WarSclerotic

Putin may be last hope for Israel to prevent Iran agreement – Israel News, Ynetnews.

( Israel is depending on Russia to help stop the Americans?  We are living now in a “Bizzarro” world thanks to Obama.  God help us all… – JW )

Iranian, Russian leaders communicating by telephone, Kremlin says; in midst of American ‘rush’ to reach settlement with Iran, Israel carries eyes to Russia in final attempt to stop any agreement

Attila Somfalvi

Russian President Vladimir Putin told Iranian President Hassan Rohani on Monday there was a “real chance” to resolve the international standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Meanwhile, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gears up for a visit with the Russian president on Wednesday, senior Israeli officials claim that with America deadset on reaching a deal with Iran, Russia is Israel’s last hope.

The Kremlin said Putin and Rohani had spoken by telephone at the Russian leader’s request, two days before negotiators from Iran and six global powers hold their next talks.

“…In the context of the Iranian nuclear program, Putin underlined that at the moment a real chance has appeared to find a solution to this long-running problem,” the statement said.

Rohani and Putin (Photo: AFP)

It did not say how Rohani had responded, other than quoting him as saying he approved of Russia’s contribution to the talks on Iran’s nuclear program. But the Kremlin added that Rohani gave a “high grade” to Russia’s role at the so-called P5+1 negotiations that besides Iran include the five permanent UN Security Council members, and Germany.

“We know that the Iranians are only a few months away from giving up hope on their nuclear program, if the sanctions were to continue; but the Americans are keen on reaching an agreement,” said a senior Israeli official close to the Iranian issue Monday.

Israel is frustrated by the Obama administration; even those in close contact with the White House find it hard to explain what Jerusalem calls “the (American) rush to reach an agreement.”

But Jerusalem has turned its eyes to the Kremlin, and now hopes that Netanyahu’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday will yield success.

The hope among the Israeli administration is that Netanyahu will convince Putin to postpone any agreement with Iran.

“The Russians have already surprised us in the past, and they don’t like the idea that America is the hero of this story. They also don’t like the idea of a nuclear bomb in their own backyard.”

Putin’s upbeat comments followed remarks in which a senior US official said it was possible a deal could be reached when negotiators meet in Geneva from Nov. 20, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also voiced optimism.

The last round of talks between Iran and world powers earlier this month came tantalizingly close to finding a framework agreement that would have suspended some elements of Tehran’s disputed program in exchange for partial sanctions relief.

The terms of the potential deal have been vehemently opposed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some powerful members of the US Congress.

Netanyahu – who views a partial suspension of sanctions as detrimental to the negotiations – outlined his opposition to the agreement during talks with French President Francois Hollande on Sunday.

The Israeli head of state will continue his diplomatic offensive when he meets Putin in Moscow on Wednesday and receives US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday.

Saudi Arabia denies working with Israel on contingency plan for potential attack on Iran | JPost | Israel News.

( Of course, we believe you.  Right… – JW )

By JPOST.COM STAFF

11/18/2013 17:31

Saudis say they have “no relations, contacts with Israel at any level.”

Saudi Arabia has denied on Monday working with Israel on contingency plans for a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Sunday Times reported that Riyadh has given its consent to Israel to use Saudi airspace for a potential attack on Iran. In addition, the paper quoted a diplomatic source as saying the Saudis were willing to assist an Israeli attack by cooperating on the use of drones, rescue helicopters and tanker planes.

Both Jerusalem and Riyadh have expressed displeasure at the deal being formulated between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers that they see as doing little to stop Tehran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon.

“Once the Geneva agreement is signed, the military option will be back on the table. The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” the Times quoted the source as saying.

But on Monday, a Saudi foreign ministry spokesman said the kingdom “has no relations or contacts with Israel of any kind or at any level,” according to state news agency SPA.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in an interview with French daily Le Figaro on Saturday that there is a “meeting of the minds” between Israel and the “leading states in the Arab world” on the Iran issue – “one of the few cases in memory, if not the first case in modern times.”

“We all think that Iran should not be allowed to have the capacities to make nuclear weapons,” he said. “We all think that a tougher stance should be taken by the international community. We all believe that if Iran were to have nuclear weapons, this could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, making the Middle East a nuclear tinderbox.”

