Negotiations grind on toward a fourth U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, even as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York to address the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference. Sanctions advocates acknowledge that the Security Council’s ultimate product will do no more than marginally impede Iran’s progress.

In Congress, sanctions legislation also creaks along, but that too is simply going through the motions. Russia and China have already rejected key proposals to restrict Iran’s access to international financial markets and choke off its importation of refined petroleum products, which domestically are in short supply. Any new U.S. legislation will be ignored and evaded, thus rendering it largely symbolic. Even so, President Obama has opposed the legislation, arguing that unilateral U.S. action could derail his Security Council efforts.

The further pursuit of sanctions is tantamount to doing nothing. Advocating such policies only benefits Iran by providing it cover for continued progress toward its nuclear objective. It creates the comforting illusion of “doing something.” Just as “diplomacy” previously afforded Iran the time and legitimacy it needed, sanctions talk now does the same.
Speculating about regime change stopping Iran’s nuclear program in time is also a distraction. The Islamic Revolution’s iron fist, and willingness to use it against dissenters (who are currently in disarray), means we cannot know whether or when the regime may fall. Long-term efforts at regime change, desirable as they are, will not soon enough prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons with the ensuing risk of further regional proliferation.
We therefore face a stark, unattractive reality. There are only two options: Iran gets nuclear weapons, or someone uses pre-emptive military force to break Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle and paralyze its program, at least temporarily.
There is no possibility the Obama administration will use force, despite its confused and ever-changing formulation about the military option always being “on the table.” That leaves Israel, which the administration is implicitly threatening not to resupply with airplanes and weapons lost in attacking Iran—thereby rendering Israel vulnerable to potential retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas.
It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.
President Obama’s likely containment/deterrence strategy will feature security assurances to neighboring countries and promises of American retaliation if Iran uses its nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for this seemingly muscular rhetoric, the simple fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons would alone dramatically and irreparably alter the Middle East balance of power. Iran does not actually have to use its capabilities to enhance either its regional or global leverage.
Facile analogies to Cold War deterrence rest on the dubious, unproven belief that Iran’s nuclear calculus will approximate the Soviet Union’s. Iran’s theocratic regime and the high value placed on life in the hereafter makes this an exceedingly dangerous assumption.
Even if containment and deterrence might be more successful against Iran than just suggested, nuclear proliferation doesn’t stop with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons in response. Thus, we would imminently face a multipolar nuclear Middle East waiting only for someone to launch first or transfer weapons to terrorists. Ironically, such an attack might well involve Israel only as an innocent bystander, at least initially.
We should recognize that an Israeli use of military force would be neither precipitate nor disproportionate, but only a last resort in anticipatory self-defense. Arab governments already understand that logic and largely share it themselves. Such a strike would advance both Israel’s and America’s security interests, and also those of the Arab states.
Nonetheless, the intellectual case for that strike must be better understood in advance by the American public and Congress in order to ensure a sympathetic reaction by Washington. Absent Israeli action, no one should base their future plans on anything except coping with a nuclear Iran.

* Ahmadinejad to attend UN nuclear talks in New York Delegates from nearly 200 nations were gathering at the UN to review efforts to check the spread of nuclear weapons.

* PM, Mubarak discuss peace talks PMO says meeting constructive, took place in good atmosphere.

* Iran, Syria, Turkey Cementing Ties Iran made a point of declaring its solidarity with both Syria and Turkey in recent days, on the heels of joint Turkish-Syrian military exercises.

* US Targets Israel as Anti-Nuke Conference Begins The United States is working with both Egypt and Russia to rid Israel of its nuclear weapons, as part of a comprehensive plan to neutralize Iran’s nuclear power.

* Iraq election: Baghdad vote recount under way A manual recount of some of the ballots cast in Baghdad in Iraq’s March election has begun in the capital.

