WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | Netanyahu was right, our fate is in our hands.

Dr. Haim Shine

The true test of leadership is the ability to anticipate and respond to geopolitical events while maintaining a long-term outlook. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began focusing global attention on the Iranian nuclear issue, many shook their heads with disbelief and skepticism.

At the time, the heads of important countries did not understand the nature of the danger posed by terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons allow uninhibited fanatics to threaten all of Western civilization.

Former Israeli defense establishment officials, including past heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet, recklessly launched a coordinated campaign against Netanyahu by spurring on and providing cover for irresponsible media outlets. From morning through night, they sowed fear among the Israeli public about the expected consequences of an attack on Iran. They portrayed the prime minister as a warmonger and tried to delegitimize the elected government. Today, however, it is clear how ludicrous their claims were.

When Netanyahu stood on the U.N. podium in 2012 and drew an illustration of Iran’s nuclear progress, many in Israel and around the world chuckled. They refused to believe that, as the world dragged its feet, Iran was building the infrastructure to produce a doomsday weapon.

Israel has invested much effort on the Iranian nuclear issue. This effort resulted in heavy sanctions being put in place on Iran. These sanctions led to an economic crisis in Iran, a loss of confidence of many Iranians in the ayatollahs and a change of government in Tehran (the election of Hasan Rouhani as president in June). Facing capitulation, Iran made a devilish move, an incredibly sophisticated step that took advantage of both American and European weakness. By treachery and putting on a bizarre masquerade, Iran is now on the verge of successfully getting the painful grip around its neck released.

An agreement with Iran that does not include an immediate halt of its nuclearization process will cause endless troubles. Once sanctions are lifted, they will never be reimposed. But this is nothing new for the West. There is an alarming straight line that connects Munich 1938 and Geneva 2013.

It has been proven many times throughout history that Jews can rely only on themselves. Thank God we now have an independent state with a strong military that can ensure the future of the Jewish people. It is critical that Israeli leaders, both from the Right and Left, now stand united behind the vital interests of the existence of the state. It has been shown more than once in the past that if we stand united, we can overcome all enemies, near and far.

Israel Hayom | Après Obama le deluge.

Dan Margalit

Four days ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya’alon were surprised to learn, during U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit, that the West was planning to unfreeze some $3 billion held in American banks to give to Iran.

On Friday, it emerged that the Americans were willing to make even bigger concessions — they are ready to gradually lift various economic sanctions.

Netanyahu warned of a “bad deal,” even a terrible one. France shares his view, and possibly the American Congress as well. Britain understands the problem, but the British government has already suffered embarrassment — on the Syrian issue — so Prime Minister David Cameron is now careful to adhere to U.S. President Barack Obama’s point of view.

Fortunately, the famous Hebrew proverb “grasp all — lose all” hasn’t been translated into Persian. The Iranians demanded that the West lift the sanctions on the oil industry and there was some friction. In the meantime, the West began listening to the voices coming from Israel, the American Congress and the French Foreign Ministry. On Saturday, the powers continued to negotiate with the Iranians in Geneva, but the pens are not poised to sign anything yet.

So how much weight does Israel’s opposition to this budding deal with Iran, which in essence refuses to slow down its nuclear momentum, actually carry?

During the term of the previous Israeli government, Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and most of the members of the forum of eight top ministers, played their cards close to the chest. They gave the impression that Israel could launch a military attack on Iran’s nuclear program at any minute. As long as this was a credible possibility, the West was terrified and agreed to impose real sanctions on Iran as long as the Israel Defense Forces refrain from taking action. In this, Israel was gloriously successful.

This veiled threat, simulating a game of diplomatic poker, is no longer in effect. Speaking on public television on Friday, Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit pointed to reckless remarks by President Shimon Peres, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, former Shin Bet security service director Yuval Diskin and former IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi as a factor in the gradual decline of the power of the Israeli threat to launch an independent military attack. What a shame.

