“Today our hope for the future is challenged by a nuclear-armed Iran that seeks our destruction.” With these words, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu raised his usual alarm bells at the General Assembly of the United Nations last year about Iran's “nuclear weapons programme”, as he termed it. This year, his remarks were no different. In 2012, he had stressed that, “At stake is not only 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.” In that speech he spoke of red lines and suggested that the international community must prevent Iran from acquiring enough quantities of enriched uranium that would enable Tehran to manufacture a nuclear bomb. He went on to say that the relevant question was not when Iran gets the bomb, but at what stage the international community would no longer be able to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon. This is referred to as the breakout capacity. This year, Netanyahu did not provide an answer to his own question of last year, but challenged the world by setting conditions for a diplomatic solution. He underlined that the only way out that his country would accept consists of the full dismantling of the Iranian “nuclear weapons programme”, and to prevent the Iranians from having one in the future. And in a way that lacked diplomatic nuance, he added: “So here is what the international community must do,” and set out three measures, namely, to keep up sanctions, reject the proposition of a partial deal, and thirdly, refuse lifting sanctions until the world is sure that Iran has fully dismantled its “nuclear weapons programme”. Lest he is misunderstood, he made it clear that, in the absence of an accord that meets Israeli conditions, his government will not hesitate to attack Iran. He did not use the word “attack”, but those listening to his remarks were left in no doubt as to the implicit threat when he affirmed that Israel “will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons”. Twenty-four hours before these remarks, Netanyahu had a meeting with US President Barack Obama, and according to statements from both sides, the two agreed not to allow Iran to obtain nuclear arms. In other words, the military option is still on the table, despite the political changes taking place in Iran in the wake of the election of a new and moderate Iranian president this summer. Many observers saw in the election of President Hassan Rouhani an opportunity to break the deadlock in negotiations of the P5+1 group with Iran, in order to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear question. The Israeli prime minister has cast doubts on the sincerity of Rouhani, describing him as a “wolf in sheep's clothing”. If anyone took the liberty of saying the same about Netanyahu himself, they would be called anti-Semitic. Despite the beginning of a certain openness in US-Iranian relations lately (the phone call between Obama and Rouhani, the phone call between US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart on the side lines of the General Assembly in New York), the Israeli government is bent on undermining any chances of an agreement between the P5+1 group and Iran that does not meet the Israeli conditions referred to above. Israeli policy in this respect is consistent with Israel's strategic objectives in the Middle East since the creation of the Hebrew state in 1948. From its inception, Israel adopted what I call a Jabotensky-inspired foreign and defence policy; that is, to adopt the threat and the use of force as a permanent policy that has implied as a corollary the prevention of the emergence of an Arab power or a constellation of powers, as well as regional ones (today's Iran), that would challenge Israeli hegemony backed by generous American support. In addition, to depict one or several of Israel's neighbours as enemies of the people of Israel bent on its destruction with never-ending references to the Holocaust that Arab and Muslim countries had nothing to do with. On the contrary Jews found refuge in our part of the world, not only during the Second World War but also during the pogroms in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. Another objective is to use the imagined threats against the State of Israel as a pretext not to honour the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967, grounding the creation of an independent Palestinian state. In fact, Israel has always sought enemies throughout its short history — a newcomer in our part of the world that has failed to prove that peace and security are indivisible. Israel cannot go on clamouring for security when it denies other people and governments the same right. Let us not forget that Israel is the only United Nations member that has no internationally recognised borders. Maybe when the day comes when this changes, we could take Israel's security concerns more seriously.
The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
