Israel at War: Inside the Nuclear Showdown With Iran

by Joel C. Rosenberg

  Netanyahu continued, “I find it hard saying this, because I said in the early nineties that the radical Muslims would bring down the World Trade Center, and the response was no response at all. And I am saying here, now, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, that the world faces an enormous danger should Ahmadinejad’s Iran acquire atomic weapons. It is not merely a danger to my own country. For the reasons of full disclosure, I tell you, ‘Yes, it is a danger to my own country.’ It’s a danger to my own country the way Hitler was a danger to the Jews. Yes, of course, he went after the Jews, but then he went after everyone else. And that’s exactly what you have with Iran. It has to be stopped—now.”

  Chapter Four

  A Clear and Present Danger

  Has Netanyahu changed his assessment of the danger posed by the End Times theology—or eschatology—of the Iranian regime since that interview in 2007?

  In a word, no.

  Just hours before he was sworn in for his second term as prime minister on March 31, 2009, he issued the exact same warning about the toxic combination of Iran’s eschatology and technology in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, columnist for The Atlantic magazine. It would become Netanyahu’s first published interview as the new leader of the Jewish State.

  Goldberg wrote, “Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself. . . . He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a ‘hinge of history’ and added that ‘Western civilization’ will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. . . . ‘You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran. . . . Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?’”50

  More Troubling Indicators of Iran’s Eschatology

  Since Netanyahu took office as prime minister in 2009, new evidence has continued to emerge revealing how deeply Iran’s top leaders hold this eschatology and how such End Times theology is driving their foreign policy.

  In July 2010, for example, Khamenei told Iranians that he had personally met with the Twelfth Imam.51 Who or what did Khamenei see? Was it a dream? A vision? Or an actual flesh-and-blood person? Why was Khamenei so convinced that whomever he was meeting with was the mystical so-called Islamic messiah who reportedly disappeared back in the tenth century? Khamenei never publicly explained himself. Yet a few days later, he claimed to be the personal representative of the Twelfth Imam on earth, as well as the personal representative of the Prophet Muhammad, and he stated that all Muslims must “obey him.”52

  In the spring of 2011, Western media revealed that Khamenei and his regime had released and were widely distributing a documentary film about Shiite eschatology called The Coming Is Near.53 The film stated that the Islamic messiah known as the Twelfth Imam or the Mahdi would soon appear on earth to usher in or oversee the destruction of Israel, the establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate, and the end of days. The film explained why leaders of the “Twelver” movement saw the 2011 revolutions and uprisings in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and elsewhere throughout the Middle East and North Africa as prophetic signs consistent with Islamic End Times teachings and proof that the Twelfth Imam would soon appear. Moreover, the film identified Khamenei and Ahmadinejad as specific End Times figures foretold in Shia prophecies.

  The film was screened and green-lighted at the highest levels of the Iranian government, indicating that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad approve of their depiction as End Times figures and believe their eschatology is being vindicated by current events in the Middle East. It was also screened throughout Iran for military officers and soldiers as well as for paramilitary units, providing fresh evidence that Iran’s leaders were preparing their forces for an apocalyptic, genocidal war against Israel, the United States, and the West and encouraging them not to fear because, in their view, Shia Muslims are on the winning side of history.

  In July 2012, Khamenei told Iranians and the Muslim world to prepare for war and “the end of times” because the arrival of the Twelfth Imam was drawing near: “The issue of Imam Mahdi is of utmost importance, and his reappearance has been clearly stated in our holy religion of Islam. We must study and remind ourselves of the end of times and Imam Mahdi’s era. . . . We must prepare the environment for the coming so that the great leader will come.”54

  Ahmadinejad’s End Times Speech to the U.N.

  On September 26, 2012, Ahmadinejad delivered his eighth annual address to the opening fall session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York City. In his speech, he once again called for the end of the “hegemonic” powers of the United States and Israel, whom he described as “the uncivilized Zionists.” He also said the world would “soon” see new “global management” by the Twelfth Imam and his deputy, Jesus Christ.55

  In each of his past U.N. speeches, Ahmadinejad prayed for the soon coming of the so-called Islamic messiah. This time he went much further, offering his most detailed explanation to date of his Shia Islamic eschatology and his understanding of the coming rule of the Twelfth Imam. Ahmadinejad told the world leaders gathered in Manhattan that he had come this time “to voice the divine and humanitarian message . . . to you and to the whole world. God Almighty has promised us a man of kindness, a man who loves people and loves absolute justice, a man who is a perfect human being and is named Imam Al-Mahdi, a man who will come in the company of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, and the righteous.” Calling the Mahdi “the Ultimate Savior,” Ahmadinejad said his arrival on earth “will mark a new beginning, a rebirth, and a resurrection. It will be the beginning of peace, lasting security, and genuine life.”

