APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS

The following interviews were conducted in 2007 for the Epicenter documentary film released for the fortieth anniversary of the Six Days’ War.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU

Former Prime Minister of Israel

JOEL ROSENBERG: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for spending time with us. First question I want to ask you: In your 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism, you said, “It’s only a matter of time before the U.S. gets hit by radical Islam.” You had talked about the World Trade Center and kamikazes. What is it you were able to see in the mid-1990s that so many analysts, like the leaders in the West, couldn’t see?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I think the West misunderstood, and still misunderstands, the threat of radical Islam. It is a fanatic messianic ideology that seeks to have an apocalyptic battle for world supremacy with the West. It seeks to correct what it sees—its disciples see—as an accident of history, where the West has risen and Islam has declined. The correction is supposed to be done by the reselection of an Islamic empire and the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear weapons, if necessary, to obliterate Islam’s enemies, and to subjugate the rest.

This is a pathological ideology, much like Nazism was. And it poses a threat, in my judgment, in many ways bigger than Nazism because Hitler embarked on a world conflict and then sought to achieve nuclear weapons, whereas the leading radical Islamic regime, Iran, is seeking to first acquire nuclear weapons and then embark on a world conflict. And that is what is not yet understood in the West, and certainly, if it’s understood, it’s not acted upon.

ROSENBERG: [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad has an apocalyptic theory. . . . In your view, how is that driving Iranian foreign policy? Because that’s not something that Western analysts are talking much about. They’re starting to, but this seems to be animating where they’re headed and their timetable.

NETANYAHU: I think the world changes once Iran acquires nuclear weapons. With this fanatic regime, it’s almost akin to the Branch Davidians under David Koresh acquiring nuclear weapons. You know, it’s one thing if you have a crazy sect stuck up in some commune in Oregon or in a ranch in Waco, Texas. But when the wacko from Waco gets nuclear weapons and he wants to obliterate the United States and its allies, then you start worrying. And that’s what is happening in Iran.

You think that these people are normal; you think that Iran would conform to the conceptions of deterrents and careful calculation of cost and benefit. But in fact, it is part of that stream of radical Islam, in this case [the] Shiite stream, but you’ve already seen what the Sunni stream does, which is to smash into buildings in Manhattan with collective suicide, to smash into the Pentagon with collective suicide. And there’s no reason to believe that the militant Shiites, once they have atomic weapons, will not be suicidal. They say openly that they intend to remove Israel, the first position of the West, really “little Satan,” but remember that their goal is to get the United States, the “big Satan.” We’re just a station, one station, on the way to world conquest. And to have such a regime that believes in apocalyptic Armageddon with the West—in which millions will die on both sides, but the Muslim millions go to a Muslim heaven with all the trappings—to have that crazy ideology in charge of a country that is developing atomic weapons is unbelievably dangerous, and it should stop. Everything else is secondary to this.

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 beginning of 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—and for the reasons of full disclosure I tell you, yes, it is a danger to my own country—but 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.

ROSENBERG: Can you negotiate with, or even successfully deter, someone who believes that it is his God-given mission to eliminate millions of people?

NETANYAHU: No, it’s very hard to rely on deterrents. It is not the same as Soviet Russia. It is not the same as China, or India, or any one of the nuclear powers today, that you’re fairly comfortable understanding what they think in terms of cost and benefit. In the case of an extreme religious cult, that has no such calculations. You could, in fact, face a suicidal regime. Therefore you can’t rely on deterrents; you should work on prevention, that is, preventing them from acquiring the weapons and mass death.

ROSENBERG: How much time does the West have to make a decision to act decisively to stop Iran?

NETANYAHU: Not much. We are running out of time. I can’t tell you if it’s a period of months or a few years. It’s certainly no more than a few years.

ROSENBERG: When you were prime minister, both India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons. As I understand from my research, Western intelligence agencies—I don’t know about the Mossad—were startled that they were ready at that moment. What was your assessment at the time?

NETANYAHU: Well, the first thing I did, or among the first things I did, after I was elected prime minister, was, I think some three weeks later, to speak before a joint session of the U.S. Congress. And I said at the time that the greatest danger that the world faces is the arming of Iran with nuclear weapons. What was true ten years ago is doubly true today—not doubly, triply. I couldn’t get the leading powers of the world, including the U.S. administration at the time, to focus on this danger and to stop the shipment of nuclear and ballistic technology to Iran from many countries, including Russia. I could not get the U.S. to focus on this. I think today people understand the danger. It’s much more advanced. It has moved forward.

Could we be surprised tomorrow? Well, we were surprised by the extent of Libya’s advancement in its nuclear program, and happily it was dismantled, probably as a result of the deterrent effect of [Mu’ammar] Al-Qadhafi’s seeing Saddam [Hussein] at the end of a hole—realizing that he too could hang by the end of a rope. But no such deterrent necessarily works on the true believers in Tehran. And therefore, our focus should not be on deterrents, which may not work, but on prevention, which can obviate the need for deterrents.

