WarSclerotic

In a country where there is never a dull moment, the media this week pushed the really critical issue of Iran off the front pages.

The real debate is happening behind closed doors. In simple Hebrew, the dilemma comes down to three words: p’tzatza o’ haftzatza (“An [Iranian] A-bomb or an [Israeli] bombing campaign”) but the reality is not that simple. In fact, it is far more complex. Defense Minister Ehud Barak says that Israel is currently “at the point in which security challenges are likely to become no less fateful than the challenges that stood before the founding fathers at the establishment of the state; no less fateful than the challenges that stood before the state’s leaders in the period leading to the start of the Six-Day War; no less fateful than the challenges that stood before the decision-makers who were called upon to lead in the days leading up to and during the Yom Kippur War.”

There are those who deem the critical argument that is being waged now as “the campaign of our lives,” and there are indeed signs attesting to the fact that the moment in which a decision on the Iranian issue must be made is fast approaching.

It is possible that we are talking about a matter of months. The public is not well-versed in the details, and perhaps it should be this way, but a concise summary of this dilemma is testament to the difficulty of this issue.

On the one hand, we have the alarming signals that are ringing louder as the prospect of a nuclear Iran becomes more real. Iran currently possesses 7,000 kilograms of enriched uranium up to 3.5 percent and 160 kilograms of enriched uranium up to 20%. To manufacture an atomic bomb, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his friends need enriched uranium of up to at least 90%.

If the Iranians decide to make a sprint — which they have done in the last few months — they could enrich uranium up to 90% within a matter of months. Leon Panetta, the American secretary of defense, confided to Israeli officials his fear that this January could mark the Iranians’ “finish line” in their race to attain the bomb.

In the last three months, Iran has enriched 700 kilograms of uranium. Since the current government came to power, the number of centrifuges capable of enriching uranium in Iran has doubled from 5,000 to 10,000. The technological mishap which slowed down the centrifuges caused by the Stuxnet computer virus has already been rectified.

There is almost wall-to-wall agreement that a nuclear Iran would render our lives here a living hell while posing a real threat to the existence of the State of Israel. The recent assessments even predict an arms race that would proliferate throughout the region. In response to Iran’s going nuclear, other Muslim countries such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia would make every effort to get their own atomic weapons.

On the other hand, there is the price that Israel would pay — namely, an Iranian threat to retaliate against any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities — by launching rockets at Israeli cities. The projected number of casualties is vague, although it is expected to include “hundreds of deaths.”

There are also threats that a number of other fronts are liable to heat up as a result of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Hezbollah, which is based in south Lebanon, possesses an arsenal of 60,000 rockets capable of hitting any point in the north. It also has a few thousand missiles that are capable of reaching the center of the country, and hundreds that can threaten towns in southern Israel.

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas continues to grow stronger. It and other armed organizations possess some 8,000 rockets, a few of which could reach central Israel. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and, more importantly, the recent events in Syria, make the Iranian story even more complex. For Israel’s decision-makers, there are other factors that come into play. If Israel decides to strike Iran, it could find itself under assault on a number of fronts.

Attack as long as it’s possible

Over the past year, Israel and the West have developed a strategy that Haaretz journalist Ari Shavit calls “the third way” — a combination of economic sanctions and covert activity. The problem is that the third way does not eliminate the Iranian threat. It simply postpones it to a later date. There is a growing sense among members of the Israeli establishment that this option has been all but exhausted.

Professor Yehezkel Dror (83), a member of the Winograd Commission which probed the decision-making process up to and during the Second Lebanon War, had firsthand access to two Israeli prime ministers (Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres). His expertise lay in the planning and decision-making process in the diplomatic, security, and public spheres. Behind the scenes, he helped craft a number of strategic processes of great importance for the State of Israel.

A few weeks ago, Dror authored a policy paper on behalf of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. In short, Dror came out in favor of an attack on Iran, adding that he recommended combining a military offensive with a regional diplomatic overture for peace. The position articulated by Dror — who is renowned as one of the world’s foremost thinkers in the field of administrative science and policy doctrine thanks to many years of research which he devoted to the topic of decision-making processes, policy planning, statesmanship, defense doctrine, and Jewish policy — rocked the establishment.

