fsockopen(): unable to connect to ssl://query.yahooapis.com:443 (php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known)



Matthew Gould Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference Speech 
Israel is not alone 
Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be invited to speak at this 
conference, in the presence of so many distinguished guests. Like every Anglo who 
comes to live in Israel, I have come to know and love the Post. 
When President Obama was here earlier in the year, he said ‘atem lo levad’ – Israel is 
not alone. Today, in the presence of so many of my colleagues and friends from 
around the world, I want to underline this message, particularly in the context of the 
question that now dominates discussion of Israel’s security – the question of Iran’s 
nuclear programme. 
I want to address two aspects of the nuclear question in particular. The first is 
reassurance. To say as clearly as I can that when it comes down to the question of 
how to deal with the programme, we are not going to do a Bad Deal. Nor will we 
stand by as the Iranians continue to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons 
The second is opportunity. To emphasise that despite all the risks, we have a small 
window of opportunity to test whether there can be a negotiated solution or not. The 
Iranians have shown a more positive approach in recent weeks, and the only way to 
find out if that is for real is to test it in negotiations. If the Iranians are genuine, 
there is an opportunity to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in one of 
world’s most unpredictable regions.  
But first I want to address head on an elephant in the room, or at the very least an 
elephant that has been sitting in my room: namely the British parliament’s vote 
against military action in Syria. I can’t stand here and pretend that vote is not 
relevant to how Israel sees the issue of Iran. 
Israeli friends tell me that recent weeks have been confusing. Military action on 
Syria was imminent; then it was on hold. President Rouhani presented a 
dramatically more reasonable face of Iran to the world than his predecessor. Israel, 
my friends tell me, is wondering whether the world is serious about stopping Iran 
from getting the bomb 
I am here with a simple message: it is in these challenging moments that Israel can 
take comfort that there are countries that will never compromise on Israel’s security. 
Britain is one of those countries. Others are represented here today. 
More than that, Iran is not just Israel’s problem. Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its 
support for terrorism present a threat to the region and the world. Right now, Iran 
remains in breach of six UN Security Council Resolutions. 
These are not issues between Iran and Israel, they are issues between Iran and the 
world. And so it would be neither right nor wise for Israel to chart its way forward 
on the issue as if it were alone. 
Yet Israeli friends have told me that they were surprised by the British Parliament’s 
vote against military action on Syria. They fear it showed that even Israel’s closest 
allies cannot be relied upon, and that Israel must defend itself alone. 
I can understand why Israelis have come to this conclusion. But I believe firmly that 
this conclusion is wrong. Israel is not alone, and the British Parliament’s vote on 
Syria should not be taken as evidence of a lack of resolve on Iran. 
Iran is a very different issue from Syria. We are clear that a nuclear armed Iran 
would jump start a regional nuclear arms race that would threaten not only Israel but 
the world. That is why we have led the world with some of the most stringent 
financial sanctions on Iran. It is why we have placed such a high value on our 
cooperation with Israel against Iran’s nuclear programme. 
The Iranians could not be more wrong if they mistake our commitment to 
Parliamentary democracy for weakness. We have made clear that while we welcome 
the positive tone from Iran’s President Rouhani we remain clear eyed about the need 
to see real action from Iran on its nuclear programme. President Rouhani should 
know that our determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons 
programme is as strong as ever. And all should know that our commitment to Israel’s 
security is unbreakable. 
Diplomats and policy makers sometimes talk glibly about security, as if it were just a 
heading for policy papers. I know that for every Israeli, it is very real. It is the 
difference between having confidence in the future and not, between life and death. 
And Prime Minister Netanyahu, Prime Minister Cameron, and President Obama are 
all clear: a nuclear armed Iran is a grave to Israel’s security. 
Iran’s programme goes far beyond the requirements of a civilian nuclear program
Since 2012 Iran has installed thousands more centrifuges, including the more 
advanced IR2M centrifuges. The regime has expanded its stockpile of 20% enriched 
uranium and has continued work on the Heavy Water Research Reactor at Arak. 
No one can be in doubt how seriously we take the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. We 
and our allies imposed one of the most far-reaching sanctions regimes ever adopted, 
which has had a huge impact on the Iranian economy. 
Eleven years ago, I was living in Iran, as Britain’s Deputy Ambassador. I dealt daily 
with the Iranian regime. One of the key lessons from my time there is that the 
Iranian regime knows its economy is a huge vulnerability. It is inefficient, corrupt, 
badly managed and has tens of millions of people directly or indirectly on the 
government payroll. Without the regime’s oil income, it’s in trouble. 
That’s why the sanctions are working. The rial has collapsed in value. 
Unemployment is high. Inflation is rampant. The official inflation rate of 28% is an 
illusion; the true figure is double that. The cost of doing business with Iran has gone 