* Greece Gets $146 Billion Rescue in EU, IMF Package Euro-region ministers agreed to a 110 billion-euro ($146 billion) rescue package for Greece to prevent a default and stop the worst crisis in the currency’s 11-year history from spreading through the rest of the bloc.

* Jewish luminaries petition EU parliament over settlements The leader of the Green group in the European Parliament, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, and French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy are spearheading a new campaign for the EU to put pressure on Israel over settlement building.

* Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others will surely follow suit.

* Jordan River to run dry by next year 400 million cu.m. needed to rehabilitate river.

* Thousands of Anglican churchgoers could cross over to Rome with bishops Thousands of Anglican parishioners could convert to Catholicism after three leading traditionalist bishops told the Vatican they were ready to cross over to Rome.

The Saudis realize that developing a nuclear industry may be good energy policy, but it is also good foreign policy. 

Last week, a news item appeared which should send a shiver down the spine of anyone concerned about the future of the Middle East. In a story out of Riyadh, the official Saudi Press Agency announced that the kingdom has decided to go nuclear.

That’s right. The same country which boycotts Israel, finances the spread of radical Islamist fundamentalism worldwide and, less than a decade ago, spawned 15 of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks, now plans to develop nuclear technology.

According to the report, the Saudi regime will open a new center, dubbed the King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy, ostensibly because of “sustained growth in demand for power and desalinated water due to high population growth and subsidized prices of water and power.”

In other words, the Saudis are insisting that their motivation is entirely peaceful.

But it’s hard to take such claims seriously. After all, according to the US Energy Information Administration, Saudi Arabia has some 264 billion barrels of oil reserves, which amounts to “around one-fifth of proven, conventional world oil reserves.” In addition, it maintains “the world’s largest crude oil production capacity,” estimated at some 11 to 12 million barrels a day.

So it is not as if Saudi citizens are in danger of having to dim the lights.

Clearly, Riyadh is casting a wary eye northward, watching nervously as Teheran sprints virtually unhindered toward the nuclear finish line.

The Saudis realize that developing a nuclear industry may be good energy policy, but it is also good foreign policy, especially when Washington appears to be asleep at the switch.

IN THIS respect, the Saudis are not alone. Gulf Arab states, which traditionally view Iran with suspicion, are naturally terrified at the prospect of the ayatollahs having their finger on the button, so an increasing number have begun to plunge down the path toward nuclear know-how.

Earlier this month, oil-rich Kuwait signed a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with France. And last week, the United Arab Emirates’ Nuclear Energy Corporation announced that it has chosen a site to construct the country’s first nuclear power station, which will go on-line within seven years. Other Arab states, such as Egypt and Qatar, have also declared an interest in developing nuclear technology and infrastructure.

And at a conference in Paris last month, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Feisal Mekdad said Damascus is looking at “alternative energy sources, including nuclear energy.” He insisted that “the peaceful application of nuclear energy should not be monopolized by the few that own this technology but should be available to all.”

And so we have all the makings of a region-wide proliferation of nuclear know-how. Of course, all the countries involved have adamantly maintained that they are only seeking to split atoms for “peaceful purposes” and that they have no military aims in mind. But can we really rely on the assurances of an array of Middle Eastern dictators and despots?

I don’t know about you, but the thought of the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia or the Kuwaiti royal family going nuclear just doesn’t help me sleep at night.

This dreadful scenario is a direct result of Washington’s mishandling of Iran’s atomic ambitions, first under George W. Bush and now under Barack Obama. By allowing Teheran to proceed apace across the nuclear threshold, Washington has unwittingly created the conditions for a nuclear arms race that will destabilize the entire Middle East.

The lack of American will to confront the ayatollahs and stop them in their tracks has given various Arab leaders plenty of incentive, as well as a good excuse, to proceed down the nuclear trail. Indeed, it may already be too late to prevent this trend from spreading, as contracts are signed and checks cashed.