ROSENBERG: Natan Sharansky was telling me a story a couple of years ago when I was working with him, about how you sent him back to Moscow, to meet with then KGB chief Vladimir Putin to talk about this specific threat. And he repeated it, of course, for the cameras, a couple days ago. Why? Why did you send him? What message were you trying to send Putin and the leaders of Russia? Because this relationship—Russia and Iran—takes this thing to a new level.

NETANYAHU: I think there is a fundamental contradiction in Russia’s policy. On the one hand, it gives free rein, or almost free rein, to Iran; giving it political support, giving it antiaircraft weapons, and so on, vetoing stiff measures in the Security Council. But on the other hand, it’s building, inadvertently, a powder keg that could explode the soft underbelly of Russia, its own Muslim populations, and the Muslim republics, former Soviet republics, that gird Russia’s southern belly. So I think this is a big mistake. I think that nuclear weapons in the hands of an Iranian, fervently Islamic regime is a danger to Russia. But Russia is perhaps acting on short-term gains at the cost of long term-interest, and this is something that I wanted to bring to their attention when I asked Sharansky to go there. And something that I sought to deal with by getting the U.S. administration at the time to apply sanctions on Russian companies, and the Russian government itself, for selling ballistic and nuclear technology to Iran.

We were unsuccessful then because the U.S. did not focus on this. And the question is, what will the U.S. do today? It has probably in Washington today, I think, a clear understanding of the dangers. But . . . there are really [three] steps here: One is understanding . . . the danger. Two is preparing a response to it. And third is acting. And of all the things that are difficult for statesmen and political leaders, preemption is the hardest because you can never prove what would happen if you don’t preempt. So had the West preempted against Germany in the 1930s, there would have been a lot of controversy and a lot of argument against excessive violence. But of course, millions, tens of millions of people, let alone the six million Jews, would have been saved. And it’s the same thing today; to take strong action against Iran, first in the form of sanctions, and second, if those don’t work, using other means, is something that would be criticized, perhaps severely criticized, by some of the rest of the Arab or Muslim world. They just want it to happen; they are begging it to happen. . . . In the West you’d be criticized, but you’d be saving the world, and probably saving millions and millions of lives.

ROSENBERG: So what’s Putin’s objective, in your assessment of him, personally, of where he’s taking Russia, in submarines, missiles, nuclear technology—

NETANYAHU: I think it’s very clear that there is a monetary gain [for Russia] in the contract with Iran. [But] I think it’s folly to take a perspective of short-term financial gain at the expense of your vital strategic interest, like the survival of your cities. That is not a good trade-off. And I think that it would be prudent for Russia to take a second look.

It may not, so the U.S. action—U.S.-led action—should take into account the fact that the U.S. will not have Russian support, will not have Chinese support. And then there are things that could be done to put pressure on the Ahmadinejad regime today that [don’t] require anything [from] governments. [Things like] pension funds [withdrawing] their funds from companies that invest in this genocide regime of Iran, just the way they stopped investing in the apartheid regime of South Africa. That would create a snowball effect that would seriously pressure the regime. So these things, non-governmental, and governmental sanctions, and governmental action, whether you have a common front with Russia and China, or without them. That is what leadership is about today; you have to act in time, before the radical Muslims arm themselves with atomic bombs.

ROSENBERG: One more question on radical Islam and then just a couple on relationships between evangelicals and Israel. But on this, to finish up on the radical Islam side, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and their relationship to Iran—are you looking at a war here, ’07, ’08? I mean, this is looking like what happened [in 2006], maybe just the prelude. Whether it’s the apocalyptic version that Iran is preparing for, or something intermediate?

NETANYAHU: No, I don’t think [so]. I think a repeat of the Second Lebanon War would only happen if it’s in Iran’s interest. That is, I think their interest right now is just to proceed to complete their nuclear program, and they don’t want anything to interfere with it. So I’m not sure that they would use their proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza—to activate another war. That may not be in their interest if they think that such a war could escalate to an armed activity against Iran. So I don’t necessarily think that they will pull this lever. On the other hand, they might want to, if pressures accumulate on the Iranian nuclear program [and] they want to deflect pressure.

But on balance, my guess is they’ll be very careful right now. They want to concentrate on completing their nuclear program, because once they have that, then they could threaten the West in ways that are unimaginable today. They could take over the Persian Gulf on all its sides and take control of the oil reserves of the world, most of them. They could topple Saudi Arabia and Jordan in short order. And of course, Iraq. All your internal debates in America on Iraq would be irrelevant because [a] nuclear-armed Iran would subordinate Iraq in two seconds. And of course, they threaten to create a second Holocaust in Israel and proceed on their idea of a global empire, producing 25 atomic bombs a year, 250 bombs in a decade, with missiles that they are already working on and they want to develop to reach the eastern seaboard of the United Sates. This is something that just—Everything else pales in comparison to this development. This has to be stopped. For the sake of the world, not only for the sake of Israel.