After all, it is entirely obvious that the Western business world is turning a blind eye and wishing for renewed trade with Iran, and that every country is ready to compete with its neighbors. Finance ministers across the globe have told Israel’s Finance Minister Yair Lapid as much. Everyone understands that it would be dangerous to crack the dam, unless there are countries in the enlightened world that don’t care whether Iran becomes a nuclear power.

Obama is a short-term president. His bonds will be cashed in within three years. If Iran refrains from developing nuclear weapons in that time frame, then he will have done his job and he can say: “après moi le deluge” (the flood will come after I’m gone). But the world is worried about Washington’s short-sightedness. It is not just the West that is concerned, but all of the U.S.’s allies in the Middle East as well.

The deal is “very bad” because it brings the Iranian ayatollahs closer to their nuclear goal. It is a terrible deal, because it leaves the U.S. allies in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Egypt — vulnerable and horror-struck.

Israel Hayom | History is repeating itself.

Dr. Reuven Berko

The world closely followed the course of the West’s negotiations with Iran over the weekend, and its attempts to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

The scene included all the usual “bazaar” components that we, as Middle Easterners, recognize even when we try to purchase a fake Persian rug: the asking price, gauging the determination of the negotiating parties and the age-old question of who will be the first to blink.

The problem is that the West is not proficient in “eastern” haggling and this weakness has caused U.S. President Barack Obama to blink first. The moment the negotiations with Iran began, the West went out of its way to carve out a deal, while the Iranians maintained their tough positions. Moreover, the Iranians understood that the world powers do not wish to pursue a military option. This weakened the West’s position, as world powers were foolish enough not to back Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threat of military action.

History is repeating itself. It is not only vis-à-vis “eastern” policies that the West’s weakness has been revealed. It was not so long ago — a mere 75 years, in September 1938 — that Adolf Hitler called the Munich Conference, whose resolution ordered Czechoslovakia to cede territories and resources in Germany’s favor. At the time, The Times of London lauded British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain for “securing peace for our time.”

Much like the onslaught against Netanyahu, who is warning at the gate, the media did not spare its wrath from Winston Churchill, who criticized the Munich Agreement. Churchill and war mongers of his ilk should be “tried and hung,” The Times admonished. Czechoslovakia soon fell to the Nazis and the Kristallnacht pogrom followed. Whatever deal the West strikes with Iran, it should know that as far as Israel is concerned, historical precedents are milestones.

Saturday’s negotiations failed to yield an agreement. By next week’s meeting, the Iranians — with the assistance of the Russians and the Chinese — will present world powers with a more palatable solution, “positioning” their bomb as something “agreed upon.” As it turns out, only France is seeking an unequivocal answer regarding the suspension of uranium enrichment.

Judging by the American administration’s conduct, it seems that Obama can ask Britain for permission to use some of Chamberlain’s post-Munich parliament address in his future speech about Iran: “Now … I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity,” Chamberlain said, further asserting that with goodwill on both parties, peace can be achieved. Is that so?

Israel Hayom | Kerry: Stay home.

Prof. Efraim Inbar

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned of a return to Palestinian violence and Israel’s isolation if the faltering peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians ultimately fail. This is a typical leftist Pavlovian response to the impasse in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that is over a decade old.

Such thinking reflects primarily in the frustration that the optimistic evaluations that the conflict can be ended quickly remain unfulfilled and the absence of a learning curve.

There is definitely a possibility that the Palestinians, in particular the radical forces, will return to violence. Actually, they try to kill Israelis all the time and we see no more terrorist attacks only due to the work of the Israeli security organs. Yet, the likelihood of massive organized violence by the Palestinian Authority is small. Rocking the boat endangers too many vested interests of the Palestinian ruling class. The PA leadership has probably registered the heavy price paid by the Palestinians during their terrorist campaign at the beginning of the 21st century as a result of the Israeli countermeasures.

Moreover, even if the Palestinians miscalculate once again and go for a third intifada, Israel’s capability to contain terrorism and other modes of civilian struggle is high. The Israeli army can be trusted to meet all challenges successfully. Most important, a large majority of Israelis believe that the Palestinian demands, such as Jerusalem and the “right of return,” are the obstacles for peace. This large consensus about Palestinian intransigence allows for significant social mobilization and resilience in protracted conflict. Israelis will go once more to war with a feeling that “ein breira” (there is no choice) and are likely to win that engagement as well.

