The negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program during the past few months have produced nothing more than a diplomatic dance in the face of persistent Iranian ploys for time coupled with intransigence on key issues. In failing to reach a negotiated settlement, the conflict with Tehran is inching closer toward a point of no return, where Israel might decide that the circumstances warrant a unilateral attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Although there are other scenarios under which Israel may decide to attack Iran, chief among them is Israel’s fear that Iran is close to reaching what Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak terms, “a zone of immunity.” Under such circumstances and given more time, Iran would be in a position to store much of its previous enriched uranium, as well as its high quality centrifuges, deep inside the mountain base of Fordow, thus becoming completely immune from aerial bombardment.
    
This objective, which Tehran is hard at work in seeking to achieve, limits how much time Israel would have before it acts. This Israeli concern makes the continuing diplomatic efforts coupled with sanctions advocated by the Obama administration unviable options and might in fact be extremely risky to pursue. The Netanyahu government is absolutely convinced that Iran will continue to play for time as it has over the past several years, during which time Tehran has considerably advanced its nuclear program in defiance of the IAEA and in spite of severe sanctions.

Having been engaged in the Arab-Israeli conflict as an advocate for peace, interlocutor, a keen observer and a commentator for much of my adult life, I fantasize once in a while about the regional, if not the global, implications of an Arab-Israeli peace. I allow myself to dream what seems to be an impossible dream because I believe in the dynamism and wealth of the human resources and creativity that both Israelis and Palestinians bountifully enjoy. Peace between Israel and the whole Arab world would usher in a renaissance period to the Middle East that history pages have yet to record.

When Prime Minister Netanyahu announced the expansion of his coalition government to include Kadima, which granted him a historic majority in the Israeli Parliament, I found myself fantasizing again about the prospect of such a comprehensive peace. Truthfully, if a coalition government representing three quarters of the Israeli electorates cannot muster the will and the courage to forge peace, who can, and under what conditions? Israeli and Palestinian leaders, regardless of their political coloration, must sooner than later face, under any circumstances, the inevitability of coexistence. Israel, in particular, who is on the defensive for continuing the occupation and the expansion of settlements, must strive to end its increasing isolation.

Since the end of the Cold War, the relationship between Russia and the West has revolved around a perpetual “reset” that never seems to arrive and attempts to do so are typically based on mutual suspicion and of course, a perceived self-interest. For the past decade, Russia has seen considerable growth under President-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has presented himself as a stable figure that provides ordinary Russians with a greater standard of living. Russia continues to be inflicted, however, by internal and external problems including: persistent and endemic corruption, a myopic political establishment, crumbling infrastructure, limited trade outside oil and gas, an often erratic foreign policy, and denied civil and political rights to particular segments of the Russian population. How Putin will tread the treacherous road ahead will determine Russia’s role and influence in the international arena for years to come.

In response to the late 2011 legislative elections, which were marred by irregularities, a series of unprecedented demonstrations threatened the legitimacy of Mr. Putin’s rule as well as the oligarchic state that has endured under his watch.  The official reaction to the protests was unsurprisingly harsh as the assumed longevity of Mr. Putin was placed under intense scrutiny by domestic and foreign observers. Putin has become increasingly more assertive in his efforts to consolidate his power after the flawed elections. Little hope for reform was held when Putin replaced the majority of his cabinet, which is now staffed by loyalists, thus ensuring the continuity of his near dictatorial style as he begins his third term.

In April of this year, I wrote that the upheaval in Syria (the Sunni majority revolt against the Alawite-dominated regime) has turned into a battleground between the Sunni axis led by Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Shiite axis led by Iran. As events continue to unfold in the region, particularly the Sunni Islamists’ monopolization of the political processes in new Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia plus the belligerent Saudi-Iranian exchange in Syria and Bahrain, what is increasingly visible is that the liberal, democracy-seeking Arab Spring is being hijacked by radical Islamists on both sides, risking major conflagration between the two pillars of Islam.    

The dispute between Sunnis (who make up the vast majority of the world’s Muslims) and Shiites is not faith-related but is rather essentially political about how the Caliph can be appointed and the nature of political power that religious scholars should have. Because, much like Europe in the 1500s and 1600s, with theology intertwined with geopolitics, the conflict was sustained for a millennium from the seventh to the seventeenth century and witnessed the conflict between the Shiite Safavid dynasty in Persia and the Sunni Ottoman dynasty in Turkey. It was not until the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and the Iraq-Iran war (1980–1988) culminating with the Iraq war in 2003 that the relationship between the Arab world and Iran was again re-framed in the context of the Sunni-Shiite schism. The emergence of a Shiite government in post-Saddam Iraq, discriminating against its Sunni citizens, and the ensuing Sunni insurgency terrorizing the Shiite majority only added fuel to the fire. The high hopes accompanying the advent of the Arab Spring that the youth uprising would make a smooth transition to a liberal democracy are gradually fading away.