ROSENBERG: So is it your assessment that it’s very possible that the next war, if it’s not launched by the West to stop Iran, will be Iran trying to eradicate Israel?

NETANYAHU: I don’t think necessarily that Iran will go through another exercise with Hezbollah or Hamas. It may ignite itself, but I don’t think they’ll necessarily ignite it unless they think it helps deflect attention [from] their nuclear program. If, in fact, it draws attention to their nuclear program, that’s the last thing they have in mind. In other words, what will happen—because Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran, and [Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan] Nasrallah doesn’t decide on anything, it’s decided in Tehran—whether or not they’ll enflame the area is really dependant on Iran’s goals. Right now its goal is to turn Lebanon into a second Iran. That’s what they’re concentrating on. I’m not sure they’d want another exchange with Israel necessarily. They will if they think it helps the Iranian nuclear program. They won’t if they don’t think that.

ROSENBERG: We took a survey; we used [McLaughlin & Associates] as our pollster [to survey] American attitudes toward Israel, toward Bible prophecy, [and] 52% of American [Christians] say that they believe the rebirth of Israel in the modern era is a result of Bible prophecy. . . . [In] your own assessment—I mean you, the prime minister of Israel—is Israel simply a political re-creation of Political Zionism [or] do you see it also in biblical or prophetic—

NETANYAHU: Well, I’m not an Orthodox Jew—although I have respect for our traditions. But those traditions have had a tremendous thrust in our history. Because you have to ask yourself, “How is it that the Jews are able to, really, to resist the iron laws of history?” You know, you had a lot of people who were exiled. In fact most peoples of the world were either exiled or conquered. All the ancient nations, most of them, something happened to them that they were dispersed, or they were conquered, or they were decimated. So the Jews were not any different in that sense.

But what is different about the Jews is that they refuse to conform to the patterns of destruction and disappearance that afflicted other nations that were overtaken. And in our dispersal we said year after year, “Next year in Jerusalem.” We wanted to come back to this land you see around you. And it’s defying of these laws of history with the faith and purpose that we had that enabled us to get back here. So obviously you can’t just discount it and say, “Well, it’s just a blanket political process.” It has enormous reservoirs of faith and hope [without which the rebirth of Israel] would not have [been] possible.

The rebirth of Israel is deeply embedded in our traditions. It’s said that the Jewish people, the Jewish exiles, will come back and rebuild their land, their ancestral homeland, here in Israel and create an independent life. And that weaves together both religious and secular traditions in ways that probably are not found anywhere else in the world or in any other people.

That’s why it’s such a powerful story; it’s like a parable. You know, this is why the establishment of America was premised on the story of the people of Israel. This is why the view of the United States, this new America, was called the City on the Hill. Well, the [original] City on the Hill is—If you look outside the window, you’ll see those hills. That city is Jerusalem. And this is the fundamental belief, that they can create a new life, really, for an old people in the “old new land,” as [Austrian writer Theodor] Herzl called it. This is a very powerful theme that obviously resonated from the Jewish people to many, many others. There is hope; there is redemption for mankind. And if the Jews can make it, then anybody else can.

ROSENBERG: So along those lines then—this is the last two questions—Shiites have this end times theology; it’s radical. Obviously evangelicals have an end times theology, but Jews as well, from the prophet Ezekiel. Right after he says Israel will be reborn in the future, he also talks about Russia and Iran forming an alliance. That probably can’t—those type of prophecies probably don’t guide Israeli foreign policy but—

NETANYAHU: Well, there’s a huge difference, and I would be careful to make the analogy between the Judeo-Christian traditions and prophecies and the radical Islamic traditions, for two reasons. One, the radical Islamists have a very violent tradition. In other words, it’s not something that will happen, but it will happen by destruction that we effect. We effect. That is, we—the radical Muslims—should unsheathe our swords and embark on a great jihad of fire and blood, first against nonbelieving Arabs and then against the Muslims, and then against everyone else. That is not present in the evolution of Judeo-Christian theological thinking. Secondly, it’s the immediacy of the idea of, you know, of an “End of Days,” so to speak. At least in the Jewish tradition, this is something that you strive for; it may not necessarily happen in our time, but it is a day in which people will do—what? What will they do? They won’t take their swords and cut off other people’s heads. In fact, they’ll take their swords and turn them into plows. So it’s the exact opposite. It’s [not] immediate; it is something to strive [for], and it’s a vision of peace, not a vision of apocalyptic war.

These are two traditions which are very different, and I would be very, very, careful in equating the two because they’re not the same. In any case, the impact of the Jewish messianic thinking was benign. That is, it was merely an idea that the dispersed Jews would come back and purchase empty lots in a wasteland that was here—what you see around you is basically sand, and bog, and desert. There’s nothing. And we basically built it up and never sought to make war with anyone. Including the many Arabs that [came] into this country as a result of the Jewish rebirth. We accepted them too. It’s they who didn’t accept us. Having immigrated, many of them, into this country as a result of the Jewish restoration. So, it’s basically a benign conception of rebirth and redemption, as opposed to a very warlike cult of blood that seeks to destroy. It’s construction versus destruction. It’s peace versus war. It’s beating your swords into plowshares as opposed to beating your plowshares into swords. And it’s a very, very different conception.