  Ahmadinejad said the coming reign of the Twelfth Imam on earth “will bring about an eternally bright future for mankind, not by force or waging wars but through thought awakening and developing kindness in everyone.” The Iranian leader did not offer a specific timetable, but he did say the “sweet scent” of the Mahdi’s global reign “will soon reach all the territories in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the U.S.”

  Despite Ahmadinejad’s insistence that the Twelfth Imam’s reign would come without war, Shia eschatology experts say the opposite is true. Islamic theologians say Muslim political leaders are supposed to be setting into motion the annihilation of Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it and creating conditions of chaos and carnage that will hasten the arrival of the Twelfth Imam, as I documented in my nonfiction book Inside the Revolution and dramatized in a trilogy of political thrillers, titled The Twelfth Imam, The Tehran Initiative, and Damascus Countdown.56 The Mahdi is then supposed to turn all these wars and killings to his advantage and establish justice and peace. It is this Shia End Times theology that is driving Iranian foreign policy today. This is why the mullahs in Tehran are working so hard to pursue nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them—to prepare the way for the rise of this Islamic kingdom.

  It is not surprising, then, that Ahmadinejad told reporters upon arriving in New York that Israel must be “eliminated” from the earth and didn’t deny that Iran was actively considering a preemptive strike against Israel to begin “World War Three,” as one of his military commanders had asserted earlier that week.

  Netanyahu’s Response

  The day after Ahmadinejad’s incendiary speech, Netanyahu addressed the U.N. General Assembly. He told world leaders that Iran is 70 percent of the way to building its first nuclear bomb and could complete its work by spring 2013 or by summer at the latest. Netanyahu said it was getting “very late” to stop “Iran’s apocalyptic leaders” from acquiring the Bomb. He called for the world to impose “a clear
red line” on Iran, stating precisely at what point Iran’s actions would provoke a military response. He said he did not have confidence that even the best intelligence agencies would know exactly when Iran had built its first nuclear warhead. The goal, he insisted, has to be to stop Iran from enriching enough uranium to be able to build its first warhead. Time to accomplish that, he made clear, is running out fast.

  “Deterrence worked with the Soviets, because every time the Soviets faced a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival,” Netanyahu said. “But deterrence may not work with the Iranians once they get nuclear weapons. There’s a great scholar of the Middle East, Professor Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent; it’s an inducement. Iran’s apocalyptic leaders believe that a medieval holy man will reappear in the wake of a devastating holy war, thereby ensuring that their brand of radical Islam will rule the earth. That’s not just what they believe. That’s what is actually guiding their policies and their actions. Just listen to Ayatollah Rafsanjani who said, I quote: ‘The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything; however, it would only harm the Islamic world. . . . It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.’ Not irrational—and that’s coming from one of the so-called moderates of Iran.”57

  The Zero Hour Is Approaching

  Netanyahu realizes what most world leaders do not: that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are true believers in Shia “Twelver” eschatology. They believe the wind is at their back. They believe Allah is on their side. They don’t think they are vulnerable to U.S. or Israeli attacks. To the contrary, they believe their cause is ascendant. They are convinced that their mission is to prepare the way for the “Promised One.” They believe they will burn in the fires of hell if they are not found faithful when the Mahdi publicly emerges to build his Caliphate. They believe, therefore, that they must build a nuclear arsenal capable of creating chaos and carnage in order to hasten the coming of the Twelfth Imam.

  This, Netanyahu believes, is what makes Iran so dangerous. In light of the Iranian leadership’s End Times theology, Netanyahu is not surprised that the mullahs in Tehran have not budged an inch during round after round of diplomatic negotiations. Nor is he surprised that Iran’s leaders have not been dissuaded from their nuclear ambitions by round after round of new economic sanctions. After all, what incentives could the international community possibly offer to cause Iran’s leaders to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons if concession means risking the fires of hell for eternity?

  What does surprise Netanyahu is that neither the American president nor any other Western leader seems to understand or appreciate the nature of the enemy they face. They do not seem to realize that Shia End Times theology is driving Iranian foreign policy and that once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, its leaders will be inclined not only to threaten to use them but to actually use them to accomplish their End Times scenario.

  Should Israel Wait for America to Act?

  Every day Tehran gets closer to accomplishing its genocidal ambitions. Yet Netanyahu and his inner circle have slowly, reluctantly, painfully come to the assessment that it is unlikely that an American president will take decisive military action to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat.

  For one thing, while the majority of Americans don’t want to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons, many Americans also feel two wars in the Middle East in the last decade—one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq—have been enough. President George W. Bush declared Iran’s leaders members of the “axis of evil.” Yet as committed as he was to defeating radical Islam, defending Israel, and promoting democracy in the Middle East, even he did not take decisive action to neutralize Iran’s growing nuclear threat to the U.S., Israel, and the world.