Large parts of the hypocritical world may indeed see Israel as the culprit for the failure of the negotiations and for a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence. But such negative attitudes do not necessarily lead to international isolation. Public statements and the voting record of states at the U.N. — an ineffective, morally bankrupt organization — are not indicative of the true nature of interstate relations.

National interests dictate state actions, and in most cases bilateral relations with Israel are hardly affected by the ups and downs in the peace talks with the Palestinians. For example, India and China, rising powers, have expanded their bilateral ties because it is their interest to engage a successful state such as Israel. Nowadays, when the Iranian threat dominates the region, Arab Sunni states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, exasperated with American behavior, are in the same strategic boat with Israel. Generally, the Middle East, nowadays in the throes of a colossal political, social and economic crisis, is hardly paying attention to the Palestinian issue. In the Caucasus and in Central Asia, Muslim Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are friendly to Israel.

Moreover, isolation of Israel is unlikely because of the large existing reservoirs of support for Israel in many quarters. Canada and Australia are ruled by governments most responsive to Israeli concerns. Even in West Europe, concerns about Muslim immigration and foreign aid put the Palestinians in a problematic spot. Above all, two-thirds of Americans consistently favor Israel over the past two decades, which is translated into Congressional support. The U.S. is Israel’s most important ally and even the Obama administration has maintained the strong support and cooperation in the military sphere.

But the Obama administration does not understand the Middle East. The Kerry threats are just another facet of the American misguided foreign policy adopted by the Obama-Kerry team. An American foreign policy that supports the Muslim Brotherhood, estranges its traditional Arab allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, allows Iran to get closer to the bomb, believes Assad’s promise to give up its chemical weapons arsenal, sees in Turkey’s Erdogan a great friend of the West, and insists that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be ended in nine months is dangerous and does more damage that good. Similar complaints about U.S. poor political judgment are abundantly voiced by America’s friends in Asian and East European capitals.

It is the enemies of the U.S. that rejoice in President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and that relish in America’s perceived decline in world affairs.

Ironically, at this historic juncture, even an isolationist America would be a better alternative for those that want the good guys to win. Therefore, dear President Obama, do us a favor, save some money and keep Kerry at home.

Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Israel Hayom | The return of appeasement.

Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi

Israel Hayom | At least the French put up a fight.

Boaz Bismuth

The big smiles on display from the Iranian delegation on Friday did not only alarm Jerusalem, but Paris as well. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius rushed to Geneva to stop the emerging deal orchestrated by the Americans.

In Geneva, who could have believed it, we have returned to the pre-1967 days. Even if France was only spurred into action by Saudi Arabia, officials in Jerusalem love the French again.

After U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry surprised everyone by jetting off to Geneva, pen in hand and ready to sign a deal, Fabius departed for Switzerland primarily to pour cold water over all the excitement. “There was progress,” Fabius told reporters, “but nothing is sealed.” Paris managed to foil the deal, but it may not be able to next time.

The French, like the Israelis, do not believe the Iranians. It is enough to speak with officials in the French foreign ministry to understand just how non-civilian they believe the ayatollahs’ nuclear program is. Fabius even spoke of “a sucker’s deal,” telling France-Inter Radio that his nation does not want to be part of a “con game.”

If Israel had to score, from its perspective, the performances of the six superpower delegations, France would undoubtedly receive a perfect 10. The Americans, based on their conduct over this past weekend, would perhaps finish with the same amount of points as the Russians and Chinese. Apparently the world truly has gone mad.

U.S. President Barack Obama continues to move closer to America’s rivals (the happy new recipient of American courtship being Cuba) while abandoning his country’s natural allies and friends. Obama is teaching us that these days, friendship might not be worth it.

