Iran carried out implosion tests for nuclear weapons development, IAEA reports
A new IAEA report reveals Iran carried out undeclared nuclear tests, prompting calls to refer the case to the UN Security Council. Much of the IAEA report is based on evidence from the Mossad.
The recent special International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iranian nuclear violations added many points, one being that Iran carried out multiple implosion tests, a key military skill necessary for developing the atomic bomb. Implosion tests do not have civilian nuclear uses.
Notably, though much of the report refers to Iranian military activities from 20 years ago, Tehran's careful record-keeping means that any progress that the Islamic Republic made back then could be used to help with a more sudden, rapid push for a breakthrough to a nuclear weapon in 2025.
The fact that it carried out various explosive tests also suggests that Iran is further along in other skills needed for developing a nuclear bomb, besides just enriching uranium, than many observers may have thought.
This and multiple other findings are analyzed in detail in a position paper introduced this weekend by the Institute for Science and International Security, spearheaded by lead author and president David Albright.
According to the think tank, the IAEA Board of Governors must refer Tehran's nuclear violations to the UN Security Council during its meeting, which opens on Monday and runs until June 13.
All of this is occurring as the Islamic Republic and the US are the closest they have been to a new nuclear deal in years, but also not far from a possible collapse in the talks, which could lead to an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. In a more detailed analysis of the IAEA report, the think tank said that the agency discloses its assessment 'that Iran tested neutron initiators produced at Lavizan-Shian and cites specific dates, but notably, it does not mention a location.' Albright wrote that the IAEA report said instead that 'the EDNS [explosively driven neutron sources] produced at Lavizan-Shian were small-scale, designed for testing, and integrated into scaled implosion systems. [They were] tested on at least two occasions (on February 15 and July 3, 2003).'
Next, the May 2025 report also stated anew that the IAEA found indications that 'equipment was developed and tested at Lavizan-Shian that included neutron detectors and housings' and that 'an identical housing for neutron detectors was deployed in an explosive test at Marivan on April 15, 2003.'
Further, the IAEA report provided new information about the equipment and materials that were present at Varamin, saying, 'This equipment contained all of the essential equipment for a uranium conversion facility, including small but heavily contaminated (and possibly full) UF6 Cylinders, uranium extractants (such as tributyl phosphate (TBP), uranium extraction and conversion hardware, fluorine-based chemicals (hydrofluoric acid (HF) and potassium difluoride (KHF2), and radiation monitoring equipment.'
Moreover, the IAEA said that in sorting the material and equipment and placing it into containers, Iran categorized the items as either 'essential' or 'nonessential.'
This resulted in five containers being deemed 'essential' and eight containers being categorized as 'nonessential.' 'The operators of Varamin' also took into account the level of contamination with nuclear material and that one of the containers considered 'essential' was categorized as being 'the highest level of contamination,' containing 'small UF6 Cylinders and other 'special materials,'' according to Albright.
The report also concludes that Lavizan-Shian, Marivan, and Varamin, as well as 'other possible related locations,' were 'part of an undeclared structured nuclear program.'
It added that Iran retained nuclear material or related equipment from this program at Turquzabad from 2009 to 2018. The whereabouts of these resources is currently unknown.
The IAEA also discussed and connected these activities to the missing amount of uranium that was once present at Iran's Jaber Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratory (JHL).
Also, Albright wrote that for the first time, 'the IAEA revealed its assessment that the four sites and missing nuclear material in Iran are directly connected.'
Moreover, the think tank said that the report provided new information on the extent of Iranian attempts to sanitize locations of interest to the IAEA and provide false information when faced with questions.
It stated that 'the provision of inaccurate and sometimes contradictory explanations seriously obstructed' the IAEA's efforts.
The atomic watchdog agency said explicitly that although the matters on Lavizan-Shian and Marivan were 'no longer outstanding,' this did not mean the issues were 'resolved.'
Much of the IAEA report originated from evidence brought to it by the Mossad, which seized Iran's nuclear archives in 2018.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Hong Kong Pensions Plan to Cut Treasuries If US Loses AAA Rating
Hong Kong's pension fund managers have formed a preliminary plan to sell down their Treasury holdings within as soon as three months if the US loses its last recognized top credit rating, according to people familiar with the matter. Industry groups including the Hong Kong Investment Funds Association and the Hong Kong Trustees' Association discussed the proposal with the pensions regulator on Wednesday, the people said, asking not to be identified as the meeting was private.
