WarSclerotic

Barack Obama, John Kerry and their aspirations | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

Ira Sharkansky

One cannot help but be impressed with the focus of the Obama administration with the Middle East, despite expectations that the region would be left to its own miserable self.

Both Kerry and Obama have spent time with the Saban Forum, trying again to convince Jewish doubters about Iran and Palestine.

Kerry has come eight times as Secretary of State.

Talks with the Palestinians ought to be described as the Kerry talks, given his role in getting them started, his tireless prodding of the principals, and his persistent claims of progress.

Each visit has involved repeated meetings with Netanyahu, Abbas, and other ranking Israelis and Palestinians.

We have not heard the term “shuttle.”.

One reason may be to down play the anticipations associated with its use by Henry Kissinger, and his successes.

A more profound reason may lie in the hopelessness of the present talks. Kissinger was dealing with established governments, whose leaders could make agreements and discipline their underlings to go along. That only marks one of the sides in these conversations. The Palestinians are troubled not only by Gaza, but their dependence on who knows how many competitive leaders of Muslim countries and enough internal squabbles in the tiny West Bank to make national leadership and discipline something to dream about, and unlikely to achieve anytime soon, if at all.

Why the American obsession with these talks at this time, when Israel and Palestine comprise such a small part of the State Department’s responsibilities, and clearly offer no key to the region?

The violence not concerned with Palestine in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt, and the Shiite-Sunni conflict focused on Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States would seem to preclude any Palestinian daring to concede anything toward Israel, for fear of being abandoned by one or all of its patrons who provide political support and cash for Palestinian public services and the overseas bank accounts of well connected Palestinians

The issue of Palestine is worn out as a slogan among Muslims much busier killing one another. The Lebanese and Syrian hosts of those who have been calling themselves refugees for 65 years are more than tired of their role. Palestinian communities have been suffering at least as much as any other ethnic cluster in Syria and Lebanon. The current Egyptian regime has declared that the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are its enemies, and have shut the gates to any movement out of Gaza to  Egypt.

Explanations for the American fascination with Palestine include associations with mystical attractions of the Holy Land, the power of Muslim governments in international forums, and Americans’ continued acceptance of what others seem to be ignoring while fighting one another, i.e., the centrality of the Palestinian issue as the way to produce stability in the Middle East.

This is not a field for hard science. We can identify the elements likely to stimulate American passions, without being  certain about the weight of each.

Kerry wants to talk about moving along the talks about Palestine. This time he has come with proposals, or more vague ideas said to be put together by 160 American experts. One cannot use the term “American proposal” without ratcheting up opposition to any “dictates.”

Netanyahu wants to hear only about Iran.

President Obama has estimated that there is a 50 percent chance of success coming out of the Geneva agreement to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

He may already have a speech conceding his failure, which he may deliver on a golf course a year or two into retirement. “Gee, folks, I tried my best. One can never be certain about these things. But the chances associated with diplomacy are always more desirable than the chances associated with war.”

Among the ideas about Palestine that have leaked out are an American proposal to put foreign troops in the Jordan Valley. There is a retired American general who is certain about his capacity to assure Israel’s security.

Israelis are less than enthusiastic. We know the record of foreign troops after Lebanon II, and the more distant history of the Sinai and Nasser. Various Palestinians have already rejected the idea, but Mahmoud Abbas has talked about the possibility of accepting NATO troops, while rejecting any idea of Israeli troops remaining in what he claims for Palestine.

Courtesy, and even mutual praise has been more apparent at the latest Kerry-Netanyahu meeting than the previous instance of icy disagreement and no photo-op handshake. The Prime Minister expressed his hope that negotiations would deal with the Iranian threat, and Kerry conceded the Israelis’ right to be suspicious and critical of what has been agreed to so far.

At the same time as Kerry was saying “trust us on Iran,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was visiting Gulf States with the same message.

One should not exaggerate the level of confidence in American efforts by calling it “low,” either in Jerusalem or among the Sunni Muslim rulers.

