people.  This is the only way that we can be assured that the likes of Haman, Hitler and Ahmadinejad will never be allowed to carry out their evil plans to destroy our state and our nation.  These soldiers, our children, are the heroes of this part of the story of survival.

As the situation escalates and the prospects of an armed conflict with Iran grow with each passing day, it is our prayer that our army and our children will succeed in doing their job safely and securely.  We pray that they will return to their families, sound in body and mind, having completed their task that they have been called upon to do.  We stand behind them, fearful for their well-being, but immensely proud of their sacrifice.  May Hashem protect them in all that they do.

Image by Deputado Bruno Covas

Assad Keeps Fighting, But Cannot Survive

The uprising in Syria has continued unabated for the past 8 months.  Despite the fact that thousands of people have already been killed in the process, the uprising shows no signs of being quelled by the strong-arm tactics adopted by President Bashar al-Assad.  Despite Assad fighting the civilian uprising using all military options available to him, he cannot survive this challenge to his leadership.  In the interests of preventing further loss of life, Bashar should accept the inevitable as soon as possible and leave office.

The Syrian uprising has progressed in a substantially different way to the uprisings that took place in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya.  The biggest difference in Syria is the fact that the regime has managed to survive for as long as 8 months, despite constant protests by the opposition and Syrian civilians over this time.  We all know that the long-ruling and well-established governments of Gadaffi, Mubarak and others were unable to survive the attacks that they came under for more than a few months.  So what is it about Assad and Syria that has allowed him to survive for this period of time, despite having already killed more than 3,000 civilians (according to the UN) in his attempt to put down the uprising?

Despite the fact that the uprisings in other countries in the region proved to be the catalyst for the demonstrations in Syria, Assad has benefited from the fact other countries have been suffering unrest.  This has diverted the attention of the world and the international media elsewhere, while he tries to take care of his own back yard.  So far, he has managed to escape the fates that Mubarak and Gadaffi suffered when the world's leaders and media were focused on the events in these countries.  While there have been a few reports and international condemnation of events in Syria, these have not been anywhere as directed as those that were directed at Mubarak and Gadaffi before the demise of these two leaders.  In Assad's case, there are indications that this is about to change over the coming weeks and months now that Syria has been brought into target by the international community.

In the case particularly of Libya, oil had much to do with the decision by NATO to take an active part in Libya's uprising.   There can be no doubt that Gadaffi would probably still have been in power, if it was not for the role played by NATO war planes.  Even though oil exploration and export is an important part of the Syrian economy accounting for as much as 25% of the government's income, Syrian oil only makes up about 0.5% of the world's oil production.  As such, the world has not looked upon Syria with the same concern for its stability as it did when chaos ensued in Libya.  It also means that NATO has no interest in getting involved in Syria.  It enjoys little strategic relevance to the world, either in terms of its location or in terms of its production of oil.  The only possible point of strategic relevance relating to Syria is its ongoing dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights.  It is clear that the world would wish for this issue to be resolved in order to reduce the threat of a war between Syria and Israel which would, undoubtedly, drag other countries in the region into conflict.

Perhaps the most important reason why the world has not come down more harshly on Syria until now, relates to its connections with Iran.  Despite not sharing a common border, Syria and Iran have forged extremely close links over the past few years.  Ahmadinejad's Iran has proved to be the "catching net" for those countries seeking international links, but which have been rejected by countries in the west.  As one of the world's major sponsors of terror, Iran has cast its influence far and wide.  It has also stood up to huge criticism by the international community over its nuclear program, thereby showing itself as a leader of the renegade countries which oppose the influence of the USA and other western powers.  In this respect, Iran has shown itself to be quite an attractive ally for Turkey, Syria and other countries that are struggling to gain acceptance into international circles.  The world has realised that any action against Syria, effectively equates to action against Iran.

On the basis of the close links between Syria and Iran, it is difficult to separate action against Iran's nuclear program from action against Syria's extreme crackdown against protestors.  There is a view that says that the world, by escalating Iran on its nuclear program, is trying to divert Ahmadinejad's attention away from Syria in order to allow the world to take a separate position on this.  There seems to be an attempt to divide and rule.  The Arab League has taken a bold and significant stand against Syria over the past week, by suspending it from the organisation, and threatening to take further diplomatic actions against Syria if Assad does not pull his military forces out of civilian areas and halt the violence.  Although there is no love lost between the Arab League and Iran, the Arab League has taken its time in adopting this stand against Syria in view of the fact that it clearly represents taking a stand against Iran at the same time.