Bloomberg
44 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Adani Visits Chinese Equipment Makers as US Legal Woes Linger
Indian billionaire Gautam Adani traveled to China last week to meet industrial equipment manufacturers, marking what appears to be his first overseas trip since the US unveiled criminal and civil cases against him in November. The visit, including to a solar module maker, underscores Adani's continued efforts to maintain momentum in renewables even as he faces heightened scrutiny abroad. Sagar Adani, who oversees the green arm of the conglomerate's sprawling empire, accompanied his uncle on the trip, according to a social media post by one of the companies he visited.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Ehud Olmert on Israel's Catastrophic War in Gaza
transcript Ehud Olmert on Israel's Catastrophic War in Gaza I don't think it's possible at this point to overstate how hellish life in Gaza has been over the past 20 months. The death count is above 50,000 people, more than 15,000 of whom were children. At least 1.9 million of the 2.1 million Gazans have been displaced and displaced and displaced. Many have been forced to flee homes or camps or shelters, some 10 times or more. [CLIP] Israel has decided to stop letting goods and supplies into Gaza. Starvation is everywhere. [CLIP] We've done that because Hamas steals the supplies. [CLIP] It's been now one month that the blockade is ongoing. [CLIP] More than four weeks. [CLIP] More than six weeks [CLIP] More than nine weeks. For 11 weeks, Israel allowed no aid into Gaza. [CLIP] This is the worst it has been the entire time. 171,000 metric tons of food for Gazans just sat there. [CLIP] Just a few hours away, there's everything. There's enough food here for 200,000 people alone for an entire month. Almost half of Gaza's 36 hospitals are destroyed or non-operational. Many of the rest are barely holding on. There are only 2,000 hospital beds available for more than two million people. About 60 percent of all physical structures, full stop, are damaged or destroyed. And Israel is not close to declaring victory. 20 months after Oct. 7, 20 months after this war began, Israel has no plan for the day after, no theory of who should govern Gaza, and is instead weighing escalation. The Israeli army is seizing large areas of the Gaza Strip, expanding what it describes as buffer zones. The plan being considered would herd more than 2 million Gazans into a small fraction of the Gaza Strip. The argument is that this would isolate Hamas further, break its command and control structures. If all of this destruction and devastation hasn't broken up by now, it's hard to see how this will. A May poll found that 55 percent of Israelis believe Netanyahu's main goal is staying in power. Not winning, not returning the hostages. At the end of May, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009, published a searing Op-Ed in Haaretz. 'Enough is enough,' read the headline. 'Israel is committing war crimes.' He joins me now. Ehud Olmert, welcome to the show. Hi. So in your Op-ed in Haaretz, you wrote, what we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. That's not how you initially saw it. So walk me through what, in your view, changed. Well, obviously, when it started, right after the seven of October, Israel was in a state of shock. Well over 1,000 Israelis were massacred and butchered and beheaded and raped in their living rooms, in their safe rooms, in their bedrooms, with their pajamas. Children, elderly people, mothers, I mean, couldn't remain without a very robust military reaction. It lasted for much longer than I thought it should. On the first place, I already called for the end of the war, perhaps a year ago, and but certainly more or less around March this year. The consensus within Israel shared by very important people from the background of military, the Commanders of the IDF, the Commanders of Mossad, the Commanders of the Secret Service, not just the average person in the street, but people that are well trained and experience in judging the military options. They all say the war should stop now, and the war and bring back all the hostages. And the general attitude in Israel now is that the war continues, not because it serves any purpose, which justifies it, not because it's going to save the hostages, which are still kept by the Hamas. On the contrary, it probably risks their life for a war, which is called by the serious observant. Observers in Israel as a personal war for the sake of the political survivability of Netanyahu. This is a state of crime, and this is not something that is tolerable or acceptable. I want to go through some of the points you raise in the piece. You write that Israel is, quote, starving out Gaza on this issue. The position of senior government figures is public and clear. Yes, we've been denying Gazans food, medicine, and basic living needs as part of an explicit policy. What is that policy. It was until the last couple of days when it has changed. But for quite a few days we were denying the humanitarian needs of the people. The people were starving. The pictures that we all saw were absolutely heartbreaking and terrible and it became absolutely evident that this is the policy of the government, as was articulated and spelled out in the clearest possible way by Minister Ben-Gvir and Minister Smotrich. I mean, look, I grew up all my life knowing that we have to fight, when we have to fight, and we have to fight in order to defend ourselves without any hesitation, sometimes killing our adversaries and our enemies. And we did it when I was prime minister. But to look at two million people living in Gaza and to say they are all Hamas, therefore they deserve to be starved. And Netanyahu is captive. He is nominally the leader of the state of Israel. He is he's the prime minister, but he's entirely captive by these messianic, extremist, fundamentalist terrorists that are dictating the policy, because if he will not surrender to the pressures, he will lose his government. We are, as you mentioned, 18 months in, and we seem to be in a period where what is being considered is escalation, not de-escalation. So there are reports right now very widely reported that the IDF is planning to Herd Palestinians in Gaza towards the Morag corridor in the South of Gaza near the border with Egypt. That would mean concentrating Gazans who are already incredibly densely populated. What is the rationale for this. Why is this emerging as the policy. I wish I could tell you, I don't know. I don't and I don't understand except that if this is an effort to carry on the war for an unlimited period of time, to just carry on to perhaps clear the northern parts of Gaza from its population, I don't know. But what is seen and is understood by this is bad enough to oppose it. I think there is a policy. So, Minister Smotrich, you mentioned a second ago, he said about this plan that the Gazans held there will be, quote, totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places. It sounds to me like the intention here is part of a broader campaign of mass expulsion to make Gaza so hellish and unlivable Bowl that at some point the Gazans somehow to somewhere leave. Most likely, this is what they want. They say that the strategy of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich is not just fighting the. Hamas in order to try and eradicate the military power as a result of what they accomplished, which was terrible. This is far broader. And after 20 months of fighting, after eliminating almost all of their leadership in Yahya Sinwar, Muhammad Deif, Muhammad Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh and all the commanders are high level and medium level and low level Commanders all were eliminated. The launchers were destroyed, the rockets were destroyed, the command position were destroyed. So to say that the Gaza poses now a security for the existence of the state of Israel is nonsense. The only possible interpretation is the one you offered. They want to get rid of all the Gazans, and this only is part of the strategy, because the other part of the strategy is to do the same in the West Bank, and they are the ones that inspire the hilltop youth of perpetrating atrocities on a daily basis. In the West Bank, thousands of Palestinians are attacked in an area which no