ROSENBERG: Talk to me a little bit more about your meeting with Putin. . . . When you met with him [in 1997], what was it that you were trying to convey on behalf of the president?
SHARANSKY: Look, my main message to all the leaders [in] Russia was yes, we want world cooperation . . . and yes, we are interested in all forms of cooperation. But all this will mean nothing if, really, Russia will help Iran to have nuclear weapons and missiles. We were saying . . . that if these policies will continue, the way it goes now, with all the leakage of Russian technologies, with the assistance of the others, in ten years Iran will have missile and bomb. [For us, this is a] question of death and life. That’s why all our talks, expressions of friendship and so on, mean nothing. We will fight against this, we will fight against Iran, we will fight against your interest if you will be helping Iran to [acquire nuclear capability]. So the private conversations were respectful but very tough. . . . [They assured me] there [would] be no more leakages. Unforunately, [that] didn’t happen. Probably they took care of some of the most obvious leakage of technologies, but in general, cooperation in this field continued, and they [maintain] that the leakage from the West continues [as well].
Putin again and again was saying that he understands—that was my second message—that he understands that [in] the long run, Iranian power in [the] Muslim world can be very dangerous for Russia. . . . On theoretical level, from time to time, it would seem that we are on the same wavelength. [But on a practical level, according to] our intelligence, Russia continued the same policy.
I think Putin never felt confidence that he can build real partnership with the West and with America, which will be protecting his long-range interests. And also he was never sure that America will have enough chutzpah, if you want, enough strength, really, to fight with Iran if it would be needed. And of course Russia is not going to fight Iran. So I personally believe that the more forceful, the more determined is America, the more there is a chance to get cooperation of Russia in this issue.
ROSENBERG: However, is it possible that we have passed some point of no return with the Russian and Iranian cooperation? I mean, one could make a case that Russia is building a military alliance with Iran.
SHARANSKY: Look, I personally believe it’s all dysfunctional. Russian leaders are different from Iranian leaders because they are not thinking about the next world. I don’t think they believe in the next world. Definitely for them, the real value is this world. . . . They will have different set of policies. Definitely there are forces in each [country] to restrict democracy, and we should not be happy with this. But [the Russian] forces, these people, are much more realistic, much less fanatical, much less fundamental—not fundamentalists like in Iran—and that’s why we can play in this difference of interest. . . .
But if we want to [achieve] cooperation on this issue, [Russia] should have no doubts that America is absolutely determined to solve the problem of Iran. [Either] with Russia or without Russia. And the [stronger] the message, the more there is a chance that Russia will be at least passively cooperative with America on this issue.
ROSENBERG: How determined do you think the United States is to stop Iran at all costs?
SHARANSKY: I personally think that the president of the United States of America is very determined. But once I told him, during our first meeting, that Mr. President, you are really a dissident [more than a politician] because politicians are [given to posturing]. They are saying and doing many things which are popular. This isn’t loyal to the ideas in which they believe. You believe in the ideas of the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror. You believe the evilness of the Iranian threat, and you are fighting it. But I want to warn you that dissidents have to be ready to be lonely, and only [in the long term is] history on the side of dissidents.
So my concern is the president is determined but he is very lonely in his determination. And no doubt developments in Iraq didn’t make him stronger in implementation of this. I believe this is a threat for all the Free World, not for one or another candidate, not for one or another country, but for all the Free World to remain free. And that’s why there is no reason why [the] president should be alone in this. There is no reason why this cause [should] not be [a bi-]partisan cause of Republicans and Democrats. After all, the Soviet Union was defeated in [the] Cold War only when . . . Democrats like Senator [Henry] Jackson or even Edward Kennedy on one hand and Republicans like President Reagan could work together and fight together. So that is [the] type of unity which is needed today.
ROSENBERG: Let me ask you about—I’m gonna wrap up soon—Christians and Jews—Evangelical Christians, Jews, Israelis—how important are these two communities to work together against Radical Islam?
SHARANSKY: I think they are natural allies. I tell you, in Soviet prison, I was an activist of two worlds at the same time; I was Zionist, Jewish nationalist, and human rights activist. And some people saw that as contradiction. I was filled with contradiction. In fact, in prison, there were different dissidents of different types: Catholics from Lithuania, and Pentecostals from Siberia, and Russian monarchists, Ukrainian nationalists, Jewish Zionists. Very quickly we [came] to the understanding that we—with all our differences, with all passions, with all our political disagreements, we are all fighting the same struggle, the same war. Our mutual enemy is KGB, and we all want to live in the society where people are not punished for their views. And the secret of your inner power to resist KGB was this feeling or fear of God. Understanding that we are created in the image of God and to remain free people, we have to fight KGB together.
In fact, some of the most moving moments of my imprisonment experience [were those] which I spent with my Christian friend. He was fighting that his Bible would be returned to him; I was fighting to have my Torah to be returned. . . . After many days of hunger strikes, they returned to us our books and we were together once—we started reading. We called it Reagan’s ecumenical readings. Why? Because it was just published that Reagan declared that year [1983] the year of [the] Bible. . . . And we decided that it’s because of pressure of Americans that suddenly they are giving us these books. And he start reading key chapter from New Testament, and I from Psalms, we were reading together, and it was very powerful feeling that with all the differences, we are praying to the same God. We are praying to the God in whose image we are created, as free people. And that’s what was giving us lot of power.