ROSENBERG: You are sitting under a picture of Menachem Begin, [who] probably took the lead in building alliances and friendships with evangelicals, but you have really continued that legacy—

NETANYAHU: Yeah, I did.

ROSENBERG: Why, and where do we go from here? Where would you like us to go from here?

NETANYAHU: It’s important to understand that the partnership between Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists is actually over a century and a half old. I don’t think it’s possible to understand the rebirth and growth of Jewish Zionism without [recognizing] the tremendous backing we had in the Christian world, in Britain and the United States in the nineteenth century. Societies were established to help the Jews come back here. [The writer] Mark Twain visited the Holy Land and wrote rather realistically of the forlorn state of the country, saying that it’ll only come back to life when the Jews come back here. Queen Victoria, in England, set up the Palestine Exploration Fund, which was intended to do scientific archeological expeditions to find out the locations of the biblical cities and towns, which, by the way, they did. And they too came to the conclusion that the country will only come back to life when the Jews come back here in great numbers.

And so this was the background of Christian Zionism that presaged Jewish political Zionism by a full half century. And so this is a very deep partnership which I understand, I respect. And today, I see it not merely as a partnership for Israel, that’s very clear, but as a partnership for the defense of our common values against those who would obliterate our lives. Initially, the danger came from Soviet totalitarianism. But increasingly, especially after the demise of Communism as a creed, the danger is from militant Islam that seeks to obliterate those values that our traditions hold dear: individual freedom, democratic life, the respect for an individual. These things are anathema to the militant Muslims. It’s not so much that they hate the West because of Israel; it’s that they hate Israel because of the West. Because we represent to them this hated culture and civilization that they want to annihilate. And of course they hated the West for centuries before the State of Israel was reborn. So I think there is a natural partnership out there with the citizens of all the democracies. Many of them, especially in Europe, they don’t get it. Some of them do, especially in Eastern Europe, increasingly they get it. In Western Europe, increasingly they get it. But in the United States, they get it. The secular and religious citizens of America, they pretty much get it, and they get it right.

ROSENBERG: So one follow-up, and I have to ask you. There were tensions for a long time between the followers of Jesus and Jews, though in many ways that’s evaporating. But how can we continue to help in the last days? Are there specific ways you’d love to see evangelicals do more?

NETANYAHU: The transformation that has taken place in the evangelical community is quite impressive. The first transformation is that it doesn’t seek to proselytize among the Jews; it seeks to support the state of the Jews. And that is a growing tendency which I think has made a big difference. And secondly, political leaders like myself have said that the greatest partners, the greatest supporters we have are those who view Israel as an asset in itself, who have a deep attachment to it. And unquestionably those include first and foremost the evangelical community which is in the United States, and Northern Europe, and Scandinavia, and probably in seventeen, eighteen countries and growing. And I think that setting aside the theological hairsplitting about what’ll happen in the end of days, and focusing on what we have to do in these present days, has been the source of great support.

And I think that this should radiate beyond the evangelical community to [the] non-evangelical community. Because, you know, it’s the same thing, when these terrorist bombs of militant Islam hit Israel, they don’t distinguish between religious and secular, between left and right. To them, we’re all marked for death. And the same thing is true in America. When they slammed into the World Trade Center, they didn’t really care who was there. For them, we are all marked for death. So for me, it would be important that this basic partnership today that you see between the evangelical community in the United States and Israel would turn into a broad partnership, which I think it is turning into. Between Americans, period, and Israel because we’re in the same boat; we have the same goals and the same values and we’re threatened by the same enemies.

NATAN SHARANSKY

Former Deputy Prime Minister of Israel

JOEL ROSENBERG: How serious is the Iranian nuclear threat, in your assessment?

NATAN SHARANSKY: I think what makes it so serious is it’s nonconventional weapons in the hands of nonconventional government. [Iran’s] leaders [view] life in this world only as the introduction to the next world. And their success in the next world depends on how many unfaithful people they will kill in this world and how successful they will be with Small Satan and Big Satan. This is very dangerous. We have to understand that nuclear weapons in the hands of this regime changes not only the chances of Israel for survival, it changes the chances of the Free World. Free World will never be free again. It will never be led by the spiritual freedom of the United States of America or other free nations. It is all about appeasement and how to save your life [by] sacrificing your freedom. That’s in fact the challenges of nuclear weapons in the hands of this regime in Iran. And that’s why it is the highest moral obligation—moral interest and practical interest of the Free World—to mobilize for two aims: to prevent this regime from having nuclear weapons and to encourage the democratic opposition to replace this regime.

ROSENBERG: How much time do we have?

SHARANSKY: I believe that 2007 is the last year to do something.

ROSENBERG: And if 2008 begins and we haven’t done anything?