one can argue is a poses any serious threat to the very security of the state of Israel. O.K can you say for people who don't know who the hilltop youth are. The hilltop youth are the young settlers in the territories of the West Bank, which are organized like a kind of a private militia. Very aggressive, very violent and very active. I call them the atrocious youth of the West Bank, but they are known to everyone as the hilltop youth because they are building illegal compounds on the hills of the West Bank to have a good control of the movement of the Palestinians and the ability to reach out for people that they want to attack. I think the West Bank is where you can see that this is not just about Hamas or about security. Sure So in the year after October 7, there was the largest amount of land seizures in the West Bank in 30 years. In May, Israel announced 22 new settlements, the largest settlement expansion since the Oslo Accords. Of course, no one can ignore these statements and the impact that these statements of building more settlements and so on and so forth. The impact that it has on the spirits of and the atmosphere in the West Bank, and the possible eruption of hostilities between Jews and the Palestinians in the West Bank. And unfortunately, so many of the hilltop youth are not waiting for the hostilities. They are perpetrating them. Well, I want to tell you something because I want to change a little bit this pessimistic a feeling. The truth of the matter is that in the last few years, there is a negative emigration of Jews from the West Bank. So in spite of this arrogant rhetoric of building new settlements and so on and so forth, there was this resolution that was announced just a couple of days ago about the 22 new settlements. In reality, more people living in the West Bank, Jews, Jews leave the West Bank rather than come in, which still leaves it optional for what I am campaigning for, which is a two state solution, it is still doable. And practicable in spite of this rhetoric. When I was in the West Bank about a year ago and talking to people in different settlements, one thing I heard from many of them, including people who are not that far right wing, was that they now understood themselves as a kind of they were sentries that they were there almost in defense of Israel, an early Warning system that nothing like what happened in Gaza could happen because they're there now. Then in June, this June, a Pew released a poll showing that a plurality of Israelis agree with that. Now, they say the continued building of settlements helps Israeli security rather than hurts it. The politics of the settlements seem to have shifted over time from something Israel's may be supposed to be a bit embarrassed about May ultimately have to abandon to part of its security strategy. Maybe part of its national identity. I must say that this is one of the most stupid, childish, reckless, simplistic arguments that I have heard from people that on the one side say Israel, if we need to destroy Iran, we will do it. So powerful, so capable that Iran, which is a regional superpower, one of the richest countries in the world with enormous technological achievements that can't be ignored. No problem. We can destroy them. And on the other hand, a few thousand terrorists from the other side of the border is a threat to the very existence of the state of Israel. Is this the basis of the strength of the country that boasts all the time that we can destroy all our enemies, which we can, by the way. We did. We did. After October, we destroyed the military power of Hezbollah, O.K. And Syria collapsed. And the Hamas is almost completely eradicated. And even when Iran attacked us with ballistic missiles, we intercepted almost all of them, hundreds of them in one of the most unbelievable attacks in modern history, hundreds of ballistic missiles with 1,000 kilos of warheads that were shot at Israel, and 95 percent of them were intercepted with the assistance of America in Great Britain and France, but largely because of us. So to say that there is an imminent danger to the very existence of Israel from a few thousand terrorists is ridiculous. The truth is this. On the seven of October, I have to say it. It is important to emphasize it. We failed completely. We failed because of arrogance. We failed because of overconfidence. We failed because we were so certain that this bunch of nobodies can ever do anything of this nature, that in spite of the fact that we had all the intelligence and all the information, we didn't even think that this is doable, because who are they. And therefore, we didn't have army. We didn't have defensive forces. We didn't have the choppers. We didn't have the tanks, we didn't have the soldiers. And they broke through. We had an exorbitant amount of victims. Terrible I mean, this is a terrible which the shock of generations. And there were some that you tended to draw comparisons to the Holocaust, which of course, is also baseless. But that was the kind of a shock. But Israel was not in a danger, in a survival in danger for its existence, even one minute, even on the seven of October. That doesn't mean that we don't have to make sure that we are completely careful and alerted to the event that something in similar to what happened in the October 7 will try to will happen again. We have to be careful and we have to be alert. But we can. But let me I find the position of the Smotriches and Ben-Gvirs and Israel Katzes fundamentally immoral. But let me try to describe what I understand their logic to be. It's not a few thousand people. It's that given what has happened in the West Bank, given what has happened in Gaza, the war crimes, you describe that it is millions and millions of people who, whether or not they take up arms, there is a seething resentment and fury. There is loss, there is a desire for revenge. And very few people in Israel now seem to believe peace is possible, that the belief that peace is a plausible outcome has eroded substantially. And if you don't believe peace is possible, then the Smotrich, Ben-Gvir — that what you are really left with, whether you will admit it or not, is trying to find some pathway to expulsion. Some pathway to total control. That's what you're left with. And when I look at polling, I mean, I've seen now polling people debate how good these polls are, but where the Israeli public say they would support the relocation of Gazans to another country, somehow that it seems to me many people have come to this conclusion that the Israeli center does not care about the suffering of the Palestinians. It wants this problem to go away, and it doesn't know how to make it go away. And the only people with the plan are on the only people with the plan that anybody seems to semi believe are on the Israeli right. And that's become, in a way, the Israeli center look, with regard to Gaza and the deportation of Gaza, when the American president, who is perceived by most Israelis to be a very committed friend of the state of Israel, says that he is in favor of deporting all of the Gazans, he's very easy to come along and to save the President of the United States of America thinks that the deportation of all the Gazans is imminent and is acceptable and is reasonable. And this is a good solution, perhaps, to build a Riviera or Trump Hotel. So, number one, I think the initial reaction of many of the Israelis, particularly after the Trump's reaction, was to adopt this possible solution. But of course, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich want to get rid of the Gazans and then to get rid of the West Bankers and to integrate all of these territories into greater Israel. And those who believe that we were destined by God to exercise the historical rights of the Jewish people over all of Israel. And that this time now we are in a position to try and carry out. And you know that there are even sending rabbis to the South of Lebanon to find graves of old rabbinical figures that can prove that actually, the South of Lebanon is also part of the greater Israel. And then they are also going to some sections in Syria for that same purpose. So here we have a confrontation of historical proportions between two segments of the Jewish people. I believe the majority is on my side. On the side of those who understand that we have to compromise