  President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has consistently declared that he and his administration will not allow Iran to get the Bomb. Yet Obama has refused to set a deadline for Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions, stop enriching uranium, and come clean on the military dimensions of its nuclear program. The Obama administration has also refused Israeli requests to set American “red lines”—clearly defined and measurable elements of Iranian behavior that would trigger decisive U.S. military action to neutralize the growing Iranian nuclear threat. Instead, the president and his senior advisors have applied enormous public and private pressure on Israel not to launch its own preemptive military strike against Iran.

  A Troubled Relationship

  In November 2009, I gave a speech titled “Train Wreck: The Coming Collision of U.S.-Israeli Relations.” I noted that just as the Iranian nuclear threat was worsening, we were currently witnessing the worst strains in the relationship between the U.S. and Israel in memory. Polls in late 2008 showed 88 percent of Israelis believed President Bush was pro-Israel. By May 2009, however, a Jerusalem Post poll found that only 31 percent of Israelis believed President Obama was pro-Israel. By August 2009, another Jerusalem Post poll found that only 4 percent of Israelis believed President Obama was pro-Israel. What triggered such plummeting confidence in the Obama White House? The answer can be found in a series of actions and statements by the president and his senior advisors.58

  During the presidential primaries, then-Senator Obama described Iran as a “tiny country” that didn’t pose much of a threat. He vowed to enter direct talks with Ahmadinejad and senior Iranian officials without preconditions. Obama later changed his mind and said Iran was a “grave threat,” but his initial analysis raised real doubts among Israelis about his understanding of the situation.

  As president, Obama was determined to pursue a policy of “direct engagement” with Iran even in the absence of any evidence that Iran’s radical Islamic leadership wanted a better relationship with the U.S. and the West. Despite repeated outreaches by the White House, Iran never reciprocated. Rather, Tehran accelerated its nuclear and ballistic missile development programs and became more belligerent toward the U.S. and Israel.

  Even so, Obama refused to impose “crippling” economic sanctions on Iran despite promising to do so and despite the revelation of a third secret Iranian nuclear facility, this one located on a military base near the religious city of Qom. What’s more, in May 2009, General James Jones, the president’s national security advisor, appeared on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos and referred to “Israel’s preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat.” That same month, then–CIA director Leon Panetta was sent to Israel, reportedly to warn Israeli leaders not to launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities without permission from the U.S., though he offered no proof the U.S. had an effective strategy to stop Iran from getting the Bomb.

  In the summer of 2009, President Obama did precious little to support the reformers on the streets of Tehran after a rigged reelection of Ahmadinejad, saying he refused to “meddle” in other countries’ affairs. Yet the Obama administration seems perfectly willing to “meddle” in Israeli affairs. In fact, General Jones told a European diplomat that Obama “will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question.” He insisted that the Obama administration “will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush.” Since then, Obama has applied intense pressure on Israel to stop building, improving, and expanding Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. The president also called for a comprehensive final peace treaty in which Israel would return to its 1967 borders, a requirement that would force Israel to divide its capital city of Jerusalem and give up the strategically vital Jordan Valley.

  Then came the disaster in March 2010, when many Americans and Israelis believe Obama treated Netanyahu with terrible disrespect and a breach of protocol. At one point during a meeting in the White House, Netanyahu refused to sign a document agreeing to divide Jerusalem and return Israel to pre-1967 lines. Obama, in turn, walked out of the meeting, went upstairs to the re
sidence, and refused to come back, leaving Netanyahu and his senior aides alone to figure out what to do next. Obama refused to have dinner with Netanyahu or have a photo opportunity with him or hold a joint press conference—all standard operating procedures for a friend and strategic ally like the leader of Israel.59

  “This was a working meeting among friends,” White House advisor David Axelrod tried to spin. “There was no snub intended.”60

  Most American friends of Israel saw things much differently. Certainly the Israelis did.

  The Romney Option

  Would a President Mitt Romney be more likely to order a strike against Iran if he were elected? During the campaign, the governor has clearly positioned himself as a strong supporter of the State of Israel. Netanyahu certainly feels comfortable with Romney—their relationship goes back to when they worked together at the Boston Consulting Group in the 1970s. But even if Romney wins, Netanyahu knows the new president would be unlikely to launch a war against Iran in the early weeks or months of his administration. First, Romney would need to hire his national security team. Second, he and his team would need to review all the intelligence currently available on Iran. Third, they would need to develop a war plan and move military assets into position. All of this takes time, and even if Romney is inclined to go down this road, Netanyahu may not feel he has that much time to wait.