SHARANSKY: Then our situation and our opportunities to deal with the problem will be much more limited. You have to understand, I don’t want to say that in 2007 Iran can try to use nuclear weapons against Israel, America, or whatever. But I am saying that if this problem will not be solved in 2007, the chances for success later will be far less, and the scope or efforts which have to be undertaken will be simply incomparable.

ROSENBERG: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is denying the Holocaust, yet he seems to be preparing for another one. Do you see a scenario in which Iran could get to the point where they’re capable of doing in six minutes what it took Hitler six years to do—to kill six million Jews?

SHARANSKY: I think that for leaders of Iran, there is no problem to launch a new holocaust as long as the holocaust is connected with the right idea. Maybe where they can have disagreement with the Nazi regime [is] that [the Nazis] don’t show that it was done for the right idea, to [gain entrance] in the right way to paradise. . . . Another problem [is that a] holocaust can happen only when there are enough people who are ready to think about it, who are not afraid of it, and for whom it is legitimate to kill the others [whom they consider] less than human beings. And it took quite an effort for [the] Nazi regime to create [a] nation where so many people believed that Jews [were] less than human beings; [that it was] okay to view them in [a] different way. In fact there was a whole history of [a] double standard [regarding] Jews which helped. For these leaders of Iran, you don’t need [to make] any [such] efforts, [a holocaust is] already justified. For them there is no doubt they have the right and that they are obliged to do it, to do everything in their power to finish with the Satans of this world and to pave the way for the new world of faithful people. In fact, their children study in their schools that all the unfaithful will turn to be Muslims or will disappear from this world.

ROSENBERG: Why is Russia selling weapons, selling nuclear technology, and building nuclear facilities inside Iran?

SHARANSKY: All the history of leakage of Russian technologies toward Iran is a very sad story showing how short-range interests can prevail over the strategic thinking; showing how dangerous it is when the regimes are not building the real cooperation built on mutual desire to live in freedom and democracy.

I was sent by Israel in the name of Netanyahu to warn [the] Russians about the dangers of leakage of that technology in January ’97. In fact, I was the first minister to start this, and then I happened to be the first former prisoner of conscience in the Soviet Union ever who came back to visit his own prison and then to meet the head of new KGB, [Vladimir] Putin.

For Russia in the beginning, it was all about the markets. They felt that America and the West [were] trying to put them out of the markets, and here where [Russia] can have [an] important market, we have not room to give up. For them it was also belief—once Putin told me, “You’ll see even if you don’t trust us that we are doing our best to prevent this leakage of technologies. You will see one day that the best technology [is] coming from Europe.” And unfortunately to great extent, they happened to be right, that it’s not only Russian technologies but very sophisticated German, French, English, Dutch technologies which came through Pakistan to Iran.

But also for Russia today, when they believe that America is not willing to become a very strategic partner, what is important for them today is whether America is really serious about fighting Iran. I remember in the past, when [it] became clear that America [was] striking Iraq, [the Russians] were very critical about this. When they understood that it [was] inevitable, they started seriously discussing with America, thinking, what will be their role? What will be their possible cooperation the day after? But they are thinking that America is not suitable, it’s too big. Then all their interest is how to prevent [America’s] role in this: how to make clear to Arabs, and to Iran, and to the others, that if America is not strong enough against them it’s only because of Russia. So Russia has here economical interests which are shortsighted; they are not taking into account [the] strategic danger of Muslim fundamentalists for Russia itself, but they also—they attempt to play their usual game, how to make best of their relations with America and with Arab countries at the same time. So I think it is very important for America to have clear, big stick and big carrot at the same time. And unfortunately, very often, America doesn’t have either of these.

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, and 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.

ROSENBERG: Last question. Do you see any way to stop Iran from going nuclear?

YA’ALON: I thought in the past that political isolation and economic sanctions to be imposed on this regime in Iran might be helpful to trigger or to generate the inevitable internal change in Iran. I believe that in the end, we will face internal change in Iran. Today, those who actually avoid political isolation or economic sanction promote the military ops. The confrontation with this regime is inevitable, and it is going to be a military one, rather than political one, because of the lack of determination when it comes to [the] international community to deal with it by political or economic means. And we can’t avoid it. Unless we are going to give up our way of life, our values, our culture. And I don’t believe that the West is going to give up.

DORE GOLD

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations

JOEL ROSENBERG: Describe the threat that [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad poses to Israel, the United States, and the West. I’m talking about the apocalyptic thinking that’s driving Iranian foreign policy.

DORE GOLD: In 1979, it was Ayatollah Khomeini who launched at the time an Islamic revolution in Iran that basically chased out the old shah of Iran and set up an Islamic government. There was tremendous momentum at the time, in the late seventies and early eighties, for this Islamic revolution. It was exported into Bahrain, into Kuwait, into the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia. But then it lost steam. It continued to support terrorism quietly, but it put up in the front people like [Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani and [Mohammad] Khatami, who were the presidents of Iran. With the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the end of 2005, the old Islamic revolution gained new steam. But in fact, it became much worse. Ahmadinejad comes out of a cult in the Shiite Islamic world, which was actually illegal in Khomeini’s time. And this cult believes in the impending return of the Twelfth or Hidden Imam, a kind of messianic savior for the Shiites, who is supposed to come to power in the aftermath of tremendous wars, an Armageddon-type scenario. The danger of Ahmadinejad is that he believes that this apocalyptic scenario can be accelerated by men. And he believes that the destruction of Israel is part of the key first steps to realizing this apocalyptic scenario that will lead to Islamic rule over the whole world.

