By Geneive Abdo — Special to CNN

Iran is set for nuclear talks Wednesday with members of the U.N. Security Council, and the Obama administration, as well as some Iranian and European Union officials, expressed optimism that a compromise will be reached.

But it is useful to examine Israel’s long-term objectives for a bit of a reality check.

During a recent trip to Israel, where I met government officials, one issue became clear: for many in the Israeli government, Iran has already crossed the red line. Unless Iran halts all enrichment and dismantles its nuclear program, the diplomatic process is irrelevant to many Israeli officials.

The Israelis are not willing to wait for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to make the political decision to move toward developing a nuclear weapon; by then, it is too late. This is a major point of difference between Israel and the United States and the European Union — one which the nuclear talks will not resolve. The Americans and Europeans are trying to buy time by stating repeatedly that Khamenei has not yet made the decision to develop a nuclear bomb. But this is of no comfort to the Israelis.

According to a report Saturday in the New York Times, Obama administration officials said the P5+1 — the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany — were prepared to offer a deal to the Iranians that would include easing restrictions on the sale of technology, such as airplane parts and assistance to Iran’s energy complex.

Even if Iran were to accept such a deal, it is highly unlikely the regime would make concessions in turn to meet Israeli demands.

Iran demands the right to a nuclear program, including enrichment. But the Israelis will accept only the long-standing P5+1 position of no enrichment. Even if, as former Iranian ambassador Hossein Mousavian suggests, that an offer be made to limit enrichment at 3.5% to 5%, this is not enough for Israel.

Iran also wants an end to sanctions. But the sanctions are the only measures that have pacified Israel. There is talk that the P5+1 might offer a deal that would involve pushing back the scheduled oil embargo on Iran, which is due to take effect July 1. This would only antagonize Israel.

Iran could agree to permit inspectors full surveillance of its centrifuges. But the Israelis have little or no trust in Iran and believe that while inspections might address the part of Iran’s nuclear program that is visible, they wouldn’t do much to monitor nuclear technology the Iranians may have hidden from the international community.

So why all the optimism? The P5+1 needs to buy time to avert a unilateral attack by Israel. And the Iranians need ongoing diplomacy to push back the oil embargo.

As the talks draw near, high-ranking Iranian officials have been making daily statements predicting the talks will be a great success. For once, it seems Iran and the West are on the same page.

The only negative statements have been made by Saeed Jalili, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator. Jalili mentioned Thursday that Iran considers using nuclear energy its right and will not budge from this position.

Iran’s development path is not reversible, he said, adding that any additional pressure on Iran will only result in further resistance and progress. In the long term, these statements are likely to more accurately reflect Iran’s position.

The Israeli clock has already run out. Whatever patience Israel is demonstrating is merely to respect President Obama’s wish to get through the November election without an incident.

But it is likely that after November, there will no longer be a pretense of optimism from any side.

The views in this article are solely those of Geneive Abdo.

Throughout the euro-zone crisis, it has been conventional wisdom to regard the Germans as narrow-minded, ungenerous and dogmatically wedded to prescriptions of austerity to treat Europe's problems. These criticisms are vastly overstated.

Read more about Germany's response and my column at TIME

KING: This year's NATO summit is in Chicago. And topping the official agenda is the transition in Afghanistan, but there are other giant issues for the 34 heads of state attending.

ZAKARIA: The truth is NATO was a defensive alliance. It was designed for, really, to protect against Russia, against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And ever since 1990 when all that ended, it's been flailing around looking for something to do.

But it is a very useful time when all these heads of state, heads of government get together, and there's always something or the other on the agenda that's pretty crucial.

I would suspect that a lot of them would spend some time talking about Greece and Europe and the world economy, even though it's actually meant to be a security alliance.

KING: And when it comes to Afghanistan, which is important business at this summit, is it mission accomplished or is it mission exhausted, "let's get out"?

ZAKARIA: That's a great way of putting it. ... The Obama strategy - which is to double-down on the counter-terrorism (special ops, the drones) but gradually withdraw from the vast nation-building project and therefore withdraw the troops - is broadly shared by other European countries. So he's not going to get any pushback.

