Joseph Cedar Returns to the Acaedemy Awards

I'm a bit late with this news, but it's worth noting on my blog anyway: "Footnote", an Israeli film directed by Joseph Cedar, is nominated for a Best Foreign Film Award at the upcoming Oscar ceremony. This is an excellent film, which tells a universal tale of father-son rivalry and workplace politics. It's nice to have an Israeli film about something other than the conflict get recognized for its excellence.

The press tended to focus on the fact that one of the other four films in this category is an Iranian film, "A Separation". They call it the Israeli-Iranian war by proxy, or a cultural battle. Bullshit. Israelis know to separate between politics and culture, between leaders and artists. In fact, "A Separation" is being shown in theaters in Israel. Israeli authorities have no problem with that. Iranian authorities, however, allowed the film to be distributed in Israel only after European countries pressured them into it. You'd never see "Footnote" in an Iranian theater.

I'm rooting for "Footnote", because it is an excellent Israeli film (and the only one in the category that I've seen), not because of some hatred for Iran or any other country in the running. I also hope that the second time's a charm for Cedar, who was nominated in 2008 with "Beaufort".

Syria, Iran and Israel

The threat of rocket fire all over Israel, including Tel-Aviv, is looming large over our heads. There are two very possible scenarios that would bring about such a hellish result. Both scenarios involve best buddies Iran and Syria, as well as their allies Hamas and Hizbullah. If Israel (or anyone else) attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas will attack the entire state with rockets. If NATO intervenes militarily in Syria, then Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas will attack Israel.

Action in either Iran or Syria is stupid. In Iran, an attack on the nuclear facilities may eventually be the last option, but we aren't there yet. Impose tougher sanctions and see if they work. As for Syria, let them deal with their own internal chaos on their own. I'm not willing to risk Israeli lives to save the Syrians who are rising up against Assad.

However, since either situation would lead to all-out war and missiles all over Israel, if one scenario comes to fruition, then the other one should be executed as well. A NATO attack on Syria would make an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities a wise move, provided that Syria does indeed retaliate with rockets. And vice versa - if Iran's atomic plants are attacked, followed by an attack on Israel, NATO should help take out Assad's regime, like it did with Qaddafi.

PressTV: Unbelievable (Literally)

Some serious people in the West take the Iranian news organization PressTV as a reliable source of information about the Middle East. Though it is funded by the Iranian government, they claim it is totally editorially independent. Is it?

Would any serious organization blame Israel's Mossad spy agency for the attack on a Coptic Christian church in Cairo, Egypt? Would any serious organization publish an article where the main argument supporting this claim would be that Muslims never attack Christians, that "it goes without saying that no Muslim, whatever their political leanings may be, will ever commit such an inhumane act"? This is an obvious falsehood, with plenty of evidence of previous Muslim violence against Christians and other groups.


The claim that Mossad did this, because it can't be Muslims who did it, is what PressTV is running with. The same article pretty much blames Israel and the United States for every internal problem in the Middle East, from Sudan to Lebanon. There's a disclaimer that this opinion piece is not the opinion of PressTV, but what kind of organization publishes crazy conspiracy theories in its opinion section? Publishing this may not be a full endorsement, but it reflects the thought that it is a valid view.

Utopia 2010: A Look Back

In January of last year I wrote a post titled "Utopia 2010", with four things I hoped would happen during that year. None of them did, unfortunately:

1. Avigdor Lieberman has not been indicted yet. The police and State Attorney have recommended an indictment, but it's taking Attorney General Yehudah Weinstein ages to decide whether or not he agrees. Hopefully, the indictment will come in 2011, destabilizing the awfully stable coalition.
2. There were some protests in Iran recently, but they didn't amount to anything. I notice I've become more modest in my aspirations: Last year I hoped a new democratic form of government will be instituted in Iran, replacing the Islamic Republic. For 2011, a more moderate president under the current form of government would be enough.
3. I had no doubt that this one will not come true: A peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. We have a government in Israel that is incapable of this. Also, Hamas would never agree to recognize Israel.
4. I'm still trying to figure out how to reach where I want to be professionally in the future.