Dror’s views, which have at times been critical of the manner in which sensitive decisions are made in Israel, carry great weight. Up to a year ago, Dror believed that Israel could live with a nuclear Iran. He thought Israel’s deterrent capability and the threat of a nuclear second strike was enough to make Iran think twice before attacking. Now he thinks differently.

“A sometimes expressed view is that initiating a preventive war is morally wrong, all the more so when one cannot be sure that without it a harsh war is sure to occur in the future,” Dror writes. “However, this view, though honorable, is primitive and should be rejected. It lacks understanding of the nature of policy as a tool that, by nature, must deal with the future, which is never certain; and it does not give any weight to the important value of preventing pain in the future. Furthermore, such a view clings to what is ‘certain,’ ignoring what ‘may come’ even when very likely or very significant, thus further negating every effort to influence the future, which is always contingent and uncertain.”

“The possession of nuclear weapons by Iran poses serious dangers to Israel because of the real possibility that the rulers of Iran may use them, directly or indirectly, against Israel,” he writes. “There also exists the likelihood that Iranian nuclear weapons will cause nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, further increasing the danger. Hopefully, international sanctions will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or the U.S. will launch a pre-emptive attack if necessary. But Israel cannot leave the future of its national security to the uncertain decision making of others. If Iranian advances towards construction of a nuclear weapon are not halted, Israel will have no choice but to attack Iranian nuclear and military facilities while they are still vulnerable.”

The professor acknowledges that while one can expect a violent reaction from Iran in the case of an Israeli attack, assessments of the damage should not be exaggerated. “Even pessimistic assumptions about the scope of Iranian retaliation make it clear that the expected damage to Israel will be less, by many orders of magnitude, than the destructive potential of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel,” he writes.

Dror’s arguments stirred up a firestorm, with many wondering whether it was possible to place the public’s faith in the hands of the current leadership. Just a few years ago, Dror said that Israel’s leaders were problematic and mediocre. Now, he posits: “If we cannot trust our leadership with regards to an attack against Iran, we cannot trust them also in the event that they refrain from taking a decision for such an attack.”

“The decision to refrain from attacking bears consequences and repercussions to the same extent as deciding to attack,” Dror told Israel Hayom. “Both of these decisions are far-reaching. So it’s irrelevant if I trust [the leadership] more or less. My personal tendency is to trust the current leadership. These are serious people who have plenty of experience. I don’t know, but I am convinced that they are doing very thorough staff work on this issue.”

In contrast with the criticism that others interviewed for this article have expressed regarding the public nature of the discussions surrounding the Iranian nuclear issue, Dror actually welcomes the debate. “On the one hand, as someone who filled a number of senior positions in the defense establishment, I told myself that once I left these positions I wouldn’t conceive of criticizing the government,” he said. “On the other hand, if those same people think that this is a dangerous decision, it is their duty to say so. As long as they don’t reveal classified information, it is their right.”

Still, Dror makes clear that public opinion is not a factor in his thinking. “The public knows nothing, and it has no factual basis to judge these things, and it is also impossible to present the public with all the facts on this issue,” he said. “So its opinion has no weight in my mind.”

Dror also doesn’t shy away from taking political considerations into account. “People at the time thought that taking action against the Iraqi nuclear reactor was motivated by electoral considerations,” he said. “I worked in Shamir’s office, and I also got to know Begin. I think that this is slanderous. On the Iranian issue, I believe that the aspects are weighed independent of political considerations, and the decision will be taken purely with the best interests of the future of the State of Israel in mind. Other factors, if they exist, will be particularly marginal, and they will not make the difference.”

Fact-checking and agreement

Dror is one of a number of public figures from whom we sought comment this week in an effort to examine the decision-making process during two other critical periods in Israel’s history — the days leading up to the Six-Day War and the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor — and to compare them with the critical juncture in which Israel currently finds itself as it relates to the Iranian nuclear issue.

Yeshayahu Gavish served as GOC Southern Command in 1967. He remembers well the tremendous pressure that the generals placed on the government to start the war after the Egyptians closed the Straits of Tiran and essentially cut off Israeli shipping to Africa and the east. Gavish acknowledges that he is not privy to sensitive information today, though he does note that at the time the key question was gauging the risk.