Despite Assad's closeness with Ahmadinejad, he will not be able to survive this uprising against his leadership.  He is destined to go the same route as Gadaffi, Mubarak and other casualties of the Arab Spring.  The question is whether he has learned any lessons from those that have fallen before him.  By hanging on to power longer than he should have, Gadaffi issued a death sentence for himself.  When his demise came, the hatred against him was such that he was never going to survive being captured by the opposition forces.  If Assad is sensible, he still has the opportunity to remove himself from power, thereby saving his life and that of his young family.  Continuing to direct his military forces to kill more civilians will make this outcome less likely, and will endanger his life further at that moment when he is driven from power.

Israel is watching carefully to see where events in Syria will lead.  The fall of Assad's regime will surely weaken Ahmadinejad's influence in the region.  Equally, any action taken against Iran's nuclear program will weaken Syria.  Assad has warned that any action taken by the international community against Syria will cause an earthquake in the region.  He knows that this is likely to drag Iran into a broader war in the Middle East, and the international community knows this too.

Ahmadinejad, it seems, is the big winner in all of this.  Leaders like Assad are running to him like little puppies in order to gain his acceptance and support.  He is standing up to the international community with his continued defiance of their calls against his nuclear program, and by continuing to fund international terrorism.  His name is on everyone's lips in the international press, and at organisations like the UN and the IAEA.  He is the modern-day version of Stalin that all seem to fear.  Even Ahmadinejad, however, cannot save Assad's head.  Assad will need to decide whether he is prepared to jump, or whether he is waiting to be pushed.  The latter option will not be without its consequences for him and his family.  Either way, Assad's eventual downfall can only be good for the region and the world by weakening Iran's influence.

Even Freedom of Speech Has Limits

The newspapers have been filled with outrage over the remarks made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his address to the United Nations General Assembly meeting. The US delegation walked out of the meeting during his address, and they were followed by representatives of other countries. A number of European countries have come out in condemnation of the statements made during his speech.

The whole sequence of events gives me a feeling of déjà vu. It is like an autumnal circus that takes place each year surrounding the UN General Assembly meeting. The Iranian juggernaut rolls into New York City (along with those from many other countries). There is the usual round of talk show appearances and press conferences. It all culminates in Ahmadinejad's address to the General Assembly which criticises the USA and other western democracies. It uses every opportunity to delegitimise the State of Israel and warn of her pending downfall and destruction. The address is traditionally accompanied by a walkout by one delegation or another, and is followed by condemnations from countries who support the concept of mutual respect between nations. Once all the noise has died down for this year, we can expect the same behaviour and reactions next year. Surely there is something flawed in the whole ridiculous episode.

Having the right to address the United Nations and to say what you wish, is a right to freedom of speech afforded to all member nations. As with most rights, the right to freedom of speech is also accompanied by an obligation. The obligation is to use your freedom of speech in a way which does not blatantly make untruthful, disrespectful or inflammatory statements towards other nations. The charter of the UN also requires member countries to respect the human rights of other member countries, including their right to exist as a sovereign country and member of the UN. There is clear evidence that the Iranian president has repeatedly violated this, and with it, the charter of the United Nations. So why is he allowed to continue to behave in this way without any attempt to call him to account?

In spite of his behaviour, Ahmadinejad continues to enjoy the rights that are afforded to nations that abide by the rules of the UN. He is invited to the General Assembly meeting each year and allowed to make his address from the podium. He is given free rein to appear on talk shows and hold press conferences to further promote his vitriol and hatred. Not only is he allowed the freedom to do this, he is also afforded all the attention and the headlines as newspaper editors once again clamber to express alarm at his hateful statements. Each year, he is forced to step up the hate in order to ensure that he will succeed in making the front pages. This year, he decided to encroach upon the "holy of holies" in terms of the American people, the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks on New York City and other locations around the USA.