2011: Year in Preview

Happy new year!

Let's hope that this year will be better than the last, though I'm not very optimistic. Here are a few things I hope (but don't necessarily believe) will happen by January 1, 2012:

• The Labor Party will finally understand the Netanyahu government is a bad one and will withdraw from the coalition. A disargreement between the ultra-Orthodox Shas and the secular Israel Beitenu will lead to the breakup of the rest of the government and new elections. Avishay Braverman will be elected chairman of the Labor Party, and he'll make gains in the elections, ultimately becoming Prime Minister Tzippi Livni's main coalition partner.
• Prime Minister Livni will reach a settlement with Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, creating a Palestinian state. 
• Israel and Syria will reach a peace deal. Syria will cut its ties with Hizbullah.
• Following an increase is gas prices, a new revolution will sweep through Iran, bringing a new moderate government to the country, which will also cut its ties with Hizbullah.
• Cut off from all funding and support from Iran and Syria, Hizbullah will no longer be the all-powerful terrorist militia that it is and will be forced to disarm. Hizbullah will resist at first, but a newly empowered Lebanese Army will squash any resistance. Hassan Nassrallah will be executed for treason against Lebanon.

That's what I hope will happen. Here's what I think will happen:

• The Labor Party will indeed withdraw from the coalition, but the government won't fall. Shas and Avigdor Lieberman may have opposite views on some core religious issues but their mutual right-wing views and their love of their government positions are more important to them than anything else. 
• Despite attempts to hold leadership elections in the Labor Party, Ehud Barak will manage to delay a vote.
• The Netanyahu government will not reach any kind of agreement with the Palestinians. There may be another war with Hamas.
• New peace negotiations might start with Syria, but Netanyahu's unwillingness to give up the Golan Heights, as well as Assad's unwillingness to give up his ties with Iran and Hizbullah, will lead to failed talks.
• The Ayatollahs may get rid of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad because he's a horrible president, but the new government won't be much friendlier towards the United States, Israel or the West, and it definitly will not stop aiding Hizbullah.
• Hizbullah's stranglehold on Lebanon will only increase this year.

Stop the Lebanese Flotilla

A new flotilla is about to set sail for Gaza from Lebanon. Another one might come soon from Iran. These are terrorist-harboring nations, the very people we Israelis don't want Hamas to be able to be in contact with for fear of arms smuggling. Iranian and Lebanese ships must not be allowed to reach Gaza.

These flotillas are very different from last month's Turkish flotilla. Then, there were hundreds of naive peace activists onboard and a few dozen violent provocation activists. Here, the ships will be manned solely by provocateurs and chances are higher that there will be Hamas-bound weapons as part of the cargo. Had we dealt with the previous flotilla in a smarter way, avoided casualties and an international outcry, the Lebanese and Iranians maybe wouldn't have even thought of sending their own "aid".

Some fear that intercepting enemy ships (and this time, that is exactly what they are) might start a war with Lebanon and Iran. I doubt that will be the case. Neither of them have any interest in a war. That is especially true about Iran, who knows that declaring war on Israel and firing missiles on it would give a green light to Israel, and possibly the United States, to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. After all, if fear of being bombed by Iran is what keeps us from taking action, we'll have no reason not to do it anymore.

Ahmadinejad and the West: Haaretz Cartoon

Amos Biderman, Ha'aretz

Utopia 2010

Here are a few things I hope will happen this year, some realistic, some not:

1. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman will be indicted for corruption. Yisrael Beitenu is nothing without Lieberman, and it will break up into different factions following his resignation. This will lead to Netanyahu's government losing the parliamentary majority, which would either lead to Kadima joining the government and forcing Netanyahu to reach a peace deal, or it would lead to Tzippi Livni becoming prime minister, with the Likud and Labor as her coalition partners. Another option is new elections, but I don't want that to happen just yet, considering the fact that the 19th Knesset might end up being worse than the current one.
2. Reformist protests will overthrow the Iranian Ayatollahs. An angry mob will lynch Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (sorry, too hateful?). A new democratic form of government will be instituted, the nuclear weapons program will be brought to an end, and so will aid to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbullah.
3. A peace accord will be reached between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian State will constitute Gaza and the West Bank, with slight deviations from the green line. Most of East Jerusalem will become the Palestinian capital, while Jewish areas and the Western Wall will remain part of Israel's capital. No refugees will be allowed to return, but they will be compensated. Hamas will see there's no use in fighting anymore, will agree to the accord reached by Israel and Fatah, and will disarm and recognize Israel.
4. I'll finally figure out how to get to where I want to be professionally in the future.