While the American chief diplomat has been in Jerusalem, the Israeli chief diplomat has been in Washington.

That by itself suggests a lack of optimism about anything coming out of these talks with the Palestinians.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has been careful to preserve his new found image of moderation. He has not damned talks with the Palestinians as a waste of time, but has expressed the view that they are not likely to solve everything and produce a final agreement. He has said that it is important to keep talking. He has left the door open to progress, and something like another interim agreement. Yet his presence in the US while the supposed action is in Jerusalem and Ramallah is not encouraging.

Lieberman said that the issue of trust between Israelis and Palestinians is more important than the substance of refugees or security. His bottom line is damning by any interpretation. “Now the level of trust is at zero.”

Tzipi Livni may describe herself as hard at work and moving along with the Palestinians, but she labors under the stain of the Lebanese cease fire she negotiated, which has allowed massive shipments of munitions to Hezbollah. This time she is being kept on a leash, with an aide of Netanyahu sitting in all the discussions.

None of the ranking Palestinians or Israelis want to say an overt No to John Kerry who has worked so hard, ostensibly in their behalf. However, many of the Palestinians view Kerry as an Israeli lackey, while Israelis view him and his boss as naive on Palestine and on Iran.

All told, it is not a time to expect much. Except perhaps for yet another Kerry statement about progress. In private he may be kicking a wastebasket or yelling at an underling.

Engaging With Iran Means a More Violent Middle East – Tablet Magazine.

Last week’s assassination of Hezbollah commander Hassan Laqqis in Beirut was a taste of what may come

By Lee Smith|December 11, 2013 12:00 AM

Iran pushes for Saudi isolation in the Gulf amid military buildup in Hormuz.

DEBKAfile DEBKA Weekly December 10, 2013, 10:03 PM (IDT)

The three Iranian-occupied islands claimed by UAE

Two landmark events in the Persian Gulf this week attested to Tehran’s confidence that it has escaped the threat of a military clash with the US and Israel over its nuclear program – certainly in the Persian Gulf. By the same token, Iran is no longer threatening to block the Straits of Hormuz to Gulf oil exports in reprisal for this attack.

One of those events, as noted by debkafile’s military and Gulf sources, is the rapid détente between Tehran and the United Arab Emirates. Tuesday, Dec. 10, unnamed Gulf officials announced that Iran and the UAE were close to an agreement for the return to the Emirates of three Iranian-occupied islands in the Arabian Gulf.

The other event was the conspicuous absence of Oman’s Sultan Qaboos from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit taking place in Kuwait this week.

The Sultan has been a live wire in the back-channel dialogue between President Barack Obama and President Hassan Rouhani, which led up to the Geneva interim accord on Iran’s nuclear program last month. His absence told GCC members that Oman had chosen to stand aside from Saudi dictates for the approval of anti-Iranian resolutions that would derail the deals struck between the US and Iranian presidents. GCC resolutions must be unanimous.
Muscat and Washington were undoubtedly in accord on this step.
In sum, two of the most influential GCC members, the UAE and Oman, have set out on an independent path toward Tehran without regard for Saudi wishes or interests.
They were talked round into isolating Saudi Arabia by Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, during his two-day tour of the Gulf emirates last week.

The three islands at issue, Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb, located in the mouth of the Strait of Hormus (see attached map) were seized by Iran in 1971, during the reign of the Shah. The UAE has consistently claimed they are sovereign territory and demanded their return.

Our military sources report that the Islamic Republic of Iran never heeded that demand and instead, its Revolutionary Guards established on Abu Mussa large naval, air force and missile bases. Deployed there are 500 mostly short-range shore-to-sea missiles capable of blocking Hormuz to shipping, including oil tankers.
According to our sources, Tehran is willing to discuss sharing the disputed islands’ future with the UAE, but not to dismantle is military bases on Abu Mussa or evacuate military personnel.

