I feel deeply honoured and
privileged to stand here before the General Assembly
today representing the citizens of the State of Israel.
We are an ancient people. We date back nearly 4,000
years to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have journeyed
through time. We have overcome the greatest of
adversities. And we re-established our sovereign State
in our ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. The Jewish
people’s odyssey through time has taught us two things:
never give up hope and always remain vigilant. Hope
charts the future, vigilance protects it.
Today our hope for the future is challenged by a
nuclear-armed Iran that seeks our destruction. But I
want members to know that that was not always the case.
Some 2,500 years ago, the great Persian King Cyrus
ended the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. He
issued a famous edict in which he proclaimed the right
of the Jews to return to the land of Israel and rebuild the
Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. That is a Persian decree,
and thus began a historic friendship between the Jews
and the Persians that lasted until modern times.
But, in 1979, a radical regime in Tehran tried to
stamp out that friendship. As it was busy crushing
the Iranian people’s hopes for democracy, it also led
wild chants of “Death to the Jews!” Since that time,
presidents of Iran have come and gone. Some presidents
were considered moderates, others hard-liners. But
they have all served that same unforgiving creed, that
same unforgiving regime — that creed that is espoused
and enforced by the real power in Iran, the dictator
known in Iran as the Supreme Leader, first Ayatollah
Khomeini and now Ayatollah Khamenei.
President Rouhani, like the presidents who came
before him, is a loyal servant of the regime. He was
one of only six candidates the regime permitted to run
for office. Nearly 700 other candidates were rejected.
What made him acceptable? Rouhani headed Iran’s
Supreme National Security Council from 1989 through
2003. During that time, Iran’s henchmen gunned
down opposition leaders in a Berlin restaurant. They
murdered 85 people at the Jewish community centre
in Buenos Aires. They killed 19 American soldiers by
blowing up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Are we
to believe that Rouhani, the national security adviser
of Iran at the time, knew nothing about those attacks?
Of course he did — just as 30 years ago Iran’s security
chiefs knew about the bombings in Beirut that killed
241 American marines and 58 French paratroopers.
Rouhani was also Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator
between 2003 and 2005. He masterminded the strategy
that enabled Iran to advance its nuclear-weapons
programme behind a smokescreen of diplomatic
engagement and very soothing rhetoric. I know that
Rouhani does not sound like Ahmadinejad. But when it
comes to Iran’s nuclear-weapons programme, the only
difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a
wolf in wolf’s clothing, Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s
clothing — a wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over
the eyes of the international community.
Like everyone else, I wish we could believe
Rouhani’s words, but we must focus on Iran’s actions.
And it is the brazen contrast — that extraordinary
contradiction between Rouhani’s words and Iran’s
actions — that is so startling. Rouhani stood at this very
rostrum last week and praised Iranian democracy (see
A/68/PV.6). Iranian democracy, he said. But the regime
that he represents executes political dissidents by the
hundreds and jails them by the thousands. Rouhani
spoke of “the human tragedy in Syria”. Yet Iran directly
participates in Al-Assad’s murder and massacre of tens
of thousands of innocent men, women and children in
Syria, and that regime is propping up a Syrian regime
that just used chemical weapons against its own people.
Rouhani condemned the “violent scourge” of terrorism.
Yet in the past three years alone Iran has ordered,
planned or perpetrated terrorist attacks in 25 cities
on five continents. Rouhani denounced “attempts to
change the regional balance through proxies”. Yet Iran
is actively destabilizing Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain and
many other Middle Eastern countries. Rouhani promises
“constructive engagement with other countries”. Yet
two years ago, Iranian agents tried to assassinate Saudi
Arabia’s Ambassador in Washington, D.C. Just three
weeks ago, an Iranian agent was arrested while trying
to collect information for possible attacks against the
American Embassy in Tel Aviv. Some constructive
engagement!