Saying that an Iran with nuclear arms would be the most dangerous development for the world since the mid-20th century, and stressing that the “stakes are amazing,” Netanyahu urged the world’s leaders to pay attention “when Israel and the Arabs see eye-to-eye.”

Israel does not have any diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.

Herb Keinon contributed to this report.

Israel Hayom | Israel vexed by reported secret talks between US, Iran.

Jerusalem is concerned Washington will finalize a “soft” nuclear deal with Tehran through secret back channels • Prime Minister Netanyahu to CNN: “If you do a bad deal, you may get to the point where your only option is a military option.”

Israel Hayom | The French connection.

Boaz Bismuth

Speaking during his visit on Sunday, French President François Hollande said exactly what Israel wanted to hear: “We will never agree to Iran possessing a nuclear weapon because this is not only a threat to Israel, but to the whole world.”

In Hebrew, the French president added: “I will always remain a friend of Israel’s.” Perhaps it’s easier now to understand why, just two days before talks in Geneva resume, France remains Israel’s last hope for an acceptable deal.

Jerusalem understands that, at the end of the day, France still wants to sign a deal. And while that deal is definitely not the one that emerged at the latest round of talks in Switzerland, France nonetheless wants a deal where diplomacy trumps the military option, an option raised again on Sunday by one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s closer associates as of late, Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror.

Jerusalem knows the international community wants a deal. So, even if they haven’t admitted it yet, officials in Jerusalem have been hard at work with France and other partners to minimize damage in the next round, especially if the sides come close to inking a deal. The most important thing to Israel now is securing a deal that is slightly less worse.

On Sunday, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on an Israel Hayom poll published last Friday showing that two thirds of Israelis are opposed to the current deal. France understands how it is that “Bibi and Hollande became such good friends so fast,” (Le Parisien).

France’s stubbornness during the previous round in Geneva — which managed, according to French media, to seriously peeve U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry — may have successfully removed the threat of the Arak heavy water reactor, adding that to the deal. But that’s not the only thing.

One wonders what could become of Iran’s 185 kilograms (410 pounds) of 20 percent enriched uranium, which worries the French as well. The French probably will not budge on that issue. There is also Tehran’s demand to continue low-level uranium enrichment, something Iran sees as its legitimate right. Some analysts have said that would be the West’s compensation to Iran within the framework of the current deal. The big question is, compensation for what?

Concluding Hollande’s trip to Israel, we can see four likely French conditions for signing off on a deal with the Iranian negotiators in Geneva. First, Iran must transparently prove that its nuclear program is not for military purposes. Of this, Paris has yet to be convinced. Second, there must be international inspectors monitoring Iran’s nuclear sites. Third, Iran must stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, agreeing to break down its existing stockpiles. And fourth, Iran must stop building the reactor in Arak. Signed, François Hollande.

The Iranians have no choice but to capitulate because they so badly want a deal. A source close to the French foreign minister said he never saw the Iranians so eager to sign an accord. It would be interesting to know how the Iranians managed to overcome their discomfort with allowing international inspectors to scurry around among the Islamic republic’s various nuclear sites.

On Sunday, Netanyahu said Kerry was also expected to visit Israel this week, on Friday. The announcement immediately gave rise to speculation: Is Kerry coming to try and calm Israel down after a deal is already signed? Maybe he’s coming to update Israel on the details of the deal before it is ratified. The cynics say, after a bad deal is signed with the Iranians in Geneva, Kerry will come to Israel to see what else Jerusalem is prepared to concede, this time to the Palestinians in the peace talks.

Ex-IDF intel chief: Regional war unlikely if Israel strikes Iran | The Times of Israel.

Overstating the threat of Iranian retaliation only increases the likelihood of an Israeli attack, Amos Yadlin warns

By Mitch Ginsburg November 18, 2013, 11:47 am

A regional war, coupled with a closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a series of terror attacks — the horror scenario commonly depicted by Western powers if Israel were to launch a limited strike against Iran — is highly unlikely, a former head of military intelligence wrote this week in advance of a third round of nuclear talks between Iran and the six world powers. He also said talk of such a scenario was harmful to global diplomacy and, ironically, increased the likelihood of Israeli military action.

