There are many ways to turn traffic into AdSense

If you've been running AdSense ads on your site for quite a while and you feel that you aren't making as much cash as you could, in 99.99% of cases you're right. Most people feel frustrated that they cannot generate the revenues they expected, and this is down to traffic levels as well as click through rates. There are many ways to turn traffic into AdSense traffic and here is a short list of them with a description for each. The first thing that you need to do is tune up your site's contents. While for some people this isn't an option (if you're running a forum for example it's a lot harder) most people can make their AdSense sites veritable cash cows. To begin, you should find out what your site's keywIf you've been running AdSense ads on your site for quite a while and you feel that you aren't making as much cash as you could, in 99.99% of cases you're right. Most people feel frustrated that they cannot generate the revenues they expected, and this is down to traffic levels as well as click through rates. There are many ways to turn traffic into AdSense traffic and here is a short list of them with a description for each. The first thing that you need to do is tune up your site's contents. While for some people this isn't an option (if you're running a forum for example it's a lot harder) most people can make their AdSense sites veritable cash cows. To begin, you should find out what your site's keywords are. This is a basic technique in SEO (search engine optimization) known as keyword density verification. A good tool for this job is SEO Density Analizer. You should then take this list of words and search the Overture Search Inventory or Google AdWords Sandbox to find out what other words could be doing better then what you currently have. From that point on try to keep your site focused on the things that appear mostly in the keyword suggestions you receive. Try to include those keywords, or at least some related keywords as often as you can in the links on your site. Because of the way Google AdSense works this is a sure way to increase your earnings because you'll get better ads in your AdSense banners, similar to how you would get a better Google PageRank It's also important that you continuously add new pageords are. This is a basic technique in SEO (search engine optimization) known as keyword density verification. A good tool for this job is SEO Density Analizer. You should then take this list of words and search the Overture Search Inventory or Google AdWords Sandbox to find out what other words could be doing better then what you currently have. From that point on try to keep your site focused on the things that appear mostly in the keyword suggestions you receive. Try to include those keywords, or at least some related keywords as often as you can in the links on your site. Because of the way Google AdSense works this is a sure way to increase your earnings because you'll get better ads in your AdSense banners, similar to how you would get a better Google PageRank It's also important that you continuously add new page

Father Time and I have been selling

I have this awesome, new e-book which features over 111 ideas on how just about anybody can make money from home with their very own home based business! My name is Father Time and I have been selling and writing since the age of ten! These are mostly very easy things that almost anyone can do, if they really want to make money with their own business! There is something in here for everyone! You will definitely find something in here to help you get started and then you will do a little research to figure out what else you need to do to begin!
Perhaps you will offer a service via the internet, or maybe you will write articles for people to use for article marketing and they will post the articles on sites such as www.ArticlesBase.com which is a great article directory site that I always use, and it may even be where you are reading this! Or you might see this piece on a great website where they have re-posted it. In either case, be sure to see what other great information this site has to offer!
There is actually no telling which way you might go with your own home based business, and there are so many great possibilities, but you should first see, and even order, my awesome e-book about making money from home! Please Click Here For More Details! The price is less than the cost of three fancy coffee drinks at one of those modern day coffee shops!
Life is too short to sit around broke, bored, sad, lonely, or lacking money to do what you want! So, please hurry and get busy and start yourself on the road to making money without being a slave to someone else!
The sooner that you get started making money with your own business, the sooner that you can start living the kind of life that you always wanted! Make some goals for yourself and then follow them through!
If someone says that you can't do it, just stay away from them and ignore their negativity! There's an old Chinese proverb that states, "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it!"
Good Luck to You and Many Blessings!

Network marketing

Network marketing is a business and an art. With network marketing, you can make money without ever making a product and with tools you already have within yourself and your own arsenal of strengths. You can make money while you sleep, you can make money when other people make money, and you can enjoy this money with the free time you will experience in the network marketing business. This may sound too good to be true, and you may feel like you could never be successful in this industry. You are wrong. Anyone can be successful in the network marketing industry as long as they have three simple qualities: you must like people, must be persistent, and must enjoy your freedom and way of life. --> -->
Liking people is the number one trait among successful network marketers. When you meet a stranger, do you see a stranger or a potential friend and client? Do you view your first encounter as worrisome and nerve wracking, or as an opportunity to learn something new and to make a new relationship? If you like people, you will love network marketing because people are at the heart of this business. You will meet new people, get to know people you have already met, and work along side some of the most talented and driven individuals in the world. You will enjoy your job because your job will be people.