Ahmadinejad: "US Trying to Prevent the Mahdi's Return"

Yossi Melman reports in today's Haaretz (in Hebrew, no English version) that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told families who lost loved ones in the Iran-Iraq War that the main purpose of the American invasion of Iraq was to prevent the return of the Mahdi, the Shi'ite messiah. He quotes Iranian news agency Tabnak, which reported Ahmadinijad said the following:

"It is true that the forces of arrogance (the Americans) have their eyes on the [Iraqi] nation's oil and other treasures, but behind all this there is a hidden reasoning and they are working in accordance with it, although they would never admit to it in public. However, we have obtained documents of theirs. They came up with this plan (the invasion and occupation of Iraq) to prevent the coming of the hidden imam, and they also know that the Iranian nation is preparing for this event and will be his ally when he appears." (Note: I'm translating from Hebrew, which itself is a translation, and probably a translation of a translation).

Melman points out that Ahmedinijad is a follower of Masbah Yazdi, who believes Muslims must pave the way for the Mahdi's return. This is a view the Iranian Ayatollahs see as heresy.

Some experts believe that Ahmedinijad's belief in the return of the Mahdi is the main reason he wants to have nuclear weapons. Messianic Shi'ites believe that when he returns there will be a bloody war between the Shi'ites and their enemies. Sounds pretty much like the Christian Armageddon.

Scary stuff.

The End of the Islamic Republic?

I know this is probably wishful thinking, but I sure would be happy if the protests in Iran against the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmedinijad would lead to the overthrow of the Ayatollahs. I have no idea whether or not the results were rigged, but they certainly are suspicious. Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi were in a tight race, according to polls, and in the end, Mr. Ratface wins over 60% of the votes?

Shut Up About Ahmedinijad Already!

Yesterday was Holocaust Remembrance Day here in Israel. It seemed like current geopolitical threats were on the minds of Israel's leaders more than the genocide perpetrated by Nazis 65 years ago. I didn't listen to any of the speeches, but from the quotes I've read it seems like every single one of them mentioned Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, his Holocaust denial and the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons: President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Vice Prime Minister Sylvan Shalom and Knesset Speaker Rubi Rivlin are just a few examples.

My dear leaders, shut the fuck up! Yes, Ahmedinijad is a Holocaust denying, nuke-building son of a bitch who would like nothing more than to annihilate Israel. This is definitely a problem we have to deal with, but it shouldn't be exaggerated either. If you're whining hysterically in public, you're probably not really getting things done behind the scenes diplomatically.

Also, who the hell is Ahmedinijad to take over all of our discussions of the Holocaust? Sure, his speech at Durbin II on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day didn't help, but there are more important things to learn from the Holocaust, like how we should treat Holocaust survivors or the new survivors of the genocide in Darfur who now live in Israel as refugees.

How about asking ourselves whether "never again" only applies to Jews. The answer should be an unequivocal no. "Never again" should apply to all peoples and the genocides that have occurred before and after the Holocaust should also be addressed without minimizing the horrors of the Nazis, who ran the most efficient, meticulous, calculated and well-planned, as well as largest scale, genocide of all time. We should especially bring attention to the genocides taking place right now and the lack of international effort to stop them.


Maybe in August, around the 64th anniversaries of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if Ahmedinijad is re-elected president of Iran and the Obama administration doesn't seem successful in thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel's leaders will speak about this favorite subject of theirs again.