The fact that Ahmadinejad had the audacity to suggest that the US government had somehow been behind the events of 9/11 in order to support the continued survival of the State of Israel, clearly crossed a red line for the American government and its citizens. Besides making statements which can clearly not be supported by the facts, his accusation is absurd. How the events of 9/11 can be shown to support Israel is beyond my understanding. Other than making this ridiculous accusation, Ahmadinejad did not make any attempt to explain how such action on the part of the American government may have helped Israel. It is almost as if his sole intention was to insult and enrage the Americans and the Israelis. This is the same person who is being allowed to continue to enrich uranium and pursue the development of an extensive nuclear program that could produce nuclear weapons.

The world's reaction on this occasion seems to be the same as before. It will simply make a few comments of objection, and then invite him to address the General Assembly again next year. By not taking more decisive action against this unacceptable and objectionable behaviour, the world essentially sends a message that it is acceptable to behave in this way. I accept that it may not be appropriate to take actions against Iran, as this is likely to punish the innocent people of Iran who have already been cheated at the ballot box to force this man upon them as their president. I do believe, however, that action should be taken personally against Ahmadinejad. This is personal, and the world's response should mirror this fact. The time has come for Ahmadinejad to be banned from addressing the UN, and to be barred from entering the USA and other western democratic countries. We should deny him the headlines which keep him in power in Iran, and which support his evil rhetoric and actions. There are precedents for actions against individual leaders such as Mugabe, and I would not hesitate to place the Iranian president on this list of unwanted and undesirable personalities in the same way.

Many years of trying have shown that a policy of engagement does not work. It affords the opportunity for Ahmadinejad to pull the wool over the eyes of western countries even further. The only results that have been yielded thus far are to strengthen his world standing. Sanctions have not helped the situation in any way, other than to buy Ahmadinejad more time to develop his nuclear weapons under the noses of the inspection teams. Even though action is already very late, it is better now than never. Decisive action is now required, and fast.

If we are to leave our children a world that is safer than the one we live in today, the influence of leaders like Ahmadinejad needs to be killed off without hesitation. It is time for the world to stand up and to take action against those who threaten freedom and mutual respect. By alienating this evil man and making him a persona non grata in all countries that value real freedom of speech, it may help to bring his downfall in Iran where the majority has already shown itself opposed to him.

Is Ahmadinejad Trying to Prepare the Groundwork?

Iranian president Ahmadinejad never loses an opportunity to criticise Israel or to suggest that the "Zionist entity" has no legitimate place on the world map. Although other leaders around the world, even the western world, may hold the same views, none has the audacity of the Iranian president to make these statements in such a public and confrontational way. Ahmadinejad has shown the audacity to go as far as even using the platform of the United Nations to make his outrageous and unacceptable declarations. Besides simply demonstrating the sort of anti-Semite that he is, what is really driving Ahmadinejad to continue making these statements?

The fact that he has the nerve to make such speeches is one thing. One may be prepared to accept this as coming from an uncouth and undesirable anti-Semite. The real problem is that the world seems to stand by and tolerate this most public and unacceptable display of racism without little more than a whisper or a murmur behind closed doors. By standing by and allowing Ahmadinejad to rant on without visibly standing up to criticise his public racism, the world essentially condones and accepts his behaviour. This, in turn, sends a dangerous message to the citizens of the world about what can be tolerated, and what is unacceptable.

The tactic that has been adopted by Ahmadinejad is clear, and has been successfully employed many times before. Over time, if Ahmadinejad continues to de-legitimise Israel in the way that he has been doing to date, the public will be tuned to accept any negative events that may befall Israel. An action such as an attack on Israel will simply be the next step in his strategy, and is likely to be accepted by the broader public as an entirely logical action in light of the substantial groundwork that has been done in preparing public opinion. Those who have been convinced that his statements are well founded will rejoice in any action taken to destroy Israel, and those who are not convinced will likely stand by and watch because they will have been readied to anticipate this as a logical next step.

Examples can be cited where the same tactic has been employed with great success. The implementation of Apartheid in South Africa also used a campaign of de-legitimisation before enacting the racism into law. By the time the racist policies were placed on the statute books, the general public was not only ready for this, it even expected that the legislation was necessary on the back of the substantial public campaign to make certain groups of people look like inferior citizens. The same tactics were used when forcing Jews to live in the Pale of Settlement during the 19th century and up to the end of the First World War. The general public was honed to accept that Jews were creatures that most people would not want to associate with, or live alongside. The action of expelling them to the shtetls (small Jewish towns) was supported by most citizens.