The second most important quality found in network marketing is persistence. Some days will not feel fun, and some days will flat out feel frustrating. Sometimes the sale will not be smooth, and people may let you down. A successful network marketer takes the good with the bad and persists until success is achieved. This persistence is necessary in any business, because nothing is ever completely easy. The ability to learn from mistakes and rise above a challenge will set apart the average business person from the successful and happy. This quality will carry your business through the bad days and make the good days even sweeter.
The third quality essential to network marketing is that you love your freedom and independence. When you decide network marketing is for you, you are deciding you would like to be your own boss. You get to pick your own hours and set your own schedule. You get to decide what you want to do and when you want to do it. This freedom means you can pursue interest and hobbies you have been neglecting. You can go on vacations and spend time with the people you love. If you value these characteristics of the network marketing lifestyle, you will enjoy the life and work harder. These essential qualities for success are not difficult to achieve and hone, but they will make your experience in the business much more effective and pleasant.

In Google We Trust

In Google We Trust
By Carolyn O’Hara
March/April 2006
Deepesh Agarwal owns a tiny cybercafe in Rajasthan, a northern Indian state bordering Pakistan. Rajasthan is poor. People there earn an average of just $300 a year. It’s the kind of place where an Internet cafe owner can make enough money to get by, but Agarwal isn’t getting rich. Or, at least, he wasn’t until recently.
In his spare time, Agarwal runs a Web site offering free downloads of a grab bag of software. He recently signed up his site for Google Adsense, a program in which Google pays Web site publishers for advertising space. Google automatically places ads on the site and, for each click on an ad, Google makes a small profit from the advertiser. It then pays Agarwal and other site operators a percentage of that revenue. Depending on a Web site’s traffic, clicks on advertisements can translate into pennies—or dollars—a day for the site’s owner.
Google refuses to disclose the exact percentage it pays out, but even a small portion of the nearly $2.7 billion it made in Adsense revenues last year is serious money for the poor. For Agarwal, Adsense earnings now account for 90 percent of his income, about $1,500 a month. “Adsense has changed my life,” he says. “I can afford things that I was not able to before. I am planning to buy a new car. I can save for my future.”
He’s hardly alone. Since its launch in 2003, Adsense has revolutionized Web publishing in the developing world, turning blogs and personal sites into profitable enterprises. Mohamed Sallam, from Cairo, nets about $500 a month from ads on his Web site, a forum dedicated to discussions of Islam. In New Delhi, Jayant Gandhi uses Adsense to earn about $1,000 a month—the same...