because there is no alternative for compromise, but endless war and endless fighting and endless bloodshed and endless killing and endless losing of our children and no horizon for the future. And this is the confrontation. That's more. The deeper confrontation we have now in our society. And this is in a way, as I called it. It is a war on the soul of Israel. Why do you believe in that war. The majority is on your side. You have succeeded. You were beaten by Netanyahu, who has held power for most of the time since. The main alternative now to Netanyahu seems to be Naftali Bennett, who in previous periods was understood to be somewhat to his right on some of these issues. I don't see reason from the outside to believe that the view of most Israelis is that the pathway forward is through concessions and compromise. Depends on how do you do you measure what is a majority in all of the polls consistently through the last 20 months. There was not one time that the government enjoyed the support of close to even percent of the population. Most of the population is against the government and when asked, more than 60 percent say they don't trust the prime minister, and they don't trust that his motivation is to defend the National interest of Israel, but to protect his own personal political survivability, and so on. My understanding and my impressions, based on talks that I have with all the possible experts and researchers and also my contacts with people, is that there is a solid one third of the Israeli population, which is in favor of a political solution, and the only possible political solution at the end is a two state. There is about one third which is opposed to it under any circumstance. And there is one third which is not in favor of a two state, but which can be influenced. And the battle for the soul of the state of Israel is to try and change the balance. Now it's true. You said you mentioned a. Naftali Bennett. Naftali Bennett is a very worthy guy. There is no question about it. However, this is a very wet guy. You said. Worthy worthy. He's a decent guy. I think what his appeal today is not because of his politics, which is largely a right wing politics. I called him a guy with a suit. He goes in a much nicer, simpler, decent, no aggressive manner. He more or less expresses the same ideas of greater Israel and settlements and so on and so forth. But I think that his appeal presently is the fact that he seems to be normal. He is a normal person, and it's about time that we will bring back Israel into some kind of normalcy, which is a desire of many, those who are maybe not in where I am politically, that they are more in the center, even sometimes slightly, slightly more to the right. But they understand that these messianic people are a danger, and that the personality and the spirit and the values to the Netanyahu family. I mean, all of this is something that is rotten and that needs to be changed. And so, for the time being, Naftali Bennett is a good parking place for these potential votes. Where will they end up. It's hard to say. It's true. We have a leadership crisis. There is no question about it. You look at the contenders, Gantz and Eisenkot and Lapid, all of them are good guys. A decent guys are patriots, are people that have done something in their life, which was completely in the service of our country and our nation. I mean, anything nothing similar to the Netanyahu values. And the Smotrich and Ben-Gvir values. But you feel this absence of strength, of determination. I always say when I look at them, I say, I am looking, I'm searching for someone who has a fire burning in his chest that is about to erupt and will burn anything that stands in its way. I don't see it yet, but let me offer a different way of breaking up the pieces of Israeli politics and see what you think of it. So there's a one way it has been described to me is that there is a faction that believes in a two state solution that has become much smaller over time, and it's very weak in Israeli politics. Now there's a faction that believes in annexation, greater Judea and Samaria, that they now have power in the government and they are very energized. They are acting all of the time. They may not be a majority, but they are never still. They are always trying to push forward their vision. And then what most Israelis want is to not think about it, that they are exhausted by it. They do not have an answer. And when I talk to Israeli political analysts, I will be I'm sometimes amazed we'll have a whole conversation about the set of problems in Israel and Israeli politics around Iran. And at the end, I'll say, well, you didn't mention anything about what any kind of long term solution around the Palestinian questions are, around Palestinian independence, around anything. Yeah, I guess I didn't that it seems to me many people that the salient group, what they want is for it to go away. And give me a break. Indifference give me a break. I mean, leave me alone. Don't bother me. I'll tell you something. This part, which can make the change the balance, O.K, is more susceptible to the potential prices that the state of Israel is going to pay. If this policy of annexation and expulsion of Palestinians will carry on. We are now witnessing the beginning of it, and it doesn't smell good. And it's not anti-Semitism. I have a partner from the Palestinian side, a former foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority. Doctor Nasser al-Qudwa. U.N. ambassador and the nephew of Arafat. And we are campaigning together. We issued a joint statement about the two states and so on. And we are campaigning, and we met many of the leaders of Europe, almost all of the foreign ministers in Europe, I can say talking about President Macron President Macron has been a traditional friend of Israel. The French army took part in the defense of the state of Israel just a few months ago when the Iranians were attacking us with ballistic missiles. So is the British to say that they are anti-semites, or that they are now collaborating with terror. He's obnoxious. He's outrageous. He's however, they seem to now have adopted a certain path that can at some point become very costly to Israel if there will be economic sanctions. I heard yesterday that in one of the ports in France, they refused to load trade to Israel because they said, we don't want to service the needs of a country where there is disregard to human lives. And so on and so forth. If the association agreement, which is the free trade agreement between Israel and the EU and which is EU, is the largest trade partner of the state of Israel, if there will be economic sanctions, if the expressions of against Israel, there is so much that you can say is anti-Semitism, there is anti-Semitism and the latent anti-Semitism which exists and which was part of our history and part of our lives in the past and in the present, has now erupted in disproportionately, together with the expression of the anti-Israeli politics and the events which people are witnessing now everywhere in which they can tolerate. But if all this will start to be very expensive for the Israeli economy, for the way of life, for the freedom of movement of Israelis across the world. I don't know if the one third, which is not particularly interested in bothering himself about the solution, will remain as indifferent as perhaps it. Now I find this is a very difficult and tricky thing for Jewish people, for Israeli Jews to talk about. But anti-Semitism predates the state of Israel. That's right. Anti-Semitism is in some ways, part of the creation of the state of Israel. But Israel becoming a global pariah state that is believed and is a force. It is a pressing Palestinian life and independence. It is committing crimes in Gaza that is starving people. That feeds anti-Semitism, that there is a relationship between the two that is dangerous. How do you think about that. Look, I don't think that one needs to be an anti-Semite in order to be utterly devastated by watching The Daily clips on the international media showing the mushrooms, which are rising to the sky of smoke and fire when the buildings in Gaza are destroyed by Israeli planes. O.K, to say that you can't be devastated unless you are also an anti-Semite is childish, is simplistic, and it's not true. And adopting this position drives you away