Last Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed in a speech to the nation that the Israeli intelligence services managed to get hold of the secret dossier relating to the Iranian nuclear program and that a copy of this dossier was handed over to the Americans. These are numerous documents that, in the opinion of the Israeli prime minister, they would prove that Tehran intends to acquire atomic weapons, thus clearly violating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of the 2015, or the so-called “5+1 agreement” (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany), according to which Tehran would have to suspend its nuclear program in exchange for the cessation of the economic sanctions imposed on Iran precisely because this program would cease.

Predictably, Netanyahu's words have provoked a myriad of controversies around the world, especially since Trump had already declared that he wanted to "exit" from the Iranian nuclear agreement (the US president is expected to announce his decision next 12 maggio). After all, we know that when it comes to Israel, tempers heat up immediately: there are those who take sides a priori in favor of Israel and those who take sides a priori against Israel. But this time the issue is too serious to leave the floor only to those who support or against Israel.

First, it should be noted that according to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Netanyahu's statements add nothing new to what was already known in 2015. Indeed, It was known that Iran's nuclear program had a dual purpose, civil and military, but also that this program, regarding the production of atomic weapons, after 2003 had suffered a notable slowdown and (in fact) had ceased in 2009. Effectively, if it was believed that Iran was not aiming to acquire atomic weapons (as Tehran has always maintained) there would not even have been a need for an agreement on Iranian nuclear power. Understanding that Iran has (in substance) respected, as General Gadi Eisenkot himself stated (Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces) just a few weeks before Netanyahu's "revelations". (1).

Nonetheless, it was also observed that Netanyahu highlighted "new points" that deserve to be seriously analyzed and evaluated, starting with the fact that according to the Israeli prime minister, Iran was planning to build five nuclear bombs of fifteen kilotons each (“Bibi” also indicated the sites where they can be built) (2). In short, Iran allegedly lied through its teeth about the purposes of its nuclear program. But this (assuming it's true) enough to "exit" from an agreement which is in any case producing "good results" that is "is working now” to use the words of the Israeli Chief of Staff?

Moreover, there are those who say that in any case Iran would do well to equip itself with atomic weapons for its own security, given that Israel has a vast atomic arsenal, which also includes medium-range ballistic missiles (Little is known exactly about Israeli missiles, but for example the range estimates of the Jericho IIIvary from 4.800 beyond 6.000 kilometres). Therefore some believe that Iran, even if it could have some atomic weapons, it would not pose a serious threat to Israel (That, according to reliable sources, owns approx 200 nuclear warheads). But it is obvious that if Iran became a nuclear power, so would other countries in the region (especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia) they would try to acquire atomic weapons, and nuclear proliferation in an unstable region like the Middle East would likely have catastrophic consequences.

In this regard, it must be remembered that the US has reiterated that it makes no sense to ask Israel to give up or reduce its atomic arsenal until all the other countries in the region clearly and clearly recognize Israel's right to exist.. But this is a questionable point of view, as the hostility towards Israel on the part of many Muslims does not justify the fact that Israel's atomic arsenal (who has never admitted possessing nuclear weapons) is not subject to any international control. Consequentially, the American point of view seems to add grist to the mill of the Iranian hawks. (The latter can also point out that Iran also borders Pakistan, also a nuclear power and as is known, the majority of Pakistan's population is Sunni. But in the Muslim world what matters above all is belonging to the clan and in any case Pakistan's "traditional enemy" is India, which is a decidedly greater military and nuclear power than Pakistan).

On the other hand, what seems to worry Israel most is the Iranian missile program, which according to some Western analysts should be taken into consideration, to limit it as much as possible, if you want to defend "the 5+1 agreement" (a thesis also supported by the French president). Tehran, however, considers its missile program an internal affair of Iran and therefore "non-negotiable". But the Iranian nuclear problem is made even more complicated by the so-called "Shiite arc", which from Iran reaches Lebanon passing through Iraq and Syria – a country "torn" by seven years of war (unleashed to forcibly overthrow the Assad regime) and where there are numerous Iranian bases that Israel has repeatedly attacked. The latest of these attacks occurred just a few hours before Netanyahu's speech and would have destroyed hundreds of missiles (the explosion of a huge weapons and ammunition depot even caused an earthquake 2,6 degrees according to the Richter scale). Indeed, the Israeli political-military leaders did not even allow themselves to be intimidated by the presence of the Russians in Syria, whose defensive shield seems to protect the Russian bases but much less the Syrian and Iranian ones. Even for the Israelis, however, the danger of a clash with the Russians cannot be underestimated, not so much because the Russian forces currently in Syria are dangerous for Israel but because it is not in Israel's interest to directly confront a major military power like Russia, although serious incidents have already occurred between the two countries in the past (3).

Right, it must be recognized that Moscow has played its cards well in the region: Assad is now firmly in the saddle, the Islamists have been defeated in much of Syria and even Russia's relations with Israel do not appear to be "the worst" (at least for now). But not even Moscow can stabilize the situation throughout the Middle East, bringing order and peace. Russia's conventional military power in the Mediterranean area is, all in all, of modest proportions and limited defensive capacity. In Syria, of the rest, we continue to fight and they are present, as well as Syrian soldiers and several Islamist terrorist groups (including those supported by the Saudis), Iranian soldiers, Hezbollah militias, Russian military, Turkish soldiers and Kurdish fighters. And we must also take into account the interventions of the US-led coalition and obviously those of Israel. (In the West there has also been talk of Assad's attempt to involve the Chinese in the war that Damascus has been fighting against the Islamists since 2011, but China is acting with caution and does not seem interested in adding more fuel to the fire).

In this context "screw up" the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action it would therefore be irresponsible and it could explode the gigantic magazine that has become the Middle East, upsetting the entire Mediterranean area (and not only that). On the other hand, in addition to the growing tension between Hezbollah (which owns approx 10.000 missiles and rockets) and Israel, the Palestinian question also contributes to inflaming souls, especially because of Israel's policy of bullying, instead of weakening Hamas (as would be necessary if we really want to support the Palestinian cause), it risks pushing even the best Palestinian youth into the arms of the Islamists. Ultimately, while not denying the importance of the Iranian nuclear issue and missiles, these are all the issues in the Middle East that are coming to a head. To avoid the worst, the main geopolitical players would need to act responsibly, allowing itself to be influenced as little as possible by internal political issues. However, one must also take note of both Netanyahu's arrogance and the chaos that reigns in the White House, as well as the Russophobia that characterizes the American "deep state"., they don't promise "anything good".

NOTE

1). If Amos Harel bans, Israel’s Double Front Against Iran: Military Strike in the Morning, Press Conference at Night, “Haaretz”, 01/05/2018.

2). You are a science, for example, Yonah Jeremy Bob, What did the Mossad actually get from Iran?, “The Jerusalem Post”, 03/05/2018.

3) If Isabella Ginor bans, Gideon Remez, The Soviet-Israeli War 1967-1973, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017.