up dramatically. Iran’s ability to sell its own oil has been curtailed by international 
sanctions that make it almost impossible to conduct financial transactions with Iran. 
Iran is not getting the technology it needs to sustain its own oil production, and 
production is down 45%, costing the Iranian exchequer over $40 billion a year. The 
reserves of the Iranian regime are shrinking fast.  
This explains the change in the Iranian tone - why have we witnessed such a marked 
change in their rhetoric. Because the government is under unprecedented pressure 
due to the sanctions 
The Iranian Government also know that there is a simple way to bring sanctions to 
an end. By giving the international community the confidence it needs that Iran is 
not developing and will not develop a nuclear weapon. 
Diplomatic success often follows a readiness to use hard power. The reason that Iran 
is now at the negotiating table is because we have imposed and maintained some of 
the toughest sanctions in modern times. And last week in Geneva we saw a new tone 
in the negotiations - for the first time an apparent willingness to negotiate rather 
than simply to talk. 
But I understand the scepticism in Israel – and not just in Israel – about the ne
positive tone from Iran. After all, the centrifuges are still spinning. To succeed, 
conciliatory words will have to be matched by the right actions, and they will need to 
be transparent and verifiable. After all, it is the Iranian government's choices alone 
that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place, and it is 
those choices that need to change if the sanctions are to be lifted. 
So I want to be absolutely clear: while the centrifuges are spinning, while inspectors 
are denied full and free access to nuclear sites, while there is any sense that Iran is 
prevaricating or reneging on any commitments, we will continue to maintain strong 
sanctions. As William Hague has made clear, while we welcome the positive tone 
and do not want to waste a possible opportunity, a substantial change in British or  
Western policies on the Iranian nuclear programme requires a substantive change in 
that programme. 
We need to be crystal clear as we go into this negotiation. 
We are not naive. We have ample experience of dealing with the Iranian regime and 
go into this with our eyes open. 
As we take part in these negotiations we will keep clear in our minds one thing above 
all others – the infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear programme, how many centrifuges 
they have, and how long it would take them to develop a bomb. 
We will neither rush nor tarry. Iran’s nuclear programme marches on, and as more 
centrifuges get installed so it becomes harder to negotiate a solution that gives us all 
sufficient reassurance. The clock is ticking. 
But the clock is not at zero. And it is far from clear than time is working against us. 
The leaders of Iran are watching their economy crumble, their unemployment grow, 
their factories shut, their reserves shrink. They know that if these talks do not go 
somewhere in a sensible timeframe we will be bringing in the next, even tougher 
round of sanctions. 
We are all in favour of resolving this issue through negotiations rather than through 
military means. The question is whether such a negotiated outcome is possible – 
whether the rulers of Iran are willing to make take the concrete, verifiable steps 
needed for us to have confidence that they cannot develop nuclear weapons quickly. 
We hope that negotiations will lead to concrete results, and it is important that we 
maintain the positive momentum. But we should not forget that Iran’s nuclear 
programme is continuing to develop.  
Given our preference for a negotiated outcome, we should test whether this 
possibility exists. We have an opportunity, but we must not take the smiles at face 
value, but neither should we rule out in advance the possibility that negotiations 
might succeed. Instead we should test whether the same motivation that makes 
them smile might also cause them to make meaningful steps on their nuclear 
I do not want to pre-empt the negotiations by saying exactly what those steps should 
be. But by the nature of it being negotiation and not a surrender, it will involve a 
serious discussion about whether Iran will give the international community what we 
need to have sufficient confidence. And that means Israel having sufficient 
confidence too. 
As a friends of Israel, we understand and respect Israel’s concerns. We are neither 
naïve about Iran, nor blind to the risks. And we do not underestimate the difficulties 
The shadow of a nuclear Iran has stood over the people of Israel for too long. Right 
now, we have an opportunity to test whether that shadow can be removed peacefully. 
We will not be naïve, we will not do a bad deal, we will neither rush nor allow Iran to 
play for time. Where the negotiations go, I do not know. But I do know that Israel 
does not face the threat from Iran alone.




The Office of the Vice President
The S. Daniel Abraham Center for International and Regional Studies
The English Speaking Friends of TAU

Take pleasure in inviting you to the Ambassador's Forum: A series of public talks on international issues
Spanish Ambassador to Israel, Fernando Carderera
Myths and Facts about today's Spain

The lecture will take place on
Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 18:00
Hall 001, The Max Webb Building,
School of Languages, Tel-Aviv University

RSVP via email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  until December 3, 2012

Ambassador Daniel Shapiro visited the diverse “melting pot” city of Netanya

On July 26, Ambassador Daniel Shapiro visited the diverse "melting pot" city of Netanya, where he met with new immigrants who contribute to the city's vibrancy and success.

During his visits to Ulpan Habenleumi and the Dora Community Center, Ambassador Shapiro highlighted the important contributions immigrants make both in the United States and Israel.