Few subjects get written about more often - and inaccurately - than the Palestinians, yet there is curiously little interest in the politics and ideology governing their behavior. The same situation applies to the man slated to become their next leader, only the third to hold that post in 50 years, after Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. The fact that an issue that is supposedly the most important, high-priority question in the world is studied so little has a simple explanation. The contemporary narrative is that the Palestinian leaders yearn for a state, an end to the conflict, and peace, while the failure to achieve these can be blamed on Israel. Yet even the slightest real examination shows the exact opposite is true. This point is only underlined by looking at the current candidate for next leader, Muhammad Ghaneim, often known as Abu Mahir. Of all those who might credibly have been considered for the leadership of Fatah - and hence of the PLO and Palestinian Authority (PA) - he is probably the most hardline. While media coverage of the 2009 Fatah Congress may have stressed the accession of "young" and "more flexible" leaders, the 72-year-old Ghaneim certainly doesn't fit that description. Born in Jerusalem on August 29, 1937, his first political involvement was with the Muslim Brotherhood, but he became a founding member of Fatah in 1959 and has been active ever since, involved mainly in recruitment and organization. It is difficult to say to what extent Ghaneim's early involvement with radical Islam has shaped his thinking, and whether it would make it easier for him to reconcile with the even more radical Hamas. Most Fatah and PLO members came from more secular Arab nationalist or leftist movements. The only prominent leader who seemed to blend an Islamist background with nationalism was Arafat himself. Ghaneim's big career break came in 1968 when, at the age of just 30, Arafat appointed him commander of Fatah's forces in Jordan. Later that year, he was put on Fatah's Central Committee, in charge of organization and recruitment. It is impossible to overstate the importance of these two jobs. At that time, Jordan was a Fatah stronghold and the group constituted a shadow government alongside that of King Hussein, the country's nominal ruler. Fatah guerrillas - and shortly after Arafat took over, the whole PLO - had military bases from which they launched attacks on Israel across the Jordan River. Arafat must have had an extraordinarily high opinion of Ghaneim to appoint him to such a sensitive post. Since so much of this task was involved with military matters, Ghaneim took a short officers' course in China. On his return in 1969, Arafat gave him a third chore, as his deputy for military issues. While the details aren't clear, this means Ghaneim must have played a central role in planning and implementing scores of guerrilla and terrorist attacks. Ghaneim played a central role in selecting those to be given key jobs and just how much authority each had. Of course, everyone was far below Arafat, but Ghaneim was about as essential as a second-tier figure could be. In 1970, Fatah overplayed its hand, was defeated by Jordan's army, and had to flee to Lebanon. Ghaneim continued his organizational and military duties there. When the PLO and Fatah were forced out of Lebanon in 1982, Ghaneim accompanied Arafat to Tunis. From 1982 to mid-2009 he remained there, though he may have begun visiting the PA-ruled territories as early as July 2007. Ghaneim didn't return with Arafat in 1994 because, despite serving Arafat closely and loyally for 35 years, Ghaneim rejected the 1993 Oslo accords as too moderate. Only armed struggle, total victory, and Israel's destruction were worthy goals in his eyes. While Arafat sought these things covertly, the compromises involved in such a pretense were too much for Ghaneim. He stayed in Tunisia despite numerous invitations from Arafat, starting in October 1994, to join the PA, and instead insisted Arafat cease all negotiations with Israel. Ghaneim moved closer to the popular Farouq Kaddumi, often referred to as the second most powerful man in Fatah. Kaddumi rejected the Oslo agreement and kept up a close connection with Syria. Arafat undercut him, but Kaddumi was so strong in the movement that he could never be fired altogether. Finally, Ghaneim decided to return and support Mahmoud Abbas. While the details are not clear, this coincided with Abbas naming him as successor. Despite some who claim Ghaneim has moderated his positions, there is absolutely no evidence of this. Ghaneim has a definite appeal for Abbas as ally and successor. He is one of the few remaining founders of Fatah, and has wide contacts throughout the movement. In addition, as someone who has been outside PA politics for 15 years he is seen as a neutral figure in many petty disputes. But this is not the man to choose if your top priorities are making peace with Israel and maintaining good relations with the West. He is the man you would choose if you intend to reject compromise, rebuild links to Syria and Hamas, and perhaps return to armed struggle. On arrival at the Allenby Bridge crossing from Jordan on July 29, 2009, just before the Fatah Congress, Ghaneim was picked up by Abbas' personal limousine, taken to his office, and welcomed in a ceremony. At the reception, Ghaneim stated: "The struggle will continue until victory" and that if political means did not achieve Israel's destruction, the movement would return to armed struggle. (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, July 30, 2009). It is clear how Ghaneim defines victory, and it is not a West Bank-Gaza state with its capital in east Jerusalem living alongside Israel. That Ghaneim would give up "the right of return," make any territorial compromise, or end the conflict permanently is extremely unlikely. These are things that even the supposedly less extreme Abbas has rejected. Thereafter, Abbas promoted Ghaneim among the delegates to the meeting. He finished first in the Central Committee elections with 1,338 votes, about two-thirds of those participating and far ahead of every other candidate.Ghaneim's success, and the others elected, show that the old Arafat crowd is still in control. If Ghaneim becomes leader of Fatah the PA and PLO, you can forget about peace. No one should say a word about the Palestinian issue, the peace process, or Israeli policy without analyzing these factors. Unfortunately, there isn't at present a Palestinian partner for peace. Fortunately, there is a Palestinian partner for maintaining a relatively peaceful status quo. But if and when Ghaneim takes over, even this consolation might be gone.