These summits become somewhat dramatic if there are two points of view. You think about the United States and France over the Iraq war. In this case, mostly everyone agrees with the Obama administration. And as we drawdown, they are drawing down, as well.

KING: Let's come back to the relevance question. Because as you noted, this is a defensive alliance. It was built when it was the West confronting, then, the Soviet menace. ... So if you are the leaders of the NATO alliance, what lesson do you have to learn from this very different world?

ZAKARIA: Political stability is a little bit like oxygen. When you have it, you take it for granted. We don't notice there's oxygen in this room: in my room and in yours. When you don't have it, you really notice.

So really preserve it. Do everything you can to prevent the return of Cold War-like hostilities between the United States and China, Cold War-like hostilities between the United States and Russia, rivalries between India and China.

All these things are, of course, low probability events. But if they were to happen, then all the stuff we're talking about - this single global economy, the technological progress, the trade, globalization - all that goes out window. Because now you're in a struggle for survival. And now politics and military affairs dominate everything.

So, you know, it is really true that we have the luxury of worrying about some of the kinds of things we worry about, which are real problems, but nothing like the problems of nuclear war during the Cold War, World War II, World War I and hundreds of years before that.

Minister Shamseddin Hosseini argued that his country has a much broader economy than just oil.

"Last year, the total non-oil exports increased by 30 percent and according to the latest reports that the International Monetary Fund has published, Iran's GDP – Iran's per capita income has also increased," Hosseini said in the interview on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS."

Zakaria pressed Hosseini on the argument, asking how it could be that the country is not affected when 80% of its foreign revenues come from foreign sales of oil.

Watch the exchange in the video above (or check out the transcript below):

ZAKARIA: You're telling me that these restrictions on oil, particularly if the European Union goes through with them, the Indians say they're buying less from you, the Japanese say they are buying less form you, these are not going to affect you, 80 percent of your external revenues come from oil.

HOSSEINI: We must pay close to attention when we speak of oil revenues and sanctions against oil sales. Who are the winners and the losers of such sanctions?

Indeed, it is difficult, but not just for Iran. And we can all rest assured that there will be a considerable increase in international oil market prices. Now, is this the best approach?

ZAKARIA: Just to be clear because this is very important, you think that if the European Union goes through with the oil embargo, which is slated to go into effect in July, oil prices will go up very substantially?

HOSSEINI: Certain, certainly. Even the IMF says that as a result of these sanctions, oil prices will perhaps reach and hover around $160 per barrel. And the decrease in financial and economic output in Europe will truly be felt.

ZAKARIA: How long can you endure these kind of sanctions because they are affecting your banks, they're affecting, now, the Senate is passing ones relating to the oil – the tanker business.

How long can you continue to withstand these sanctions?

HOSSEINI: We have been the subject, the target of sanctions for the last 33 years. We never went looking for these sanctions, but during the last few years, of course, the volume of these sanctions have increased tremendously.

And we believe that those who impose the sanctions have exerted the maximum level of pressure they have been capable of, but the reality that is showing itself today is that the capacities and the economic specialties and strengths of Iran are such that can cause a backlash – an economic backlash for the imposers of these sanctions and their countries.

This really shows that the economy – economic strength of Iran is in such a way that can withstand these sanctions and will not be the only economy to suffer.

ZAKARIA: So if – but if these sanctions do cost you a lot, cost the average Iranian a lot, why not allow the IAEA inspectors in, say to them you can go to every facility including the ones that we have previously not allowed you to.

We have nothing to hide. You can see all our nuclear programs and certify that it's peaceful and once you get that certification, these sanctions will get lifted.

HOSSEINI: We have said time and time again that we will not give up this unalienable right. We are a member – full signatory and abiding member of the IAEA.

There are conversations and dialogues taking place currently, but there cannot be a hegemony and a double-standard in the treatment of member countries such as Iran.

If these principles can be understood and applied with mutual respect, I think we will be in a much better place.

ZAKARIA: Final question, what will the price of oil be in August of this year?

