It is premature to ask what the right agenda would be for the next round of U.S.-Iran talks. It is too early to judge and make predictions because this round's negotiations are not near completion. We know why the U.S. decided to meet the Iranians: it is out of despair for the mess in Iraq. In search of an exit policy, the Bush administration has come to an unfortunately late realization that without an Iranian hand, the chances of stabilizing Iraq are very slim to nonexistent.

Continue »

**Editor's Note: Due to an editor's error, Mr. Melman's article was incomplete on first publication. The article now follows in its entirety.**

TEL AVIV - Would you allow a pedophile to work in a kindergarten? Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear power without thorough inspections. There are several reasons to justify such a statement. First, all nations who are signatory members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), known as "Safeguards Agreements," have committed themselves to declare and report their nuclear sites and allowed them to be inspected by IAEA inspectors. There is more to this issue than pure formality. Iran has broken its pledges in this regard. Iran has been cheating IAEA for nearly twenty years – building secret nuclear sites, purchasing nuclear material, conducting tests in plutonium and uranium enrichment, developing a warhead – all without declaring it. So how can Iran be trusted? How can the world believe that a permanent liar has corrected his ways?

Continue »

The recent leaks to the U.S. news media (New York Times and ABC News) have created a wrong impression and sent a false message that an Israeli attack on Iran is imminent. Far from the truth. No decision to attack Iran has been made in Israel. Certainly no date has been fixed. Israel will decide, if at all, to disrupt Iran's nuclear program only as a last resort after international diplomacy fails. More importantly, such a decision will be taken only after serious consultation with the American administration. Coordinating its actions with America is the key factor in all Israeli crucial decisions. This has been the Israeli practice since 1967. Israel launched its combat campaigns since then only after realizing or understanding that the U.S. either sanctions the military operation or has no objection to it or turn a blind eye. These were the cases in June 1967, in June 1982 and in July 2006. In two other cases Israel didn't respond as it had wished, fearing that the U.S. would be against it. In October 1973, the Israeli cabinet, led by Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan, decided against a preemptory strike against Egypt and Syria. For the same reason, In January 1991 Israel didn't respond to the launching of 40 Iraqi Scud missiles against its urban centers. The George H. W. Bush administration said to Israel: don't do it. So Israel didn't do it. If the U.S. doesn't approve an Israeli military operation, Israel will not attack Iran. Full stop.

Continue »

The Current Discussion: Are Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama on a collision course over Iran and the Palestinian problem? What would be the consequences of a breach between the United States and Israel?

Yes, with a capital 'Y', the two countries seem to be on a collision course these days.

From President Obama to Vice President Biden to Secretary of State Clinton to National Security Advisor Jones, the message is clear: Israel must enhance peace talks with the Palestinians in order to fulfill its own previous governments' commitments to a "two-state solution," i.e. an Israeli state side-by-side in peace and security with a Palestinian state. That means Israel has to dismantle all Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and hand the territory over to the Palestinians.

Continue »

The Current Discussion: Are we witnessing a pro-regime coup in Iran? What should the world do in response? How will the election aftermath affect Iran's projection of power into the Middle East?

The scenes from Tehran are beginning to remind us of the tumultuous period leading to the fall of the Shah over three decades ago. Yet it is still too early to eulogize the Ayatollah's regime. Who better than the clergymen to understand the structure and the history of revolutions in Iran?

Street protests, marches, and strikes make up the formula that has twice brought about regime change. It happened the first time in 1953: a large-scale strike of workers in the oil industry led by Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, who was swept into power and who forced the young Shah Reza Pahlavi to flee the country.

Continue »