And I think for people who are so strongly connected today that—and they are connected not with [the] idea that all the other identities have to be erased, that those who don’t agree with you aren’t faithful and you are paving your way to paradise by killing them, but to the contrary, you believe that you are not doing to others what you don’t want to do to yourself. This is the power of people who are believing in freedom. That’s why I think it’s [a] very natural alliance. I think we have mutual interest and today, the biggest challenge of course is to fight this evil which threatens all of us, people who want to live in freedom.
GENERAL MOSHE YA’ALON
Former Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff
JOEL ROSENBERG: Your assessment that we are in World War III right now—talk to us about that.
MOSHE YA’ALON: Yes, we are engaged now in World War III, in which radical Islamists—I call them jihadists—[intend] to wipe Israel off the map on their way to defeat the West. They [want] to impose Islam all over the world, either by convincing people or by sword. This is the case with the Iranian ideology, Al-Qaeda ideology, as well as Muslim Brotherhood ideology. And the challenge is for the rest of the world, not just for the State of Israel.
ROSENBERG: Describe the apocalyptic thinking that’s driving Iranian foreign policy.
YA’ALON: The turning point in history, when it comes to this wave of radical Islam or jihadist ideologies, is 1979—the success of the Iranian Revolution. The Iranian Revolution success inspired and empowered other radical Islamists like Al-Qaeda, Sunni-Wahabi, these Muslims, an
d Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni Muslims. And Hamas is part of it. They believe they’re winning. They believe that they are able to impose Islam all over the world and they feel like they are winning, first of all because of lack of determination on behalf of the West. They feel like they are winning because they believe they defeated the Soviet Union and they are responsible for the Soviet Union collapse as a result of the war in Afghanistan. They feel like they are winning because they feel like they defeated us in Lebanon because of our withdrawal in 2000. They feel like they are winning because we [withdrew] unilaterally from Gaza and they believe that Hamas defeated us. And they feel like they are winning because Iran is the driving force behind this wave [and] the Iranian regime hasn’t paid any price for . . . deploying proxies all over the world against Israel [and] against the United States. . . . Going back to the devastating attacks in Beirut, 1983, in which 241 [U.S.] Marines were killed [and] 69 French servicemen were killed—Iran didn’t pay any price for it. The Iranian regime didn’t pay any price for the two attacks in Argentina against the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Center in Argentina. The Iranian regime didn’t pay any price for . . . killing U.S. servicemen in [the Khobar Towers bombing in] Saudi Arabia in 1996. They didn’t pay any price for it.
And they feel like they are winning because [of] the lack of determination regarding the international community, regarding the International Institute [for Strategic Studies], when it comes to their determination to acquire military nuclear capabilities. Violating all understanding and agreements in order to win this kind of capability without paying any price.
And they feel like they are winning because they are behind the scenes. Succeed in destabilizing Iraq, supporting both Sunnis and Shiites to kill each other, to generate the sectarian violence, not to allow stability in Iraq. To allow democratization in Iraq. So they gain confidence because of this lack of determination on behalf of the West.
ROSENBERG: What is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s endgame, in your view?
YA’ALON: It’s very clear. Ahmadinejad says what he means and means what he says. He believes in the messianic apocalyptic worldview, in which the Hidden Imam, which is his Islamic messiah, in the end should appear. In the end of the days, when he appears, all the world, all people all over the world, will become Muslims. There is no room for infidels. Neither Jews, nor Christians, Buddhists, whatever. All the world will become Muslim.
But according to his belief . . . he is a messenger of this idea. He should be proactive. . . . And he believes that in two years’ time, he might reach it by wiping Israel off the map and defeating the West. And actually, according to his talks, talking about his eighteen-page letter to President Bush, actually recommending him to be converted to Islam, otherwise he may be full of remorse. This is an Islamic expression. According to the jihadist principle, you should offer your enemies—the infidels, non-Muslims—the option to be converted to Islam. When they refuse, then you are allowed to use the sword. And that is his terminology when he speaks [to] Europeans as well [as to] the Jews, Israel. . . . Israel should be wiped off the map on the way to defeat the West. This is not just Israel, it is Europe, it is the United States; the Western culture should be defeated. All the world should become Muslim.
ROSENBERG: You’re a military general; you were the head of the Israeli Defense Forces. What’s your military assessment of how much time the West has to make a decision about how to stop Iran?
YA’ALON: When it comes to the Iranian Military Nuclear Project, it is in terms of a couple of years, might be a couple of months, to reach capabilities. . . . Having said that, even without the bomb, we see [that the] Iranian regime is operating today [by] proxies. In the war in Lebanon, actually Hezbollah was a proxy. Iran was the mastermind. In the military campaign in the Gaza Strip, June 2006, Hamas was a proxy; Iran was the mastermind. When it comes to Iraq, Iran is the mastermind behind the Shia violence as well as part of the Sunni violence today. Iraq equips them with IEDs, improvized explosive devices; terror know-how; weapons; money; to kill each other to avoid stability in Iraq, which is the Western interest. And this is the case when it comes to moderate regimes in our region: Jordan, Egypt, the Russian Gulf States.
