Israel, 2013

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.