The most extreme, and perhaps most successful example of this strategy was employed by the Nazis prior to the Second World War. In the same way as Ahmadinejad does now, the Nazis never missed an opportunity to blame the Jews and to discredit them as human beings. By the time the extermination camps were built and the Shoah (the Jewish genocide during the Second World War) was initiated, the German population was fine-tuned to accept, tolerate and even desire that the Nazi government would take such action against the Jews. It was a logical next step to act out on the propaganda that the public had been fed about the Jews.

It is this strategy which Ahmadinejad and his cohorts are employing, and achieving some success. Even in our internet age where people are better informed and better able to make up their minds in an independent way, this propaganda is having an impact. I feel sure that there would be outrage if a Kassam or Katyusha rocket would be fired towards the sovereign territory of the USA, Sweden or New Zealand. In Israel, however, the world does not even receive the reports of the tens of rockets that are fired towards its sovereign territory on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. It is accepted as part of the landscape and not worthy of even reporting the event in the international press. The expectations have been set that firing rockets at Israel is "acceptable". There is no international outcry, no condemnation and no outrage. There is simply silent acceptance that this is the way that things are.

For Ahmadinejad, the first stage has been achieved. Israel can be publicly discredited and belittled without fear of international recriminations. Missiles can be fired at Israeli civilians without the world even noticing. The next stage is to ready the world for a missile attack that could kill vast numbers of Israelis or destroy Israel. Sufficient propaganda to convince the world that the "Zionist entity" does not deserve to have its rightful place in the family of nations may cause people to turn a blind eye to this as well. Perhaps, like in the Shoah, the public will expect Iran and the Arabs to follow up their propaganda and rhetoric with actions to destroy the State of Israel.

We live in a time when thousands of innocent citizens in Darfur, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and other places can be exterminated in the most evil way while the world looks by, or looks the other way. The notion that these people are not of sufficient value for the world to step in to assist them before the tragedy, or that they may somehow deserve this treatment still seems to exist.

For Israel and Jews around the world, this is the moment when the Israel Defence Force (IDF) steps in to take corrective action. When foreigners try to intervene to ship weapons and arms to our enemies who seek to destroy us, the Israeli Navy will intercept the shipments and prevent this danger. Even if the operation does not quite go according to plan, the message is clear. While the world sits back and allows such actions to take place before their eyes, the IDF will not. While Ahmadinejad trashes Israel on every international platform, the IDF will act against him and his allies to protect Israel and all Jews, no matter what the opinion of the international community.

It is a shame that the international community continues to be so gullible in its views, and so impotent in standing up to threats of this type and genocides which too frequently still occur. The truth is that Ahmadinejad may not be satisfied with directing his attentions only towards Israel. Bin-Laden and others have shown that all western countries are on their radar, and not exempt from terrorist activities. Israel is a proud nation whose citizens are willing and able to stand up to this threat. Past events have proved this on countless occasions, and no amount of groundwork done by Ahmadinejad can change this.

Which is the Road to Damascus?

The recent escalation in rhetoric on both sides of the Israeli-Syrian border has, once again, raised the profile of the relationship between the two countries. Defence Minister Ehud Barak told a gathering of senior IDF officers last week that, in the absence of a peace deal, Israel could find itself at war with Syria. Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Moallem, responded by saying that an attack on Syria would result in an all-out war. Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman warned that a war with Syria would result in the Syrian President, Bashar Assad, losing power. All of this seems such a far cry from 2008 when peace talks were being conducted between Israel and Syria via the offices of the Turkish mediators. What has changed so dramatically in two short years? Like many other aspects of Middle East politics, I believe that the answer has everything to do with Iran.

Iran has long been a key player in regional politics. It was in 1984, only 5 years after the overthrow of the Shah, that Iran was designated for the first time as a state sponsor of terrorism by the US. As the main sponsor of groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Mahdi army, there can be no doubt that Iran is one of the world's most significant state sponsors of terrorism. It was one of the country's on President George W. Bush's "axis of evil", and with good reason. More recently, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has upped the ante by calling for Israel's destruction at every opportunity. Iran's continued threats along with its importance as a significant producer of oil mean that Iran is likely to continue to greatly influence Middle East politics in the near future.

