Israel

The people of Egypt and Libya may have swung the spotlight onto their respective countries – but it is a spotlight that Iran is keen to exploit. Two of their warships have just passed through the Suez canal en route to Syria, the first to do so since 1979. They were given clearance by Egypt's new military stewards a few days ago. On one level, Tehran's actions are unimpeachable: Egypt cannot forbid access to Suez unless it is at war with the country at sail. But they are also, of course, designed to provoke. Why choose to do this now, other than to suggest something about the new latticework of power, and of power relationships, in a turbulent Middle East? Israel, for its part, is less than impressed.

I began the week in Israel, where I watched Tzipi Livni make an extraordinary pitch for the premiership by representing herself as the candidate of moderation and peace. I ended it in Place de la Republique in Paris where secular Algerians had gathered to show solidarity with their countrymen demonstrating against "le pouvoir" in Algiers. Their slogan, "Laicité, Egalité, Liberté", is refreshing. Am I wrong to feel quietly optimistic on both fronts? As we reported in the Jewish Chronicle this week, Tzipi Livni also made a significant overture to the diaspora Jewish community by saying she welcomed a wider discussion about the future direction of Israel from outside the country itself.

Israel is in a right state over Egypt's incipient revolution. Israeli politicians talk openly about the threat from an Islamist takeover, the greatness of Hosni Mubarak, and have even taken to sneer at the West's hopefulness. Now that President Mubarak has announced he will leave, the Israeli leadership will be looking on in horror. They are right to be concerned. The beleaguered Jewish state has already lost one regional ally in Turkey and does not relish the prospect of losing Egypt too. That would leave only Jordan, a country whose monarchy may be the next casualty of the pro-democracy movement sweeping the region. But it is not just a matter of numbers. The "cold peace" with Egypt was the most important strategic alliance Israel had in the Middle East.

A week ago, that would have seemed a foolish question. But after thousands of Egyptians have taken to the streets for two consecutive days of protest, even Hosni Mubarak is beginning to look vulnerable. It has placed the West in a dilemma, in a way that Ben Ali's fall did not. For years, the fear has been that President Mubarak is the lesser of two evils. Though authoritarian, Mubarak's Egypt is a pro-Western state willing to live with Israel and combat Islamist terrorism. On the hand, the Muslim Brotherhood opposition, which shares an ideological wellspring with Al Qaeda, is a grave threat to Western security.

Iran’s nuclear programme is the most likely source of a major global conflict. So it is highly significant that the outgoing head of Mossad recently told the Israeli parliament that technical problems meant that Iran might not be able to make a bomb until 2015. These technical problems have, as a riveting piece in the New York Times explains, being caused by a computer virus. The stuxnet (correction) virus is in wide global circulation but it only kicks in when it spots the pattern that is used for centrifuges making highly-enriched uranium. When it does, it makes the centrifuges spin so fast that they destroy themselves. This virus appears to be a joint production of the Israeli, American and British secret services.

The latest cache of Wikileaks has done America no end of good. The Saudis urged the US to bomb Iran – a sign that the Arab world can make common cause with the States and Israel. It has also emerged that North Korea has sold the Iranians long range rockets – Moscow, Berlin and Istanbul are all within the Ayatollah’s range. But the most important revelation is that China has tired of North Korea’s lunatic machinations, recognising that the rogue state is an impediment to global and regional security. China is also convinced that the country will not survive Kim Jung-il’s death and favours a union of the two Koreas, provided the new state is pro-Chinese (could it be anything but?).

Reading the British press - or even listening to some ministers - you would be forgiven for thinking that the only obstacle preventing Middle East peace is Israeli obstinacy and Benjamin Netanyahu's unwillingness to force his political allies - like Shas - to the negotiating table. But, as always, things are a bit more complicated than the newspaper headlines would suggest. From Israel's position, the region is looking increasingly hostile. Talk of a war in Lebanon with Hezbollah persists. In Syria, President Assad looks less interested in a rapprochement than he has done for years.

Two years into her term, and after carefully avoiding any success-free issues, Hillary Clinton has finally launched herself into the Middle East peace process. According to Roger Cohen in the New York Times, "The heavy lifting is now in Clinton’s hands". As evidence of Clinton's new role, Cohen lists a video conference with the Palestinian prime minister, where the US secretary of state announced $150 million in US aid to the Palestinian Authority and said the Obama administration was “deeply disappointed” by recent Israeli behaviour. Mrs Clinton's foray into the Middle Eastern quagmire  is interesting.