The make this point clear, over Iran has just shipped 10 SU-25 Frogfoot assault planes capable of ground and sea attack to the island air base.

These warplanes are the backbone of the Revolutionary Guards Corps Aerospace Force.
A US military spokesman Sunday, Dec. 8, confirmed their arrival on Abu Musa, but declined to answer questions about a possible American response to the new Iranian military movements in the most sensitive part of the Persian Gulf.

The UAE also refrained from protest while carrying on negotiating with Tehran on the future of the islands. The Emirates are obviously determined to reach an understanding with Iran – not just on the three islands but also over the vast gas reserves under their waters.

Iran claims to have improved missile accuracy | The Times of Israel.

Defense minister says that surface-to-surface missiles can now strike within two meters of target

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI December 9, 2013, 6:48 pm

A military exhibition displays the Shahab-3 missile under a picture of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran, in 2008. (photo credit: AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran has dramatically improved the accuracy of its ballistic missiles by using laser systems, its defense minister said Monday.

In comments broadcast on state TV, Hossein Dehghan said Iranian missiles can now strike within two meters (approximately 2.9 yards) of their targets, compared to 200 meters (about 219 yards) previously.

“The inaccuracy of (our) ballistic long-range missiles in hitting targets is so minimal that we can pinpoint targets. The accuracy of surface-to-surface missiles is now two meters, while at some stage in the past it was 200 meters. We strive to reach zero inaccuracy,” Dehghan said. The remarks were also posted on his ministry’s website.

Iran frequently announces breakthroughs in military technology that are impossible to independently verify. But the Pentagon released a rare public report last June noting significant advances in Iranian missile technology, acknowledging that the Islamic Republic has improved the accuracy and firing capabilities of its missiles.

Many of Iran’s missiles use solid fuel, or a combination of both solid and liquid fuel, improving the accuracy of the weapons.

Iran has a variety of missiles, some with a reported range of 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles), enough to reach much of the Middle East. Military commanders have described them as a strategic asset and a strong deterrent, capable of hitting US bases or Israel in the event of a strike on Iran.

Commanders said Iran’s capability of firing multiple missiles within seconds is another technological achievement by Iran’s military. They say this would create a challenge for the US or Israel to intercept incoming missiles should a war break out.

Iran unveiled several underground missile silos in 2011. Revolutionary Guard commanders say the medium- and long-range missiles stored in them are ready to launch in case of an attack on Iran. Such sites are harder to detect and can arm faster than missiles outdoors.

Iran’s military leaders believe future wars will be air- and sea-based. Tehran has sought to upgrade its missile and air defense systems as well as naval power in anticipation of such a possibility.

Iran considers both the United States and Israel as potential adversaries. Neither country has ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, which they say could have a military dimension. Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes.

Israel is about 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) away from Iran’s western borders, while the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, some 200 kilometers (120 miles) from Iranian shores in the Persian Gulf.

Iran’s military leaders have said Israel would “disappear from the Earth” if it attacks Iran. Guard commanders have also warned that at least 35 American military bases in the Middle East are within Iran’s missile range and would be destroyed within seconds after any US attack on Iran.

Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a US weapons embargo. Since 1992, it has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles, torpedoes, drones and fighter planes.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

Articles: Saudis to Obama: We Will Not Tolerate a Nuclear Iran.

By Karin McQuillan

Egypt Kills Terrorist Behind Eilat Rocket Attack – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Eilat

Egyptian sources said Monday night that Egyptian Army soldiers had eliminated Ibrahim Abu Atiyeh, a terrorist belonging to the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar Beit al-Makdis terror group. Abu Atiyeh was a leader of the group, which has claimed responsibility for a recent rocket attack on Eilat in August. Abu Atiyeh  was killed in a shootout with Egyptian soldiers in northern Sinai.

The group has been at odds with Eypt’s new military government, and has attempted to kill Egyptian officials, including the country’s interior minister.