On the face of things, Syria and Iran seem to have very little in common. Iran is a theocracy while Syria is secular. Iran is largely made up of Persians and Shiite Muslims while Syria is mostly comprised of Sunni Muslims. They do not share a border, although they do share Iraq and Turkey as neighbours. Behind the scenes, however, they have a great deal in common. Economically, Syria is drawn to its regional ally. In its position as a "pariah" state, Syria is forced to create economic links with all that will agree to have economic ties with her. As Syria's oil production declines and, eventually runs out, there is no doubt that Syria will be looking to Iran as a way to fill the gap that this creates in the local market. The main point that the two countries have in common is political - hatred of Israel. It is this fact that has drawn the two countries together over the years, a bond that currently seems to be stronger than ever. For Iran, Syria is vital in this link as Syria has a direct land border with Israel. This is even more pronounced when considering the control that Syria exercises over the Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon. Even though Iranian missiles could easily reach Israeli soil, a direct land invasion of Israel would require access via one of Israel's neighbours. Syria and Lebanon provide this access for Iran.

When Turkey offered the chance to engage with Syria, Israel smelled an important opportunity to try to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. The chance to isolate Syria from Iran and prise it out of Iranian clutches appears to have been the main driving force behind Israel's most recent attempts to negotiate a peace deal with Syria. There can be little doubt that such an agreement would weaken Iran's access to Israel and, with it, the significant threat that Iran continues to pose to Israel.

For Syria, the decision whether to change the strategy that it has pursued against Israel for more than 60 years is not easy. The insult that Syrians continue to feel as a result of Israel having taken the Golan Heights during the Six Day War in 1967 seems to be a significant factor in shaping its foreign policy towards Israel. The optimism that was felt in western circles when Bashar Assad took over from his father in 2000 has largely not been borne out. Even though Dr. Bashar was viewed as more progressive than his father, and with a higher likelihood of guiding Syria towards closer links with the west, this has not happened. Syria can choose to keep close with Iran, keep sponsoring terror organisations and continue its relatively close links within the Arab world. Its alternative is to pursue a peace agreement with Israel and gain favour with the US and other western countries. Economically, the second is likely to be a much better option for Syria. Added to the fact that Syria and Iran are not comfortable bed partners, this is not beyond the realms of reality. Politically, however, Syria does not seem ready for this right now.

In the absence of being able to entice Syria away from its Iranian sponsor, there seems to be only one other way in which Dr. Bashar can be tempted towards closer western ties. This is to hope that Ahmadinejad can be unseated and that economic hardships in Iran will force it to give up its links with Syria (and hopefully, with it, the sponsorship of international terrorism). Until then, Syria will continue to warmonger and insult Israel in the knowledge that Iran stands right behind these threats. After all, Syria knows that, militarily, it is no match for Israel. Military threats will remain just that until Iran decides it wishes to take further action.

For Israel, any peace agreement with Syria must clearly require ties with Iran to be broken, and the cessation of the support of terrorist organisations. This is obviously in addition to the other more issues of the Golan Heights, water resources, military ceasefire and others. The real advantage to Israel of any peace with Syria is the cutting off of Iran's supply route to its terror organisations. It is this issue that is driving Israel's efforts to reach a peace with Assad's regime. With the presence of Lieberman in the Israeli government and Dr. Bashar on the Syrian side, this seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

Iran's Moment of Truth

A number of events have taken place in recent months that should have the world's headlights flashing red. Although these events have been reported in the international press, it does not appear as if anybody has really connected all the events together to draw a clear picture of what is happening with Iran's nuclear activities. Perhaps the world has already grown tired of too much information regarding Iran? Perhaps the world does not feel sufficiently threatened by the nuclear ambitions of a country that is ruled by an extremist, anti-Semitic tyrant? Whatever it is, the time has come for the world to take some serious action against Iran.

Until now, Iran has hidden its nuclear activities behind the veil that they are for exclusively civilian purposes. Even though Israel has always maintained that this is a blatant lie and that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, the doubt that has existed has been sufficient to lull the world into inaction. I classify the ineffective statements, resolutions and inspections into the category of "inaction". They are empty threats that have no impact upon the rate that Iran is ploughing forward to build a nuclear bomb. The events of the past few months and, in particular the past few weeks, have clearly removed this element of doubt. This leaves no excuses for the world not to respond. And yet, we are met with a deafening silence at a moment when decisive action is required.