Thomas Friedman: Age of Pirates

In the Age of Pirates
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, The New York Times

I’ve been thinking lately of starting a new school of foreign service to train U.S. diplomats. My school, though, would be very simple. It would consist of a single classroom with a desk and a chair. At the desk would be a teacher, pretending to be a foreign leader. The student would come in and have to persuade the foreign leader to do something — to pull this or that lever. At one point, the foreign leader would nod vigorously in agreement and then reach behind him and pull the lever — and it would come off the wall in his hands. Or, he would nod vigorously and say, “Yes, yes, of course, I will pull that lever,” but then would only pretend to do so.

The student would then have to figure out what to do next.

I’m wondering if President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aren’t those students, trying to deal with the leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea. I say that not to criticize but to sympathize. “Mama, don’t let your children grow up to be diplomats.”

This is not the great age of diplomacy.

A secretary of state can broker deals only when other states or parties are ready or able to make them. In the cold war, an age of great powers, grand bargains and reasonably solid client states, there were ample opportunities for that — whether in arms control with the Soviet Union or peacemaking between our respective client states around the globe. But this is increasingly an age of pirates, failed states, nonstate actors and nation-building — the stuff of snipers, drones and generals, not diplomats.

Hence the déjà vu all over again quality of U.S. foreign policy right now — the sense that when it comes to our major problems (Afghanistan and Pakistan and North Korea and Iran), we just go around and around, buying the same carpets from the same people, over and over, but nothing changes.

“We are dealing with states and leaders who either cannot deliver or will not deliver,” notes the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy professor Michael Mandelbaum. “The issues we have with them look less like problems that can be solved and more like conditions that we have to manage.”

The ones who can’t deliver — the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan — are the ones who promise to do all sorts of good things, and pull all sorts of levers, but at the end of the day the levers come off the wall because the governments in these countries have only limited powers. The ones who won’t deliver — Iran and North Korea — time and again tell us: “Yes, we need to talk.” But at the end of the day, their hostile relationships with America or the West are so central to the survival strategy of their regimes, so much at the core of their justifications for remaining in power, that it is not in their interest to deliver real reconciliation, but just to pretend to deliver it.

The only thing that could change this is a greater exercise of U.S. and allied power. In the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan, that power would have to be used to actually rebuild these states from the inside into modern nations. We would literally have to build the institutions — the pulleys and wheels — so that when the leaders of these states pulled a lever something actually happened, and the lever wouldn’t just break off in their hands.

And in the case of the strong states — Iran and North Korea — we would have to generate much more effective leverage from the outside to get them to change their behavior along the lines we seek. In both cases, though, success surely would require a bigger and longer U.S. investment of money and power, not to mention allies.

Instead, I fear that we are adopting a middle-ground strategy — doing just enough to avoid collapse but not enough to solve the problems. If our goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan is nation-building, so they will have self-sustaining moderate governments, we surely don’t have enough troops or resources inside devoted to either. If our goal is changing regime behavior in Iran and North Korea, we surely have not generated enough leverage from outside. North Korea’s defiant missile launch and Iran’s continued development of its nuclear capability testify to that.

So, in sum, we have four problem countries at the heart of U.S. foreign policy today that we don’t have the will or ability to ignore but seem to lack the leverage or the allies to decisively change. The big wild card — a critical mass of people who share our aspirations inside these countries, rising up and leading the fight, which is ultimately what tipped Iraq for the better — I don’t see. As such, I fear we are sliding into commitments in Afghanistan and Pakistan without a real national debate about the ends or the means or the exits. That is a recipe for trouble.

Given all that is on his plate, you cannot blame President Obama for looking for a middle ground — not wanting to abandon progressives and women in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not wanting to get in too deeply. But history teaches that the middle ground can be a perilous place. Think of Iraq before the surge — not enough to win or lose, but just enough to be stuck.

The Shoe Flies Both Ways

President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran was on the recieving end of a shoe throwing incident this week. The perpetrator has not been caught. It's nice to see that not only the representatives of Big Satan (then-President George W. Bush) and Little Satan (the Israeli ambassador to Sweden) are getting the footwear treatment. The representatives of the Axis of Evil are getting their share as well.