“Under these circumstances, you have to take into account, among other things, if you go with a pre-emptive strike or if you absorb an enemy blow,” he said. “In the Yom Kippur War, we didn’t hit them with a pre-emptive strike. In the Six-Day War, we saw this as the right solution. The question is not just risk assessment, but who is doing the assessment. In 1967, the generational gaps between the ministers and the generals were especially significant. The generals were young, 40-year-old men who were experienced in warfare. The ministers, almost all of them, were not born in the country, and they were relatively older.”

“We had to convince the government that there was no other solution,” he said. “Ben-Gurion was adamantly against the war, and he really had a moderating effect on Yitzhak Rabin, who was chief of staff at the time. I remember the major fear among the ministers who kept asking me whether I was certain of victory, and how we could be so certain we would succeed. They had serious concerns, but the argument was not public. The awareness of the importance of guarding defense secrets was much higher in those days. Today the excessive preoccupation and discussion of the Iranian issue doesn’t contribute to a weighty, serious discussion, in my opinion. Another key factor which we had to deal with then — and I assume that this is the case today as well — is the position of the U.S. Abba Eban, who was foreign minister at the time, thought that the U.S. would oppose our plan. It was only after Meir Amit returned from abroad that it became clear this wasn’t exactly the case.”

Shlomo Nakdimon, a journalist and renowned researcher, chronicled the decision-making processes in his book about the Six-Day War (“Towards the Zero Hour”) and the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor (“Tammuz in Flames”). He, too, notes the importance of the debate that unfolded between the generals and the politicians in those days.

“One of the generals, Ezer Weizman, even threw his ranks down on the desk of the director-general of the Prime Minister’s Office,” he said. “The other generals, among them Ariel Sharon and Avraham Yoffe, lobbied hard, while Levi Eshkol, who wanted to exhaust all diplomatic options, told them: ‘Patience, children.’”

As for “Tammuz,” as the Iraqi nuclear reactor was known, Begin oversaw the portfolio from the moment he received it from his predecessor, Rabin. It was Begin who personally handled the affairs of this issue from that moment all the way until the actual bombardment. Begin left no stone unturned, even going so far as to appoint an external committee of inquiry headed by Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv.

Coordination with the U.S., which the Israeli leadership sought to attain in each of the three cases, is certainly the common denominator. Today, Netanyahu naturally wishes to reach an accommodation with the U.S. to the greatest extent possible.

Nakdimon notes that the plan to bomb the Iraqi reactor was kept secret, while today the public freely discusses the consequences of an attack on Iran. “With regards to the Iraqi reactor, everything was under Begin’s control, and the key people who helped him were the commander of the air force, David Ivry, and the chief of staff, Raful (Rafael Eitan),” he said. “Today, Netanyahu is the minister responsible for the Mossad, and, with Ehud Barak, the defense minister, he is perfectly in synch. They are functioning flawlessly together, as if they were Siamese twins.”

“They have an outstanding group of seven ministers, three of whom have all the time in the world to devote to national security issues: Dan Meridor, Benny Begin, and Bogie Ya’alon,” he said. “They are also helped by the head of the National Security Council, Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror.”

This is the spearhead that will accompany Netanyahu every step of the way toward the final decision on whether to bomb Iran. It is a group that includes the chief of staff, the head of military intelligence, and the head of the Mossad. Nakdimon views the many years during which the Iranian nuclear issue was examined, the run-up to the Six-Day War, and the “nearly six-year-long” period during which the authorities carefully weighed and examined the circumstances surrounding the Iraqi nuclear reactor as a necessary time of due diligence.

Col. (res.) Ami Gluska, the author of “Eshkol, Give the Order!,” filled a number of senior positions in the military and civilian leadership. He notes that in contrast to the Six-Day War, in which the civilians held back while the generals agitated, the situation today is different. The military is holding back, while the civilians are hawkish. “Nonetheless, it is clear to all that if the government makes the decision, the army will do the deed,” he said.

Enough public chatter

One of the key figures who closely followed Begin just prior to the decision on bombing Saddam’s nuclear reactor was former minister Moshe Nissim, who today works as a private attorney and who is also an advisory member of the committee that recommends senior appointments in the civil service. He notes that disagreements over the bombardment of the reactor crossed military-civilian lines.