Three people suffered shock from the rocket attack on the city of Eilat that took place in the early hours of August 17. The Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted the rocket before it could do damage to the city, but sirens went off, waking residents from their slumber and frightening tourists at the height of the summer season.

A defiant Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said at the time that he considered the attack a one-off attack.

“Right now we do not see a concrete warnings” of further attacks, he said, adding that that terrorists based in the Sinai Peninsula may try to stir up trouble but that the Israel Defense Force is ready and prepared for any scenario.

Americans dislike Obama’s Iran deal.

By Jennifer Rubin

Secretary of State John Kerry (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)

Politicians should not run foreign policy by polls. Voters often hold contradictory views (e.g. don’t tolerate weapons of mass destruction, but don’t act against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad). Moreover, foreign policy is not central to most people’s lives and, it is fair to say, they take less interest in the subject. For this reason, leadership is particularly important when it comes to informing and rallying the public in support of national security objectives. The president has a lot to do — both positive and negative — in shaping the public’s willingness to sacrifice for sometimes indirect national security benefits.

Therefore, it is significant that the public, despite the administration’s efforts to appease Iran, remains uncomfortable with his approach. USA Today reports:

The White House and Iran face an uphill selling job to convince Americans to embrace the interim nuclear pact negotiated with Tehran last month, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds.

In the survey, taken Tuesday through Sunday, 32% approve of the agreement and 43% disapprove. One in four either refuse to answer or say they don’t know enough to have an opinion.

By more than 2-1, 62%-29%, those who have heard something about the accord say Iranian leaders aren’t serious about addressing international concerns about their country’s nuclear program.

The American people remember the hostage crisis and understand all too well that Iran is out to eradicate Israel. They may be “war weary,” but they are not suckers, and they know enough to be wary. The partisan breakdown is interesting: “Democrats were the most supportive of the agreement: By 50%-27%, they approved.  Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it —  14% approved, 58% disapproved — and 72% of Tea Party Republicans disapproved. Independents were divided 29%-47%.” The lackluster support even from Democrats reveals a limit to their partisan loyalty to the president. Republican and independent aversion is in line with those groups’ support more generally for the Jewish state.

So what does this mean? To begin with, the president’s decline in credibility is not limited to domestic policy. The lack of public support and his ineffectiveness in shifting public opinion suggest that lawmakers may be emboldened to follow their conscience and good sense. Congress is traditionally closer to public opinion on foreign policy (e.g. sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s, anti-communism in the Cold War). So critics of the deal will and should focus their efforts on Congress, which could prevent a rotten deal legitimizing Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Iran’s threats to call off the “deal” (not actually concluded) if Congress passes sanctions contingent on Iran’s noncompliance or refusal to enter into a final deal are entirely predictable. Iran has figured out it can “play” the Obama administration and threaten the collapse of the talks when we displease the mullahs. (Hence the folly of “containment” even before Iran has a bomb.) Congress now needs to make clear neither the American people nor their elected lawmakers will be blackmailed.

US in quiet talks with Hizballah as Syrian rebels lose Qalamoun strongholds in crushing defeat.

Funeral in Beirut of Hizballah officer Ali Bazzi killed in Syria

The conquest Sunday, Dec. 8, of Nabuk in the Qalamoun Mountains on the Syrian-Lebanese border is a signal strategic breakthrough for Bashar Assad’s army, climaxing a row of battleground successes that have cast the rebel forces in deep disarray. Nabuk fell after a two-week siege by the combined forces of Syria, Hizballah, Iraqi Shiite units and the Iranian Al Qods Brigades. The Qalamoun range which separates central Syria from central Lebanon is at their mercy.