from coming to terms with the problems that you have to address. So I can understand why there are many, many riots and demonstrations across many places against the Israeli government. Look, I'm against this government. We are rioting and demonstrating in large numbers against the Israeli government in an unprecedented manner. There is nothing similar to what is going on in Israel for the last maybe two years, but certainly a year and a half, particularly after the war started, that there are so many hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis, rioting in the center of cities in Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem, in other parts of the country, day in, day out, thousands and thousands of them. So if that's what the Israelis are doing, why would you be surprised that people in Stockholm or in. But I think you're putting so much I think you're putting so much on this government. And I agree with you about this government. But I think the fury put aside, put aside the anti-Semitism for a minute, the kinds more legitimate protests you're talking about it's to the idea that there will be a permanent state of Dominion, that the state of Israel will exist in a permanent state of Dominion over Palestinians. And that seems to be an idea shared by the Israeli mainstream that is, Naftali Bennett, as you say, does not disagree with that idea. And that seems dangerous in the long term. I mean, in the short term too, but in the long term, I hope you don't forget that Naftali Bennett was the executive director of the Regional municipalities of the West Bank of the. He was in a core at the center of all this settlement movement, and he was their representative in their chief of staff and so on. So, Yes, look, there is it's very hard, very hard for the Israelis to overcome the generations of the obsession of being the victims of hatred. We so much fell in love with the status of being the underdog, the victim of hatred, of anti-Semitism, of discrimination, of segregation, of whatever that we fall into this in every possible occasion that we have. And it's so easy for so many amongst us to say, O.K, this is not what do they want from us. We don't. We have a right to defend ourselves after what they did on the seven of October. So now we are defending ourselves. But when we defend ourselves, they hate us and they attack us and they and they write against us and whatnot. This is part of the immaturity, emotional immaturity which has characterized the state of Israel from its proclamation. Also because we had many different occasions in which we could argue that when we were ready for compromise, the other side was not. And as a result of it, we were dragged into these endless wars when it could have been resolved. And one of the problems that I personally have is that whenever I argue, people say to me, hey, are you not an example. You proposed the Palestinians in 2008, a comprehensive solution that is entirely compatible to everything that they were demanding all these years. A two state on the basis of 67, with the Old City of Jerusalem as not under the exclusive sovereignty of either Israel or Palestine, under a trust of five nations, of which Israel and Palestine were to be part, but also with America, with Saudi Arabia, with Jordan. And that you agree to negotiate the refugee issue within the framework of the Arab League peace initiative. This was the spirit of what I said in Annapolis, and this is what I presented at Abu Mazen as a peace plan, representing the government of Israel, and the outcome was that they didn't sign. They never said no, it's true, but they never said Yes. O.K, so people come to me now and say, what do you want. Do they want peace. The fact is that they failed to answer you when you presented them with everything that they wanted. So this is a strong argument, and this is something that so many Israelis are anxious to fall in love with, to prove that the other side is not ready and is entrustable and unreliable and is never will be acceptable, and so on and so forth. But let's not forget, from 2009 until now, the Israeli government didn't want to make peace. No Israeli government at that time that was ready to embark on a meaningful, serious process of negotiations similar to what I did. And also that in all these years, in all these years, the security the agencies of the Palestinian Authority, cooperated with the Israeli Secret Service in order to better terror from the West Bank, and at the same time, the Israeli government ignored the Palestinian Authority and cultivated the James with money that came from Qatar. But at the end of the day, so many of the Israelis say, listen, we don't want to hear about it. We don't want to deal with that. They hate us. They didn't want to make peace. They are terrorists. They are fundamentalists. They are ayatollahs. They are jihadists, whatnot. And we have to be strong and to defend ourselves, O.K. We have to cope with this and we have to change it. And this is what, for me, it's my life mission. I have nothing else to fight for. But to try and change this and contribute to change this balance. The point you make about cultivating Hamas and ignoring or weakening the Palestinian Authority seems very important here, that you had somebody in your day to negotiate with Abu Mazen now is still notionally in charge, but very, very weak. And Israel does not seem to want to have a strengthened Palestinian Authority. And I was struck by this, that in late May, Israel barred the foreign ministers from a number of Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, from visiting the West Bank. Absolutely crazy, outrageous, obnoxious and damaging. You are talking about the foreign minister of the Emirates, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, a friend of Israel. The guy who signed the Abraham Accords with Israel was actually the brother of Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. His foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, a lovely person, by the way, and a friend of Israel. And they kept the good relations over the last year and a half when all the airlines of the world almost canceled the flights to Israel, the Emiratis didn't. So now you say to the Emirati foreign minister, I don't want you to come to the Saudi foreign minister. The Saudis are ready to normalize relations with Israel. And you don't want to. The Saudi foreign minister or the Bahraini and the Jordanian. Jordan, we have peace with Jordan and Egypt. We have peace with Egypt not to allow them to come in. This is it only proves to you what I said before, that the government is completely captive, is held by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich to such a degree that Netanyahu is doing in the most open way, the most outrageous, incredible, crazy things in order to satisfy his partners at The cost of ruining the very fragile and sensitive relations we have built with great efforts for a long time with Arab countries. Here's the other thing that I genuinely do not understand. If you had told me a year ago that Israel would still be at war in Gaza, I would have believed you. If you had told me a year ago that there still would be no plan for what comes after that war, not among the governing coalition in Israel, not among the opposition, the main opposition parties to that governing coalition in Israel. That Gaza would just be ruins, which it is. And nobody would even be talking about what comes next. There would be talk of escalation, but not of even not of. This is how Israel plans now to govern and control Gaza, that there is just there is no horizon of the future. I think that would have shocked me how at this point, this far into this, can there not even be a proposal. It didn't shock me because when I started to voice my criticism publicly, writing articles appearing on international and local media everywhere. I kept saying exactly this. How can you seriously expect to have the support of the international community if you are not prepared to say, what is your political horizon. What is your plan for the day after. What do you want to happen. And I kept saying all the time I use this argument. I say, look, let's assume that Israel will be extremely successful militarily and we will kill every single Hamas fighter. Which, of course, it's impossible. It's not something