ROSENBERG: Ahmadinejad, in your view, is inciting genocide. Talk to me about the case for that.

GOLD: Well, back in 1948, the international community was concerned with creating new international laws that would prevent another replay of the Holocaust that had just occurred. And it adopted the [Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide]. In the convention, there was an article, known as Article 3, which specifically states that incitement to genocide is a crime under international law. Now this convention has been adopted by most of the countries of the world, including Iran and Israel and, of course, the United States. What Ahmadinejad has been doing, he has been calling to erase Israel off the map of the earth. You cannot erase a country off a map without erasing its people. A number of years ago, right after the genocide in Rwanda, it was discovered that there was a Hutu radio station which was broadcasting genocidal messages to the Hutu population of Rwanda, to kill off the Tutsi population. Once the United Nations set up an international tribunal for trying of various Hutu leaders of Rwanda for war crimes, they also tried individuals for inciting genocide under the genocide convention, so that this convention has been actually used in legal cases against those inciting genocide. The group that I put together here at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs firmly believes that Ahmadinejad is violating this article of the genocide convention and ought to be tried by the United Nations or any of its organs as a result.

ROSENBERG: Talk then about Ahmadinejad denying the Holocaust yet calling for another, essentially.

GOLD: Well, one of the ironies of the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad is [that] on the one hand, he denies the Holocaust, and yet he seems to be calling for yet another holocaust in order to trigger the return of the lost Imam. It’s as though he thinks that if he can get away with Holocaust denial, which is such a patently false assertion, he believes that he can also get away with another holocaust. And so the two seem to be linked.

There’s a third aspect, of course, to the whole thing: Ahmadinejad understands that Shiites only make up 15 percent of the Islamic world and he has to reach over the heads of Arab governments to the Arab street. And so he’s hoping to use these messages of destroying Israel, of Holocaust denial, to arouse the support of Shiite Iran among the Sunni Arab masses. And therefore, he’s engaging in a very dangerous game.

ROSENBERG: Can’t we just say, Ahmadinejad has got hot rhetoric but who really cares; he can’t possibly accomplish these objectives of wiping Israel out? Actually, let me back up and ask you, does Ahmadinejad represent a threat only to Israel?

GOLD: Well, first of all, the best way to look at whether Ahmadinejad is only a threat to Israel is to look at both his intentions and his capabilities. He speaks about a war of Iran against the world of arrogance. Now Persian experts understand that the “world of arrogance” is the West. So his declared intentions seem to be directed at a much larger target than just Israel. But second of all, you have to look at his capabilities. If Ahmadinejad just wanted to wipe out Israel, he would develop a Shahab-3 missile, which they now have operational, that has a 1,300-kilometer range, and he would stop there. Why waste defense budget resources on longer-range missiles? But alas, we see that Ahmadinejad and the Iranian establishment is developing extended-range Shahab-3 missiles that have [a] 2,000-kilometer range, well beyond Israel. They have bought a missile called the BM-25 from North Korea, which comes in two varieties: a 2,700-kilometer missile and a 3,700-kilometer-range missile. It’s also known that Iran is determined to achieve space-lift capability—putting a Sputnik in orbit. Now once you have a multistage missile that can put a payload into orbit from some Iranian testing ground, you have the capability of reaching intercontinental-range targets.

Back in 1998, the U.S. Congress, both the Democrats and the Republicans, put together a commission analyzing the vulnerability of the United States to ballistic missile attack from third world countries. This commission, which received material from American intelligence sources and which had bipartisan backing—it was called the Rumsfeld Commission, he headed it at the time—concluded that the Iranians could build an intercontinental-range missile that could strike the eastern seaboard of the United States within five years of making the decision of doing so. And it wouldn’t be clear to American intelligence and military leaders that, in fact, the Iranians had [made] that decision. So when you look at the whole development of the Iranian missile program, their procurement of cruise missiles from the Ukraine, their development of multistage missiles down the road, it is clear that Iran is looking far beyond Israel and far beyond Tel Aviv. Their aim is the West as a whole.

ROSENBERG: What’s the furthest city, let’s say, in Europe right now, that can be hit by an Iranian missile?

GOLD: Well, if we are looking at the 2,700-kilometer-range missile or 3,700-kilometer-range missile, I would assert that they could probably strike in the very near future Central Europe, certainly Germany, Italy, Austria.

ROSENBERG: Talk to me just for a moment, in terms also of capability, about Iran testing, firing SCUD missiles, or missiles off the back of commercial container ships, and the threat that could pose.