“Those who overestimate the threat of regional escalation damage the credibility of the military option and encourage a situation in which this becomes the only available option for preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” wrote Maj. Gen. (ret) Amos Yadlin, the director of the INSS think tank, and research assistant Avner Golov in a recent issue of Strategic Assessment (PDF).

The comments come amid stiff Israeli criticism of the emerging deal being hammered out between Iran and the so-called P5+1 — the United States, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany — and against the backdrop of recent comments by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s newly retired national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, who told the Financial Times on Sunday that there was “no question” that Israel would be willing to strike Iran unilaterally and that such an attack could set back the Iranian nuclear program “for a very long time.”

Yadlin and Golov described five possible Iranian responses to a strike, ranging from total military restraint to full-blown regional war, and asserted that the most likely scenarios were two gradations of a limited response. The first, “the classic reactive strategy,” would be a tit-for-tat strike in which “a significant number of missiles would be launched from Iran and Lebanon in the direction of Dimona or any other target in Israel perceived as ‘nuclear-associated,’” the two wrote.

A more significant reaction, but one Yadlin and Golov also considered to have “a high likelihood” of being chosen, would include one or two missile volleys at Israeli cities, a strike against Saudi and Western interests in the Gulf, and air and sea suicide missions.

A more robust and deadly response, in which Iran launched dozens of missiles a day against Israeli cities — as a declaration of outrage against the violation of its sovereignty or as a means of deterring Israel from any future action — “would lead to a significant Israeli response and could lead to escalation of the conflict… which could threaten the continued survival of the regime.” So long as a Western strike focused solely on the nuclear program and not wider regime assets, the two wrote, the regime would likely refrain from such a response.

The full-blown regional war scenario, most frequently advanced by Western officials and experts — including former White House counter-terror chief Richard Clarke, who told The Times of Israel in June that on the scale of possible Iranian reactions to an attack, “I’m more on the apocalyptic side” — was both “highly questionable,” the two wrote, and “not grounded in rational evaluation.”

Yadlin accurately envisaged Russian involvement in the Syrian chemical weapons crisis several week in advance of that development in September, and served as head of the IDF’s military intelligence in September 2007 when Israel allegedly risked war by obliterating Syria’s heavy water reactor in Dir a-Zur.

He said that a Western or Israeli attack solely targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities should be seen not as a spark to all-out war, but as an integral part of a comprehensive approach to disarming Iran’s nuclear program. “A strike should be seen as a tool to promote the goal of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons through diplomatic means, to the extent possible,” the paper argued, “and not as a solution in and of itself.”

Israel, the Arabs and Europe after America: Russia’s return to the future | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

“The United States seems no longer to wish to become absorbed by crises that do not align with its new vision of its national interest [isolationist]. Because nobody can take the place of the United States… A strategic void could be created in the Middle East, with widespread perception of Western indecision.” 

(France’s foreign minister Fabius on the implications of America’s retreat)

Almost predicatbly, as things turn south for American Middle East policy “unnamed” administration sources point to Israel as cause. And Israel, unaware that serving as “America’s patsy” is an important role in its “special relationship,” goes defensive. No surprise that now, with America’s regional role a shambles and in rapid decline that Israel is again being blamed for American ineptitude and failure.

According to US Secretary of State John Kerry, if Israel fails to adopt America’s prescription for peace then Israel will be responsible for Intifada-3. And if Israel continues to oppose America’s thinly-disguised “escape in our time” deal with Iran ceding the ayatollahs the bomb, then Israel, not the United States, will be responsible for the Iranian Bomb.

Let’s take a closer look at both accusations.

In the throes of his Syria policy debacle Obama decided that the time is now to try his hand at yet another presidential initiative to resolve the Israel-Palestinian “peace problem.” With his previous such intrusion in 2009 the only result being an apparently complete breakdown in discussions between the parties, several things are likely clear to anyone outside the Beltway with any awareness of the intractability of the issue, a clear warning for amateurs to keep a safe distance. And peace talks as political theatre is at best irresponsible. An American foreign policy analyst recently observed that such “peace talks” are typically not intended to promote the advertised “final settlement,” but to serve to distract from US policy failures. And Syria/Iran surely provides just such an example.