The first of these events was the revelation in September that a second uranium enrichment plant is under construction at Qom in central Iran. This was met with some surprise by certain elements given the fact that Iran had succeeded in hoodwinking the international community and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into believing that it was cooperating with all its demands. This revelation was a clear indication of Iran's intention not to cooperate with these demands.

The next event in the series was Iran's rejection of an attempt at a compromise offer. The international community offered Iran the possibility to ship its low-enriched uranium to Russia or France for further enrichment and processing into fuel for power plants. This would allow Iran to pursue its nuclear electricity program, but prevent it from being able to generate nuclear weapons. Iran's rejection of this compromise is surely the clearest indication to date of the fact that its true intention is to build nuclear weapons.

This was closely followed by the announcement made last week by the IAEA retiring chief, Mohammed El-Baradei. He announced to the IAEA board of governors that, "there has been no movement on remaining issues of concern which need to be clarified for the agency to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program." He continued, "we have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us.". These are indeed stark words coming from an organisation whose chief is much more accustomed to "diplomatic speak" rather than saying things as they are. El-Baradei's protestations could not be clearer.

The final action so far in this series of events is Iran's announcement this week of an approval that has been given to build 10 new nuclear enrichment plants. The Iranian government is quoted as saying that this approval comes as a reaction to the condemnation issued by the IAEA last week regarding its nuclear program. It should be clear to all concerned that it would be impossible to turn around an approval of this magnitude in less than a week, and that it must have been under preparation for some considerable time. It may be true that the timing of the announcement was specifically to counter last week's condemnation. It should be clear, however, that the announcement would have come, with or without the IAEA condemnation.

Each Iranian action seems to be bolder than the previous one. Whereas Iran was previously making an attempt to hide its nuclear ambitions behind a cloak of secrecy and create confusion about its intentions, now it seems quite happy to be open about what it is up to. Even though it has not come out and said that it is building a nuclear bomb, it is clear from current events that this is indeed the case.

So now that the truth about Iran is out there for all to see, the moment of truth has also come for the international community. The IAEA conclusions and condemnations have opened the door for much wider diplomatic and military action to be pursued. There can be no doubt that the only acceptable outcome to this sorry state of affairs is the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Currently, it seems like it is only Israel that is prepared to shoulder the burden of taking action against Iran. This is, however, not only Israel's problem. This is a world problem. But where are the offers to help going go come from? This is not at all clear right now, but time is running out. The clock is ticking.

120 Years and Little Has Changed

In something of an ironic twist of fate, three significant events came together this week. The 120th anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler fell on 20th April. This was also the same day that the UN anti-racism conference (so-called Durban II conference) opened in Geneva, and was addressed by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The third event fell on 21st April, this being the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day which is marked across Israel and in some countries outside of Israel.

Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel is marked according to the Hebrew (lunar) calendar on the 27th day of the month of Nissan each year. Although the date does not have any significance in itself, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising took place over this period and it is a week before the celebration of Israel's Independence Day. This year, it has coincided with 21st April in the Gregorian calendar and the holding of the Durban II conference which lasted until 24th April.

As the sirens wailed across Israel for the 2 minute silence on the morning of Holocaust Remembrance Day in deference to the 6 million Jews who were mercilessly butchered, I could not prevent my mind from considering the coincidence and the absurdity of the events taking place this week. Adolf Hitler must surely rank as one of the most grotesque humans of all time. It was he who orchestrated the only genocide of its type in the history of mankind. This was a genocide that was perpetrated by creating a massive purpose-built national infrastructure with the sole objective of murdering innocent men, women and children who committed only one sin - that of belonging to the Jewish nation. Never before was such a horrendous crime seen, and we pray that it will never be seen again.