“The head of the Mossad, Yitzhak Hofi, was completely against,” he said. “His deputy, Nachum Admoni, was in favor. The chief of staff, Raful, was in favor. The head of military intelligence, Yehoshua Sagi, fought bitterly against it. His deputy, a former Hashomer Hatzair youth movement member Aviezri Ya’ari, was in favor. Mottke Tzipori, the deputy defense minister, opposed. Simha Erlich, a political dove, was very much in favor. Shustak Hentz was opposed.”

“Back then, there were also fears as to how the Iraqis would respond,” Nissim said. “There was a fear that Iraq would retaliate by bombing the reactor in Dimona, or by launching missiles at the civilian population, or launch a regional war. Those who opposed the plan were also concerned that Egypt may abrogate the peace treaty with Israel or that the U.S. might impose sanctions on us. The supporters, chief among them Begin and myself as well, were of the opinion that the U.S. would ‘punish’ us lightly, and that the chances for successfully carrying out the mission were quite high, and that Iraq did not possess the capability to retaliate. Obviously, the factors that one needs to take into consideration today [with regards to Iran] are much weightier.”

Nissim is incapable of understanding how public figures take it upon themselves to openly discuss the Iranian issue. He is particularly furious with former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin.

“What is going on today is an open-air market, and the statements made by Diskin and Dagan are irresponsible and they are causing immeasurable damage to Israel,” he said. “As people who occupied senior posts, they mustn’t be permitted to speak publicly.”

Deception as a tool

Gavish recalls that two hours before Israel’s opening salvo in the Six-Day War, then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan appeared on a radio broadcast and declared that Israel had no desire for war. Gavish does not rule out the possibility that the Israeli leadership is using a similar tactic today, assuming a bellicose posture while behind the scenes spurring the U.S. and the international community to take action. “Deception is one of the tools used in this game,” he said.

In a detailed paper entitled “For a Slightly Different Mode of Thinking,” Dror raises the possibility that “it would behoove the U.S. for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, a move which would minimize the damage to U.S. interests.”

“The U.S. will intervene after the fact in order to ‘restore the peace,’ and it will take preventative measures to ensure that Iran does not restart its nuclear program,” he wrote.

Dror adds: “Many who oppose an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations on moral grounds, preferring to avoid exacting casualties in the present over the possibility of preventing even more massive casualties in the future, are enthusiastic supporters of taking definitive security risks in the present for the sake of a peace that is uncertain.”

Nonetheless, he says: “Mapping out a responsible policy requires avoiding this flawed line of thinking, both on a moral and a practical level, certainly when the topic at hand is one involving the fate of the nation.”

Dror recommends that “we give great weight to preventing risks in the future, even at the price of taking risks in the present.”

Barak backed up this opinion recently, saying: “Refraining from action ensures that Iran goes nuclear, and dealing with a nuclear Iran will be more dangerous than stopping it today. In other words, whoever says ‘later’ may find that ‘later is too late.’”

Israel Defense Forces engineering units have been busy the past week bolstering security along the northern border with Syria in an attempt to prevent the possible entry of infiltrators and refugees as the fighting in Syria inches nearer to Israeli territory. Obstacles were placed along the border, security fences were reinforced and deep trenches were dug to ensure that no one enters the country illegally.

The deteriorating situation in Syria has become a mounting concern for Israel, which fears the unrest will spill over the border, and the long-quiet frontier area will become a new Islamist front against the Jewish state.

The IDF has been monitoring the situation on the Golan Heights for some time, due to a concern that terrorists affiliated with the global jihad movement may be among those who try to enter the country.

At this point, no increase in IDF troops on the Golan has been planned or implemented, but special units in the north have been trained for a swift response if regular units in the north require reinforcements within a short time. IDF units are also training to respond to mass marches by Syrians to the border, similar to past events on Nakba Day and Naksa Day, when Palestinians mark the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the capture of east Jerusalem in 1967, respectively.

Regular troops along the border are equipped with crowd dispersal equipment and non-lethal weapons, and are instructed to follow strict engagement guidelines to prevent infiltrations.

Meanwhile, the Jordan-based media outlet Ammon News reported that Jordanian troops exchanged gun fire with Syrian troops on Friday, after the latter shot dead a three-year-old Syrian boy while firing at his parents and a dozen other refugees as they tried to cross a Jordanian border fence.

Jordanian Information Minister Sameeh Maaytah said that the infant, Bilal El-Labloubi, died instantly of a bullet wound in his neck.