I wonder if there will be a new kind of shoe now. Like there are shoes made especially for running, walking, playing basketball or going to a fancy restaurant, maybe there will be special "throwing shoes". They'll be aerodynamic, with a special hissing sound and hidden camera which automatically uploads a YouTube video of the official getting shoed.

Why Israelis Feel Threatened

Historian Benny Morris (of "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" fame) has an excellent op-ed piece in today's New York Times about why Israel feels threatened. He outlines two general sources and four specific causes of Jewish Israelis' anxieties.

The first general source is the fact that the Arab and Muslim world have never accepted Israel and still oppose its existence. Generally, he's right about this, but the Saudi Initiative is a glimmer of hope in this regard. On the other hand, the Arabs don't seem to be willing to give up the right of return, so I'm not very optimistic.

The second general source is the deminishing Western public support for Israel. I think this can be countered at least in part by taking steps toward a peace deal that would end the occupation, but there are many bleeding hearts in Europe, and to a lesser extent in the United States, that will always blame Israel for everything, and as long as the right of return isn't implemented, they'll still see Israel as owing the Palestinians something.

The four specific causes of Israel's sense of threat are Iran's nuclear program coupled with their leaders' desire to see a world without a Zionist state, Hezbullah's large arsenal of long-range weaponry and control of South Lebanon, Hamas's control of Gaza and the radicalisation of the Arab citizens of Israel.

As Morris points out, these are all unconventional threats. The first one is a potentially nuclear armed country, two are radical Islamist terrorist groups who reject the existence of Israel, and the fourth is one fifth of our own citizens.

Sarkozy: Obama Immature About Iran

Even though I still prefer Obama over McCain, I find the following story from today's Haaretz newspaper very disconcerting:

Sources: Sarkozy views Obama stance on Iran as 'utterly immature'
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."

Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West's proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West. According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country's policy toward Iran, that would be "very problematic."

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open," the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.

According to the Israeli source, Sarkozy plans to begin intensive negotiations with the new American administration, regardless of whether it is headed by Obama or Republican Sen. John McCain, even before the new president takes office in January, with the goal of persuading him to continue the current policy on Iran.

But Sarkozy's pessimism does not stem only from Obama's stance; it also stems from the overall behavior of the international community toward Iran's nuclear program, and particularly its inability to agree on a fourth round of Security Council sanctions against the Islamic Republic. This foot-dragging will make it impossible to effect a change in Iran's nuclear policy, Sarkozy believes.

The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.

However, French agencies are divided over what Iran is likely to do once it has this uranium. One view is that the Iranians will immediately make a nuclear bomb, in order to demonstrate their capability. The other is that Iran will continue enriching uranium without making a bomb - at least until it has enough enriched uranium for several bombs.

Acceptable Iranian Nukes

Monday's Ha'arerz ran an article, reprinted from the New York Times, about how the Iranian people like Americans and American culture, and would like to restore relations with the United States. This made me think about the sad fact that Iran, one of the greatest nations in the world, is run by one of the worst regimes in the world. Sadly, unlike the United States and Israel, where the horrible governments currently in power could be replaced through elections, in Iran an election is not enough. The regime has to change into the kind of democratic regime the Persian people deserve, and nobody can do this but the people of Iran themselves.

I don't want the Ayatollahs to have nuclear weapons. However, were the regime to change into a non-theocratic Ayatollah-free democracy, I'd have no problem with the new Iran having nuclear capabilities. That is, if the new form of government is stable enough not to fall and be repaced by a second Islamic revolution.

The chances that the Islamic Republic of Iran would attack Israel with a nuclear weapon are not great, but the possibility still exists. The main threat from a nuclear Iran would be a change in the balance of power toward the governments and groups more hostile towards Israel, the United States and Western Europe. Reaching peace with our neighbors would be even more difficult than it currently is. However, a secular Iran that does not support groups like Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, would be a positive force in the region, with or without nukes.

The Iranian population supports the nuclear program. Once they get rid of the theocracy, there will be no reason to deny them their wishes.

So Iran Ain't Going Nuclear?!?