And yet, my mind was forced to connect this with the events of the day before, at the so-called anti-racism conference. Here, the platform was handed over to the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He proceeded to launch one of his now familiar tirades against the west, and against Israel in particular. Although his speech produced nothing less than could be expected from a racist bigot like Ahmadinejad, it was somewhat ironic that it was delivered at an anti-racism conference. It seems that the tone of the conference was clearly set when Libya was elected to chair the committee running the conference, with Iran and Cuba the other two main representatives on the committee. These countries can surely not be regarded as "beacons of anti-racism". And the fact that the conference was hijacked, as in the case of Durban I, to castigate Israel seems to hide the real problems of racism around the world. I suggest that the racist countries of the world have succeeded in getting together to direct insults against Israel in order to divert the attention away from themselves. The UN should be ashamed for allowing such an event to take place.

The fact that there was a mass walkout from Ahmadinejad's speech is a good thing. Unfortunately this is not enough. The walkout was, at least, a public sign of the growing revulsion of the enlightened world against the form of politics practiced by the Iranian leader. But public signs will never stop him. And where will this end? How can we trust Iran under his leadership, especially in light of the now well-developed nuclear industry that it is building? Surely, there can now be no doubt as to what Iran's nuclear plans are, despite their adamant assertions that this serves only a civilian purpose.

This situation is a stark reminder of the events that took place during the rise of the Nazi Party to power in Germany during the 1930s. Then as now, words of condemnation were not enough to stop the course of events. Then as now, we could not rely upon the "silent majority" to reverse the actions of the extremists. And like then, the international world, other than public signs of disagreement, is not taking any action to prevent the spread of unjustified hatred against targeted peoples. Fortunately, there is one difference in the current times. Now we have Israel and a Jewish army. It is not a coincidence that we mark Holocaust Remembrance Day a week before Independence Day. Not even Ahmadinejad will be able to repeat the evil actions of the holocaust.

It seems to me as if 120 years have not taught the world anything about preventing the spread of hatred and discrimination. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

What to do about Iran

It is true that the Islamic Republic of Iran has outwardly become more anti-Israeli since Ahmadinejad became President in August 2005. It is also true that Iran was not exactly a friend of Israel under the rule of those that preceded him following the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 - Khamenei, Rafsanjani and Khatami. There are, however, two main differences between Ahmadinejad's brand of hate of Israel when compared to that of his predecessors. Firstly, Ahmadinejad has no shame in screaming his hatred from the rooftops, even at the podium of the hallowed UN General Assembly. Secondly, Ahmadinejad is building a nuclear bomb.

Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has been aggressive and hate-filled from the moment he was elected to the high office of President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Most of his vitriol is directed at Israel, although he has reserved choice words for the US and other Western democracies. On the very day that I am writing this, Ahmadinejad has had the honour of speaking at the UN. No surprise that he used this opportunity, as always, to promote hatred towards Israel, Jews and the US. His distinctly undiplomatic style crosses the border of defamation and should not be tolerated by the UN in accordance with the terms of its charter. To actually invite somebody like Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly is an insult to Israel and the other countries that he continuously insults.

Ahmadinejad's outbursts have prompted former Mossad Chief, Ephraim Halevy, to comment that he is Israel's greatest gift. Halevy's contention is that Ahmadinejad has united the international community against him and Iran, which serves an Israeli interest. I have a slightly diluted view of the extent to which this serves Israel's interests. The fact is that ordinary peace-loving democracies which respect the rule of law and the rights of other nations to exist are unable to simply stand by and watch the Iranian rant. This includes even countries that are not Israel's biggest supporters. The fact that some countries that are not big friends of Israel are forced to criticise Iran's actions does not turn them suddenly into big friends of Israel. I feel sure that these same countries would stand by and criticise Iran verbally if the worst happened and an open conflict occurred between Iran and Israel. Make no bones about it, they are not suddenly inclined to sell weapons to Israel or make any concrete contributions to the Jewish state as a result of Ahmadinejad's insults.

What is more worrying is the nuclear bomb that he is building. Even though he initially tried to conceal the true intention of the country's nuclear enrichment program as part of it's production of domestic electricity, he has recently made less effort to try to hide what he is doing. It seems fairly clear to all concerned that something sinister is going on. The concerns that Israel and other Western countries have of allowing a nuclear bomb to fall into Iranian hands centres mainly on the lack of stability shown by Iranian rulers and governments. It is hard to trust them with such a weapon when one gets the impression that they could fire the button on any day that they get out of bed on the wrong side. To date, the possession of nuclear weapons has been used as a tool to maintain the balance of power, for example in the Indian subcontinent with India and Pakistan. Due to Iran's inherent instability, and in light of the recent tirade of hatred flowing from its President, allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons is an entirely different and extremely dangerous proposition.