I strongly believe that the time is right for Turkey and Israel to mend their critically important bilateral relationship which has suffered a precipitous decline since 2010. With the Middle East in turmoil as a result of the Arab Spring, the perilously unfolding crisis in Syria, the concerns around the Iranian nuclear program, the recent expansion of the Netanyahu government and the fact that the continuing and increasing level of bilateral trade relations between Turkey and Israel remains unaffected by these developments, all suggest that restoring their bilateral relationship now will serve the national strategic interests of both former allies. The question is, will Israel and Turkey recognize the potential gains they can both reap once they remove any obstacles standing in the way of rapprochement, knowing that full collaboration at this time is central to a regional stability that directly impacts their respective national security concerns?

Coupled with other significant developments, perhaps the most alarming issue at this particular time is the turmoil in Syria, in which Turkey has taken a strong and principled stand against the continuing carnage inflicted by Assad’s regime. Prime Minister Erdogan has made it clear that Bashar Assad and his cohorts must step down from power in order to end the crisis. Turkey shares a more than 800 kilometer (510 mile) long border with Syria and is deeply involved in Syria as it continues to provide humanitarian aid, shelter the refugees and host the Syrian National Council, the main opposition to the Assad regime. Israel, for its part, has prevented potentially greater conflagration by carefully and quietly monitoring the situation while taking no provocative action to keep the calm, which provided Turkey the necessary space to serve as the main power broker to oppose Assad with a sense of empowerment from the Arab League. The new political order that emerges in Syria will have a tremendous effect both on Israel and Turkey. By virtue of being neighbors of Syria, both have unique national interests in dealing with post-Assad Syria in a manner that will ensure regional stability and enhance their short and long-term strategic and security interests.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s move to expand his coalition to include Kadima with 28 Knesset members provides him with a majority of 94 out of 120 parliamentarians and represents nothing short of an ingenious political coup or an insidious political scheme, depending on what he does with his historic mandate. Reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians and bridging the social gap must be first and foremost on his national agenda. Should he succeed, Netanyahu will be hailed as the leader who delivered his people from the bondage of occupation to the home of true liberty, independence and peace. Should he squander this momentous opportunity, however, he will be remembered as the most devious prime minister in Israel’s history, one whose blind personal ambitions and distorted vision brought his people to the brink of utter disaster.   
     
In his speech following the agreement with Shaul Mofaz, the leader of Kadima, Netanyahu stipulated four central issues on which his newly expanded government will focus: “Shaul and I and the rest of the coalition, saying [sic] we're pulling together for four main issues: to pass a fair and equal replacement of the Tal Law; to pass a responsible budget; to change the system of governance; and, lastly, to try and promote a responsible peace process." It is important to note that although all four are important issues and have serious national implications, the two most pressing concerns are the peace process and the alarmingly expanding social gap between the rich and the poor.

As the carnage in Syria continues, the powers that are capable of taking serious measures to stop it are busy finding excuses to explain their collective ineptitude. Meanwhile, the Syrian people are paying with their blood day in and day out while the international community is shamelessly hiding behind UN envoy Kofi Annan’s plan that was doomed from day one. Since the Syrian government “accepted” the plan a month ago, at least 1,000 Syrians have been killed and thousands more have been displaced. The Arab League (AL), the United States, the European Union and Turkey, who in particular can collectively stop Assad’s killing machine, still pin down their hopes on a plan that Assad has, with impunity, already turned into yet another mockery of the international community.

As Israel recently observed sixty-four years of independence, it is critical that Israelis reflect on the path they have taken and ask if the current one is sustainable in the long-term. Much has been achieved since the nation’s founding and the Israelis should take immense pride in what they have accomplished in a relatively short period of time. In the midst of celebration, however, there is a dangerous obliviousness to the “dark side” of Israel, one that could jeopardize Israel’s very existence far more than threats from Iran or any other country. Indeed, none of Israel’s achievements will be sustainable if Israel ignores the gathering storm and continues on its current perilous course.

Whereas Israel has achieved a near economic miracle, touting itself as the “start-up nation,” hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens, including a quarter of Holocaust survivors, live below the poverty line. The social gap between rich and poor continues to grow, and according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Israel ranks alongside Chile, Mexico, and the United States in its levels of inequality. The increasing frustration of the poor and middle class was on full display last summer, when nearly 400,000 citizens took to the streets to demand equal opportunities, a reigning in of the cost of living, affordable housing, and most importantly, credible government efforts to respond to their demands. Strong support for the protests (as high as 90% in some polls) underscores the level of dissatisfaction that exists today in Israeli society. This is certainly not what the elder Zionists of the state, notably Herzl, had envisioned.

In the past few weeks, the Egyptian revolutionary youth’s worst nightmare has come to pass: they have been caught in a horrifying struggle between the old regime and the Islamists amidst chaos in every aspect of Egyptian life. Before the transitional period deadline of June 30 of this year, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) (once thought of having reached a power-sharing understanding) are squabbling as to who will have the upper hand after the transition. The secular forces, meanwhile, are divided over every single aspect of the political process, all amidst a crushing economic crisis that risks the bankruptcy of the country.

At stake is the survival of the revolution itself. Egypt’s youth should re-take the lead (as they courageously did in January 2011) and form a unified front to usurp from politicians the ownership of the country’s transitional process to democracy, and ensure the achievement of its central aims: “food, freedom, and social justice.