I wish I could be moved by Rouhani’s invitation
to join his “WAVE” — a world against violence and
extremism. Yet the only waves Iran has generated in the
past 30 years are waves of violence and terrorism that
it has unleashed on the region and across the world. I
wish I could believe Rouhani, but I do not because facts
are stubborn things. The facts are that Iran’s savage
record flatly contradicts Rouhani’s soothing rhetoric.
Last Friday, Rouhani assured us that in pursuit of its
nuclear programme, Iran had “never chosen deceit and
secrecy.” Never chosen deceit and secrecy?
In 2002, Iran was caught red-handed secretly
building an underground centrifuge facility at Natanz.
In 2009, Iran was again caught red-handed secretly
building a huge underground nuclear facility for
uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom. Rouhani
tells us not to worry. He assures us that all that is not
intended for nuclear weapons. Does any here believe
that? If so, here are a few questions to ask.
Why would a country that claims to only want
peaceful nuclear energy build hidden underground
enrichment facilities? Why would a country with vast
natural energy reserves invest billions in developing
nuclear energy? Why would a country intent on merely
having civilian nuclear programmes continue to defy
multiple Security Council resolutions and incur the costs
of crippling sanctions on its economy? And why would
a country with a peaceful nuclear programme develop
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) whose sole
purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads? You do not build
ICBMs to carry TNT thousands of miles away. You
build them for one purpose: to carry nuclear warheads.
Iran is now building ICBMs that the United States says
could reach this city in three or four years.
Why would they do all that? The answer is simple.
Iran is not building a peaceful nuclear programme.
Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Last year alone,
Iran enriched three tons of uranium to 3.5 per cent,
doubled its stockpile of 20 per cent-enriched uranium
and added thousands of new centrifuges, including
advanced centrifuges. It also continued work on the
heavy-water reactor in Arak in order to have another
route to the bomb — a plutonium path. Since Rouhani’s
election — and I stress this — that vast and feverish
effort has continued unabated.
Underground nuclear facilities? Heavy water
reactors? Advanced centrifuges? ICBMs? It is not that it
is hard to find evidence that Iran has a nuclear-weapons
programme; it is hard to find evidence that Iran does not
have a nuclear-weapons programme. Last year, when
I spoke here at the United Nations (see A/67/PV.12), I
drew a red line. Iran has been very careful not to cross
that line. But Iran is positioning itself to race across that
line in future, at a time of its choosing. Iran wants to
be in a position to rush forward to build nuclear bombs
before the international community can detect it, much
less prevent it. Yet Iran faces one big problem, and that
problem is summed up in one word: sanctions.
I have argued for many years, including from
this rostrum, that the only way to peacefully prevent
Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine
tough sanctions with a credible military threat. That
policy is today bearing fruit. Thanks to the efforts of
many countries, many represented here, and under the
leadership of the United States, tough sanctions have
taken a big bite out of Iran’s economy. Oil revenues
have fallen. The currency has plummeted. Banks are
hard pressed to transfer money. As a result, the regime
is under intense pressure from the Iranian people to get
the sanctions removed. That is why Rouhani got elected
in the first place. That is why he launched his charm
offensive. He definitely wants to get the sanctions
lifted — I guarantee the Assembly that — but he does
not want to give up Iran’s nuclear-weapons programme
in return.
Here is the strategy to achieve that: first, smile a lot.
Smiling never hurts. Secondly, pay lip service to peace,
democracy and tolerance. Thirdly, offer meaningless
concessions in exchange for lifting sanctions. Fourthly,
and most important, ensure that Iran retains sufficient
nuclear material and sufficient nuclear infrastructure
to race to the bomb at a time that it chooses to do so.
Why does Rouhani think he can get away with that?