that really can happen. But let's assume, just for the sake of the argument, that we can do it. There will not remain one Hamas person holds a gun or an RPG or a hand grenade in the entire Gaza. There will still be 2.2 million people. What are we going to do with them. What are we going to do with the people living in the West Bank. What do we want to do with them. Remain occupiers forever forever and ever and ever. I never heard an answer. And the reason why I didn't never heard that answer is very simple. Yes this is precisely what Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and those who support them want. They want eventually, as we said before, to get rid of them there, to get rid of them in the West Bank, in Gaza, to clean the area for, to in order to lay the foundations for greater Israel. With so many Jews everywhere. Now, Netanyahu, of course, knows that that's what they want. Netanyahu wants only one thing. Save me. Save me at any cost. And he is prepared to comply with everything that they want in order to save himself. This is the tragedy that we are facing these days in Israel. But how is there not more demand for some theory. Not of peace, not of a solution, but of a plan. Look, I take your point right. We are clear. Israel is clearly going to control Gaza for the foreseeable future. But nobody is offering a plan on how. Well, but nobody is offering a plan on how that control will work. Now it is a strange arm's length. Now there's some control over the aid which is slipping through, and you have soldiers opening fire and dozens of people dying and arguments over why that happened. If Israel is going to be the governing authority, then it needs governing institutions. Nobody's setting up the groundwork for that. It's just going to occasionally launch military incursions into the ruins. Well, I guess that you don't ask me to try and explain. Netanyahu Yes. O.K I'm asking why there isn't a demand for something else. What are you really asking me is how come there are not other voices. Strong, powerful, public voices coming from different political sides within Israel that proposes an alternative plan. Something for the day after. First of all, this is reality. O.K which is a sad reality. I can say that I've proposed it. O.K I've. I've done it. I don't have any formal political position now, but I think my voice is heard, every now and then someplace, so this is not insignificant. It has to be said. But I think that one of the problems, the difficulties in dealing with it is the fact that and that's why Bibi wants the war to continue, because when we are fighting, when there are thousands and thousands and thousands of Israelis, the reservists that are now mobilized and are fighting the consensus, the desire of most of the people is first, bring them back home. Don't bother me now with what will happen afterwards. First, we have to win the war. Now maybe we have to end it as some most people think in the polls. But in as long as it goes on, we have to win the war. And don't bother me now with what should be afterwards. We will deal with it afterwards. And that's precisely why Netanyahu wants to keep the war going forever. Because as long as the war goes we are not yet ready from his point of view to discuss the day after. We have to discuss the win, the victory, the total victory which we have to accomplish as soon as possible. And this is the only possible explanation I have. Let's say that they don't accept two states as a possibility, or they don't say they don't accept the Palestinian Authority as the governing body in Gaza. So what do they propose. O.K, not this. Then what. Nothing comes. And is this not I mean, my impression of Benny Gantz and some of the others is that they believe politically that to propose anything and to have to own the flaws and downsides of it is more politically dangerous than proposing nothing. Now, I'm not sure they're right, because I think they've all fallen right. Benny Gantz was the former next prime minister of Israel. And now I think his star has fallen quite a bit. But their sense, I mean, the people I spoke to it just seemed to me that the view was that there was nothing the Israeli public would support, that the options are all bad, and nobody wanted to be the one to propose the option and then have every other faction attack them. I used to say sometimes, as a retiree of being almost 50 years in the center of a national arena of such a volatile and exciting country, I'm asked every now and then what would I have to say about what makes a person a great leader. What makes a person a man of history rather than just a passing political phenomenon. So I used to say that in my mind, one of the things that characterize a great leader is the ability, when the time comes, to take a decision which is 180 degrees opposite to everything that he has preached for and believed for and fought for and defended for all his life. There comes a moment when you have to take a decision, and the only reasonable, rational, logical, healthy decision is the opposite of everything that you stood for. Now, normally when on various occasions when people are asked, what do you think about this guy or that guy or this political figure or public figure. People tend to say he is a very fine man. You can trust him. He will always do what he promised. Sometimes you need someone that will do the opposite of what he promised, and that will make him a man of history. Who did it? Menachem Begin. When Menachem Begin was elected in 1977 as the prime minister of Israel, at that time, I was already elected my second term in the Knesset. Everyone was scared to death. The first thing that Menachem Begin will do is to annex all the territories, because this is precisely what he said. Judea and Samaria are part of the state of Israel. We will annex everything, and of course, Sinai and Sharm El-Sheikh and whatnot. They were scared. And the British papers. And the next day, cross board said a terrorist was elected prime minister of the state of Israel. And it was fear. What will happen. I mean, the Middle East is going into a terrible situation of what not had someone tell told them on the 17th or 17th of May, 1977, when the day of election, that a year and three months from then, Menachem Begin will agree to pull out completely from Sinai against everything that he promised, everything that he defended all his life, long before the six-day war. No one would believe it. The fact that he did it, and the fact that he never tried, he never tried to annex the West Bank, even though he said, West Bank is Judea and Samaria, this is part of Israel. He will be part when we will be in power. This was the highest manifestation of the greatest leadership by a person that had the courage to do the opposite of everything that he promised. Also, you have to give credit to Sharon. I was privileged to be his vice prime minister when we decided to pull out entirely from Gaza, and he reached the inevitable conclusion, which was the right one. We have to dismantle all of it. This was leadership. Now when you ask me and you say, which is true, why would some of the potential contenders for Prime Minister in Israel would not, say, spell it out as it is because they are afraid of being unpopular, because they are afraid of losing some ground, because it may not be the right thing to do now, and so on and so forth. And I said, maybe they are right, but you don't make a breakthrough. You don't change history if you don't have the guts and the courage and the inspiration to do that, which is unexpected and that which may not be necessarily popular, but which is the only thing that reasonable people understand needs to be done. To be generous to that story. Begin, Sharon. They all did this when they were in power. So let's say that they did it. They made these moves, these 180 degree pivots in leadership or being when they were in power more than when they were running for power. So we agreed, Netanyahu is not going to do this, but let's say Naftali Bennett or somebody like Bennett succeeds him. What would that move look like now to you. At the end of the day, if Bennett will become the next prime minister, which I doubt, but if he will become, I'll do everything in order to encourage him to do exactly this. Do I think that he has the personal strengths, the width of his intellectual