Regarding the Israel-Palestinian issue, both the Palestinian and Israel “street” tend to view such superpower intrusions with hope, and the inevitable disappointment resulting from raised expectations likely as not results in a violent backlash. So it should not surprise that as the present bogus distraction-cum-negotiations are publicly following their usual path to failure that the president is already preparing the ground to lay blame on Israel for yet another Obama failure, and for the violence his diplomatic distraction inspired.

As regards Iran, I can well appreciate the president’s disappointment at finding not just Israel, but France describing his escape at any cost outreach to the ayatollahs as a doorway to a regional nuclear arms race. But true to form it is not France that will be confronted (Kerry asserts the two countries see eye-to-eye!) but the obstinate troublemaker Israel.

One thing should be obvious to this point: whether Obama is pursuing an active policy of retreat at any cost from the Middle East, his back-door deal with Iran providing a continuing nuclear program with cosmetic “pause” rewarded with an American beginning of the end sanctions program after retreating from a presidential threat to Assad is the last straw in American credibility. Regardless how Obama “spins” his behavior, the king stands naked before Arabs and Israel. Whatever the excuse, choice or ineptitude, America is yesterday’s news.

Obama’s Iranian deal has, paradoxically, moved Arab-Israeli “peace” one step along:

“Once the Geneva agreement is signed, the military option will be back on the table. The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs… there is a “meeting of the minds” between Israel and the “leading states in the Arab world.”

And France.

France’s president Hollande and foreign minister Fabius will arrive in Israel on Sunday, 17 October. And while plans for the visit were likely made some time ago the state visit is occurring just days before negotiations with Iran, derailed last week by France, are scheduled to resume. Holland’s visit also happens to be taking place two days before Netanyahu will be meeting with Russia’s president. This confluence of events involving Iran negotiations, France’s opposition, Hollande’s visit and Netanyahu’s meeting with Putin may represent a seismic shift in the balance of power in the Middle East and possibly, as regards the weakened American “superpower,” the world. And it all comes together at the moment the United States has never been less able to impact the events.

Israel and the Sunni Arab states (apparently absent Turkey) have reportedly been closely coordinating policy regarding Iran-after-Obama. The possibility of France becoming an active regional player was not visibly on the table until last week. After the French interventions in Libya and Mali, Hollande has demonstrated his country’s willingness to project power, at least regionally. France, a past ally of Israel before America (all is temporary and determined by changeable “national interests”) has interests in Saudi Arabia, and is chary of six decades of American failures in its previous territories Syria and Lebanon. Eye-to-eye with Israel and the Saudis France is sensitive to the impact of a nuclear Iran, and its resultant regional nuclear arms race. So there are obvious areas of strategic agreement between Israel and France.

And then there is the small matter of the Saudi-engineered rapprochement between Egypt and Russia following Obama threatening Egypt’s military! In addition to seeking assurances from Putin regarding the worrying aspects of the possible weapons deal, Netanyahu’s visit to Moscow, originally centered on the negotiations with Iran will now, representing the Gulf states and France, also try to determine “how far Russia is willing to go to fill the “strategic void” left by America in the Middle East. [Netanyahu] will ask whether Moscow is willing to work ad hoc with Israel, France, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to defeat Obama’s Middle East moves.“

And so the “seismic shift” takes form. The old mindset is that Israel requires its “special relationship” with the United States for security. This understanding is predicated on Israel’s partnership with the superpower in stabilizing the Middle East and reducing the American military footprint necessary to protect its regional interests. This role of “regional stabilizer” is more necessary than ever in the midst of the Islamic Winter. Whoever replaces the United States, and the time has arrived, will still need the Israeli partnership. And while France cannot do so for many reasons, Russia can. And Putin, the master of Realpolitik, certainly recognizes Israel’s value in filling that role.

If there is a surprise in Russia replacing the United States it is not “if,” but the speed at which the US role is unraveling. And France standing up to Obama indicates how quickly Europe also is adapting to the new reality.

Bennett: Israeli objections to Iran nuclear deal paying off | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON, JPOST.COM STAFF

11/18/2013 03:33

Amid PM’s warnings that Israel won’t be bound by a bad agreement with Iran, former national security adviser Yaakov Amidror tells Financial Times that Israel could halt Iran’s nuclear capability “for a very long time.”

The Israeli government’s vocal objections to the proposed interim nuclear deal being mulled by Iran and the Western powers is having a positive effect on the parameters of any future agreement, according to a top minister in Binyamin Netanyahu’s coalition.

Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, who is currently in the United States to lobby pro-Israel supporters on the need for a more robust approach toward the Iranian regime, told Army Radio on Monday that “Israeli opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran is beginning to bear fruit.”

“We want a good deal,” Bennett told Army Radio. “The state of Israel’s goal is to get to an agreement that dismantles Iran’s nuclear machine, and not a deal that simply pushes the pause button for a few months.”

French President Francois Hollande, who is in Israel for a three-day visit, said that France would not surrender to nuclear proliferation and would stand firm by its demands on the Iranians before consenting to an interim agreement. The French leader spelled out at the press conference at the Prime Minister’s Residence what those conditions were.

Hollande said France was demanding that all Iran’s nuclear installations be placed under international controls, the suspension of all uranium enrichment to 20 percent, the reduction of existing stockpiles of enriched uranium, and a complete halt to the construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak.

“These are four points fundamental for an agreement to be reached,” he said.

Amid Netanyahu’s repeated warnings that Israel will not be bound by a “bad” agreement with Iran, former national security adviser Yaakov Amidror said Sunday that Israel has the ability to strike Iran, and is willing to do so alone.

Amidror, in a Financial Times interview obviously timed and placed to send a message to the world, said Israel could halt Iran’s nuclear capability “for a very long time,” and that the air force has conducted “very long-range flights… all around the world” in preparation.

“We are not the United States of America, of course, and believe it or not they have more capabilities than us,” Amidror said. “But we have enough to stop the Iranians for a very long time.

“We are not bluffing,” he said. “We are very serious – preparing ourselves for the possibility that Israel will have to defend itself by itself.”

Amidror said Israel could not, nor would it want to, “count on others to do the job if the others don’t want to do the job.”

Asked how Israel would respond if Hezbollah retaliated by firing missiles and rockets at Israel, Amidror indicated the government would be ready to “use ground forces to go into the urban centers and to deal with the people who are launching the rockets, and to destroy the rockets and launchers.”

Netanyahu: P5+1 Offering Iran ‘Enormous Deal’ – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

‘What leverage will you have when you’ve eased the pressure? It just doesn’t make sense,” he tells CNN, two days before talks resume.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told CNN Sunday that the P5+1 powers have offered Iran “an enormous deal” at the talks on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and that the deal would “let out a lot of pressure” while Iran is “practically giving away nothing” and “making a minor concession which could reverse in weeks.”

The deal would endanger the sanctions regime, he said, while Iran would keep every one of its 18,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium. “They’re not giving up even one centrifuge,” he stressed.

If sanctions are eased, he predicted, “you’re going to get investors, companies and countries scrambling one after the other to get a deal with Iran because economies and prices work on future expectations.”

“If you took all that pressure, all these years to build up the sanctions regime and it’s finally working, it’s finally getting there, and Iran is really…on the ropes, their economy is close to paralysis, and all of a sudden, you take off the pressure, everybody will understand that you’re heading south. You’re going to really be in danger of crumbling the sanctions regime.”

The talks between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran are set to resume Wednesday at Geneva.

Amidror: Israel has the ability to strike Iran, and is willing to do so alone | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

11/18/2013 03:33

Amid Netanyahu’s warnings that Jerusalem will not be bound by a bad agreement with Iran, former national security adviser tells ‘Financial Times’ that Israel could halt Iran’s nuclear capability “for a very long time.”

Amid Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s repeated warnings that Israel will not be bound by a “bad” agreement with Iran, former national security adviser Yaakov Amidror said Sunday that Israel has the ability to strike Iran, and is willing to do so alone.

Amidror, in a Financial Times interview obviously timed and placed to send a message to the world, said Israel could halt Iran’s nuclear capability “for a very long time,” and that the air force has conducted “very long-range flights… all around the world” in preparation.

“We are not the United States of America, of course, and believe it or not they have more capabilities than us,” Amidror said. “But we have enough to stop the Iranians for a very long time.

“We are not bluffing,” he said. “We are very serious – preparing ourselves for the possibility that Israel will have to defend itself by itself.”

Amidror said Israel could not, nor would it want to, “count on others to do the job if the others don’t want to do the job.”

