We had a colleague in Beirut who was very well informed in both international and Arab politics. When he used to analyze a given issue and go over all the possible –and impossible – eventualities, he would end his article with the clause “and perhaps the opposite is true”, thus covering the topic from all angles. I remembered this colleague as I read the news regarding Iran, ever since the speech that was given by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN General Assembly: the information that became directly available to me, and from the sources directly involved with the issue of the Iranian nuclear program, have covered everything that one can imagine, and what I, at least, did not imagine: Iran will produce a nuclear bomb within six months. Iran will not build a bomb for at least five years. Iran does not want to produce a nuclear bomb; rather, it is just seeking to procure the necessary knowledge and enriched Uranium to do so. Meanwhile, opinions are divided on the subject even within the International Atomic Energy Agency: while Dr Mohamad ElBaradei, Director-General of the IAEA, is affirming that Iran is only seeking to acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon, the report issued by other officials at the agency is stating that Iran does indeed have the ability to build a nuclear bomb. Personally, I tend to believe Dr. ElBaradei, bearing in mind the report by the National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 that Iran had suspended its military nuclear program in 2003. I also read that the meeting that took place earlier this month between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany in Geneva ended up by agreeing over an extended negotiation deadline for Iran until the end of this year - or in other words, agreeing at our own expense in other words or in failure. Iran as such might face crippling sanctions early next year, similar to the embargo that was imposed on the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein. In fact, the sanctions themselves are another divisive subject: while some believe that they will lead to the collapse of the mullahs' regime, others insist that Iran can withstand any sanctions owing to the black market which can provide them with a way out. In any case, who would impose these sanctions? There were some who said that the six major powers are in agreement in what regards the sanctions, especially after Obama cancelled the missile shield in Europe to win over Russia. However, others insist that Russia is still hesitant, and is even still supplying arms to the Iranians, and that China opposes the sanctions because it needs the Iranian oil supplies to continue flowing. At the meeting in Geneva, Iran in fact proposed that its uranium be enriched abroad. Some commentators considered this to be a significant progress, while others said that it is nothing but a big trick, because Iran will not stop uranium enrichment at home. Furthermore, an expert told me from New York that Iran's uranium enrichment has low purity, or that the enrichment percentage reached is not the extent required to produce a nuclear bomb. For this reason, Iran proposed that its uranium be enriched in Russia and China in order for it to obtain what it needs; as such the expert believes that the current Iranian uranium enrichment process is tantamount to a “false pregnancy”. Then there is of course, the question whether there will be a strike [against Iran] or not, and whether the Israeli strike would drag the United States in, or whether the strike will be purely American. Perhaps the opposite is true, as the colleague from “Al-Nahar” would say, and reading the Israeli newspapers render this the more likely. In fact, all the Israeli officials, from Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Avigdor Lieberman to the deputy ministers and even the caretakers, have spoken about the existential danger posed to Israel by the Iranian nuclear program. Such an exaggeration is intentional, because an existential threat to the state of Israel coming from an impending nuclear power, and that the president of which frequently calls for wiping Israel off the map, would both justify a pre-emptive or abortive strike by Israel against the Iranian nuclear program, similar to the one Israel perpetrated against the Iraqi nuclear reactor on 7/6/1981. I will not return to the contradicting information with which I began this article. Instead, I will use the Israeli argument itself against Israel, which applies more to the latter than to Iran: this is because the Iranian military nuclear program is prospective and is in the realm of the unknown, while Israel actually possesses nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them onto their targets; this is a clear and present existential danger posed by the Israeli enemy to the Arab countries. (In fact, Netanyahu hinted during a television interview that President Barack Obama has agreed to maintain the strategic understanding that has been in place since 1969, according to which the subsequent U.S administrations would remain silent in what regards the Israeli nuclear weapons, and would resist any efforts to unveil them). I argue here that it is the right of Arab countries, except Egypt and Jordan which have signed peace treaties with Israel, to use the same Israeli argument to justify a pre-emptive strike against the nuclear program of its [Israeli] enemy. I am not saying this because I expect it to happen, because the Arab countries have surrendered their fate to God, and to America, a country that is more Israeli than Israel itself, and to the extent that this time, the opposite is not true, and is completely out of the question.