HOSSEINI: I believe that we must, at least, in order to have sustainable growth for the producers maintain prices at $100 per barrel. But keep in mind the following, can the industrial powers get out of the current situation they're in with these prices?

Therefore, the answer being obvious, the prices will go considerably higher than $100 per barrel. If we see reforms – tangible reforms in this behavior, we will be in a much better place. If we don't, we will witness an increase in international oil markets.

How much do you know about the world? Test yourself on these questions and more in the quiz above.

And check out some of the past weeks' quizzes.

A controversial new book has hit shelves in Great Britain that contains poetry written by members of the group or authors who seem quite romantically devoted to it. It's titled, appropriately enough, "Poetry of the Taliban."

The spot on my heart makes a candle like the sun
To watch the earth and skies with.

That’s just a taste of the verse two Western researchers stumbled on while perusing the Taliban’s web site. Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn, who have been living in Afghanistan for years, found the trove while they were working on a project called Afghanwire, an online resource they created to help foreigners understand what everyday Afghans were doing.

They noticed that new poems kept popping up on the Taliban’s site and kept clicking to find poems dating to the 1990s. They asked around to see if anyone was bothering to translate them to English.

No one was, so their translator went to work.

“The poems seemed part of our understanding of who the Taliban were. They meshed with what we’ve seen living in Kandahar – that it wasn’t enough to believe that the Taliban are fighting simply out of religious fervor,” Kuehn said. “There was a lot more to these guys.”

Beyond fighting, the poets penned odes to love, and to Afghanistan. They wrote about corruption in government and about NGOs that are failing to really help Afghans. They ruminated on money, loss of life, being a refugee and beauty.

There was a sun escorting your beauty
There was a moon with you and a great army of stars.
The ignorance of the dark turned to light when you came;
The army accompanying you dug into the chest of darkness.

Several of the poems sound like lines that Sacha Baron Cohen might say in his new movie “The Dictator.”

Your love aside, what else is there?
It is like approaching the desert.
Like the dust on your footsteps.
Look! The crazy one lay down.

Other poems are a little more direct:

I will murder all the enemies of your religion and prosperity,
I will gradually make you the holy necklace of Asia.

Response among Afghans to the book has been split, the researchers said.

“A lot of people thought it was strange that it was a couple foreigners working on a book about poetry by talibs [the Arabic word for students of Islam],” Strick van Linschoten said. “The feedback in intellectual circles in Kabul is [some think] that it’s great that we’re showing the international community another side to the Taliban.” Others in Kabul, they say, disagree with the book's publication.

Meanwhile, outside of Afghanistan, there has been other criticism of the researchers for publishing the words of the Taliban and giving a platform for the Islamist militant group.

Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, calls the poetry propaganda, reports The Guardian:

"What we need to remember is that these are fascist, murdering thugs who suppress women and kill people without mercy if they do not agree with them, and of course are killing our soldiers," Kemp said. "It doesn't do anything but give the oxygen of publicity to an extremist group which is the enemy of this country."

The book's editors say the poetry provides insights into the group.

“They’ve said, ‘How can you publish the poems of people who have created problems for me and my ethnic group?’” Kuehn said. “One of my favorite questions is, ‘How can you humanize the Taliban?’ I always say, ‘They are human, right?’"

The researchers said they were able to meet at least one poet in real life – a university student.

“They are not demons from an outside world,” Kuehn continued. “Right or wrong. Agree or disagree with them. Hate them if you want, but they are still human.”

What do you think? Share your comments below

What does the former European commissioner (dubbed "Super Mario" for his work in international finance) expect out of the G8 summit, what does he think of the competing views about the economy in Europe and what kind of Europe will emerge from the crisis?

CNN's Fareed Zakaria sat down with him for an exclusive interview in Washington on Friday. Check out some excerpts above and below, and watch the full interview on "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday, 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN.

ZAKARIA: Can you say confidently that what will come out of this crisis will be a deeper and more integrated Europe and not a Europe that breaks up in some way?

