Readers of this blog may have noticed that Yossi Melman and I, though we are both from Israel, often don't agree. But in this case, I would refer readers to Yossi's excellent post on the new US National Intelligence Estimate. I would only add that an "intelligence" report should not be held immune from scrutiny by the light of an even higher authority: common sense.

One does not need satellites, defectors, and spies to determine that Iran remains, as the same U.S. intelligence community testified in January, "determined to develop nuclear weapons - despite its international obligations and international pressure. It is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations than reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution."

Even if one assumes that the discovery that Iran suspended its "military" nuclear program in 2003 is valid, this should not affect the consensus that U.S. intelligence judgment stated above. Nothing substantial has changed in Iran's behavior; what is new is the American national security system's decision to arbitrarily distinguish between Iran's "civilian" efforts to enrich uranium and the other two components of its bomb program: building missiles and assembling a weapon.

Continue »

What should Olmert tell Bush when they meet on Wednesday?

Rarely has the combined unpopularity -- in their respective countries if not on each other’s soil -- of an Israeli prime minister and an American president been so great. But it would be a mistake to write off this week’s Olmert-Bush meeting as without potential, even if it is likely to be without result.

Olmert should make this meeting matter by proposing a change of direction that could outlive both leaders’ remaining tenure in office. Olmert points out a rather unavoidable truth: the prospects for Bush’s two-state vision for Israelis and Palestinians, as well as his vision of more democratic and secure region, depend on preventing the current Iranian regime from becoming a nuclear power.

The U.S. has been linking Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy to Iran, but in the wrong direction. Sure, solving the conflict would be a blow to Iran, but that’s a bit like saying putting out one fire is a blow to a pyromaniac.

Ultimately, the only way to stop a rash of fires is to stop the pyromaniac. Plus, it’s near impossible to put out a particular fire if, on the other side of the burning building, the pyromaniac is busy pouring fuel on the flames.

Continue »