One thing is clear: A deal with the Iranians cannot happen without America wanting it to happen. There should be no mistake; such a deal can only come after Iran and the U.S. have moved significantly closer. Moving closer in such a manner can only come at the expense of someone else. In this case, it is coming at the expense of the Saudis and Gulf States, and Israel of course. Fabius arrived in Geneva as the representative of those states, which justifiably do not trust the Iranians. The French have too many economic interests in the Gulf to abandon the partnership.

For France, there can be no deal with the Iranians if the following points are not crystallized: What will be the fate of Iran’s heavy-water reactor in Arak (used to produce plutonium); where will the stockpiles of uranium enriched to levels of 20 percent be stored (they are currently in Iranian hands and can be used to make a bomb); and is the idea of the ayatollah regime being allowed to enrich uranium even acceptable? These are important points indeed, which have seemingly escaped the minds of the enthusiastic Americans.

The foreign ministers of Germany, Great Britain, Russia and China were also called to Geneva, but it was only the French foreign minister who saw the glass as half empty in regards to the developing agreement. Members of the French delegation reminded others how in 2003 a deal was signed with Iran over its nuclear program, which proved to be a failure. Iran, with the relatively moderate Mohammad Khatami as president at the time, agreed to freeze its uranium enrichment activities, which it renewed a mere two years later.

“Seems as if the most difficult talks in Geneva are not with Iran but within the Western group. Not particularly good,” Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt posted to his Twitter account. In the meantime, the French daily Le Monde revealed that members of the American delegation were furious at the French after a month of hard work. And this is perhaps the saddest story from the latest round of talks in Geneva: The problem, from Jerusalem’s point of view, is not only Iran — it is also the United States.

Israel to Lobby US Congress to Prevent Iran Deal – News from America – News – Israel National News.

U.S. Congress

AFP photo

Israel is planning to lobby the US Congress to prevent future deals with Iran, AFP reports.

Economics Minister and Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) Chairman Naftali Bennett revealed the initiative in an interview Sunday with IDF Radio. “Before the talks resume, we will lobby dozens of members of the US Congress to whom I will personally explain [. . .] that Israel’s security is in jeopardy,” Bennet said.

The statements follow a letter Bennett drafted to members of Jewish organizations in the US and abroad which urged them to help pressure international leaders to stop continuing to entertain a diplomatic agreement with the nuclear threat.

Talks with Iran and other world powers failed to culminate in an agreement this weekend, renewing hope among Israeli leaders and civilians that the international community will reconsider accepting a deal before talks are set to resume on November 20.

Bennett also alluded to Israel’s very public “differences” within US President Barack Obama’s administration on reaching a deal with the Islamic republic. “If in ten years an atomic bomb hidden in a suitcase explodes in New York, or a nuclear missile hits Rome, one could say it is because of concessions that would have been made” to Iran, he said.

The statements follow reports that Obama has pressured Netanyahu to concede to the Palestinian Arabs in peace talks in exchange for renewed sanctions on Iran, as well as threats last week from US Secretary of State John Kerry – who was mediating the talks – of a “third intifada” in the event that talks fail. Tensions between the US and Israel are unusually high at the moment, and a lobbying effort may be crucial for rallying international support for Israel.

AFP also reports that Israel’s deputy Defense Minister, Danny Danon, told Voice of Israel public radio on Sunday that “In another two and a half years there will be someone else in the White House, but we will still be here.”

“If we have no choice we will act — that’s why Israel has an air force,” he concluded.

Khamenei rails against France’s ‘inept move’ after talks scuttled | The Times of Israel.

Taking to social media, Iran’s supreme leader accuses Paris of open hostility; Iranian press lays blame on France for failure to finalize nuke deal

By Ilan Ben Zion and Times of Israel staff

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (photo credit: AP/Office of the Supreme Leader)

Following reports of France’s torpedoing of nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva this weekend, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took to Twitter on Sunday morning to rail against Parisian perfidy.

“French officials have been openly hostile towards the Iranian nation over the past few years; this is an imprudent and inept move,” the ayatollah tweeted in Persian, then English, reiterating a speech delivered on March 21.