Bombing Iran is off the table. With the latest National Intelligence Estimate saying there is no evidence that Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons, I don't see President Bush or anyone else going to war against Iran anytime soon. The world should still keep an eye on it and demand inspections, but it shouldn't go to war.

It seems to me that the West doesn't really know what's going on in Iran. Going after the country without any real evidence isn't only morally wrong, it is also just stupid and ineffective. If we don't know if they have a nuclear program at all, then if they do have one, we can't be sure we know where the hell all the facilities are.

Knowing what we know now (or rather, knowing what we don't know), I think the risks of attacking Iran are greater than the risks of not doing so.

Something For Everybody in IAEA Report

The latest report by the IAEA regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions is a bit confusing. On the one hand, the agency now knows less than it ever did about the Iranian nuclear program. On the other hand, Iran is now increasingly cooperating with the IAEA. Each side of the debate over whether to do anything against Iran, economically or militarily, can use this ambiguous report to bolster its arguments. Just pick one part of the report and ignore the other.

Now here's the big question: if Iran is cooperating more than before, how come Mohamed ElBaradei's crack team of experts knows less than in the past? Either the cooperation is still very partial, even if better than before, or the IAEA is just incompetent. Which one is it?

The President Who Cried Wolf

In hindsight, going to war in Iraq was a grave mistake. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. There's nothing new or groundbreaking about that statement.

Now the world is abuzz with talk of Iran developing nuclear weapons. A lot of people feel like this is deja vu all over again, and in a way they are right. President Bush and most of the presidential candidates seem to be on a war footing with Iran, but people don't believe the WMD argument anymore. Bush used it up in 2003 and it turned out to be false. Why believe in the Iranian nuclear threat this time around?

I believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons. I admit I believed the same thing about Iraq four years ago, but this time around I'm more convinced. For one thing, Ahmedinijad has made several statements about Iran's nuclear program, though he claims it is for peaceful purposes. Why does this oil rich country need nuclear power? Have the ayatollahs suddenly become environmentalists? Second of all, a lot more countries are warning of Iranian nukes than there were countries that supported an invasion of Iraq. Changes of leadership are not the only cause of this major difference. Both France and Germany have said they are truly concerned.

President Vladimir Putin is trying to play against the United States and Europe in this matter. He's shortsighted here. Though he acknowledged Iranian nukes would be a threat to Russia, he doesn't think they are being manufactured. He thinks it is in Russia's best interest to side with Iran on this issue, but that is extremely dangerous for his country, exactly because Iranian nukes are also threats to Russian national security.

Having said all this, I still oppose a war against Iran at this point. A war is the second worst option on the table, only being better than letting Iran get nukes. A war would be disastrous for everybody. Even with a large international coalition, such a war would be devastating to many countries and wouldn't assure the destruction of Iran's nuclear program. The United States military is stretched thin and Israel would be bombarded by missiles from the east and north, courtesy of Iran and their Lebanese subsidiary, Hezbollah.

The best option is harsh sanctions until Iran allows sufficient inspections. This is the only option that would avoid disaster, but countries like Russia and Venezuela are making the success of such a move doubtful.

Wisdom of Ahmedinijad

Mahmoud Ahmedinijad's lecture and Q&A at Columbia University turned out to be a farce. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia, opened with an attack on his guest, calling him a petty and cruel dictator. Interesting. I thought being a petty and cruel dictator should bar a person from speaking at a university. When it came his turn to speak, the Iranian president said nothing new, except for the revelation that homosexuality doesn't exist in his country. Other than that, he pretty much repeated old mantras.

In the end, the event didn't do any harm, but it didn't do any good either. If anything, it harmed Ahmedinijad and Columbia University. It still should not have taken place. As could be expected, it did not turn into an intellectual dialogue. Bollinger and the audience insulted Ahmedinijad without really challenging him with specific questions. Ahmedinijad gave general replies, but didn't really answer anything.

A Christiane Amanpour interview with Ahmedinijad is scheduled to air Wednesday night on CNN. I hope she'll ask him the pointed questions that should be asked, like what specific aspects of the Holocaust have not been researched - a question he probably won't have a good answer for.