During his mid-month visit to Denver, Yossi Klein Halevi also dropped by the Rocky to meet with the editorial board. I'm glad that I taped that meeting, since Halevi -- a contributing editor at The New Republic, veteran journalist and author, and senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem -- is a one-man road map, so to speak, for Americans trying to understand the political dynamic in the Middle East. The focus of our conversation, though, was Iran, and Halevi's keen insight into the brewing conflict with the Islamic Republic is something that everyone should digest.

Following are audio (click on the links) and text snippets from that meeting, beginning as the conversation did -- with Halevi's view on the Obama victory in relation to the Iran nuclear crisis:

Halevi_on_Obama.mp3

Halevi continued:

"So I'm really concerned most of all about timetable. In Israel we are looking at a very tight timetable of at the outside 18 months. And that's when a decision has to be made. And I don't know if Obama is going to act with urgency. Now I think he's learned on the job. He's already much better on Iran than he was eight months ago. He made a statement, I don't know if you remember this, and I guess it was about eight months ago saying that Cuba, Venezuela and Iran are small countries, and the United States negotiated with the Soviet Union, which is a big country. And if we were able to negotiate with the Soviets certainly we can negotiate with these small countries. Which was a very worrying misreading of the differences here and the Soviet Union basically being a rational country and Iran -- we don't know. I won't go so far as to say that Iran is irrational. But we don't know.

And I think he's gotten better. He was in the Middle East, of course, in July, and my understanding from speaking to someone in his circle was that he didn't sleep all week that he was in the Middle East. Didn't sleep. And what they were saying was it wasn't jet lag. That it finally hit home what he has to confront. And apparently he had a very sobering education. Not only in Israel -- what he heard from Arab leaders was apparently no less apocalyptic: that if Iran gets the bomb, then you're going to have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East -- it's already beginning -- a nuclear suitcase floating around to an Iranian proxy, Hezbollah or Hamas, the end of the peace process definitively -- no Arab country will dare defy Iran when it has hegemony in the Middle East. So by every measure a nuclear Iran -- even if they're not crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack against Israel -- it will mean a totally transformed world in ways that I think we haven't even begun considering. So that's what we're looking at."

Editor John Temple asked if Israel has the capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program. (Or as I like to call it, in deference to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's continuing, amusing protestations, Iran's nuclear "energy" program.) Halevi responded:

"Look, I don't know. I really don't know. But I have to believe that when I sit with people whose job it is to know and they say we can set them back five years, say, that's the general figure that you hear. The pessimists say three years; the optimists say 10 years. So let's assume five. I have to go with that. We've been planning this in one form or another since 1993. The guy who actually established Israel's Iranian policy is Yitzhak Rabin. And Rabin in 1993, after the Oslo handshake, gave an interview to Israeli media. And he said, the reason I'm taking a gamble on Arafat is because I want to free us from this obsession that our military strategists have with dealing with the Palestinians, who are not an existential threat to Israel, and I want us to start planning for us to deal with the real long-term existential threat, which is a nuclear Iran. He said this in '93. And everyone was in a state of euphoria about peace with the Palestinians and Rabin was thinking about war with Iran. So if you're asking me, can we do it, Rabin began preparing the Israeli air force in '93. And every Israeli prime minister since Rabin, left, right and center, has adopted the same position. So if we can't do it, after all these years, then I don't know if we have what it takes to survive in the Middle East."

By the way, I'm going ahead and throwing the lengthy -- and eye-opening -- quotes up because you're tired from being dragged to the mall at 5 a.m. today and just want to sit at the computer and read engrossing material. So here's what Halevi said about Iran's irrational behavior:

"The moment that the Israeli public came to the conclusion that this is a lunatic regime was about two and a half years ago when Iran sponsored the Holocaust denial conference. If you're facing international sanctions, and you want to prove to the international community that you're reasonable, you wouldn't be organizing a conference of the world's crackpots. And that's what they did. ... I think that Ahmadinejad reasons that the only reason the West supports Israel is because of the Holocaust, and if he can prove that the Holocaust is a Zionist invention, then Israel will lose its support and the destruction of Israel will become a reasonable position in the West."

Can change come from within Iran, though?