But in any event, it is time that Washington realize the damage it is doing to its own interests, as well as to its allies, by allowing Iran to continue its mad dash to build nuclear weapons. If the Iranians aren’t stopped, and soon, we may wake up a few years from now to discover that Saudi Arabia and other unfriendly regimes have decided to upgrade their “civilian” nuclear programs into weapons-making industries.

Like it or not, the only way to prevent this is to remove the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. It should be clear to anyone who wishes to see: The sooner the tyrant of Teheran is stopped, the safer all of us will be.

If war breaks out between Iran and Israel, it likely would last for ”years and not weeks,” according to Bar-Ilan University researcher Dr. Moshe Vered. Iran also might target Jews around the world.

He calls on Israel to internalize the prospect of an unprecedented lengthy war and explains that once the government and public understand the threat, they will be better prepared to find ways to shorten the conflict.

A researcher at the university’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, he recently published a sobering paper that based his hypothesis on the Iranian Shi’ite Muslim approach that the very existence of Israel is an insult to Muslims. He states that its philosophy is that “Allah promises them victory” and there is an obligation of Muslims to sacrifice themselves and surrender material goods for the sake of annihilating the Jewish State.

Entitled “The length and conditions for ending a future war between Iran and Israel,” the research paper notes that Iran fought Iraq for eight years despite suffering the deaths of half a million people, with another two million wounded and catastrophic damage to the economic infrastructure, amounting to $100 billion.

Dr. Vered (pictured at left) pointed out that the war ended only when the Shi’ite rulers in Iran realized that the regime was in jeopardy. Until then, the leaders felt there was no room for compromise.

The scenario
He rules out ideas that a quick missile war would put an end to a conflict because neither side would score a “knock-out,” and Iran does not have the capability of successfully attacking Israel with hundreds of long-range missiles.

He predicts it is more likely that if Israel initiates a pre-emptive strike, Iran will play the role of the victim and let the international community condemn Israel. At the same time, Tehran would secretly ferry troops into Syria and Lebanon, possibly through Shi’ite communities in Iraq and with the silent approval of Turkey.

The next stage in the war would be massive rocket attacks by Hamas from the south and Hizbullah from the north. Israeli military intelligence officials estimate that both terrorist organizations possess advanced missiles far beyond what were used in the 34-day-old Second Lebanon War in 2006.

With long-range weapons that could be fired from deep in Lebanon, Israel would be forced into capturing most of the country, and face a deadly and costly guerilla war. At the same time, a massive military threat from Syrian territory to the Golan Heights would require large numbers of reservists to defend the region.

El Al planes to be targeted?
Iran also probably would try to target Jews around the world, especially El Al planes, synagogues, Israeli offices abroad and Jewish community centers. Hamas would resume suicide attacks against Israel.

Dr. Vered points out that there are those who think that Iran’s verbal threats against Israel are for internal political consumption, in which case war is a distant possibility. However, Shi’ite fundamentalism requires a “holy war” to wipe out Israel, whose existence violates Muslim principles against Jews ruling ”Muslim land,” meaning Israel, and having sovereignty over Muslims in the country. Israel also stands in Iran’s way to become the dominant force in the Middle East.

Muslim rulers always have tolerated Jews on condition that they are a small minority and dependent on their host rulers, Dr. Vered explains. 

His dismal outlook sees three possibilities for a quick end to a war, barring a new level of understanding and preparedness by Israel. International interference and the use of nuclear weapons, presumably by Israel, are two options.

However, he explains that whereas world leaders previously shortened Israeli-Arab wars, with Israel usually having the upper hand, the Jewish State presumably would not be in such an advantageous position against Iran. The result would be pressure on Tehran, where the Shi’ite philosophy does not allow compromise.

Pressure would be wielded against Israel if the Israeli Air Force were to bomb Iran’s oil fields, causing the price of oil to soar. Iran would use that circumstance to strengthen its determination to annihilate Israel.

The use of nuclear weapons is far off in the horizon, Dr. Vered adds.

He sees one other solution to shorten the war: an American decision to join Israel and strike Iran.