GOLD: There are thousands of container ships moving around the world today as part of international trade. And certainly one of the scenarios that defense officials in the West have considered is the placement of shorter-range missiles, which the Iranians already have, on a container ship near the coastline of the United States or of another Western country, which it might seek to threaten. Just imagine the announcement that there is a container ship afloat, somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, containing either weapons of mass destruction or containing even short-range missiles. It would certainly set off a panic among many people. And if the United States was considering military action against [Iran at] some point in the future, and the Iranians could boast that they had container ships with missiles, this might forestall action by the U.S. or any of its allies.

ROSENBERG: Or you could have a first strike.

GOLD: Certainly a first strike is a physical possibility. The question is how that would fit into the Iranian strategy at that particular period.

ROSENBERG: Let’s go back to Ahmadinejad’s Shiite Islamic eschatology. Is that his alone? How widespread is this view that the end of the world is near and that the way to hasten the coming of the Islamic messiah is to launch this annihilating war against Israel?

GOLD: There is, in fact, a well-developed eschatological literature that exists not only on the Shiite side of Islam but [also] on the Sunni side of Islam. And one can affect the other. One of the noticeable developments over the last ten years has been the proliferation of sort of cheap books that do not have any accreditation or support from Islamic religious authorities that call for action against the antichrist, in Arabic known as the dajal. And we’re seeing the proliferation of these books in Jordan, in Egypt, in the Palestinian Authority. They envision sometimes the end of the world, they envision the end of Israel. And what’s troubling is that many of these apocalyptic books are runaway best sellers in many Arab countries. And therefore, those who speak about end of times scenarios in Islamic terms have a certain popularity today.

One of the most important individuals in spreading radical Islamic thinking is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who might be described as the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood. He’s Egyptian in origin but now he lives in Qatar. And he has a regular television program on Aljazeera. And there he speaks about everything from U.S. forces in Iraq to how women should be treated in Islam. In my book The Fight for Jerusalem, I disclose a talk that al-Qaradawi gave on Aljazeera in which he spoke about a group called, in Arabic, al-Ta’ifa al-Mansura, and this group is a kind of Mahdist group that is supposed to be in Jerusalem for the fight between the Sunni Islamic Mahdi and the antichrist, known as the dajal. The problem for me, and I convey it in my analysis, is that al-Qaradawi believes that this worldwide group, al-Ta’ifa al-Mansura, is already in Jerusalem today. And therefore, they are not seeing these scenarios of the end of days as something that’ll occur in one thousand years, but as something that might occur tomorrow, and is something that could be triggered tomorrow.

A second theme that I raise in The Fight for Jerusalem is that in Islamic apocalyptic thought, Jerusalem has a special role as triggering global jihad. Back in the times of Saladin, when the crusaders were in control of Jerusalem, there was an Islamic thinker in Damascus who put forward the thesis that if Saladin will retake Jerusalem, Constantinople—now today called Istanbul—the capital of Eastern Christendom, will fall into the hands of Islam. So there is a kind of causality created in Islamic thought between the fall of Jerusalem, the retaking of Jerusalem, and the fall of other centers of Christendom around the West. In fact, much of the apocalyptic thought of al-Qaradawi includes somehow recovering Istanbul yet again, but specifically, the fall of Rome. And, you know, how this exactly physically works, I don’t know. But it’s certainly expressing itself in the apocalyptic literature, that, again I repeat, is extremely popular today in much of the Islamic world.

ROSENBERG: And your case is that this is surging—this interest in apocalyptic thinking—in the Islamic world?

GOLD: If you speak to many Arab intellectuals and you mention these things about apocalyptic thought, they may not know what you’re talking about. But if you check book sales in bookstores, or in various countries—in Egypt, in Jordan, in the Palestinian Authority—you’ll find much of this literature to be very popular. Again, even though it does not have the backing of Islamic religious authorities.

ROSENBERG: Talk to me about why Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is selling nuclear technology to Iran. Walk me through the series of actions that Russia is taking to strengthen Iran.

GOLD: When I served under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, we were aware at the time that Iran was receiving missile technology from the Russians. We thought this was insane policy. And in fact, many in the Israeli government and in the Clinton administration warned the Russians that this activity was going on. Today you also have the issue of nuclear technology. There’s the Bushehr reactor along the Persian Gulf, where the Russians have been very active in selling technology. Now one thesis, of course, put forward to understand the Russian policy, is that the Russians need money and nuclear reactors are one of the best export items in their sort of arsenal of exports.

I have my own personal feeling, or personal view, that I can’t prove, but it’s one of those intuitions. The Russians understand that they are increasingly at war with radical Sunni Islam. And it is perhaps their hope that they can divide the Islamic world between the Shiites and the Sunnis; they can help a Shiite radical government, and somehow that will serve their interests, while they fight in Chechnya against Sunni radicals that are funded by wealthy businessmen in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf. But I think it’s a mistake in policy, because frequently, when you start feeding one part of radical Islam, the other part gets fed as well.