A border official said two people managed to sneak into Jordan, while about 10 others ran back into Syria under heavy Syrian gunfire.

It was not immediately clear if the two were the boy’s parents. According to Maaytah there was no cross border fire. The early Friday incident took place in Turra, a northern town near Ramtha on the Syrian border.

Following the incident, dozens of Jordanians reportedly staged a protest in front of the Syrian embassy located west of Amman, calling on the Jordanian government to expel the Syrian diplomatic mission from Jordan in response.

Jordan hosts more than 140,000 Syrian refugees.

Earlier in the week, three mortar shells fell in Syria several hundred meters away from the Israeli border, according to Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. An Israeli couple from the area said explosions have kept them up at night.

Meir Elakry, an off-duty Israeli security guard who lives just 15 kilometers (9 miles) from the Syrian border, said he was afraid Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would become desperate and turn his guns on Israel. “I want to know what the danger is to my house,” said Elakry, clutching a pair of binoculars. “I don’t believe Assad will be quiet if he falls.”

Defense Minister Ehud Barak held a news conference within earshot of the fighting last week, warning that the spiraling violence in Syria threatened to spill into the area.

On Tuesday, Gantz said the Syrian government remains in control of its chemical weapons arsenals, and militants do not appear to have raided them. Gantz warned that could change and counseled restraint over the possibility that Israel might decide to attack those depots to keep them out of militant hands, as Israeli leaders have recently threatened to do. Such a strike could drag Israel “into a broader offensive than planned,” he cautioned.

On Monday, Syria threatened to unleash its chemical and biological weapons if it faces a foreign attack – its first-ever acknowledgement it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Meanwhile, Syrian troops loyal to Assad are continuing their counter-attacks against opposition forces in Damascus and Aleppo. Opposition leaders reported on Thursday that at least 150 people were killed during clashes throughout the country, and according to Arab media most neighborhoods in Damascus have been “cleared” of rebels. Reports claimed the fighting was mainly focused now in the Hajar al-Aswad neighborhood in which Free Syrian Army rebels still maintain a stronghold.

Opposition fighters in Aleppo, the second largest and most populous city in the country, are reportedly preparing for a major clash with government troops. More than half the city is under the control of the rebels and large numbers of Syrian infantry units have been deployed around the city backed up by tanks and armored vehicles.

Rebels who have been fighting for six days in Syria’s commercial capital of three million people are bracing themselves amid reports of artillery strikes and strafing by attack helicopters and fighter jets.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland says the U.S. has “grave concerns” about tanks and fighter jets being used in a densely populated city. She says thousands of people are spilling out of Aleppo and calls the onslaught a “desperate” attempt by a government losing control of its country.

Nuland said “The concern is that we will see a massacre in Aleppo, and that’s what the regime appears to be lining up for.”

RENO – Israel deserves better treatment than it received during the term of U.S. President Barack Obama, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told Israel Hayom in a special interview this week. “I would treat Israel like the friend and ally it is. We share not only common interests, but also common values.”

“I cannot imagine going to the United Nations, as Obama did, and criticizing Israel in front of the world,” he said. “You don’t criticize your allies in public to achieve the applause of your foes.”

The former governor of Massachusetts vowed that if he is elected president in November, he will conduct his disagreements with Israel, should any arise, in private, out of the public eye. “If there were places where we disagree, I would hold these disagreements in private conversations, not in public forums,” he declared.

The U.S. is currently consumed with its upcoming presidential elections. Americans must choose between Obama, whose approach and achievements are contentious, and Romney, who is considered a gifted businessman. The Wall Street Journal reported on its front page this week that Americans were experiencing a resurgence of anxiety about the economy, making it very difficult to predict the outcome of this election. According to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 60 percent of Americans feel that the nation is currently “on the wrong track” while only 32% feel that the U.S. is “headed in the right direction.”

We met Romney behind the scenes at a convention center in Reno, Nevada, shortly after he stepped off the stage. He had just addressed the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) – a very important organization that boasts over 1.5 million members, all veterans of wars waged by the U.S. outside its borders. The organization represents 2 million potential votes, but it also possesses additional significance: it is a symbol of American values – patriotism, duty and a collective national memory.

