Welcome to Jerusalem studio.
I would like to welcome to the studio Pekka Sartola. - Thank you.
Before we go to the first question, I would like to note -
that the Middle East seems to be like an ebullient sea -
where one does not know anymore who is against whom.
But that is our theme of discussion again.
Before we go to the big questions like Iran, I would like to ask you, Pekka, -
what is the current situation with the Israeli government negotiations?
Today is Monday. Netanyahu still has two days to answer to the President, -
who gave him the mandate to try and form a majority government.
At the moment Netanyahu lacks 14 seats.
He already has 47 mandates in the Knesset -
and the lacking 14 mandates would guarantee 61 seats and a majority.
It was predicted that he would aim at 67 seats -
which would be very large in the history of the Knesset.
The missing two parties are trying to extort standing for themselves.
They want to get their views better on display.
It looks like they will decide right at the end -
whether they will join Netanyahu's governing politics.
If it comes to naught, the situation will change.
If they do not succeed what will be the next move?
President Rivlin will name another government negotiator.
The person will come from the next largest party, -
the Zionist Union which gained 24 seats.
Netanyahu's Likud gained 30 seats.
That would be a very worrying situation, -
because they lack support even more than Netanyahu.
The religious parties are at the balance of power.
Their goal is to retain the status quo -
that religious students are exempted from military service.
The Labour party and the Zionist Union insist unconditionally -
that this situation must be changed.
I do not take a stand on whether it is right or not. Anyway it will rule out -
a large number of potential coalition partners from the Zionist Union.
Continuing forward does seem difficult, -
if Netanyahu fails to form a government.
Might that mean new elections?
It seems like the only chance.
I doubt anyone is such an irresponsible negotiator -
that they would try governing with a minority government -
in such a situation as there is in Israel.
New elections seem the probable choice but nobody wants that.
If I were to guess, I would say that, as an old stager, -
Netanyahu will be able to form a majority government.
This is only my own thought but in a few days we will see how it goes.
Before the Israeli elections, the U.S. President Obama -
tried to work against Netanyahu's Likud succeeding in the elections.
This did not happen, fortunately, -
and now it seems that Obama has somehow reversed his behavior.
It is peculiar. No wonder that the Arab world -
describes Obama with words like a weathercock or even worse.
The situation was exciting. Just one day before the elections -
it seemed like Likud would suffer a major defeat.
But in the last 24 hours the security questions -
and the founding of a Palestinian state seemed to surface at the same time -
and they were linked to one another. Quite rightly I would say.
At that moment the stocks for the Labour party -
began to drop fast.
Obama's goal has been to create a Palestinian state.
The Zionist Union strongly supports that goal.
But the security issues seem to be so important -
to the Israeli population, which is completely reasonable, -
that the situation turned upside down.
Obama realized that his tactics did not work. Now he tries to backtrack -
and form new relations and warm up old relations to Israel.
I believe the U.S. elections might be behind his attempts.
They will be held in 18 months.
They need Jewish voters. American Jews have traditionally been -
on Netanyahu's side and the side of Israeli security questions.
It's been three weeks since the Israeli elections.
At the same time, there have been discussions -
about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
This was the topic Netanyahu addressed at the U.S. Congress.
Obama reacted hostilely to him addressing the Congress.
He changed his behavior quite fast. Has he perhaps realized -
that Israel may have been right in its warnings after all?
I myself receive intelligence data about Iran.
For the last 13 years I have actively been following developments in Iran -
and I have never been disappointed with my sources.
I have never gotten false information.
I am sure that Obama has access to even more data.
I cannot believe Obama to be unaware -
that Iran is constantly deceiving the West with its program.
At the moment the Iranians have enough material -
for eight nuclear bombs. This was admitted by their Vice President.
Why would they enrich such amounts of uranium -
if they cannot even use it as fuel in their power plants? It is impossible.
They should have a hundred power plants operating all the time -
and they have only one. It is clear that they enrich uranium -
for some other end than their demand for power.
Now Obama seems to be trying to adapt to the circumstances -
by getting the Americans and Israelis on his side.
He admits that it is possible that Iran tries to fool them.
At the same time he aims at guaranteeing Israel -
all the possible help and support that the U.S. can give them.
So there has been a process where a politician sleeps on the issue -
or changes their mind.
Let's go to the Iranian situation. By tarrying all the time, -
Iran has been able to do things that lead to a nuclear weapon.
Now Russia is planning on -
delivering S-300 and S-400 missile systems to Iran.
How is it possible for the United States or Israel -
to destroy these nuclear facilities if they are found in Iran?
The deal for S-300 missiles was made seven years ago.
In 2010 the delivery was put on hold.
At that time Russia's cooperation with the West was smoother -
and there were no foreign-policy aggressions to deal with.
In 2010 Russia put the deal on hold.
The S-300 system is an antiballistic missile system.
It has movable batteries that can be carried from one place to another.
It has radars, a trigger mechanism and missiles.
Now that the Lausanne agreement was signed on the 2nd of April, -
suddenly Russia changed its mind.
