The unfolding war and human tragedy in Ukraine cause many among us to reflect on human nature and the nature of war, and why is it that the community of nations is unable to resolve its conflicts in accordance with the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter that laid the promise and hope of peaceful coexistence among nations, against the backdrop of terrible past experiences.

Looking back in modern history, global political culture has gone a profound change since 1945. Nuclear weapons have turned war among the big powers unthinkable and necessitated major efforts in search of less violent ways and mechanisms to limit not only direct conflicts among nuclear weapon states, but also conflicts of others.

Some argue that such efforts have been relatively successful and certainly prevented the use of nuclear weapons. Others assert that it mostly tolerated armed conflicts beneath the nuclear threshold, entailing the risk of a slippery-slop.

The world of 2022 is very different from the world of 1914 or 1939.The notion of a “successful war”, previously shared by the elite and fueled by popular enthusiasm with a view to galvanize the nation and a promise of new territories, wealth and international status, is not possible any more. Untold human suffering, sheer destruction and humiliated defeats in the battlefield have proven kings, emperors, and dictators wrong and condemned their nations for long agony or misery.

Knowledge- based economy, education and technology replaced figures of armed forces and defense outlays as critical measures of national success and wellbeing. Not a single shot was fired by either Japan or Germany since 1945. Yet, both have become most advanced nations in many respects.

Citizens of most states feel nowadays no fear of foreign invasion or an imminent threat posed by much stronger neighbor. For them, peaceful relations with their neighboring countries and in the region, have become a constant feature. Not a dream. Peace time ceased to be just short intervals between wars, as it was for centuries, mostly in Europe.

Russia indefensible, premeditated war on Ukraine, has installed therefore so much fear at the hearts of many and shook their conviction and beliefs that perilous war rhetoric and politics, are but the legacy of dark days in the history of Europe. The Russian Federation should have realized that by no account its war against the independent, sovereign state of Ukraine could be titled a “successful war”.

Russia war on Ukraine is significantly affecting many parts of the world. The multifaceted negative implications of the war, too close to be fully assessed, will be far-reaching and long lasting.

The Middle East region, the territories that extend from Egypt to Iran and from Turkey to Yemen, Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Strait of Hormuz, occupies roughly 6.5 million square km. Saudi Arabia is the biggest with over 2 million square km. In this vast region, Israel's territory is 22,000 square km, about the size of the State of New Jersey, USA.

The Middle East presents its unique characteristics, threats, and risks. At this time, the region finds itself coping also with new challenges as a result of Russia war on Ukraine. Be it the global energy turmoil, shortages and higher prices of staple food, or other negative repercussions of the war, felt all over.

In general, the region is fraught with wars and unresolved conflicts; long standing religious and sectarian rivalries; Hotbed of terrorism and widespread civil unrest, fueled by great social and economic inequalities; Brutal dictators and autocrat rulers still prevail, even after the “Arab Spring”, and the term 'democracy' is often despised as alien.

The Middle East is so far the only region where chemical weapons were put to use, on several occasions, in defiance of universal ban and more recently by the Syrian regime, a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), against its own citizens. A harsh warning of retribution by the international community remained on paper. Many may have regrated today for then no action. Can any small state places its confidence in the U.N Security Council to enforce no-use of chemical weapons?

It is also the only region where the history of the nuclear non- proliferation is one of failures, deceit and unfulfilled Treaty commitments and obligations by four member states, parties to the NPT: Iraq under Saddam Hussein; Libya under Muamar Kaddafi; Syria under Bashar Assad, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Middle East has recently felt the impact of the U.S withdrawal from Afghanistan and the scaling down of the American presence in the region. Leaders in the region clearly understood that regrouping, mutual cooperation and deviating from old political traditions, are required in order to better deal with external and internal challenges.

The recent full-fledged normalization of relations with the State of Israel on the part of Bahrain, U.A.E and Morocco mark a tectonic geo-political shift in the region. In addition, closer cooperation with Egypt and Jordan, expanding Saudi-Israeli range of contacts, and even beginning of warming-up relations with Sudan, previously unthinkable, all serve for the same.

The map of the Middle East of 2022 is dotted by numerous subversive Iranian activities, direct or indirect acts of terror against the State of Israel across its borders or at sea, performed either by members of the Revolutionary Guards or by Iran's multiple regional proxies.

In this context it is important to remind ourselves that historically there has never been a conflict between the two states and nations, Iran and Israel, that rest 2000 km apart and shared many communalities and mutual respect throughout millennia.