“A wise man, particularly a wise politician, should never have the motivation to turn a neutral entity into an enemy,” Khamenei tweeted.

The same statements tweeted by the supreme leader were previously delivered in a March speech in which Khamenei threatened to “raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground” should Israel strike Iran’s nuclear program. Khamenei remarked at the time that “the Zionist regime is too small to be considered among the first row of the Iranian nation’s enemies.”

The Iranian press also lashed out, squarely placing blame on France for the failure of the latest round of talks to yield a deal. ”France’s spanner scuppers nuclear deal,” reads the front page headline of The Tehran Times’s Sunday paper.

“French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius caused the talks to hit a snag,” the paper reported, making little mention of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s statements throughout the negotiations that disparities remained between the two sides. Kerry, speaking to reporters after the talks broke up, acknowledged there were “certain issues that we needed to work through.”

“We’re grateful to the French for the work we did together,” Kerry said.

Tehran’s criticism came a day after Iranian state TV criticized France for demanding stricter terms to the nuclear agreement that was being hammered out in Geneva between world powers and Iran, calling the European country “Israel’s representatives at the talks.”

The rapporteur of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Seyed Hossein Naqavi Hosseini, told Fars News Agency Saturday that “the behavior of France’s representative in the nuclear negotiations shows that France seeks to blackmail the negotiations, and this illogical behavior should be confronted by the other members of the Group 5+1 [P5+1].”

“While the French people want an improvement in the relations between Paris and Tehran, unfortunately the French government has preferred the Zionist regime’s views to its people’s demand,” he added.

“We hope that the French foreign minister casts a logical look at the negotiations,” Hosseini said.

Earlier Saturday, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius spoke of “several points that… we’re not satisfied with compared to the initial text,” telling France-Inter Radio his nation does not want to be part of a “con game.”

He did not specify, but his comments suggested France thought a final draft of any first-step deal was too favorable to Iran, echoing concerns raised by Israel and several prominent US legislators. The French position was confirmed by another Western diplomat.

Fabius said Tehran was resisting demands that it suspend work on a plutonium-producing reactor and downgrade its stockpile of higher-enriched uranium to a level that cannot quickly be turned into the core of an atomic bomb.

Fabius mentioned differences over Iran’s Arak reactor southeast of Tehran, which could produce enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons a year once it goes online. He also said there was disagreement over efforts to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment to levels that would require substantial further enriching before they could be used as the fissile core of a nuclear weapon.

AP contributed to this report.

Just how bad is the Geneva nuclear deal for Israel? | The Times of Israel.

Jerusalem will likely get far less than its demand that Iran be stripped of all enrichment capability, former top official says — but can always intervene later

By Raphael Ahren November 10, 2013, 11:56 am

US Secretary of State John Kerry, Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, left, the EU’s Catherine Ashton, center, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, right, hold talks over Iran’s nuclear program in Geneva, November 9, 2013. (Photo credit: State Department/Twitter)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been denouncing the emerging — but not finalized — agreement between six Western powers and Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program as a “very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.”

But is it really as atrocious as Netanyahu believes?

The exact terms of the proposed interim deal are still unclear, but it would likely entail a freeze of Iran’s nuclear progress in return for limited sanctions relief. Whatever the final terms, it appears certain that Netanyahu’s maximalist demands will not be met. On the other hand, the deal would seriously slow down Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon — for the first time in years — while leaving the most painful part of the sanctions regime firmly in place until a permanent agreement is signed.

US Secretary of State John Kerry tried his best in the early hours of Sunday morning to assuage Israel’s fears. “As President [Barack] Obama has said, his goal is… to make certain that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” he told reporters in Geneva, moments after Iran and the P5+1 powers — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany — came close to signing the deal and suspended talks for 10 days. “That remains our goal because we remain committed to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and we remain committed to protecting our allies, particularly our allies in that region where security is so critical.”

The most crucial elements in determining whether the deal is viable relate to a) the amount and level of enriched uranium Iran is left with, b) the future of the heavy water reactor in Arak, which can produce plutonium used in nuclear bombs, and c) how tightly the agreement’s parameters would be subject to rigorous third-party inspection.