It announced that it would release the ban of S-300 series -
and promised to add S-400 series to the deal as well.
S-400 is a more advanced version of S-300.
The systems can destroy all moving objects that are directed at them.
On the other hand it is known that Israel managed to destroy -
the Syrian nuclear complex.
Israel bypassed the same radar system as S-300 system has -
by feeding it false information from their own sources.
When the radar system of S-300 detects an object, -
it sends a radar signal which ricochets back and shows what the object is.
The Israeli intelligence machinery was able to develop a system -
that turns the radar signal to the sky -
and an empty signal goes back to the radar.
As a result the radar screen shows nothing on it -
and no missiles will be launched.
A similar system is in use in the S-300.
The U.S. and Israel have announced that S-300 is no problem to them.
That's why Russia added S-400's to the deal.
I do not have any technical details of improvements from S-300 to S-400.
I would claim that the radar signal is similar to the S-300 -
and Israel can deal with it. So Iranian nuclear facilities are not safe -
if Israel decides to strike them by bombing or by cruise missiles.
If we would think that Iran acts as it has said -
and uses the material only for peaceful purposes, -
then for what would it need advanced defense systems?
Who would attack Iran if there was nothing to take?
That is the very problem.
Iran does not allow IAEA inspectors to its military facilities.
The Revolutionary Guard is partly responsible -
for developing the military dimension of Iran's nuclear program.
That is manufacturing missiles and bombs.
They have about ten such facilities. The inspectors are not allowed in.
Iran did not agree to include these facilities into the negotiations.
Iran noted that they will not allow anyone to investigate their armories.
Those are military secrets according to Iran.
This is the curtain behind which Iran has concealed -
the hi-tech for developing nuclear weapons.
They are willing to give inspectors access to enrichment facilities.
They have enough material for several bombs.
They do not necessarily need to enrich more uranium -
and so they can accept reducing the number of centrifuges to 5,000, -
a number that has been suggested. At this stage, it is no problem to them -
because they have been enriching material for a bomb for ten years.
Iran has been acting as a kind of a supervisor -
for Assad's troops in Syria and for Hezbollah, -
and those have worked according to Iran's instructions.
Is it possible that on top of their vast numbers of weapons -
these S-300 and S-400 systems will end up in Hezbollah's use as well?
It is possible.
Now that the crisis in Ukraine surfaced, -
Ukraine has wanted to buy weapons technology from Israel, -
defense, military and radar systems.
Putin reacted strongly to that request. He announced to Israel -
that if it sells these advanced systems to Ukraine, -
where Putin seems to have a vested interest in, no matter what he claims, -
then Russia will deliver S-300 systems to Syria.
A direct consequence would then be that Syria delivers those to Hezbollah.
This kind of a chain reaction is about to be created.
How actively and how cautiously Israel will handle this state of affairs, -
I do not know at the moment because the situation has not developed at all.
But since S-300 in Iran is no problem at all, -
it must not be a problem in Syria either.
But just speaking about these things...
As we know the tremendous speed -
and penetrating capacity of the missiles, -
they are really dangerous weapons in that small area.
In addition to cooperating with Syria and Hezbollah, -
Iran has connections to radical Shiite groups for example in Yemen.
There are battles going on in Yemen with Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is also a state -
that Iran thinks should be destroyed as well as Israel.
This state of affairs has changed now that ISIS has messed up the situation.
True.
This situation with the Saudis and Yemen has come up only recently.
Iran's hegemony thinking does not only concern spreading its religion -
but also influencing in commercial matters.
There is the Strait of Hormuz which leads to the Persian Gulf -
and Bab el-Mandeb that leads to the Red Sea.
Those are part of the world's most important merchant ship routes.
Iran attempts to control the Strait of Hormuz.
It is close to its territorial water limits. Controlling it is possible, -
though the U.S. has some military vessels there.
On the other hand the Houthi rebels that Iran supports -
attempt to establish a bridgehead at Bab el-Mandeb.
Controlling these two straits, Iran could constrict -
the whole freight traffic by sea of the Northern hemisphere.
The U.S. interest is to prevent this from happening.
It has its military vessels at both straits.
Iran has sent its own military vessels there as well.
The U.S. has two aircraft carriers one at both Gulfs.
Their firepower is tremendous.
The U.S. supports the attempts of Saudis to keep the oil routes free.
At the same time it negotiates with Iran about Iran's nuclear program -
but fights Iran to prevent its hegemony from spreading to strategic points.
What kind of a role does Saudi Arabia play as it has got into a new situation?
During these four years we have now and then -
briefly touched on the central position of Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is an incredibly oil rich country.
They are deeply worried about Iran potentially spreading.
There are 25 million people in Saudi Arabia of which 5 million are Shiites, -
the same ethnic descent as Iranians.
To be secure if Iran becomes a super power -
they have made a deal with Pakistan.
They have financed the Pakistani nuclear program for at least 15 years.