This is a ruse, a ploy. Why does Rouhani think he can
get away with that? Because he has gotten away with it
before. Because his strategy of talking a lot and doing
little has worked for him in the past. He even brags
about it. Here is what he said in his 2011 book about
his time as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator: “While
we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were
installing equipment in Isfahan”. For those here who
do not know, the Isfahan facility is an indispensable
part of Iran’s nuclear-weapons programme. That is
where uranium ore called yellowcake is converted into
an enrichable form. Rouhani boasted: “By creating a
calm environment, we were able to complete the work
in Isfahan”. He fooled the world once; now he thinks
he can fool it again. Rouhani thinks he can have his
yellowcake and eat it too.
He has another reason to believe that he can get
away with that, and that reason is called North Korea.
Like Iran, North Korea also said its nuclear programme
was for peaceful purposes. Like Iran, North Korea also
offered meaningless concessions and empty promises
in return for sanctions relief. In 2005, North Korea
agreed to a deal that was celebrated the world over by
many well-meaning people. Here is what a New York
Times editorial had to say about it:
“For years now, foreign policy insiders have
pointed to North Korea as the ultimate nightmare ... a
closed, hostile and paranoid dictatorship with an
aggressive nuclear-weapons programme. Very few
could envision a successful outcome. And yet North
Korea agreed in principle this week to dismantle its
nuclear-weapons programme, return to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, abide by the Treaty’s
safeguards and admit international inspectors.
“Diplomacy, it seems, does work after all.”
(New York Times, 20 September 2005)
A year later, North Korea exploded its first nuclear-
weapon device.
Yet as dangerous as a nuclear-armed North Korea
is, it pales in comparison to the danger of a nuclear-
armed Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would have a
chokehold on the world’s main energy supplies. It would
trigger nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle
East, turning the most unstable part of the planet into
a nuclear tinderbox. And for the first time in history, it
would make the spectre of nuclear terrorism a clear and
present danger.
A nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East would
not be another North Korea. It would be another
50 North Koreas. I know that some in the international
community think that I am exaggerating that threat.
Sure, they know that Iran’s regime leads these chants:
“Death to America!”, “Death to Israel!”. Then it
pledges to wipe Israel off the map. But they think that
wild rhetoric is just bluster for domestic consumption.
Have those people learned nothing from history? The
last century has taught us that, when a radical regime
with global ambitions gets awesome power, sooner or
later its appetite for aggression knows no bounds. That
is the central lesson of the twentieth century. And we
cannot forget it.
The world may have forgotten that lesson; the
Jewish people have not. Iran’s fanaticism is not bluster.
It is real. That fanatic regime must never be allowed to
arm itself with nuclear weapons. I know that the world
is weary of war. We in Israel know all too well the cost
of war. But history has taught us that to prevent war
tomorrow, we must be firm today.
That raises the question: Can diplomacy stop
that threat? The only diplomatic solution that would
work is one that fully dismantles Iran’s nuclear-
weapons programme and prevents it from having one
in the future. President Obama rightly said that Iran’s
conciliatory words must be matched by transparent,
verifiable and meaningful action; and to be meaningful,
a diplomatic solution would require Iran to do four
things; first, cease all uranium enrichment, as called
for by several Security Council resolutions; secondly,
remove from Iran’s territory the stockpiles of enriched
uranium; thirdly, dismantle the infrastructure for a
nuclear-breakout capability, including the underground
facility near Qom and the advanced centrifuges in
Natanz; and, fourthly, stop all work at the heavy water-
reactor in Arak aimed at the production of plutonium.
Those steps would put an end to Iran’s nuclear-weapons
programme and eliminate its breakout capability.
There are those who would readily agree to leave
Iran with a residual capability to enrich uranium. I
advise them to pay close attention to what Rouhani said
in a speech to Iran’s Supreme Cultural Revolutionary
Council published in 2005. This is what he said:
“A country that can enrich uranium to about 3.5 per
cent will also have the capability to enrich it to
about 90 per cent. Having fuel-cycle capability
virtually means that a country that possesses this
capability is able to produce nuclear weapons.”