The plutonium issue, Kerry said Sunday, is “very central” to the success of the talks, and the US is “absolutely adamant [that it] must be addressed in the context of any kind of agreement.”

The crux of Israel’s vehement rejection of the deal is the uranium enrichment capacity Iran is left with; while Israel sees it a zero-sum game, the so-called P5+1 powers seem more flexible.

Nobody who seriously cares about Israel’s security is ecstatic about the proposed deal. But while for some it is utterly unacceptable, others reason that, in the absence of better alternatives, it’s worth pursuing. Kerry’s key point at his press conference was that the interim deal would freeze the Iranian program; in its absence, the Islamic Republic is still moving relentlessly toward the bomb.

Israel will have little choice but to accept the compromise if it is agreed in the next round of talks, a former senior Israeli defense official said. The West or Israel could still intervene militarily if Iran betrayed the deal and moved toward a weapon, he argued.

But Netanyahu isn’t the only one broadcasting dismay, and he may attempt to build a potent alliance of opponents.

“Given the Iranian history of obfuscation regarding its nuclear program, I am deeply concerned by reports that the administration is prepared to cut a deal providing sanctions relief for minimal, and reversible, Iranian concessions without requiring a full and complete halt to its nuclear efforts,” Speaker of the US House of Representatives John Boehner said Friday. “The administration does not have a good answer to the concerns raised that this potential deal will allow Iran to continue to enrich and to build new centrifuges, while buying time to develop a breakout nuclear capability.”

Iran expert and Foundation for Defense of Democracies director Mark Dubowitz lamented that the proposed arrangement would allow Iran to keep in place its complete nuclear infrastructure and “maintain a still dangerous uranium breakout capacity” that would allow the regime to weaponize uranium whenever it pleased. “It does nothing to address centrifuge manufacturing, which is the key element to Iran’s secret enrichment program,” he told Bloomberg.

According to Channel 10, the deal in the works would have the Iranians halt uranium enrichment to 20 percent purity, and their existing stocks of 20% would be converted to fuel rods; enrichment to 3.5% purity would be able to continue at Natanz and Qom. Further, operations at the Arak facility would have to cease. In exchange, the station reported, the Iranians would have sanctions lifted on petrochemical products, gold, auto and airplane parts, and assets worth $3 billion would be unfrozen. The sanctions on the country’s gas and banking industries would remain in place.

Netanyahu has said he simply cannot accept such a deal. He demands the Islamic Republic not be allowed to retain any uranium enrichment capability. As long as Tehran can enrich uranium and maintain its nearly 20,000 centrifuges — or even fewer, as their quality improves — the regime is too close to breakout capability, he argues, because even low-enriched uranium can be upgraded to weapon-grade material in a matter of months.

“There are those who would readily agree to leave Iran with a residual capability to enrich uranium,” Netanyahu said at the United Nations last month. “I advise them to pay close attention to what [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani said [in 2005]: ‘A country that could enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent. Having fuel cycle capability virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons.’ Precisely. This is why Iran’s nuclear weapons program must be fully and verifiably dismantled.”

In addition, Netanyahu demanded the removal of all already enriched material, the closure of the underground nuclear facility in Qom and the end of all activity at Arak.

Chuck Freilich (photo credit: Courtesy)

According to Chuck Freilich, a former deputy national security adviser in Israel, Netanyahu’s are unrealistic demands, and Israel will have to accept an imperfect deal — as long as some basic angles are covered. “To be realistic, we’re going to have to agree, to some point, to compromise,” he said Thursday. “And to compromise means that we’re going to have to agree that Iran will retain a civilian-level of uranium enrichment — that’s 3.5 percent. They will have to in some way mothball or close down the primary facilities of concern, Fordo and the plutonium reactor in Arak. But they will be left with the civil program.” Iran, under any acceptable agreement, would also have to be subject to highly intrusive inspections, he added.