Iran is making every effort to undermine and weaken local Sunni governments, using temptation, intimidation, brute force and diplomacy. Prime targets are American allies in the region.

The Hezbollah terror organization, financed, equipped, trained and coordinated by Iran, is practically dominating Lebanon and has established its military presence also on the Golan Heights, enjoying the hospitality of the Syrian regime.

The Houthi rebels in torn Yemen that is faced with a humanitarian disaster, and the Shia militias in Iraq, provide Iran a measure of deniability when missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's) made in Iran, are targeting Dubai, Riad, Jedda, Saudi oil fields or American installations in Iraq. Only last week U.S Secretary of State said, as he announced new sanctions against pertaining Iranian entities: “Iran's ballistic missile-related activities continue to destabilize the Middle East region”.

Similar methods and means are applied by Iran vis-à-vis the tween terror organizations in Gaza, the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, to sustain their mission of terror against Israel.

Other regional flash points are by no mean negligible. To mention few: ISIS, much weakened but still deadly across the Middle East; Syria, devastated by a decade-long civil war with over half a million dead and 10 million uprooted or refugees, where the Russian military presence secures Bashar Assad rule; Iraq, still recovering and catching its breath in an effort to establish its desired national and regional equilibrium; The Kurdish various factions, fighting to maintain some sort of autonomy against the interests of all their neighbors; and in the outer perimeter of the region, Libya, Sudan, or Ethiopia whose citizens undergo repeated internal armed conflicts.

Israel's strategic landscape has dramatically changed since it emerged victorious in its 1948 war of Independence, repelling six invading Arab regular armies.

Repeated failures of Israel's Arab neighbors to reverse 1948 outcome in the battlefield, ended practically in October 1973 war. Thereafter, a gradual change of attitude and new political thinking, have produced the first landmark peace accord with the Arab Republic of Egypt in March 1979. A second peace agreement, with The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan followed in October 1994. By then, with almost no regular army deployed along its borders and no fear of a sudden invasion, for the first time since 1948, (Syria, much weakened, was conscious to maintain no-war situation on the Golan Heights since 1974), the center of gravity of Israel's strategic outlook shifted markedly.

First, since Israel's immediate neighbors ceased to pose an existential threat and since Israel took control over the territories and millions of Palestinian inhabitants in the West Bank and Gaza, the conflict with the Palestinians, namely the historical rivalry and competing claims on the land, established itself again at the center. The bilateral agreements with the Palestinian Authority launched in Oslo in 1993 and thereafter, largely failed, culminating in a wave terror in the years 2001–2005 that cost the lives of over 1000 Israelis. The rise of the Hamas to power in the Gaza strip on the heels of Israel's unilateral disengagement in 2005, has made matters worse. Much more is required these days from Israeli and Palestinian leaders to break the deadlock of unsustainable status quo.

Second, it became clear, in early years, that persistent clandestine efforts by several regional parties to acquire nuclear weapons, not only cast a heavy shadow on the region but pose an extreme threat to Israel.

To date, Iran's pursuit of the bomb, in defiance of resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Security Council, remains very ominous. Suffice to recall recent warning of the IAEA Director General, Rafael Grossi, that Iran is enriching uranium to concentrations that only countries making bombs are reaching.

A large portion of Iran's Nuclear Archive removed by Israel from Tehran on early 2018 and shared with foreign governments and the IAEA has shown, inter aliya, that Iran had made considerable progress on nearly every aspect of developing and manufacturing nuclear weapons, including implosion testing, weapon design, neutron generators, casting and machining …and integration of warheads and reentry vehicles. In short, Iran is unambiguously aiming at producing nuclear weapons; It possesses a large number of ballistic missiles- the delivery system for a nuclear weapon- in violation of Security Council Resolution 2231; It has covered up undeclared nuclear materials, sites, and activities, demolished suspected facilities and provided false declarations, all in violation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA and in order to undermine the Agency's verification system.

Iran's reaffirmation—embodied in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—that “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons” has never been backed by Iran's deeds. The JCPOA has not blocked Iran's path to a nuclear bomb. Iran has viewed it merely a tactical pause during which Iran exploits priceless concessions. In the meantime, as the IAEA reports, Iran is rapidly advancing its nuclear activities while it has diminished the inspectors' ability to monitor, verify or to detect diversion of materials and other assets to undeclared facilities. At this point, where there is no agreement, there are practically no limitations on Iran's nuclear program. Iran continues its troubling progress in complete disregard to its legal commitments under its NPT Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA.