It is no wonder then that both Obama and his opponent Romney traveled all the way to Reno this week to report for duty before the veterans. After all, the president is the commander in chief; and should Romney replace him in the White House, he will immediately assume the role of commander in chief.

Reno is considered Las Vegas’ younger sister. It is a small town, surrounded by barren mountains. It is known for hosting the annual National Championship Air Races every September, among other things. This little town saw an incumbent U.S. president and his presumptive opponent arriving at its airport during the course of one day. As we watched Air Force One land, we looked around and saw no unusual activity – no police barricades, no security personnel, not even a heavier than usual police presence. The people around us also didn’t display any particular excitement.

To our Israeli eyes, this was very strange, especially considering that the U.S. is currently in a rather advanced stage of an election year. The president of the United States arrives in small-town America and no one makes any kind of fuss?

The Reno convention thus became a test of leadership before an audience of veterans, united around the loftiest of American values: patriotism. The audience comprised of soldiers who fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and more recently in Iraq and in Afghanistan. To this day they take extreme pride in their uniforms, their medals and their camaraderie.

The convention was a very interesting experience for an Israeli. The convention center housed a fair where items of military clothing, medals, decorations, books, flags and various collectibles were on sale. The veterans milled around, all donning VFW hats – the same hats that once covered the heads of active U.S. soldiers. Some of them were in full uniform, others in partial uniform. Many of them displayed their military decorations on their chests.

It appeared that most of the veterans attending the convention were Republicans. But there were others. For example, we met a Jewish colonel who had fought in the Vietnam War. He had been awarded a Silver Star, the third-highest combat military decoration in the American armed forces. And, of course, he has family in Israel. Generally, he has not been too satisfied with any president, and he has yet to decide for whom he will vote this time around.

There was also another veteran, who served both in Korea and Vietnam. He is 80 years old, an avid patriot, and wants to see Obama move out of the White House, because, as he put it, the president had dishonored the U.S. and undermined its standing in the world.

It was before these people that Obama stood and tried to defend his foreign policy and his defense policy. But he also addressed the issues that pertain specifically to the veterans, like the high incidence of suicide. Romney, for his part, mainly criticized Obama’s foreign policy and presented his vision. “I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of this country,” Romney declared, eliciting the crowd’s cheers. He delivered a biting attack on national security leaks in the Obama administration, saying that “whoever provided classified information to the media, seeking political advantage for the administration, must be exposed, dismissed, and punished.” Again, the crowd cheered.

He also spoke about Iran and terror, and about Israel. As mentioned above, it was after this speech that we met with him backstage.

Mr. Governor, during your election campaign you told your audience multiple times that if they reelect Obama, Iran will have nuclear weapons, but if they elect Romney, Iran won’t have a nuclear weapon. Is that a presidential commitment?

“It fully describes my commitment to take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear. A nuclear Iran is a threat to America and to the world.”

Sir, in your book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness” you wrote that not only does Iran pose a threat to the U.S. but any country that supplies weapons to terrorists who target American soldiers, like Iran, is actually an enemy. As president, would you use American military force against Iran? How would you respond to an Israeli attack aiming to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

“I don’t want to discuss the specific actions that might be taken by our government or by others except to say that I would anticipate that we would be in close communication and in common purpose with those who share our views that Iran must not become a nuclear power.”

Last week, five Israeli tourists were murdered by a suicide bomber in Bulgaria. The Olympic Games are about to begin in London amid threats of Jihadist terror. How do you plan to win the war against terror?

“First I will recognize it for what it is. The threat of terror is part of radical, violent Jihad being waged by al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas. So we must acknowledge that this is not the work of a small group of individuals but rather a very substantial movement that poses a threat to the security and peace of our planet.

“I will also lock arms with our allies and friends to make sure that those who would threaten the peace and security of the world understand that we are united in our commitment to prevent terror and radical violent Islamic Jihadism from destroying lives and destroying peace.”

The battle of the small business owner

Romney is a soft-spoken man. Up close he looks like a movie star: tall, graying at the temples and tanned. He definitely has the presidential look. Now it is up to the American people to decide whether he has managed to convince them of his ability to lead and get the job done.

The situation is very complex. Over the last two weeks, the presidential race has become dirty and aggressive. The Obama camp has tried to present Romney’s career at Bain Capital – a career that made Romney a very wealthy man – as shameful. These efforts were compounded by allegations of tax evasion, offshore accounts, and the argument that Romney, the son of a well-off man who dabbled in politics, is simply too rich to be a presidential candidate.