MONTI: I am confident and I would even say that the Greek crisis, if we take it in the first manifestations in early 2010, has concerned very vividly that Europe becomes adult and stronger through crisis because we may be able or unable to ultimately solve the specific crisis in Greece, but in the process we have achieved a much higher degree of ex ante coordination of national fiscal policies. We have put in place firewalls to reduce contagion effects. ... The ECB in its autonomy has been able to find new techniques of intervention. So clearly, the governance of the EU has been improved by the Greek crisis.

On the Greek crisis:

On conflicting views of dealing with economic crisis:

ZAKARIA: Do you believe that at this G8 summit you're going to see a clash between a German view that says fiscal discipline above all, and a view of some others that you've got to open up demand, stimulate these economies in some way or the other?

MONTI: I think these two positions need to be bridged, and that's why we link back to the notion of which demand - if it is demand to remove bottlenecks in the supply of goods and services, so broadly investment demand - I think we should regard it more positively than the most conservative European authorities do. On the other hand, if it is an across-the-board crusade for more demand, then I believe that the German reluctance to that is not entirely unfounded.

And for the U.S., it's easier to be very relaxed on even huge expansions of demand, however financed - but it's difficult to forget - one should never forget - seeing from Washington that not each part of the world is a reserve currency country.

I couldn't help but notice a speech this week by a man who has all but disappeared from many of our radars.

In a rare public speech, former President George W. Bush said: "America does not get to choose if a freedom revolution should begin or end in the Middle East. It only gets to choose what side it is on ... America's message should ring clear and strong: We stand for freedom."

Over the years, and long before the start of the Arab Spring, Bush has been consistent in pressing his freedom agenda in Africa and the Middle East — in fact, the world over.

It's an optimistic conservatism that contrasts strongly with the pessimism of many other conservatives.

Take for example Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who last November called the Arab Spring an "Islamic, anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli, undemocratic wave."

The irony is that in his deep suspicion about the Arab Spring, Bibi has a strange bedfellow — the Saudi monarchy.

It's not often that you see Israel and Saudi Arabia agree on policy, but the two share a general fear of the upheavals in the Arab world.

So much so, in the Saudis' case, that they recently hosted a conference to bolster the very opposite of modern democracy: monarchies.

Five Saudi neighbors were invited to Riyadh — Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Each is a monarchy, and each a member of the group known as the GCC, or the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The Saudis' hope is to turn that group into a more closely-knit federation — something like the European Union, they say. They feel a union of monarchies would serve as a bulwark against the region's turmoil and democracy.

But it turned out that for now, the GCC agreed to disagree. You see, many of the smaller members fear Saudi domination.

So what were the Saudis thinking?

Well, Riyadh has a complicated role in the Arab Spring.

On the one hand it is arming Syria's opposition. But one could argue that intervention is driven by sectarian concerns: it wants to support a Sunni opposition fighting an Alawite leader. The Saudis see the Alawites as basically Shia. And Syria's leader, Bashar al-Assad, is also supported by Iran, the great Persian, Shia rival to Saudi Arabia.

In most other instances, Riyadh has essentially used its deep pockets to try to contain the Arab Spring.

In Bahrain, it sent thousands of troops to help crush a rebellion. In Jordan and Morocco, there are reports it is bribing the kings to make fewer concessions to democracy, for fear of the example they would set to other monarchies.

At home, the Saudis dole out patronage to gain support. They have given tens of billions of dollars in assistance to the unemployed and they’ve increased salaries of soldiers and public servants. Gasoline costs some 50 cents a gallon there, an eighth of what Americans pay.

The Saudi story is, of course, more nuanced than a simple story of carrot and stick. The monarchy was popular; it was even before its latest round of largesse. And Saudi Arabia is perhaps unique in the Arab world in that the general population is more conservative than its leadership. So while Riyadh may be ridiculed in the West for not allowing women to drive, it must also weigh the potential backlash from its far right if it abruptly changes course on social policies.

But at some stage, demographic and economic changes in Saudi Arabia will force it to move with the times. Even oil wealth cannot insulate you from modernity forever.

Arab democracies will be messy, complex and even nasty at times. But they will have the legitimacy that comes with public participation, which is inevitable in today's world.