and emotional and basis to do it. I doubt, but I'd rather hope than leave no hope so. But what would the move what would the move look like. Put aside who it is, what exists now. If it were you, if you were in power, what would you propose to the Israeli people. What would you given where things are right now and what they believe right now, what would you propose. You have to change the nature of the dialogue and the appeal to the Israeli people, and start to talk in a different way. Instead of Warning us all the time that we are on the verge of destruction, which is what this government is doing now for 15 years, not just in the last couple of years. I remember the days that everyone said I knew, look, I was fighting Hezbollah, O.K. And after my war against him, everyone said, what. How we failed. And so on and so forth. But a few years later, I started to hear that there are so powerful that there is a danger to the very existence of Israel if Hezbollah will attack Israel. And we keep hear all the time that Iran is threatening the very existence of the state of Israel. And we hear also about Hamas today. On these days when Netanyahu talks, why does he need to expand the war. Because Hamas can become a danger to the very existence of the state of Israel. This has to change. You have to open a dialogue with the Israeli society on a different basis, or the basis of hope, something which will change the lifestyle and the hopes of the younger generations. Then we will not have to fight all the time. And then, of course, it's always a matter of leadership. If we can then assemble all of those who criticize Israel today and seem to be like hostile and suddenly unfriendly the macrons and the carnies from Canada and the melody from Italy and the steamer from Great Britain and the others across, and the chancellor Mertz in Germany and others to work with us to create that kind of solid framework of support and cooperation that will establish a certain sense of security and confidence in the Israeli public opinion. And, of course, at the end, with the United States of America. Well, I am careful, when I say about the United States of America, I don't know who the president will be. And I don't I'm being asked all the time, what do I think about how do I analyze, President Trump is doing. I have nothing against him, and he certainly is up until now, has been friendly to the State of Israel, to the people of Israel. But why now. To anticipate what Trump can do or will do or will say, Elon Musk thought that he can anticipate Trump I don't think that he still thinks that way. So I'm careful. But of course. For years and years and years, the core strengths of Israel's status in America was the bipartisan support. Israel did everything in the last 10 years to antagonize the Democrats and to dissociate ourselves from the friendship, the cooperation, the respect and the support of the Democratic Party. There was nothing that I could be worse than they were that Netanyahu treated President Barack Obama, in my mind, an outstanding president and a friend of Israel and a friend of the Jewish people. While we antagonized him, we alienated. So now today, the United States of America is well, I don't know where it stands with regard to the state of I don't know. I don't. Look, we're still dependent on America and the friendship of America, but I'm afraid it's not what it used to be. That has to change also, but it requires an entirely different leadership, given everything, both that you saw when you were in leadership. But everything you've seen in the years since, so many people I would largely count myself among them have given up hope, given up the belief that a two state solution remains possible. Beyond hope, what keeps make the case to me that it is why you've been out working on this actively. You're involved. I believe in the French Saudi talks that are set to start very soon. Yes O.K. What made you make the case to somebody who now doubts that this is still possible. Why do you think it is. I think that there is no alternative. I think that annexation of the territory may ultimately lead to a one state for two people, but half of the population will be citizens with full rights, and half of the population will be residents without political rights, without freedom of movement, without freedom of speech, without freedom of association. This is a disaster that will break down the Soul of Israel and eventually also break down the strengths of Israel. I don't think that the majority of the people of Israel will be prepared to bear the possible consequences of leaving without a solution, and the price of not resolving into a two state is to continue to be occupiers, even if the definition will be somewhat softened and mellowed, but it will still be an occupation without equal rights for the Palestinians living under the control of the state of Israel. This is intolerable. I wanted to say before, I think that all of the land from the Jordan to the sea, historically is linked to the Jews and not to the Palestinians or to the Arabs. When you dig underground, you find remnants of the biblical stories. You don't find remnants of Quran, of the history of the Palestinians. O.K, so Yes, it is our land and we have to cut it and give part of it, because under historical circumstances as they develop. There are other people living there with other desires, with other dreams, with our aspirations, and that we have to give up that which we think is ours in order to make peace possible. In other words, if we have to choose between the yearnings and the pressures of history and the hope and chances for the future and for the future, and the cost of making the terrible, painful concessions of the past. And believe me, I was at that point when I sat in front of the Palestinian leader as the prime minister of the state of Israel, and I negotiated with him. And at some point I said to him, O.K, this is what I propose. We divide the city of Jerusalem to what is known as the city of Jerusalem, which is the Arab side of Jerusalem, will be the capital of the Palestinian state. Believe me, it wasn't. Emotionally, it was heartbreaking for me to do it. But I felt that there is no alternative and that if I have to lie on the dreams and the prayers of the past at any cost over what can possibly create a different future for my grandchildren and my great grandchildren, this is what I have to do. And I think that at the end of the day, it will take time. It will be difficult. It will be probably part of a very tough confrontations within Israel. But at the end of the day, this will win. What you have made to me here is very stirringly the negative case for all the other alternatives that a single state solution will not work. But I think the people who doubt the path you are laying out believe that it is not possible that the peace is not possible. The security is not possible, that there will not be enough freedom for the Palestinians. There will not be enough security for the Israelis. What makes you believe it could work. Not that the others will fail. And this is the only thing left. So they will have I mean, according to my view, according to my plan, there will be an independent Palestinian state with borders, clear cut borders. They will have it will take them time to recuperate from their miseries of their recent modern history, and to build up a more stable political system that will overcome all the controversies and all the divisions which characterize the Palestinian society with the extreme terrorist organizations, Hamas, Jihad and others. But they will be it will be an independent Palestinian state with a clear cut border, well-defined. They will be protected from our side by Israel. There will be, according to my plan and according to the broad, the beginning of understanding or agreement that I had with Abu Mazen. There will be an international force along the border on the Jordan, Jordan, along the Jordan River that will separate the Palestinians from Jordan. And there will be an enormous effort once this is established by agreement and recognized by the International institutions, by the United Nations and by the big powers, the Europeans and the Americans, there will be an enormous effort by the Arab countries, the wealthy Arab countries to help Palestinian state move forward because it will be the