America's subtle change from religious to secular
http://www.christianpost.com/
Nonreligious Americans or "Nones" are no longer a fringe group, researchers state in a new report.Nones presently make up 15 percent of the total adult U.S. population and the statistic is even higher among young people. Twenty-two percent of 18-29 year olds claim the nonreligious label, a jump from 11 percent in 1990, according to Trinity College's American Nones: Profile of the No Religion Population.If the younger generation remains nonreligious, researchers point out that the percentage of the U.S. population made up of Nones will continue to rise."Will a day come when the Nones are on top? We can't predict for sure," lead researcher Barry Kosmin told USA Today.Kosmin and Ariela Keysar released statistics earlier this year revealing the rise in the number of Americans who do not identify with any religion over the past two decades. The Nones increased from 8.1 percent of the adult population in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008, findings from their widely reported American Religious Identification Survey showed.The researchers released a follow-up report on Tuesday to provide a more detailed look at who the Nones are and offer predictions on the growing nonreligious population.Nones may best be described as skeptics. Twenty-seven percent of Nones believe in a personal God. Hard and soft agnostics make up 35 percent of the None population and atheists account for only 7 percent of Nones. Contrary to what many believe, Nones are not particularly superstitious or partial to New Age beliefs. They are, however, more accepting of human evolution than the general U.S. population."American Nones embrace philosophical and theological beliefs that reflect skepticism rather than overt antagonism toward religion," the researchers state.Compared to the general population, Nones are disproportionately male, younger, and more likely to be Westerners and political independents. But researchers found that they are increasingly similar to the general U.S. population in terms of their marital status, educational attainment, racial/ethnic makeup and income.When it comes to religious roots, researchers found that the majority of Nones came from religious homes (73 percent) and are first-generation Nones or "(de)converts" to non-religion (66 percent).Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of Nones are former Catholics and 11 percent are former Christians. Almost a third (32 percent) who are currently Nones were Nones at the age of 12.Researchers note that among those who reported being Nones at 12 years of age, 41 percent switched to join a religion after the age of 12 and 59 percent remained nonreligious. Among those who identified with a religion at 12 years of age, only 12 percent switched to become a None. The retention rate is higher for the religious but the report points out that Nones are growing at the expense of the religious."Mathematically, Nones can lose a larger percentage than the religious and still grow as a percentage of the population because they are starting as a smaller percentage of the population," the report states.If current trends continue, Nones can make up around a quarter of the American population in two decades. But the report highlights that the annual growth rate has slowed at the beginning of the 21st Century. Whereas 1.3 million adults were joining the ranks of the nonreligious in the 1990s, the number of Americans being added to the None population has halved to 660,000 a year since 2001.Still, researchers caution that because of the Nones' similar social characteristics to the rest of the population, "the transition from a largely religious population to a more secular population may be so subtle that it can occur under the radar as happened during the 1990s."

