Reuven Pedatzur

Israel should initiate a dialogue with the U.S., making the first move to reaching a new "nuclear agreement" with the White House before international bodies make decisions on Israel's nuclear affairs. A process similar to that of Israel being brought to trial at The Hague over the separation fence is liable to unfold in the nuclear sphere.

The IDF is too large an army, it is prepared to deal with threats that have disappeared, and it is investing billions in equipment and planning for scenarios with a minimal chance of happening.

If there is any lesson to be drawn from the interview with Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) it is that the chances of the IAEA taking resolute action to bring about the suspension of the Iranian nuclear program are slim to none.

There's something amusing about the debate that's been going on for the last four decades over the question of developing defense systems against ballistic missiles. The facts don't change, nor do they confuse the supporters of defense systems, who will always find reasons to continue investing tens of billions of dollars in advanced technologies.

If it turns out that Iran is going to cross the point of no return without the international community capable or wanting to prevent it, Israel, Mofaz believes, will have to take a unilateral military action.

There's no doubt Israel must continue monitoring regional nuclear developments with concern but it should be done coolly, without exploiting the developments for unnecessary fear-mongering. It is especially important Israel avoid any steps that could foil the efforts led by the U.S. to prevent states in the region from acquiring nuclear weapons. But even if the U.S. efforts ultimately don't succeed, and another country in the region turns nuclear, it won't mean the end of Zionism.

After the Iraqi threat evaporated, others, old and new, were immediately pulled out of the hat. After all, it is unthinkable that the threats to poor little Israel should be reduced; this might lead to a doomsday scenario - a drastic cut in the defense budget.

Anyone who believes that making Israel the nuclear neighborhood bully will strengthen its image of deterrence is liable to find that it could do lethal harm to its nuclear deterrence, weaken its international status, and invite pressure on itself in the nuclear realm.

If the military establishment has a loyal ally among the political elite, it is MK and Brigadier General (res.) Ephraim Sneh. When the IDF needs help from the political establishment in its battle over the defense budget, Sneh is always there.

Few were the scientists of the 20th century whose personalities and activities managed to inspire such vehement emotions of fear and hatred by his opponents, of admiration and affection by his supporters, as did Dr. Edward Teller.

Policy-makers in Jerusalem should take advantage of the vast experience that the military industries have gained in the field of systems against shoulder-fired missiles and ensure that they are ahead of the Americans. This would be justified both in terms of the severity of the threat to Israeli civilian air traffic and the chance of economic gain.

A nuclear Iran is not an Israeli problem, but a problem for the entire West. It is a mistake to present a nuclear Iran as a danger aimed only at Israel and to put it at the center of an Iranian-Israeli conflict.

150 experts convened this past weekend at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, under a heavy veil of secrecy, to formulate a new American nuclear policy.

The defense establishment can relax. There's no need to even make any effort to frighten anyone. The chance that anyone in the political arena, Knesset or cabinet, will even bother to check if the disappearance of the Iraqi threat indicates a need to change IDF doctrine on missile threats or home front defense is nil.

The arrest in Bangkok on June 13 of a Thai national, Narong Penanam, who had 30 kilograms of radioactive material (cesium-137) in his possession, has again placed on the international agenda as one of the most frightening threats posed by terrorist organizations - the use of a "dirty bomb."

The battle over the defense budget is a rearguard action being waged by senior officers of the General Staff against the changing strategic reality, which requires new modes of thinking about the immense amounts of money that are earmarked for defense.

Last week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published its report on Iran. The document, based on the findings of its director, Mohammed El Baradei, after a February visit to Tehran, states that Iran has not met the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which it is a signatory.

There is nothing new about the dominance - unexampled in any other democracy - of the Israeli army in setting policy, though in the present government the phenomenon seems to be assuming extreme dimensions.

Whether it's fraud or extortion meant to win economic and political concessions from the U.S., or whether North Korea really is heading into serial production of nuclear bombs, the affair has a decisive influence on the future of nuclear proliferation in the world and especially in the Middle East.

There is much significance to the fact that while the finance minister and his senior aides have sewn up the details of the new economic program, the IDF was adopting a hasty decision open the gas-mask kits.

The danger in the simplistic thinking of those who believe all the problems facing Israel can be solved with military force - such as Sharon, Mofaz and Ya'alon - is that they do not pause to consider the complexity of the concept of deterrence and the ramifications of hasty decisions that lead to the use of military power.

While the Bush administration finishes up its preparations to attack Iraq, it is nearly impotent in the face of North Korea's and Iran's provocations. Those two countries have openly violated the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which both have signed.