"Absolutely. There isn't this deep hatred of Israel and the West among Iranians. Even after 30 years of this kind of education. Israel Radio is very popular in Iran. It's wildly popular. And anyone that I've spoken to who's been there says that when you meet people -- and not only among young people in Tehran, but out in rural areas -- there's deep disaffection with the regime. There's 30 percent hidden unemployment today in Iran. So the short answer is yes -- regime change, I think, is inevitable. But here again the question is
timetable. And it's not going to happen on its own in the next 18 months. That's almost certain. And what worries me about an Israeli strike -- which I think as a last resort we're going to have to do -- but what does worry me is what are going to be the repercussions domestically in Iran. And I could see the possibility of a very patriotic and proud people rallying around the regime. Even a detested regime. But it's their country rather than this regime that will have been attacked, and a strike could set back the possibility of regime change. That's a major downside. And along with some other very serious repercussions that we're looking at in Israel: massive Iranian retaliation against Tel Aviv, for example."

And on the question of sanctions against Iran, which you heard Halevi saying that Obama should advocate:

"Focusing on the Iranian oil industry. The regime is propping up the Iranian economy primarily through oil revenues. And if you take that away, if you really dig into that, the regime may not be sustainable. And then we could have regime change much sooner. I haven't given up completely on sanctions. I'm close to giving up on the international community. And here I think the challenge for Obama, and this really goes back to what
you were saying about the U.N., I think the challenge for Obama is to sidestep the U.N. and create his equivalent of what we used to call the coalition of the willing. And even in Europe -- Europe is deeply divided about Iran. Merkel is very good, but she has absolutely no support in government or in public opinion. She's basically stymied. France is by far the most assertive on the Iranian threat. And Italy is very good now with Berlusconi. So if you look at Europe, Europe is going to divide on Iran. Eastern Europe for the most part is very good. Poland, Czech Republic. And so we need to rethink the kind of sanctions that
need to be imposed and which countries are likely to adopt those sanctions. If you wait for the U.N., it will never happen.

...There's something so painfully naive about the expectation that some people have that Obama's somehow going to bring -- and people have asked me this, 'Well, Obama will bring the Chinese and the Russians on board because he's more likable.' The Chinese and the Russians will not endanger what they consider their interests because the new American president is likable."

The key, said Halevi, is bringing Europe on board to the extent that a line is drawn -- if you can't get China to join in the sanctions, at least don't let China undermine them. After all, Europe has a lot riding on how the Iran standoff ends, particularly when it comes to being on the other end of a long-range missile. "They can't yet hit Europe," Halevi said. "But within the next couple of years they will be able to hit Europe. And in Europe, they're very aware of this."

How will the Israeli elections -- and the fact that they're currently government-less -- affect the Iran crisis, and vice versa?

"...So the first issue, then, is this hunger for clean government. And Livni does seem to be clean and decent. What she doesn't have is any security experience. And that's the other big issue of course. And interestingly I think for most Israeli voters the security issue in this election probably won't be Iran. It's going to be much closer to home. It will be Hezbollah and Hamas. Because we could find ourselves literally any day at war again with either of them. We're very close to another war with Hamas. And to go back into Gaza will be really, really sticky. Especially after the cease-fire, because everybody knows that the cease-fire just gave them an opportunity to rearm. And that was just such a stupid move for Israel to do, such a move of weakness. So that's really on people's minds -- who can deal with Gaza and Hezbollah. And you know something of how the Israeli psyche works -- it's one thread at a time and one day at a time. So the people whose job it is to think a little bit more long-term are looking at Iran, most Israelis are looking at Iranian proxies who are sitting right on the border.

So if things are reasonably quiet, then I think Livni will have a chance to promote her good-government agenda. If things are shaky, and as they seem to be heading, I think Netanyahu will win. Netanyahu has one great campaign advantage and that is that before the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 he was warning that if we pull the army out of Gaza we're going to get Katyushas on the city of Ashkelon, which is about 15 miles away from Gaza. And the Israeli media ridiculed him, and treated him, to some extent, how much of the media here treated Sarah Palin. ... All that Netanyahu has to do is replay some of those headlines and talk shows and then show the footage of the shopping mall in Ashkelon that was devastated by Katyushas. So Netanyahu has strong security credentials. And my gut sense is that he's going to win."

In talking about the chances for a national unity government, Halevi had some interesting observations on Syria, as well. Take a listen.

