In early February, tension again rose between the United States and Iraq following the latter's demand that UNSCOM cease its activities in that country. As the U.S. was considering military moves, Israel was also preparing for the remote possibility of being struck again by Iraqi missiles. Israel wholeheartedly supported the American position. The Prime Minister also discussed the ongoing talks with the Clinton administration and the link between the current negotiations on the implementation of the Hebron agreement and final status talks that he supported. This was the second briefing held by the Prime Minister in his capacity as Foreign Minister to members of the diplomatic corps in Israel. Most of this session was closed to the media. Text:
We are faced with what appears to be a permanent source of crisis and instability that comes from the Persian Gulf, and that is instability that is derived from the nature of two regimes, Iraq and Iran - their aggressive policies, their inclination to use terrorism - but increasingly from the fact that they are arming themselves with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. This is the source of the present instability and, if untreated, this would be the source of much future instability in the region and indeed well beyond the region.
What we're dealing with today is one aspect of this instability. We have to remember that it is part of a larger construct, and it seems to me that the international community - at least most of it - has understood that something has to be done, not only to protect the present, but to protect the future. We hope that there will be a peaceful outcome to the present crisis. Like others in the international community, we support the American-led effort to have the UN monitors, the UNSCOM monitors, return to Iraq able to do their job without interference, without any disturbance, according to the Security Council resolutions.
It is our assessment that the risk of an Iraqi attack on Israel is low, even very low. But our responsibility to protect the people of Israel forces us to undertake all the measures for civil defense that are necessary. One has to remember that we reserve the right of self-defense, which is a natural right of any state, any nation, under a potential or real attack. I want to say, too, that we understand that our responsibility is not only to extend civil defense measures and means to Israeli citizens, but also to the non-Israelis who are here, and we are making every effort to be in a position to do so in the fullest possible way.
Our policy vis-à-vis this threat has been one of restraint and responsibility. We are not a part of this conflict, we have no intention to be part of this conflict, and so we have adopted what I think is a measured policy, a firm policy, and a restrained policy.
I hope that in all parts of the Middle East, including the Persian Gulf, cooler heads will prevail, and this will enable what we hope will be a peaceful resolution of this crisis.
I said that there is another source of instability, and that is Iran. Iran is not subject to the UNSCOM measures. Iran is not subject to the threat of sanctions, and therefore the research and development and weapons development program in Iran, of ballistic missiles and non-conventional weapons, is actually proceeding unimpeded. And if one sees the difficulties that we face today with Iraq, with curtailed capabilities, and the threat this poses to the surrounding countries, to the region and to the world, it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to understand what would happen if Iran were to proceed unimpeded and develop these deadly capabilities, and what this would do to all of us.
We have been encouraged by the fact that China has stopped its programs of assistance in non-conventional weapons, in non-conventional capabilities, to Iran. We are hopeful that there will be such a change in Russian policy - that of course remains to be seen. But it's important, I think, to alert the entire international community to the fact that whereas international attention is fully focused, and naturally focused, and legitimately focused right now on the question of preventing such weapons from being developed in Iraq, there has been very little attention at all given to a similar threat, at least of a similar magnitude, taking place in Iran. I believe that if Iran continues to develop, as it does, with great application of resources and energy, the capability for power projection, that is to project power, and deadly weapons of mass destruction beyond its immediate borders, this will have enormous consequences on our world.
Therefore, I use this opportunity - and certainly it will not be the last - in the midst of a crisis, which we hope will be resolved peacefully and we believe can be resolved peacefully, certainly without our involvement, we urge all the governments of the world to consider the actions necessary to prevent an equal crisis or even greater crisis from taking place in the future.
I want to thank the governments that are here. Most of them have been very understanding - I'd say all of them - of our situation. Deep down, I would say, I don't think that our situation is all that different from some of our neighbors. The threat may be more obvious, but the larger problem that we all face, if Saddam Hussein acquired weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, I think that the problem will not be only an Israeli problem but indeed a far wider problem. I am making a distinction between public declarations and private perceptions that probably are shared across the Middle East, by Israel and quite a few of our neighbors.