The Iranian interest is to gain hegemony and the idea of having military nuclear capabilities. First of all, they use it as an umbrella to blackmail and to undermine those orderly regimes in the region which are linked to the West and act, to their mind, according to Western interest. This is the role of this Iranian regime.
In military terms, they are not so strong. To compare with the Western strengths when it comes to the United States, NATO . . . they are not so strong. But the West [lacks] determination and this is the big one. . . . There are few leaders today who really understand that we are engaged in World War III and try to deploy this kind [of] strategy. President Bush is one of them.
ROSENBERG: Talk about your experience [with Russia].
YA’ALON: Russian leadership is playing a very negative role when it comes to Iran. Not just Iran, actually. I know, I was head of intelligence here in Israel. And Russian engineers, Russian experts, were involved in the Iranian Missiles Project, the Shahab Project. Talking about the nuclear reactor in Bushehr, it’s very clear, it’s Russian assistance. And in the last summer, we faced, in the military campaign in Lebanon, antitank guided weapons provided by Russia to Syria. But the end user was Hezbollah, [the] Iranian arm. Russian interest, to my mind, is first of all to become a player [again] in the superpower games; to become superpower. And as long as they don’t have positive assets to play with, they use negative assets to challenge the United States and Israel as well. This is one reason, or one explanation for the Russian support to the Iranian regime.
Another explanation is the kind of understanding between Russia and Iran. We support you when it comes to the military nuclear project and the missiles project. Don’t deal with us in our court when it comes to the Islamic former Soviet Union states—Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Kurdistan, and so forth. . . . The Russian government is blackmailed by the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime has proven its capability to support radical Islamic elements, in Chechnya, in Iraq today, in Lebanon, in the Palestinian arena, so they might do it against Russian interest in former Soviet Union Islamic states. It’s a kind of modus operandi. Don’t deal with us in our court; we will support you when it comes to your interest, in this case the nuclear capability.
ROSENBERG: In your view, has Russia therefore joined the axis of evil?
YA’ALON: It’s playing with the axis of evil, yes. Supporting Syria, Iran, is all [leading] to actually challenging the international world order. Denying accountability and operating proxies against Western states— Israel, the United States.
ROSENBERG: So what has Russia been selling, in terms of military hardware, to Iran?
YA’ALON: Russian experts actually were involved in the Iranian Shahab, the missile port. And I had the opportunity, as head of intelligence, to meet at that time [with] Russian Foreign Affairs Minister [Yevgeny] Primakov. Fighting proves that Russian engineers and Russian institutes were involved in the Iranian missile port. Actually he denied it. He was interested in my sources, as a former KGB agent. But Russia didn’t do anything, and you know the Israeli government asked the Russian government to stop it. And that was the reason that I met Minister Primakov. They didn’t hide it; they denied it. But they went on supporting and assisting the Iranian missile port. And this is the case when it comes to the nuclear mission as well. And when it comes to selling arms and anti-guided weapons that we faced in Hezbollah in the last military campaign. And a defense system to Iran, the most sophisticated of defense systems to Iran in the current situation. Yes, this is a Russian interest today.
ROSENBERG: If Iran gets nuclear weapons and is able to fit their missiles with them, how much time would Israel have from a launch before an impact here?
YA’ALON: The time is a couple of minutes. The time between launching a missile from Iran to the target Israel, a couple of
minutes. It’s enough time to deal with it when it comes to our active defensive measure. But it is not the key point. The key point is to prevent Iran, this nonconventional regime, from having a nonconventional plan. This is a nonconventional regime, this messianic, apocalyptic worldview. And it would be a nightmare, not just for us [but] for moderate [states] in the Persian Gulf, Jordan, Egypt. So this is the key point. It’s not a military question whether we are able to intercept the missile or not, it’s to prevent this kind of capability from this nonconventional regime.
ROSENBERG: How much time does the West have to make a decision to stop Iran?
YA’ALON: The decision has to be made as soon as possible. Actually without defeating Iran, there is no way to stabilize Iraq. There is no way to stabilize Lebanon. There is no way to stabilize [the] situation around Israel, in the Palestinian society or anywhere. So it should have been done as soon as possible. The problem is lack of clarity in the West. Actually, Western people are sleeping. People in the West do not feel like they are engaged in World War III. But they are now, attacked. They are under a jihadist defense. Only [a] few leaders understand it. And we need to wake up. We need awakening. Otherwise it will be too late. And because of this lack of clarity, which is lack of clear understanding of situation, lack of moral clarity and lack of clear strategy, [Iran] will go on with a way to challenge us. And we are stronger, when it comes to military might, when it comes to economy. But, yes, they are determined so far, they are determined more than Western like-minded people today.
Epicenter 2.0 Page 37