The State of Israel must seriously address the threat posed by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapon. Iran is committed, ideologically, officially and practically to the destruction of the Stare of Israel. Iran leaders have declared, time and again, that it is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region. Israel is the only sovereign state whose very existence is openly denied by another member state of the United Nations. One wonders what drives such an “holy mission” to destroy another sovereign state, and how is it that others remain silent.

Historically, the existential threats faced by Israel in its region, either large standing armies deployed along its borders, or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) at the hands of sworn enemies, fueled Israel's perceived need to maintain strategic deterrence.

The State of Israel has repeatedly declared that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East. This is Israel's long- standing policy since the 1960's, supported by all Israeli governments. Accordingly, Israel conducts a responsible policy in the nuclear domain and is fully committed to non- proliferation of nuclear weapons, and efforts to prevent their spread. Israel thus recognizes the value of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, (NPT) and supported its adoption in 1968 in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). However, Israel has realized in early years, that in the absence of peaceful relations and mutual recognition among all the parties in the region, a global regime like the NPT could not and would not remove the nuclear threat from the Middle East, as demonstrated by Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran, all parties to the Treaty, in their pursuit of nuclear weapon.

During fifty years of the history of the NPT, no other region has demonstrated a similar culture of non-compliance and deceit as displayed by Middle East member states, parties to the Treaty.

As NPT membership is not a goal in itself but rather as potential means for enhancing security of all states concerned, Israel has made it sovereign decision to remain outside the Treaty.

Remaining outside the NPT has earned Israel annual condemnations at the United Nations and NPT fora. No other state, besides Israel, has ever been called out in a specific resolution to join the NPT “without delay”.

The same can be said about frantic annual resolutions, at the United Nations and other international organizations, on Nuclear-Weapon-Free- Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East.

One fails to register similar United Nations resolutions regarding the urgent need to create NWFZ in other regions that present serious and potentially volatile situations, notably the Korean Peninsula and South Asia. The unique treatment of the state of Israel and the Middle East region in this regard, suggests that the prime goal of the group of states that are behind the motion, is to pressure Israel regarding its national security interests through majoritarian resolutions.

Experience of other regions have shown that establishing a NWFZ depends entirely on the collective political desire of all parties to reassure each other that peaceful means will be used to resolve their conflicts. No vote at the United Nations General Assembly, can substitute for what emanates collectively from the region. Middle East realities, for sure denials and non-recognition, are a far cry from what is required for durable security arrangements, let alone NWFZ.

What is the prospect to sustain a regional security dialogue in the Middle East, where the Arab states focus on WMD, while the State of Israel is focused on interstate relations as the source of threats and the security deficit, that works to Israel's detriment?

Modest efforts have failed so far to make headway. The events unfolding in the region took priority and the parties could not agree either on the framework or the contents of a viable regional security dialogue.

The first well noted effort was the multilateral working group on Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) of early 1990's, strongly supported by the USA and the Russian Federation, immediately after the Madrid Conference. (October 1991).

Two decades later, in the years 2013–2014, Ambassador Jaakko Laajava of Finland, chaired five rounds of meetings with participants of 15 countries from the Middle East, where key issues related to a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ) were formally discussed. Guiding principles of the discussions, first and foremost the principle of decisions making by consensus, were agreed upon. The process was stopped on the eve of the NPT Review Conference.

The famous scholar and philosopher Hans Morgenthau, often quoted by U.S President Ronald Reagan in the context of then USA – USSR bilateral relations concluded; “nations do not distrust each other because they are armed. They are armed because they distrust each other”. Regrettably, this observation is equally relevant today to characterize Russia-NATO hostile and strained relations, as much as inter-regional relations in the Middle East. While it takes decades to overcome animosities and to build trust among the regional parties, a single unexpected major eruption could break trust and mutual confidence to pieces, almost overnight.

As we gather here in Rome, the city that is so much at the heart of modern Europe, as it was the Capitol of the ancient Roman Empire that ruled across the Mediterranean, the regions of Europe and the Middle East alike, are at cross road. Each region for its unique reasons, some of which are overlapping or reciprocally influencing each other.

In the current circumstances, the Middle East region with its multiple actors: states, non- states and external powers, remains volatile. Some developments are promising, but require broad support and encouragement. The Middle East pendulum keeps moving back-and-forth. As a minimum, it is incumbent upon all state parties to exercise utmost responsibility and to cooperate with each other to avoid a major turn for the worse. The alternative and warning, written in blood on the wall in these very days, could be terribly wasteful and costly.

Thank you.