In return, according to the deal, -
if Iran becomes a nuclear state or if it can be verified as such, -
Pakistan will deliver nuclear war heads to Saudi Arabia.
Missiles they have already, only the war heads are missing.
Now suddenly the situation between ISIS and the Taliban -
has caused Islamabad to back down with its promise.
The Saudis would already have wanted to get the war heads.
Pakistan fears a civil war in its area.
The Saudis are in a problematic situation.
Iran has five times more people than Saudi Arabia and a much bigger army.
Now the Saudis need to find a partner that would be dependable.
And surprisingly the only one choice would be Israel.
A traditionally hostile state ― hostile to Israel ―
is now seeking a strategic partnership -
with a state it has not even formally recognized.
And as we know, the Saudis support financially the Syrian rebels.
This is a stream that flows a bit here, there and everywhere.
Those can't be figured out.
True. Oman and other Sunni Muslim oil states in the Gulf -
are supporting the rebels -
that attempt to overthrow the Syrian government. That is also ISIS's goal.
On the other hand, the Saudis are part of the coalition that bombs ISIS.
The state of affairs is weird.
It is a treadmill where one does not really know who is fighting whom.
Sometimes it seems that everyone is fighting everyone.
Previously we have discussed -
how Hamas has been favorable to ISIS and the both have -
considered themselves colleagues and supporters to each other.
Now they are having some kind of a lovers' quarrel.
Yes, they are.
ISIS has quite a strong presence in the Sinai Peninsula.
ISIS troops have found their way from Libya to Sinai and from there to Gaza.
Now they have begun to bomb Hamas bases -
and attempt to weaken Hamas's influence.
Their goal is to overthrow Hamas from Gaza.
The disproportion is that Hamas has about 50,000 militants -
and ISIS does not have that much.
But their actions seem to imply that they want to gain control over Gaza.
The Gaza Strip would grant them a better position to attack Israel.
There are at least 10,000 missiles in Gaza.
I doubt ISIS would hesitate to use them against Israel. It is their goal.
And in the North, in Syria, -
ISIS attempts a pincer movement in regards to Israel.
The liberation of Jerusalem is a key issue to ISIS.
For some reason they consider it a city that must be liberated.
Isn't the logical conclusion -
that ISIS also seeks a foothold in the West Bank?
Hamas already has people in the Palestinian government.
Isn't it only logical that the threat will pour in there, too?
Obviously. Israel will then get involved very strongly.
It will do all in its power to prevent ISIS from infiltrating the West Bank.
The Palestinian Authority must ask help from Israel -
because it does not have the capacity to fight both Hamas and ISIS.
The overall picture is quite complex.
Especially since extremist groups like ISIS and Taliban have strengthened.
Their goal is to overthrow -
the liberal and cautious governments and groups -
and to replace them with extremist, religious, Sharia law based groups.
Their ultimate goal is to destroy -
and to found an Islamic caliphate to the destroyed areas.
If we think about Gaza in Israel's point of view, -
and as the Egypt―Israeli cooperation is working well at the moment, -
can they allow ISIS to get control over Gaza? - No.
But Gaza is a difficult area to be controlled.
The border in Sinai between Israel and Egypt is very long.
It reaches even Eilat.
Gaza is easily entered even though it has a fence and it is overseen.
Even then it can be infiltrated.
Gaza can be entered by sea with smaller vessels.
Egypt needs Israeli intelligence help in Sinai.
It does not have its own satellites, and it needs logistic support from Israel -
to fight Al-Qaeda and other groups, and now ISIS as well.
Sinai is a demilitarized zone. Egypt cannot have its own military there.
It needs a temporary leave to use the military to destroy bases in Sinai.
Apparently the groups take advantage of this gap.
Somehow they get into Gaza.
Whether it is through tunnels or otherwise, the groups get there.
This issue has not been discussed much.
At least I haven't heard Obama to give any statements -
about the ISIS―Hamas relationship and what it may cause.
It has stayed in the dark, for the issue is fairly recent.
I got the first data about it less than two weeks ago -
and pictures where one can see -
the ISIS bomb strikes to Hamas bases in Gaza.
This has been a new development.
Like you mentioned, Hamas and ISIS felt affinity with each other -
and Hamas announced -
that ISIS's actions are according to Hamas's strategy.
Still ISIS seems to think Hamas to be too moderate -
since it has made a truce with Israel.
With this in mind, the two states solution -
seems to be even more problematic than before.
That is exactly what Netanyahu meant when he said that during his term -
a Palestinian state will not be created. This was interpreted wrong.
Netanyahu is a realist. He knows the state of affairs.
He sees that, at the moment, two states cannot be formed.
The situations change so fast it is hard to keep up with them.
New players emerge all the time.
We have no time to talk about North Korea which also has a role in this.
Perhaps next time we can discuss it.
We will probably discuss the Israeli elections next time -
as then the new Israeli government will have been formed.
Thank you, Pekka. We will continue from this next time.
Thank you, viewer, for being with us. We will continue in two weeks.
Translation: Maija Tuukkanen