In the rare moments when it's not preoccupied with the decline of U.S. President Barack

In the rare moments when it's not preoccupied with the decline of U.S. President Barack Obama in the polls and with the debate over its government's proposed health-care reforms, the American press continues to deal almost obsessively with another pressing issue: the deadlock in efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program and the growing likelihood that the endgame will be an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. In the past few weeks alone, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal warned the president that the United States must put a quick halt to the Iranian nuclear program, because otherwise Israel will bomb the facilities. "An Israeli strike on Iran would be the most dangerous foreign policy issue President Obama could face," the paper wrote. Former vice president Dick Cheney revealed that while in office he supported an American strike against Iran, but was compelled to accept the approach of president George W. Bush, who preferred the diplomatic route. Another Republican ultra-hawk, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, maintains that additional sanctions alone will not be enough to make the Iranians abandon their nuclear ambitions. William Cohen, who served as secretary of defense during Bill Clinton's second presidential term (1997-2001), says that "there is a countdown taking place" and that Israel "is not going to sit indifferently on the sidelines and watch Iran continue on its way toward a nuclear-weapons capability." The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, explains that "a very narrow window" exists between the possibility of resolving the issue and an attack on Iran. An op-ed in The Los Angeles Times states (with some justification) that if Iran does not respond in September to the demands made of it, the world should brace itself for an Israeli attack. However, the author adds (mistakenly) that in the event of an Israeli strike, Obama "will probably learn of the operation from CNN rather than the CIA." This month will mark a critical juncture in Iran's race for nuclear capability. The timetable is getting ever shorter: Most Western intelligence services share the assessment that over the course of 2010, Iran will accumulate sufficient fissionable material to produce two or three nuclear bombs. If the Iranians succeed in dispersing this material among a large number of secret sites, it will reduce the likelihood that the project can be stopped. Even though Obama has now been in office for seven and a half months, Tehran has not responded to his offer to engage in direct dialogue about the nuclear issue. At first the talks were deferred in anticipation of the Iranian presidential elections in June, then because of the internal crisis that erupted there in their wake, and now the regime is engaging in additional - and typical - delay tactics. Last week, for the first time, Tehran announced readiness in principle to conduct negotiations with the international community. Peaceful enrichment The European Union appears to want to reach a decision on the subject ahead of the authorization of a fourth round of international sanctions against Iran, in the context of the G-20 conference to be held in Pittsburgh in about two weeks. Israel is apprehensive that the Americans may delay a final decision until December. The impression gained by Israelis who have visited Washington lately is that Obama is gradually backing away from the Bush administration's fundamental demand that Iran cease to enrich uranium as a precondition for beginning a dialogue. Subsequently, they believe, the United States will offer Iran the following compromise: The Iranians will be allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes (under tight international supervision), the previous sanctions imposed on Iran will be lifted and the two sides will reach understandings concerning Iran's interests in a number of arenas, notably Iraq, ahead of the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from there. Obama would be able to present such an arrangement as an accomplishment. After all, before the election in November he promised to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, not to force it to stop enriching uranium. From Israel's point of view, however, this will probably not be enough. According to Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, "The United States was ready to sign an agreement to that effect Thursday. In the rare moments when it's not preoccupied with the decline of U.S. President Barack Obama in the polls and with the debate over its government's proposed health-care reforms, the American press continues to deal almost obsessively with another pressing issue: the deadlock in efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program and the growing likelihood that the endgame will be an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. In the past few weeks alone, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal warned the president that the United States must put a quick halt to the Iranian nuclear program, because otherwise Israel will bomb the facilities. "An Israeli strike on Iran would be the most dangerous foreign policy issue President Obama could face," the paper wrote. Former vice president Dick Cheney revealed that while in office he supported an American strike against Iran, but was compelled to accept the approach of president George W. Bush, who preferred the diplomatic route. Another Republican ultra-hawk, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, maintains that additional sanctions alone will not be enough to make the Iranians abandon their nuclear ambitions. William Cohen, who served as secretary of defense during Bill Clinton's second presidential term (1997-2001), says that "there is a countdown taking place" and that Israel "is not going to sit indifferently on the sidelines and watch Iran continue on its way toward a nuclear-weapons capability." The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, explains that "a very narrow window" exists between the possibility of resolving the issue and an attack on Iran. An op-ed in The Los Angeles Times states (with some justification) that if Iran does not respond in September to the demands made of it, the world should brace itself for an Israeli attack. However, the author adds (mistakenly) that in the event of an Israeli strike, Obama "will probably learn of the operation from CNN rather than the CIA." This month will mark a critical juncture in Iran's race for nuclear capability. The timetable is getting ever shorter: Most Western intelligence services share the assessment that over the course of 2010, Iran will accumulate sufficient fissionable material to produce two or three