Halevi_on_Syria.mp3

And he elaborated on the future of the Mideast peace process, which doesn't look especially rosy: no two-state solution is in sight as long as Hamas is as strong as it is. Click and listen:

Halevi_on_Palestinians.mp3

And how has the war in Iraq affected our ability to adequately handle the Iran crisis? Again, no rosy pictures painted here:

Halevi_on_Iraq_War_and_Iran.mp3

Whatever you personally believe to be the best course of action toward Iran's nuclear program, it's clear that we can't sweep the issue under the Persian rug.

Discussion

• November 28, 2008

  5:07 AM

  Reynaldo U. Tamoro writes:

  Economic sanction is highly recommended, supported by international community. if failed, military action is needed, lead by USA ISRAEL and other EUROPEANS allies. IRANIAN government do not believe in diplomacy.

• November 28, 2008

  6:48 AM

  Larry Bryant writes:

  Economic sanctions are preferable yes, but are unlikely to be effective because too many nations will ignor any sanctions and continue to trade with Iran. I dont see economic sanctions as a viable option. I believe that the only option for Israel is a millitary option, and the timetable is not 18 months but before Obama takes office. Any efforts that Obama is likely to take will only give the Iranians the opportunity to complete their objective for nuclear weapons and a delivery system. At the same time it will undermine Israel's option for a pre-emptive strike. No matter which option is taken, the result will not be good for the entire Middle East. Iran is hell bent to destroy Israel, and gaining a nuclear capability is just one more step towards that goal.

• November 28, 2008

  7:04 AM

  Jerry Ram writes:

  I have yet to hear that one can have a rational discussion, with someone high on drugs.

  It would be in Irans interest and advantage to prolong so called "discussions" to buy time for its nuclear ambitions.

  I beleive, that once Iran reaches a point of no return, one can forget about discussions. This, is the reality.

  And, no one is going to say to Israel, do not use military force against Iran, because, then the world can say, we never authorized Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. In other worsds, an example of israel being the fall guy again.

  But one should be aware, there is no second chance for Israel.

• November 28, 2008

  7:21 AM

  Muhammad writes:

  While US sent Iraq to last century it itself went into 1929.

  While you guys are digging hole for Iran, China in backyard of US signed many important contracts with Latin Americans.

  The energy you're putting to bring every body down could have been used to otherwise effect - be friendlier with neighbours.

  Any ways - Jews wouldn't understand that. They have history of 4000-5000 years to this effect.

• November 28, 2008

  8:16 AM

  HateLiars writes:

  Neocon bullshit starts again.

  Don't worry Russians and Venezualans are preparing in your backyard.

  Nuke is the only language Jew-riddled America understands!!!

• November 28, 2008

  8:20 AM

  Jacksonian writes:

  If the Iranians, Hamas, Hezbolah and the Arabs would put their weapons down, there would be peace. If Israel would put it's weapons down, there would be no Israel. Wise up everybody.

• November 28, 2008

  8:24 AM

  To Jacksonian writes:

  I've come from another palnet

  Please tell me in 1 sentence:

  why Israel is so dispised?

• November 28, 2008

  8:48 AM

  Sock Ray Blue writes:

  Jacksonian

  The Palestinians get nervous thinking that if the Israelis get into power they will require that everyone attend a Bris if they haven't already.

  Historically the Jews have taken on jobs that others have thought beneath then and they have shown a remarkable ability to adapt and come out ahead of the deal. The rest of the world can't quite seem to figure it out and takes delight in being anti-Semites.

• November 28, 2008

  8:49 AM

  Ken Kerstner writes:

  There is no threat.
  The Messiah has been selected, and just his present will stop Iran from delveolping and using Nukes. This is what we've been led to believe. Earilar this year Obama said he is going to sit down with Ahmadinejad. They are going talk without any preconditions.
  Just look at your poll: 75% voted yes 25% voted no, to using weapons, this were the percenage after I voted.
  And yet the President-to-be ONLY uses words,using weapons is beyond his pay grade.
  So don't fear Obama is here,but don't travel outside the U.S. for the next four years.
  And Pray for Israel as well as America, we're going to need help.

• November 28, 2008

  9:02 AM

  mathematician writes:

  Why is Isreal so despised? They are 1% of the population (planet) and 98% of the trouble (same planet)

• November 28, 2008

  9:16 AM

  Ty writes:

  I think that the only way to show Iran that we are serious is going to be through some kind of military action. I don't feel Obama will realize this in time. The Iranian's are not pushover's and I think that they could be the cause of the next world war! To many countries are divided on the issue and that could be trouble if the situation is not handled quickly.