ROSENBERG: List for me some of the types of weapon systems that Russia has been selling. It’s my understanding we’re talking about anti-missile systems, submarines, obviously nuclear technology.

GOLD: One of the surprising Russian sales to Iran back in the 1990s were Kilo class submarines, which the Iranian navy has now deployed. It’s clear that the Iranians have generally invested in two areas of their military capability. Number one, their naval forces. And number two, their missile and potential nuclear forces. If you look at the Iranian air force, the Iranian ground forces, they’ve actually suffered a number of setbacks and are not as equipped as they were in the past. Now the Iranian interest at this point is to make sure that the Persian Gulf becomes a Persian lake—one where they will have naval dominance. And even though the U.S. Navy puts carriers and battleship groups into the Gulf, the Iranians have experience using small speed boats with revolutionary guards, who are willing to shoot anti-ship missiles, either bought from China or from other sources, against the U.S. Navy. That’s one scenario.

The second scenario has to do with the Russian contribution to the Iranian missile program. The Iranian missile program certainly has been built around North Korean technology, but there is a kind of movement with missile technology that begins in Russia, reaches North Korea, and comes back to Iran. And that is the sort of loop that we are suffering from today. If the Russians would cut back their assistance to the missile programs of Iran and to the nuclear program of Iran, I think the world would be in much better shape.

ROSENBERG: One of the cases that I make in Epicenter is that Russia, by selling arms and nuclear technology to Iran, has joined the axis of evil. Is it a fair assessment to make at this point, that Russia—under Putin—has joined the axis of evil?

GOLD: Well, what has happened is that Russian policy may have gone further than the Russians intended or were prepared to go. For example, when Russian antitank missiles . . . were sold to Syria or sold to Iran and ended up in the hands of Hezbollah, we saw advanced weapons now in the hands of an international terrorist organization. And what is likely is that if Russia continues its policy, it will in effect be supplying organizations which are viewed as terrorist organizations by most of the international community. That would be a sad development for Russia; it would make it very difficult to develop an international standard for fighting terrorist organizations, which ultimately hurt Russia itself.

ROSENBERG: Is it your assessment that Putin is building a military alliance with Iran?

GOLD: I think Russian policy is torn today. On the one hand, the Russians are concerned with the rise of radical Islam, which is spreading beyond Chechnya and Pakistan to much of the upper Volga regions of Russia. And the threat is a real threat to the future existence of the Russian Federation. That should put Putin alongside of President George W. Bush as an ally on the war on terrorism. But on the other hand, there is an old establishment in Russian military circles and in Russian intelligence circles that would like to see Russia assume the great power status of the Soviet Union. The Russians no longer have a strong position in Eastern Europe. Eastern European countries are now joining the EU or joining NATO, and therefore the only area for Russian expansion to recover its great power status is Iran and the Middle East. But if Russia attempts to recover the great power status of the Soviet Union by means of expansion into the central Middle East and towards Iran, it will ultimately be hurting itself as well as linking up with the axis of evil.

ROSENBERG: Last question for you. Given the threat of radical Islamic eschatology, Ahmadinejad—take just the last few moments here to talk about how evangelicals and Israel can and should be working together—if your view is that they should be. . . . It seems like we have a common enemy, so how do we deal with it by uniting?

GOLD: You know back in the second century, the Jewish people were facing a terrible threat from the Roman Empire. And in fact at the time, according to Dio Cassius, the Roman historian, the Jews and early Christians may have worked together to defeat the oppression of imperial Rome, which was threatening both Christianity—early Christianity—and threatening the future of Judaism. What’s necessary in international relations is a capacity to draw [a] distinction between good and evil, between those who support security and peace and those who wish to undermine it. And what Jewish values and Christian values provide is an ability to make that distinction. And therefore, the alliance that we once had back in the second century is an alliance which should be restored again today. . . .

There is a terribly mistaken belief that is widespread in many intellectual circles in the United States and especially in Europe that somehow, if Israel will undertake further withdrawals in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, that this will lower the flames of radical Islam. My analysis in The Fight for Jerusalem is that rather than lower the flames of radical Islam, further withdrawals would actually elevate those flames. And Israel has real experience; we withdrew from Lebanon in the year 2000 and [we] got the [al-Aqsa] Intifada, Arafat’s attacks against Israel, in return. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and we got a Hamas election victory in 2006 and the entry of Al-Qaeda into the Gaza Strip in return. The assertion I put forward in The Fight for Jerusalem is that—given the widespread nature of Islamic apocalyptic thought, which pins on Jerusalem a crucial role in the launching of a new global jihad—if Israel would withdraw from parts of the Old City of Jerusalem, we would set off a terrorist tsunami that would spread well beyond the Middle East to the heart of Western Europe and even to the United States. And therefore Jerusalem has to be treated very specially. Only a free and independent Israel can protect Jerusalem as a city that will be open to all faiths. That should be the policy, in my judgment, of every country in the Western alliance, and it certainly should be the policy of the State of Israel.