In return, Romney slammed Obama for remarks that suggested small business owners owed their success to centralized government. This remark (“if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that; somebody else made that happen”) was immediately perceived as an expression of Obama’s socialist policy, and a critical blow to fundamental American values such as private enterprise, the free market and an individual’s right to reap the fruits of his own labor.

Most of the American media tore Romney to shreds, but a USA Today/Gallup poll published on Tuesday presented a starkly different picture: when it comes to the economy, Romney’s approval rating has actually gone up. A majority of 63% of those polled felt that Romney was better equipped than Obama to make decisions regarding the economy, deficit reduction and job creation, owing to his extensive business experience.

Mr. Governor, you have been on the campaign trail for months now, and you are in constant contact with the American public across the United States. What do you think is the one issue that most concerns voters in the current race?

“The issue that is most on people’s minds in this country is the economy – the capacity of America to create jobs and raise incomes. In many circles, this topic has crowded out discussion of foreign affairs and developments around the world. I think that is understandable. People are concerned about putting food on the table and there are many American families having a hard time doing that.

“But at the same time, the world is a dangerous place. The Middle East has become far more tumultuous, and dangerous as a result of developments over the last year. Pakistan is more uncertain in its relationship with the West, Turkey is looking less toward the West. Russia has achieved the New START Treaty: they sought to and succeeded in getting America to walk away from our Eastern Europe missile defense sites.

“North Korea has tested a nuclear device and long-range missiles. Iran is closer to nuclearization than it was when President Obama took office. It is hard to feel that the events of the last three and a half years have strengthened America’s posture and promoted the prospects of peace.”

The war on terror began in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. Do you think we are winning this war? Are the good guys winning?

“I think progress has been made. I think it was important to remove the government in Afghanistan. I also believe that the elimination of Saddam Hussein’s government was a positive step. The most recent killing of Osama bin-Laden I think was another step forward.

“There are however others who will take the place of these Jihadist leaders and we must continue to be vigilant in seeking them out and eliminating the threat that they pose. This is not something that is going to be over in the immediate future, it’s going to take a sustained effort on the part of the United States and our friends around the world.”

Assad will be removed

You’ve accused President Obama of receiving accolades from America’s foes and turning his back on its allies, including Israel. You have even declared that “Obama threw Israel under the bus.” If you were in the White House, what would you do differently?

“I would treat Israel like the friend and ally it is. We share not only common interests, but also common values. And if there were places where we disagree, I would hold these disagreements in private conversations, not in public forums. I cannot imagine going to the United Nations, as Obama did, and criticizing Israel in front of the world. I believe that he should have mentioned instead the thousands of rockets that are being fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel.

“The president has also spoken of returning to 1967 borders – they are indefensible. And acting as a negotiator and usurping the primary role played by Israel in negotiating for its own future is not the right course for America to take.”

You say that Obama failed in many areas especially in foreign policy. How do you view the Arab Spring and the way in which the U.S. responded to the uprisings in those Arab states?

“Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments. We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.

“The Arab Spring is not appropriately named. It has become a development of more concern and it occurred in part because of the reluctance on the part of various dictators to provide more freedom to their citizens. President [George W.] Bush urged [deposed Egyptian President] Hosni Mubarak to move toward a more democratic posture, but President Obama abandoned the freedom agenda and we are seeing today a whirlwind of tumult in the Middle East in part because these nations did not embrace the reforms that could have changed the course of their history, in a more peaceful manner.”

Every day we are seeing horrific images coming out of Syria, and suddenly we are witnessing Russia regaining dominance and blocking U.N. Security Council resolutions three times. As president, how would you handle the crisis in Syria?

“With regard to Syria, my view was that we should have spoken from the very beginning in a very clear manner that [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad should leave the post of leader of his nation; that he should be replaced. We should have spoken to the Alawites to assure them that they would have a place in a future Syria. We should have worked with Turkey and Saudi Arabia to help the insurgents in Syria gain armament to protect themselves and we should have used our relations with our fellow nations in the world to be very clear in condemning the brutality that has been pursued by Mr. Assad.