So, what can Israel do about this unsatisfactory state of affairs? Diplomatic efforts have been sporadic to say the least. The US has made some diplomatic noises in support of Israel's position. The matter has been discussed at the United Nations and at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Voices of protest have been raised, condemnations issued and sanctions imposed. But all this counts for very little when somebody with the resolve of Ahmadinejad is determined to develop a nuclear weapon despite the views of the world. Whilst he is still not openly admitting to the fact that his uranium enrichment program is for the purpose of developing weapons, he has been keen to publicise the progress that Iran is making in reaching the point of perfecting enrichment to produce reactor fuel. There are mixed views outside of Iran about the true state of the progress that is being made. Whilst the Americans believe that the true position is behind that stated by the Iranian President, the Israelis have stated that the true position may be further ahead. Diplomatic efforts are clearly not currently working, and it is questionable as to whether tougher diplomatic initiatives would be more effective.

Much has been written about Israel's military options. Precedents were created when Israel destroyed both the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak in Operation Opera in 1981, and the Syrian nuclear site under construction near Dayr az-Zawr in 2007. Both were destroyed by pinpoint air force raids and, apart from a few raised voices and verbal utterances, went without response from either of the countries.

Despite two successful missions to its credit, I don't see the Israeli Air Force carrying out a similar attack in Iran. It is true that much has been written about the plans that have already been formulated by the IAF which has served to hype up this possibility. The IAF is even reputed to have carried out a preparation exercise off the coast of Greece during the past few months. At the political level, however, I believe that such a decision is much more difficult.

Iran, in the light of all the hype about the possibility of an Israeli attack, has been making military noises of its own. It is reported to have no less than 600 Shahab medium and long-range missiles pointing at Israel and ready for firing at any given moment. The latest version of the missile, Shahab 3, is reputed to be strong, accurate and capable of carrying conventional as well as unconventional (nuclear and chemical) warheads. In addition, Iran has test fired missiles recently and has held a number of military exercises. It would appear to be ready for any attempt by Israel to destroy its nuclear sites.

In view of Iran's military preparations and statements of intent, it would be safe to assume that Iran would respond to any attack by Israel. Even if the Israeli jets succeed in hitting their target and returning to Israel undetected, the first discovery of an Israeli attack by Iran will solicit a response. Any attack by Iran on Israel would inevitably be accompanied by an attack on the north of Israel by Iran's proxy army in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and an attack on the south of Israel by Iran's allies in Gaza, Hamas. This means that Israel will need to be on a full war footing before the first jets leave their bases en-route to Iran. All civilians would need to be in bomb shelters, a widespread call-up of reserve soldiers will be required and all Arrows anti-Shahab missiles should be ready to fire.

Clearly, none of these preparations can be made without alerting the world to Israel's intentions. It is hardly possible to put 7.5 million people onto a war footing without the rest of the world noticing. When considering thise together with the prospect of an all-out war with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and whoever else may choose to join, the possible use of military force looks a distinctly unattractive option.

So how can this matter be taken care of? The best alternative from an Israeli perspective is a solution internal to Iran. In just the same way as Ahmadinejad was explaining in New York this week that he is not advocating a violent end to Israel's existence, but rather one which comes about by political evolution, so it is that I wish the same upon him. He faces a Presidential election in 2009 and, if the information that we receive from Tehran is accurate, he is up against some significant opposition. This same information indicates that the election will be won and lost on internal matters - the economy and social issues - rather than the foreign policy issues that he seems to have focused much of his Presidential time on. As such, the best approach for Israel, the US and other Western countries is to shore up the opposition as much as possible to ensure that a new President comes to power in the next election. Although we cannot be guaranteed that he will better than Ahmadinejad, it is clear that it can also not get much worse. It is hoped, however, that an evolutionary change will bring somebody to power who has a more engaging approach with the West. This will hopefully ensure a peaceful but decisive resolution to the Iran nuclear issue.

Whilst Ephraim Halevy may be believe that Ahmadinejad is Israel's greatest gift, I believe that it will be a greater gift when he is removed. It is my personal hope that this latter gift is received as soon as possible.