And that's why in the long run, Netanyahu is wrong ... and George Bush will probably be proven right.

Facebook's $104 billion initial public offering comes at a time when the United States is suffering a bout of self-doubt. Many wonder if America is falling behind as other countries are catching up fast. And yet the Facebook phenomenon did not occur in a vacuum.

You might say it could have happened anywhere. But it happened in America. And there was a reason for that.

A company created almost on a whim by a handful of college students rocketed to worldwide popularity in under a decade, bringing together some 900 million users and in the process transformed the way people communicate and interact with each other.

It's no coincidence that Facebook, like Google, Apple, Twitter and Intel, started in the United States. It's also no coincidence the car, the airplane, the light bulb and the telephone were invented here. The fact that America is the birthplace of revolutionary ideas is not an accident.

Here are some of things Facebook tells us about America - not just what is right but what requires careful, urgent nurturing to preserve.

Still brewing that magic potion
The modern world knows there is a special, mysterious magic about America. Despite many serious problems, the main ingredients of that unique recipe remain. The United States has created an environment that fosters innovation and promotes creativity. There is no better place on earth to break with convention, think differently and blaze one's own path. America's government may look dysfunctional, its schools leave much to be desired and its financial institutions have the potential to cause disasters, but on the individual level the drive to dream big is as strong as ever. And the structure of support for those who have great ideas is still in place.

How America shapes the world
The days when Washington's wish was the world's command are over. But America's "soft power" lives on. The great events of our time have unfolded partly as a result of American technologies. The Arab Spring of 2011 was aided by Facebook and Twitter. Interpersonal relationships have been recast by social media. The industrialized world could hardly function without its Google searches and iPhones. American movies, TV shows and music are emulated.

The drive of immigrant minds
America's not-so-secret formula has always included attracting immigrants and helping them and their children flourish. According to a report by the Partnership for a New American Economy, more than 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. One of Facebook's founders, Eduardo Saverin, was born in Brazil. Google's co-founder, Sergey Brin, came from Russia. Zuckerberg's ancestors, as well as those of Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, were Jewish immigrants. As long as America continues to attract and welcome people with intelligence and entrepreneurial spirit, the country will pulsate with creative force.

Designed in America, made in China
Americans may be rolling out one great idea after another, but other countries are getting many of the jobs that come from its inventions. The iPad alone has created 700,000 manufacturing jobs in China. While American students are falling behind in international tests, the U.S. still has one of the best higher education systems in the world. We need to make sure our students not only attend college, but study the areas that will be critical to the future: science, technology, engineering and math. Maybe then they will find the ways that will allow American ideas to fuel employment in the country.

Government policies matter
Facebook is successful because bright minds created it, venture capitalists supported it and consumers embraced it. But that's not the whole story. Facebook and other similar high-profile companies would not have made it without the right government decisions, ones that made the Internet possible or lowered the price of the microchips. While government funding of key industries is crucial, so is the decision to get out of the way at the right moment. America is one of the world's best places to do business since government does not interfere much with the private sector. China is trying desperately to become a science and technology competitor to America, but it drove Google out of the country and its heavy-handed tactics have led to technology that mostly copies other countries' ideas.

It's not always about money
In the United States, people can make monumental fortunes when they have good ideas. But many of the most influential entrepreneurs are driven more by a sense of mission than materialistic pursuits. Zuckerberg could have sold out years ago and lived a life of luxury. Steve Jobs seemed unconcerned with worldly comforts. The real driver for these innovators is a wish to create and build. Those people whose only goal is to make millions sometimes live less fulfilling lives and occasionally cause serious trouble for the economy. Getting rich is fine, but it's good for society and the world when individuals work to build more than just a fortune. Young technology entrepreneurs can follow the examples of the giants of their field. As a society, America should highlight the need to create and build, not just accumulate.

So, hurrah for Facebook. Hurrah to those who have transformed the world and our lives. And congratulations to America for creating a place where people's ideas can become reality. Now learn from what you did right, America. And remember, others countries are also learning from America's success. The secret is out.