Michal and I recently attended the 2010 Jerusalem Conference in Israel’s capital, an annual discussion of Israel’s national priorities, social values, and aspirations, as well as the challenges and external threats faced by Israel and the West. In general, the Jerusalem Conference features speakers from the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Though we were there for less than half of the program, the amount of input is so great that I’ll only report the highlights from several of the discussions.

Part One of Two : The Iranian Threat to the Region and Beyond

Israel’s current security and foreign policy chief, Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, has more influence over government policy than many elected officials who outrank him in the government hierarchy. In his Keynote address, Gilad explained that Iran is a strategic threat to Israel and its clout is already growing throughout the region. Through Hizbullah, its proxy army north of Israel, Iran is taking over Lebanon. It’s the same situation with Hamas in Gaza. Gilad asked, “What other countries will be next?” He declared that the Arabs don’t want Persian hegemony, which is an existential threat to Egypt and other “moderate” Arab countries. The image of the Middle East is being changed by Iran, which has an absolute determination to return to its halcyon days (Persian Empire), but this time as a Shia Muslim Caliphate. Countervailing Iranian determination is the determination of Iran’s Arab neighbors, and Israel, to thwart it. Gilad said that 2010 is the crucial year. If Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard gets nuclear weapons, it’ll be a big problem for everyone.

Former ambassador Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, recently authored the bestseller “Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism.” He told the audience how most major Middle Eastern countries are feeling Iran’s pressure and influence. He asked, “What is the influence of a nuclear Iran?” Dore noted that 9/11 had prompted America to go to war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. What will be the response if a similar attack occurs, perpetrated by Iran or its proxies? Would the U.S. have the same freedom of action if Iran has nukes? Dore sees a major shift in the balance of power if Iran goes nuclear, arming itself and its terrorist proxies. The prevention of nuclear capability to Iran will impact terrorist groups everywhere. They will be unable to find shelter for their actions under an Iranian “umbrella.” But sanctions only work with united political will, which is lacking. Obama’s wish for multilateralism puts the ball in the U.N.’s court and gives China the opportunity to use its veto in the Security Council. Dore concluded that the failure to stop Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons is destroying the West’s deterrent effect. If Iran succeeds, there will be no remaining deterrent effect. (You either go along or go to war.)

One of the most impressive presentations was by Harold Rhode, Senior Advisor to New York’s Hudson Institute, and formerly a top analyst in the U.S. Department of Defense. With a background in Arabic, Hebrew, Turkish and Farsi (Persian), Rhode is extremely knowledgeable about Iran, where he spent time during his student years.

Rhode advocates using Iranian culture against Iranian rulers. He noted that past relations with Iran were good; it’s the current regime that is the problem. Rhode told us that Muslim Shiites, the dominant group in Iran, are supposed to get advice from the six Grand Ayatollas. Surprisingly, his fellow students in Teheran for the most part were unaware of their names, indicating the lack of religious fervor among intellectuals in the late 1970s. Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini, who led the revolution against the Shah, was an aberration among the religious leaders, according to Rhodes, who quoted Bernard Lewis, dean of Middle East scholars: In a traffic jam, the Muslim crowd always looks for a bandwagon to jump on. Khomeini was “it” during revolution. Rhode pointed out the need to go with the winners in Iranian society, noting that there is change afoot in Iran.

There is a real revolution in progress in Iran, in Rhode’s opinion.

Popular chants are: “Death to [Supreme Leader] Khamenei,” “Khamenei is a killer” and “Obama, who are you with?” President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech, aimed at all Muslims, was understood to be for Arabs, not Iranians. To my surprise, Rhode explained that most mullahs are against the current regime and want to get back to the mosques, where they can deal with people’s spiritual needs.

He explained that Iranian society’s devotion to Islam is only external. The people are turning away from Islam because of the corrupt mullocracy. All political rule is deemed illegitimate and the middle class is fleeing, as they did during the 1978 revolution. Rhode concluded that the regime is unpopular and many are shamed by their terrorist leaders. Iranians want to be respected again. According to Rhode, they are asking the West to “Put us out of our misery.” They want to be liberated and they will even tolerate bombing by America to achieve it. Therefore, the West should not be afraid to apply drastic measures.

Stephen Kramer resided and worked in the Atlantic City area until 1991, when he moved to Israel with his wife, Michal Langweiler, and two sons. He can be reached at Sjk1@jhu.edu.