"Not only are we not doing anything about Iran's nuclear plans, we are making the march to destruction move faster by coming up with solutions that not only do not solve the problem, but focus our energies in the opposite direction," Feiglin said during his weekly segment on Israel National Radio's Stutz and Fleisher Show.

"We are into fences," Feiglin, who opposes the division of Israel via the separation fence, explained. "The Arrow Missile, for example, is just another kind of Israeli fence. And, just as effectively as the separation fence prevented the bombing in Hadera last week, the Arrow Missile will be effective against missiles from Iran with nuclear warheads – by taking down two out of three missiles. Yet the Israeli military industry comes up with ideas based on fences and more fences and more fences."

Feiglin believes there must be a return to the paradigm originally adopted by Menachem Begin. "One of the good things Begin did was the attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor," he said. "This showed the entire world the way to deal with countries threatening to develop nuclear weapons."

Though Feiglin concedes that Iran has learned from the Israeli attack on the Osarik reactor and spread its underground nuclear facilities, Feiglin insists there are ways to deter Iran from pursuing the bomb. "Even if we cannot bomb all of their nuclear locations, we must make them pay a price that will make it not worth it for them to continue with the process. The only way to do this is to make the ruling regime fearful that it will lose power. They won't care if a million Iranian children die, but they care about staying in power."

Asked about the scenario, increasingly espoused by western academics, wherein Iran successfully obtains nuclear weapons but a Cold War-type balance is sustained between the Jewish and Islamic states, Feiglin dismissed such suggestions as dangerous and misguided.

"I think this is a huge mistake," he said. "We have to understand. An atomic bomb is a bomb that can do what the American bombs did in WW2 in Japan. A nuclear bomb that hits the Gush Dan Tel Aviv area destroys Israel. 80% of the military resources in Israel are in that region. For Iran, that is not the situation in Iran. The first bomb would destroy a city – they have more and are willing to lose one or two. Any Islamic dictator who destroys Israel will become the king of the Muslim world – he doesn't care if he loses a few cities.

"So those who compare the US and Soviet Union to this situation are inaccurate – neither of those countries could destroy the other in one attack. We are talking about a situation where an Arab country can destroy Israel with one attack and in a certain situation it will be worthwhile for them – we cannot allow this to happen.

"There is a saying, 'If there is a gun in the first act of a play, someone will use it in the third act.' Even if they won't use it – just the fact that they have it and are looking to destroy Israel will put us immediately in a situation where I don't know who will even continue to live here. Our whole strategic situation is impossible. It will be like living with a gun to your head and a killer is holding the gun. And all you can do is maybe cut one of his hands or legs. You can cause him pain, but you cannot kill him – but he can kill you and wants to kill you. Now maybe he won't do it so fast because he doesn't want a bullet in the hand – but eventually there will be pressures, or he will want to become the king of the Muslim world. That is why Nasser started the Six Day War. Look what happened on September 11th – Bin Laden became the hero of the entire Islamic world."

To the suggestion that the United States would not allow Israel to be annihilated, Feiglin said he is not willing to bet his life on that assumption. "We can only look out for ourselves," he said. "You see today – nobody is going after North Korea the way they are going after Iraq. Nobody would think of attacking North Korea because they have the bomb already. Counting on the world to save us is the exact same psychology that brought us to count on the Americans to bomb Auschwitz."

Eli Stutz asked Feiglin whether the inevitability of some Islamic country eventually acquiring a nuclear weapon does not make achieving peace with Israel's Islamic neighbors as urgent a mission as Labor Chairman and Oslo architect Shimon Peres feels it is – no matter the cost.

"Let's assume that is the reason Peres did what he did – though I don't think so," Feiglin answered. "But there is a large amount of truth there. Let us examine his basic assumption and examine where it took us: 'Let us make peace with the Arabs - we will be nice to them and then they will lose the will to destroy us.' What really happened due to the Oslo process was that we actually encouraged the Arabs to develop the bomb and the human bombs they have already used, by telling them, 'you are right.'

"We lost our justification and our sense of justice when we accepted the idea of a Palestinian state and a Palestinian people. We basically said that our whole ‘line,’ of Israel belonging to the Jews, was wrong and the real owners of the land are the Arabs – we [implied that we] are just a bunch of colonialists who came from Europe and took over…and they hate us more and are encouraged to use violence more.

"We have seen the level of hatred and terror in recent years increase exponentially, and it has spread from the Middle East to the entire world. The twin towers would not have fallen and Bin Laden would not have appeared on the scene if not for the Clinton-Arafat-Rabin handshake in 1993. What that handshake really did was say to them, 'Hey, your battle is right – we agree with your basic assumptions. We are the bad guys, you are the good guys. Continue.' "