Such an arrangement is far from perfect, as it would leave Iran with the potential to renew its nuclear program, admitted Freilich, who is now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. But at least it would take the regime a few years to reach breakout capability and produce weapons-grade uranium, he said.

“I think it’s a compromise situation that, for lack of a better alternative, we can and have probably have no choice but to live with,” Freilich continued. The only alternatives to the currently discussed deal are a policy of deterrence and containment on the one hand, or a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities on the other. The military route won’t do much more than buy two or three years’ time, as the nuclear program is too advanced and can no longer be entirely destroyed. If the P5+1 can delay Iranian nuclear weapons capability for just as long through diplomacy, this option appears preferable. Even if Iran decided to attempt to breakout, Israel or the US could then still intervene militarily, Freilich said.

The bargain nearing completion in Geneva, complete with its promise of limited sanctions relief, could cause the international community to lose focus and allow the unraveling of a complicated sanctions regime that took years to construct, some argue. But “I’m not terribly afraid of that happening,” Freilich said. “I don’t think the US has any intention to sell us out on this issue — not because of us but because of their own strategic reasons.”

Jerusalem argues that only tough sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, and that if only they were toughened rather than eased, Tehran would eventually cave and completely dismantle its rogue nuclear program. That may or may not be true. But, as the Geneva talks this weekend underlined, the P5+1 is not of a mind to put the theory to the test.

Netanyahu says Israel will do everything to prevent ‘bad’ agreement on Iran’s nuclear program | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

11/10/2013 12:50

Prime minister expresses satisfaction with delay in signing interim deal; says he spoke to leaders of P5+1 countries over the weekend, warning the proposed deal is dangerous not just to Israel, but to the world.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expressed satisfaction at Sunday’s cabinet meeting that a deal between the world powers and Iran was not signed over the weekend, but that he was not deluding himself and there was a “strong desire to reach an agreement.”

“I hope this will not be an agreement at any price, and if there is an agreement, it needs to be a good one, not a bad one,” he said

Netanyahu, speaking at the beginning of Sunday’s cabinet meeting held in Sde Boker to mark 40 years to David Ben-Gurion’s death, defined a good agreement as one that would lead to a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and a bad one would be letting Iran retain its nuclear capabilities and “taking the air” out of the sanctions.

The prime minister said that Israel would do everything in its power to prevent a “bad agreement.”

Netanyahu said he spoke over the weekend with the leaders of each of the P5+1 countries, with the exception of China, meaning that he spoke with US President Barack Obama, Russian Presiding Vladimir Putin, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron.

“I told them that according to information that was reaching Israel the agreement was bad and dangerous,” he said. “Dangerous not only to us, but also to them. Dangerous to world peace because it relives the sanctions pressure that it took years to build, and also because Iran would retain it ability to enrich uranium and also to move forward on the plutonium track.”

Netanyahu said that the proposed agreement did not call on the Iranians to dismantle “one centrifuge.”

“I asked the leaders, what is the rush,” Netanyahu said. “I suggested that they wait, that they consider things very carefully. We are taking about a historic process, a historic decision. I requested that they wait.”

Despite the failure of the talks on Saturday, Iran and six world powers said differences had narrowed and they would resume negotiations on November to try to end the decade-old standoff.

But clear divisions emerged among the US and European allies on the final day of the Geneva talks as France hinted that the proposal under discussion did not sufficiently neutralize the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Netanyahu on Friday denounced the contours of an accord leaked to the media, saying Tehran would be getting “the deal of the century” if world powers carried out proposals to grant Iran temporary respite from sanctions.

Israel, which regards Iran as a mortal threat, has repeatedly suggested it may take military action against Tehran if it does not mothball its entire nuclear program.

Iran dismisses such demands, citing a sovereign right to a nuclear energy industry, and most diplomats concede that, as Tehran has expanded its nuclear capacity exponentially since 2006, the time for demanding a total shutdown has passed.

The Islamic Republic says its activities are purely peaceful and negotiators say they are ready to take the steps necessary for such an agreement if their nuclear “rights are recognized” and world powers reciprocate by easing sanctions.

Reuters contributed to this report.