• November 28, 2008

  10:27 AM

  melvin dusty woolsey writes:

  in answer to two questions above, why is Israel hated?.

  they, Jews, control the money of the world, hidden fact lets say.
  there is hate of a race of people of another race of people in every nation of the world. in America, blacks hate white people being told since the slave days American whites captured them and put them in slavery, but, they did not, they were sold to american whites by their greedy king who was black as they are. and there we go, true history. why do all middle east nations don't want Israel to exist? they want the oil under israel and the rich farm land and control of the middle east, when they capture israel, which they will not ever do, if they get control of the valley that rusn through israel, they have control of the middle east. irans leader is a total mentally sick human being. he has a greed for power.

• November 28, 2008

  11:25 AM

  Kevin McConnell writes:

  It's rediculious to suggest Israel is dispised, why they are hated so much is beyond me, I suppose it could be a deep rooted spiritual thing.
  But compared to other countries,especially in the middle east Israel appears to have the edge, (afterall, not everyone has been historically favoured by in such esteem, and it might help occasionally if the big fellas on your side)
  We all know Israel is capable of achieving great things and it is this competitive edge that people fear, wouldn't it be great to see some of that historical experience put to good use.

• November 28, 2008

  1:06 PM

  Danny Boy writes:

  During 1960's and 1970's most third world politicians and some European used to say that Israel is a cancer and need to remove surgically. Well, the cancer is now spread and only way to stop it to send back 2 million economic refugees that arrived in Israel from mostly former Soviet Union. Obviously, they need to be compensated.

  Allow, Palestinian refugees back to Palestine and Israel to replace departing Soviets (now Russians)

  I do not think Iran wants any nuclear weapons and I believe them 100%. Zionist just want Europe to do their dirty job like what they made U.S. do it in Iraq.

  After Iran it will be Pakistan turn? Blue print was design long ago at the Langly, Headquarter with the help of neo-con, religious right and Mossad. Its call long term planning.

• November 28, 2008

  1:14 PM

  Moe Emami writes:

  Question?
  Why small country(Israel) that it's existance depends on our tax money should have nuclear bomb and other should not?
  Why we are against every country in the middle east to be nuclear except Israel?
  Why do we act stuppid and pretend that Israel is an inecent?
  Thanks,
  Moe

• November 29, 2008

  12:54 PM

  Holier Than Thou writes:

  Rationality is most important. Clearly, this is a rare commodity on this blog. The Iranians have similar types within their own population. They spew hate for the Israelis and intimidate much of the rest of the Iranian public with religious nonsense and the politics of fear.

  Halevi cites a number of important facts. Attacking Iran before they've deployed nuclear weapons would ensure that they do deploy nuclear weapons. The success of such an attack is by no means assured because Iran has installed its nuclear production in hardened facilities. An attack will certainly cripple Iran's political moderates making the country stubbornly irrational and also nuclear-armed.

  Rationality must then be slowly regrown in Iran by the same kind of policy that prevented all out war between the USA and the Soviet Union. This policy was called mutual assured destruction or MAD. What this means is that a first strike nuclear attack shall be met with a massive retaliatory strike that will completely annihilate both antagonists. It's a stalemate.

  In the case of Iran, the USA would need to step in with a clearly stated policy of complete destruction of Iran if they hit anyone with a nuclear weapon. At that point, chances are good that Russia and China would then apply the same policy to us. And so, we would have MAD with a player who isn't playing with a full deck.

  Herein lies the rub.

  Unilateral action in this case carries a much greater risk than explaining potential difficulties going forward to the UN and the world. This is a very good case to reassert the global initiative towards non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation is its own incentive because developing nuclear weapons is very expensive. Iran's nuclear program is why a third of their workforce is presently unemployed. Let's make this cost clear to the Iranian public and remember that it also applies to us.

  But there is no reason why we need shy away from a massive new diplomatic initiative to settle this issue. Nuclear proliferation effects everyone. So, we need to build some large tables and get the troubled nations talking about their problems with each other. We also need to get them to suggest solutions. We will not accept solutions that include the destruction of their neighbors. We must ask the question again and again until they realize that they have everything to loose and a much greater good to gain through peace.

• November 30, 2008

  10:36 AM

  julio writes:

  Why don't you make it clear...they were middle easterners with British citizenship .. They were not Anglo - Saxons.