Asked how Israel would respond if Hezbollah retaliated by firing missiles and rockets at Israel, Amidror indicated the government would be ready to “use ground forces to go into the urban centers and to deal with the people who are launching the rockets, and to destroy the rockets and launchers.”

Nuclear deal may sink in Geneva between hardline pressures in Tehran and tough Franco-Israel demands.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 18, 2013, 10:40 AM (IDT)

French President Francois Holland on state visit to Israel

Washington and Moscow may sound upbeat about the prospects of a signed interim deal at the next round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the six powers in Geneva Wednesday, Nov. 20.  However, according to debkafile’s intelligence and Iranian sources, the way ahead is still bristling with mines, more so even than the first round.
Both sides have toughened their positions. In Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif face threats against yielding to Western demands. On the other side, Washington accuses France and Israel of obstructionism to get its proposal removed from the table.
Our Iranian sources have obtained exclusive access to the decision reached early Monday, Nov. 18, at an all-night conference in the bureau of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This meeting delineated Iran’s ultimate line in Geneva as being consent to idle for six months the few thousand new extra-fast IR2 centrifuges enriching uranium up to 20 percent, after which work would resume in full. Tehran draws the line completely at halting construction of the heavy water plant in Arak.

Iran’s leaders are convinced that the “modest’ sanctions offered by Washington – and which the US denies are worth $40 bn as Israel has calculated – can be substantially sweetened when it comes to the point.  The ayatollah, after seeing that the country is broke from the figures shown him by Rouhani and Zarif, accepted the urgency of relaxing banking and financial restrictions, as Zarif had demanded of the Americans. This relaxation alone would put $100 bn in Iran’s coffers. This amount would keep the economy ticking over for a year and give the Islamic regime another lease of life to calm a populace ready to kick back over economic hardships.

About to mark his first 100 days in office, Rouhani badly needs to show he can make good on his pre-election pledges of economic improvements.

Responding to the complaints of hard-liners at home, Foreign Minister Zarif took up a tough negotiating stance in a comment he made Sunday, Nov. 17: “Not only do we consider that Iran’s right to enrich is non-negotiable,” he said, “but we see no need for that to be recognized as a right” because this right is inalienable and all countries must respect that.
Both he and Rouhani fear their own heads will roll if they are shown yielding to the West on uranium enrichment or the reduction of stocks.
Zarif therefore tried his hand at a formula that would not require Iran to renounce enrichment while at the same time obtaining sanctions relief: The two sides will announce an interim accord has been reached in Geneva that covers certain issues and leaves some disputed items unresolved. Implementation must go forward without delay on the agreed items.

The Iranian foreign minister explained to the Obama administration in the quiet bargaining leading up to the formal Geneva conference that a deal must be struck and implemented without delay to head off domestic opposition to any understanding he might conclude with Washington.
Administration officials were about to concede on this point to the Iranian negotiators when they ran into French resistance.

Sunday, Nov. 17, the day he arrived in Israel for a three-day state visit, French President Francois went into conference with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, after which he laid out four points, “which for us are essential to guarantee any agreement:”

1) All of Iranian nuclear installations must be placed under international supervision right now.
2)  20-percent enriched uranium enrichment must be suspended.
3)  Existing stocks must be reduced.
This can only be done by exporting a part of this stock or placing it under international control.

4) Construction of the Arak (heavy water) plant to be halted.
Netanyahu, for his part, criticized the emerging deal, without citing the US role, as a permit for Iran to continue manufacturing enough fissile material for assembling a nuclear bomb at three weeks to 26 days’ notice. A good deal, in his view, would dismantle Iran’s capacity to achieve this quantity of fissile material. He repeated that Israel would not be bound by a bad deal and reserved the right to self defense, by itself.
Yakov Amidror – until recently Netanyahu’s national security adviser – said that the Israeli Air Force had for years been practicing long-range flights in preparation for covering the 2,000km distance to Iran for a potential air strike on its nuclear facilities.

In an interview run by the Financial Times Monday, he said that these drills must show up on any Middle East radar screen. Amidror went on to say: We aren’t America, which obviously has greater capabilities than we do, but we still have sufficient to stall the Iranian program for a long time.
debkafile’s military sources add: Amidror’s remarks followed the latest US intelligence report which evaluates Israel’s capacity in a lone attack on Iran to stall Iran’s nuclear program for seven to 10 years.