“I do not believe that America should take military action in Syria, certainly not at this point. I also am highly uncertain as to the ultimate conclusion of what will happen in Syria. I believe that Mr. Assad will be removed; I think it’s virtually impossible for someone who has done to his own people what he has done to remain in leadership. But I don’t know what will follow him, and I recognize that this represents another level of uncertainty that poses a threat to the Middle East and to Israel.”

In your book you urge America not to apologize for wanting to be a great nation and a world leader. What do you think about America’s current standing, and how do you plan to change it?

“First of all, to be a strong leader. You describe what your objectives are with clarity and you lock arms with your allies because their strength makes you stronger. You don’t criticize your allies in public to achieve the applause of your foes. A strong nation is admired by its friends and respected by its adversaries.

“The president gave in to Russia on their number one foreign policy objective, which was the removal of missile defense sites from Poland, and obtained nothing of great significance in exchange. That kind of posture leads other nations to wonder whether America has strength or instead is seeking to appease and accommodate others. I happen to believe that the New START Treaty was another accommodation and reset for Russia and I don’t believe that Russia is deserving of gifts from America. Instead, Russia should be appropriately viewed as a nation with which we negotiate and show our backbone, recognizing that they intend to do the same.”

Mr. Governor, you are planning to visit Israel soon and we want to know what message you will be bringing to the Israeli people.

“Well, my message really is to the people of the United States…”

Yes, but as you know, you have quite a few potential voters living in Israel who hold American citizenship…

“I can assure the people of the United States, whether living in Israel or living here that my intent is to stand with Israel as a friend, to recognize our shared values and shared interests, to take action that communicates to the region that we will defend Israel and we will work in concert to combat the threats that face Israel and the world.”

Obama no longer symbolizes hope

You can count on one hand the number of times that an American president was unable to gain enough of the public’s approval to win a second term. In modern times we have Jimmy Carter (1980) and George H. W. Bush (1992), both of whom lost to candidates who would become mythological presidents – Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

In 2008, Obama had everything going for him – at least on paper. He had the potential to become a historic president thanks to his ability, not his skin color. As far as many American voters were concerned, when he overtook his Republican opponent John McCain, he had won the keys to the White House for eight years. But the American people’s disappointment with Obama has been so powerful that the 2012 race is now too tight to call. Obama, the incumbent, obviously has the home court advantage, but today (and who would have believed it four years ago?) it is Mitt Romney who symbolizes hope.

The 2010 midterm elections served as a red flag for Obama. The Republicans realized that they had a shot at the presidency in 2012, and this realization manifested itself in a Republican primary that looked like a boxing ring. The Republicans didn’t cut Romney any slack. Many within his own camp viewed him, and many still do, as a candidate who could easily have been nominated by the opposing Democrats.

But something happened since Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee. The will of many Americans to boot out Obama has nudged them directly into Romney’s arms.

Today’s America is a country that has lost significant ground. It is not the same America that once wielded a menacing power of deterrence and dictated the world’s agenda. Under Obama’s watch, the U.S. has at times become a follower, like in the Libyan crisis, or hesitant and insecure, for example over the Syrian crisis.

But it gets worse. Americans are most concerned about “putting food on the table.” Obama has been unsuccessful in efforts to pull the U.S. out of the financial crisis, and he has not been able to create jobs. To his credit, he did assume the presidency at a particularly difficult time, but on the other hand, his very limited “achievements” have proven to the world that he is no messiah – he is only flesh and blood.

Obama’s foreign policy failed, as did his fiscal policy. How ironic that the same man who won a Nobel Peace Prize so early in his presidency ended up being the same man who revived the Cold War.

Many Americans have become disenchanted with their president, but that is not enough to make them fall in love with the other guy. Romney managed to be a pretty good governor of Massachusetts, and he even salvaged the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, but the presidential race is not a game. The world has indeed become a dangerous place, and America, Israel’s chief ally, has a central role in ensuring stability and preserving peace as much as possible.

Obama always held up Abraham Lincoln as his role model; Romney has a few, some of them are even Democrats. One of Romney’s role models is Dwight Eisenhower – a Republican president who pushed America forward without going to war. Eisenhower never won a Nobel Peace Prize, but he did win a second term in office.

Obama would most probably trade his Nobel Prize for the promise of four more years in the White House. But everything that was so clear in 2008, has become a mystery in 2012.