nuclear bombs. If the Iranians succeed in dispersing this material among a large number of secret sites, it will reduce the likelihood that the project can be stopped. Even though Obama has now been in office for seven and a half months, Tehran has not responded to his offer to engage in direct dialogue about the nuclear issue. At first the talks were deferred in anticipation of the Iranian presidential elections in June, then because of the internal crisis that erupted there in their wake, and now the regime is engaging in additional - and typical - delay tactics. Last week, for the first time, Tehran announced readiness in principle to conduct negotiations with the international community. Peaceful enrichment The European Union appears to want to reach a decision on the subject ahead of the authorization of a fourth round of international sanctions against Iran, in the context of the G-20 conference to be held in Pittsburgh in about two weeks. Israel is apprehensive that the Americans may delay a final decision until December. The impression gained by Israelis who have visited Washington lately is that Obama is gradually backing away from the Bush administration's fundamental demand that Iran cease to enrich uranium as a precondition for beginning a dialogue. Subsequently, they believe, the United States will offer Iran the following compromise: The Iranians will be allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes (under tight international supervision), the previous sanctions imposed on Iran will be lifted and the two sides will reach understandings concerning Iran's interests in a number of arenas, notably Iraq, ahead of the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from there. Obama would be able to present such an arrangement as an accomplishment. After all, before the election in November he promised to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, not to force it to stop enriching uranium. From Israel's point of view, however, this will probably not be enough. According to Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, "The United States was ready to sign an agreement to that effect Thursday. The prospect that Iran will agree, despite the temptation of gaining international recognition for its right to enrich uranium, remains small." In his view, "For its strategy to succeed, America needs a broad and binding international coalition. I still don't see them getting Russia and China to back such a move, and their support is essential." Despite its fear that Iran will use the peaceful enrichment go-ahead to continue advancing secretly toward a bomb, Israel might, as a fallback position, accept such a compromise as long as it is clear that the international supervision is strong enough and that, in anticipation of the likely eventuality Iran will be found cheating, a broad coalition to toughen the sanctions is put together in advance. If the dialogue fails, or never begins, more severe sanctions might be put into place: a ban on the purchase of oil from Iran and on the export of petroleum distillates to it, or even a maritime embargo. But the potential effectiveness of these moves, with Tehran already well past the halfway mark toward achieving its goal, is in doubt. Looking the other way So, the moment of truth will arrive at some point between the end of 2009 and the middle of 2010: Should Iran be attacked? American experts agree that this would involve an Israeli strike. It is very unlikely that Obama will be the one dispatching American planes to Natanz. During the past year, military experts and commentators are increasingly coming around to the view that the Israel Air Force is capable of executing the mission. The Israel Defense Forces was significantly upgraded during the tenure of Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. The goal, it is argued, is not to liquidate the Iranian project but to set it back. According to this line of thought, if an attack, American or Israeli, causes a couple of years' delay in the project it will have achieved its aim. Similarly, before launching the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981, Israel did not foresee the chain of events that finally forced Saddam Hussein to forgo his nuclear ambitions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak take a similar view of the Iranian threat. At least, that is what both their public statements and their comments in closed meetings suggest. For an Israeli attack to be considered, Israel would need the tacit approval of the Obama administration, if only in the sense that it looks the other way. This is due above all to the necessity of passing through the Iraqi air corridor, as American soldiers will still be in Iraq in 2011. No less important is strategic coordination for the day after: How will the United States react to a prolonged aerial attack by Israel on the nuclear sites and to the regional flare-up that might follow? These are matters that would have to be agreed on directly between Obama and Netanyahu. The disparity in their policy stances, together with the total lack of personal chemistry between them, is liable to prove a hindrance. Iran is likely to respond to an Israeli attack by opening fronts nearby, via Hezbollah from Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Three years after the Second Lebanon War and at the end of a broad process of learning lessons from that conflict, the IDF is quite confident of its ability to deal with Hezbollah. At the same time, it's clear that Israel will be subjected to extensive rocket attacks that can be expected to cover most of the country. A key question would be Syria's behavior. Israel has a salient interest in having Damascus be no more than a spectator in a confrontation. If the attack on Iran is perceived to have been successful, that is probably how the Syrians will respond. But an attack on Iran will reopen a decades-old blood feud - and the Iranians have both a long memory and a great deal of patience. With decisions like this looming within a year, it's no wonder that Netanyahu wants to get the Gilad Shalit affair wrapped up. A decision to attack Iran would mean that the IDF bears central responsibility for resolving the nuclear threat. In the years when Mossad director Meir Dagan held prime minister Ariel Sharon in his thrall (and even more so his successor, Ehud Olmert), the general belief was that the espionage agency could, together with political efforts, contain the Iranian nuclear project. And, indeed, if Western intelligence services had to push back their forecasts repeatedly over the past decade regarding when the project would be completed, it's a safe bet that not all of Iran's delays were due to divine providence. At present, however, no action looms - other than an attack - that is capable of preventing Iran from achieving its goal.