Precisely: that is why Iran’s nuclear-weapons
programme must be fully and verifiably dismantled.
That is why the pressure on Iran must continue. Here
is what the international community must do. First,
keep up the sanctions. If Iran advances its nuclear-
weapons programme during negotiations, strengthen
the sanctions. Secondly, do not agree to a partial deal.
A partial deal would lift the international sanctions
that have taken years to put in place, in exchange for
cosmetic concessions that will take only weeks for Iran
to reverse. Thirdly, lift the sanctions only when Iran
fully dismantles its nuclear-weapons programme.
The international community has Iran on the
ropes. If it wants to knock out Iran’s nuclear-weapons
programme peacefully, do not let up on the pressure.
Keep it up. We all want to give diplomacy with Iran a
chance to succeed. But when it comes to Iran, the greater
the pressure, the greater the chance. Three decades
ago, President Ronald Reagan famously advised “trust
but verify”. When it comes to Iran’s nuclear-weapons
programme, here is my advice: distrust, dismantle and
verify.
Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the
hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to
wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will
have no choice but to defend itself. I want there to be
no confusion on this point: Israel will not allow Iran to
get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone,
Israel will stand alone. Yet in standing alone, Israel will
know that we will be defending many others.
The dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the
emergence of other threats in our region have led many
of our Arab neighbours to finally recognize that Israel
is not their enemy. That affords us the opportunity
to overcome historic animosities and build new
relationships, new friendships and new hopes. Israel
welcomes engagement with the wider Arab world. We
hope that our common interests and common challenges
will help us forge a more peaceful future.
And Israel continues to seek a historic compromise
with our Palestinian neighbours, one that ends our
conflict once and for all. We want peace based on
security and mutual recognition in which a demilitarized
Palestinian State recognizes the Jewish State of Israel.
I remain committed to achieving a historic
reconciliation and building a better future for Israelis
and Palestinians alike. I have no illusions about how
difficult it will be to achieve. Twenty years ago, the
peace process between Israel and the Palestinians began.
Six Israeli Prime Ministers — myself included — have
not succeeded in achieving peace with the Palestinians.
My predecessors were prepared to make painful
concessions. So am I.
But so far, Palestinian leaders have not been
prepared to offer the painful concessions they must
make in order to end the conflict. For peace to be
achieved, the Palestinians must finally recognize
the Jewish State and Israel’s security needs must be
met. I am prepared to make a historic compromise
for a genuine and enduring peace. But I will never
compromise on the security of my people and of my
country — the one and only Jewish State.
One cold day in the late nineteenth century, my
grandfather, Nathan, and his younger brother, Judah,
were standing in a railway station in the heart of Europe.
They were seen by a group of anti-Semitic hoodlums,
who ran towards them waving clubs, screaming, “Death
to the Jews!” My grandfather shouted to his younger
brother to flee and save himself. And he then stood
alone against the raging mob to slow it down. They beat
him senseless. They left him for dead. Before he passed
out, covered in his own blood, he said to himself:
“What a disgrace! What a disgrace! The descendants
of the Maccabees lie in the mud, powerless to defend
themselves.” He promised himself then that if he lived,
he would take his family to the Jewish homeland and
help to build a future for the Jewish people.
I stand here today as Israel’s Prime Minister because
my grandfather kept that promise. So many other Israelis
have a similar story: a parent or a grandparent who fled
every conceivable oppression and went to Israel to start
a new life in our ancient homeland. Together we have
transformed a bludgeoned Jewish people, left for dead,
into a vibrant, thriving nation, defending itself with the
courage of modern Maccabees, developing limitless
possibilities for the future.
In our time, the Biblical prophecies are being
realized. As the prophet Amos said,
“They shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit
them. They shall plant vineyards and drink their
wine. They shall till gardens and eat their fruit.
And I will plant them upon their soil never to be
uprooted again.”
The people of Israel have come home, never to be
uprooted again.