interest of all those countries as well. And what of the Israelis who say to you, that state just becomes more powerful and becomes more of a threat to us, that success for them is danger for us. That is what I feel like Israeli society is going to conclude. Look, the country, which leads the world in technology, the country, which has been more successful economically. Look, even throughout these last two years, with the war, with the riots, still the Israeli currency is one of the strongest in the world. Such a successful, capable, strong country that we have to fear that the Palestinian state will become a challenge to the state of Israel. That is incomprehensible. I'll tell you what I think the opposite. I believe that the Palestinian state will be the best partner to the state of Israel amongst all the Arab countries. They are smart, they are capable, they are dynamic, and they are ambitious. And we will. We know them and they know us. They know us better than the Egyptians, better than Jordanians, better than the Emiratis or the Saudis. They know us because they lived with us. I think that they will become great partners, and that's how we have to build it up. But of course, it will become possible only if the agreement will be an expression of open mind and open heart and goodwill on both sides, rather than something that comes with force and with violence and with humiliation and with deprivation of rights. When I started to negotiate with Abu Mazen 18 years ago, at the beginning, I made every possible effort to make him feel that we are equals. I always thought that building up personal, human emotional rapport is enormously important to if you want to negotiate with someone and you want to win him, and you want to convince him that you mean Well, you have to mean Well. You tell a story in your memoir. I think it might be an interesting place to end, given what you just said about how got Abu Mazen to come over for dinner. This is something that my wife deserves all the credit for. Look, I respect Abu Mazen. I respect him, and I would never say anything bad about him. Never O.K. And what happened is that, we try to set up meetings with him. And every time that we set up a meeting and the last minute they called and they said, the president can't come because of this and that and this and that. And already it was coming to the end of 2006, December of 2006, and we set up another meeting dinner at the residence of the Israeli Prime Minister in his home in Balfour. Sure enough, Friday there is a call from his office. And they say the president wants to speak with the prime minister. And I take the phone and he's on the line and he says, Prime Minister, I'm sorry, there is this and that and I can't come. And we talked for maybe 40 minutes. So finally, I say to him what, President, I think I understand you. You want to insult me and I can understand it. You say, who do you think he is, the prime minister. He will dictate to me when to come, how to come, this and that. No You want to prove to me that you decide and that you determine and that you don't play by the rules that we Israel set forth O.K what I understand. Only one question I have is why do you want to insult my wife. He says to me, your wife. Why no, he said, look, I told her 48 hours ago that you are coming to have dinner with us on Saturday evening, and she has been standing on her feet for the last 48 hours trying to cook the food that you like. Now tell me, what am I going to say to her now. There was a silence for 15 seconds, maybe 20, which is a long time on telephone calls. And then he said, I will come. And he came. And then his motorcade was driving through the streets of Jerusalem with sirens and blue lights and red lights and everything, the president of America comes when he was near the residence of the prime minister. He could see on the roof of the residence of the prime minister two flags, the Palestinian flag and the Israeli flag. And then, of course, he came to the residence. And so on. My wife just came down to shake hands with him, and he said to her, I know that you are in our favor, which was funny. And I know that afterwards he said to his people, it's a new ball game. It's not anything like it was. It's a different game now. We have to get adjusted. And the reason was because we tried to build up a certain personal human trust, even with enemies. And he is our enemy. He's not our friend. He is the president of the Palestinians. He's not supposed to be our friend. He's supposed to be a Patriot of the Palestinians, but he is supposed to be smart enough to make sure that he takes care of the Palestinian interest. Unfortunately, at the last minute, he failed. But since he never said no, I still give him a chance. I think that's where we'll end. Always our final question what are three books you would recommend to our audience. Well, first of all, I'd like to recommend you the gates of Gaza. The gates of Gaza in English. It's the story of Amir Tibon. Amir Tibon is an Israeli journalist, the son of general Tibon. And the story is how his father is a general commander of the Israeli ground forces in the past reserve general on the seven of October, when he understood that his son is in kibbutz Nahal Oz, which was invaded by the Palestinians. He took his wife and a gun, and he went down and saved his son. And the whole story about what happened and how it happened is a fascinating and moving story. So this is one book that I recommend. I actually read two books about American politics, maybe more. One is the biography of Thomas Jefferson, Jon Meacham, 'The Art of Power,' an extraordinary life story of one of the greatest figures in American history. And then, of course, Mike Wolff story all or nothing about the last year before the last elections in America about President Trump, which is interesting, very exciting. I can recommend also the book of Doris Kearns Goodwin. Well, I like to read her history books, which are absolutely fascinating about the revivals and of Lincoln, of Johnson, of you name it. But she wrote also 'Wait Till Next Year,' which is a personal story, not a biography, but a personal story about her time in Brooklyn, where the Brooklyn Dodgers were still the most popular baseball team, which was part of her life. So yeah, I think it's enough for this podcast. Ehud Olmert, thank you very much. Thank you. This is an edited transcript of an episode of 'The Ezra Klein Show.' You can listen to the conversation by following or subscribing to the show on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. I don't think it's possible at this point to overstate how hellish life in Gaza has been over the past 20 months. The death count is above 50,000 people, more than 15,000 of whom are children. At least 1.9 million of the 2.1 million Gazans have been displaced — and displaced and displaced. Some have been forced to flee their homes, shelters and camps 10 times or more. Starvation is everywhere. Some 500,000 people are in a catastrophic condition of hunger. For 11 weeks, Israel allowed no aid into Gaza, and 171,000 metric tons of food for Gazans just sat there. Almost half of Gaza's 36 hospitals have been destroyed or are not operational. Many of the rest are barely holding on. There are only 2,000 hospital beds available for more than two million people. About 60 percent of physical structures, have been damaged or destroyed. It has been 20 months since Oct. 7, when this war began, and Israel has no plan for the day after it ends — no theory of who should govern Gaza — and is instead weighing escalation. The plan being considered would herd more than two million Gazans into a small fraction of the strip. The argument is that this would isolate Hamas, further break its command and control structures. To the extent such structures still exist, it's really quite hard to see how more devastation would degrade them. In May a poll found that 55 percent of Israelis said they believed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's main goal is to stay in power. Not to have the hostages returned. Not even to win the war. At the end of May, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009, published a searing opinion essay in Haaretz. The headline read, 'Enough Is Enough. Israel Is Committing War Crimes.' He joins me now. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