its right to enrich uranium, remains small." In his view, "For its strategy to succeed, America needs a broad and binding international coalition. I still don't see them getting Russia and China to back such a move, and their support is essential." Despite its fear that Iran will use the peaceful enrichment go-ahead to continue advancing secretly toward a bomb, Israel might, as a fallback position, accept such a compromise as long as it is clear that the international supervision is strong enough and that, in anticipation of the likely eventuality Iran will be found cheating, a broad coalition to toughen the sanctions is put together in advance. If the dialogue fails, or never begins, more severe sanctions might be put into place: a ban on the purchase of oil from Iran and on the export of petroleum distillates to it, or even a maritime embargo. But the potential effectiveness of these moves, with Tehran already well past the halfway mark toward achieving its goal, is in doubt. Looking the other way So, the moment of truth will arrive at some point between the end of 2009 and the middle of 2010: Should Iran be attacked? American experts agree that this would involve an Israeli strike. It is very unlikely that Obama will be the one dispatching American planes to Natanz. During the past year, military experts and commentators are increasingly coming around to the view that the Israel Air Force is capable of executing the mission. The Israel Defense Forces was significantly upgraded during the tenure of Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. The goal, it is argued, is not to liquidate the Iranian project but to set it back. According to this line of thought, if an attack, American or Israeli, causes a couple of years' delay in the project it will have achieved its aim. Similarly, before launching the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981, Israel did not foresee the chain of events that finally forced Saddam Hussein to forgo his nuclear ambitions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak take a similar view of the Iranian threat. At least, that is what both their public statements and their comments in closed meetings suggest. For an Israeli attack to be considered, Israel would need the tacit approval of the Obama administration, if only in the sense that it looks the other way. This is due above all to the necessity of passing through the Iraqi air corridor, as American soldiers will still be in Iraq in 2011. No less important is strategic coordination for the day after: How will the United States react to a prolonged aerial attack by Israel on the nuclear sites and to the regional flare-up that might follow? These are matters that would have to be agreed on directly between Obama and Netanyahu. The disparity in their policy stances, together with the total lack of personal chemistry between them, is liable to prove a hindrance. Iran is likely to respond to an Israeli attack by opening fronts nearby, via Hezbollah from Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Three years after the Second Lebanon War and at the end of a broad process of learning lessons from that conflict, the IDF is quite confident of its ability to deal with Hezbollah. At the same time, it's clear that Israel will be subjected to extensive rocket attacks that can be expected to cover most of the country. A key question would be Syria's behavior. Israel has a salient interest in having Damascus be no more than a spectator in a confrontation. If the attack on Iran is perceived to have been successful, that is probably how the Syrians will respond. But an attack on Iran will reopen a decades-old blood feud - and the Iranians have both a long memory and a great deal of patience. With decisions like this looming within a year, it's no wonder that Netanyahu wants to get the Gilad Shalit affair wrapped up. A decision to attack Iran would mean that the IDF bears central responsibility for resolving the nuclear threat. In the years when Mossad director Meir Dagan held prime minister Ariel Sharon in his thrall (and even more so his successor, Ehud Olmert), the general belief was that the espionage agency could, together with political efforts, contain the Iranian nuclear project. And, indeed, if Western intelligence services had to push back their forecasts repeatedly over the past decade regarding when the project would be completed, it's a safe bet that not all of Iran's delays were due to divine providence. At present, however, no action looms - other than an attack - that is capable of preventing Iran from achieving its goal.