Assad and his allies, Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, can chalk up four major war gains:

1. The highway from Damascus to Syria’s two port towns, Latakia and Tartus on the Mediterranean coast, is now open through the wayside town of Homs.
2.  The last remaining rebel supply routes from Lebanon are cut off. Syrian rebels can no longer use Lebanon as a supply base for reinforcements and new recruits or as a destination for their casualties to receive treatment.
3. The Damascus-Beirut highway is now wholely under Hizballah control, providing its Beirut headquarters vitally direct access to the forces posted to Damascus, and easing liaison and communications among Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah military units in the field.
4.  Pushing the rebels out of their Qalamoun strongholds was the last step before loosening their two-year grip on the eastern suburbs of Damascus. Under relentless Syrian army siege, many rebel commanders holding on to those suburbs are crossing the lines and handing sectors over to Syrian army officers.

The Assad regime has reached a stage in the civil war at which the rebels no longer pose a military threat to his hold on power and have lost the capacity for more more than terrorist attacks or sporadic mortar shelling.

The Syrian rebel movement has lost its coherence as a fighting force. In desperation, they are releasing a stream of false claims of successes and unfounded accusations that Assad has reverted to chemical warfare.

debkafile’s sources have also established that there is no truth in rebel assertions that they had written guarantees from the United States and European governments that Bashar Assad would not remain in power after the Geneva II to be convened next month for a political solution of the Syrian conflict.

Since the only anti-Assad forces still in fighting shape are the two Al Qaeda affiliates, Jabhat al Nusra and the Iraqi branch, Washington is turning its back on the Syrian rebel movement as a whole and instead ready to talk indrectly to Syrian army elements loyal to Assad as well as Hizballah.

For the first time in the 1,000-day civil war, the Americans find themselves in greater sympathy with Russia, Iran, Assad and Hizballah than the rebel cause.

Indeed, in consideration of Hizballah’s military kudos and rising political clout in Beirut, the Obama administration has opened up a back channel to its leaders, mostly through British diplomats.

It turns out that the same coalition which contrived the nuclear deal in Geneva on Nov. 24 – the US, Russia and Iran – is going into action again on the Syrian issue with a favored spot for Iran’s Lebanese Shiite pawn
Hizballah is meanwhile paying dear for its battleground exploits as witnessed in the daily funerals of Hizballah commanders and fighters who died in the Syria war – the last was Ali Bazzi from the south Lebanese town of Bin Jbeil who was laid to rest on Monday, Dec. 9.
Nasrallah needs his gift of the gab more than ever before to answer constant complaints from his followers and demands to understand the rationale by which their best commanders had to lay down their lives for a foreign cause on an alien battlefield.

They don’t buy his argument that their intervention in the Syrian war defended Lebanon against its spillover.

They may change their tune when Lebanese Shiites, along with their Iranian masters, discover that the Syrian wheel has turned again and the United States and other big powers are distancing themselves from the rebel side of the war and beginning to favor Assad and his allies, namely Iran and Hizballah.

Ya’alon: Iran building terror infrastructure to strike US | The Times of Israel.
Defense minister warns of danger posed by Iran’s terror cells in Central and South America, and of the regime’s global aspirations

By Mitch Ginsburg December 9, 2013, 6:30 pm

Ya’alon, right, with Molina in Jerusalem on Monday (Photo credit: Ariel Hermoni/ Ministry of Defense)

Iran has built an infrastructure of terror in Central and South America in order to, among other goals, target Israelis and Jews there and have a base from which to attack the US, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Monday.

Ya’alon, meeting with Guatemalan President Otto Fernando Perez Molina, himself a former director of military intelligence, warned that Iran, which operates the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah as a proxy, was using diplomatic cover to spread terror in the Western Hemisphere.

“The Iranians use diplomatic mail [pouches] in order to transport bombs and weapons, and we know that there are states in South America, like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia, where the Iranian have terror bases, both in the embassies and among the local Shiite Muslim populations,” Ya’alon said.

“They built this infrastructure for the eventuality that they will have to act against Jews, Israelis or Israeli interests, but it is important to them as an infrastructure that enables them to act within the United States,” he added.

Ya’alon cited a the recent foiling of an Iranian plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, and said the country was using drug smuggling routes to sneak weapons into the US.

The comments came amid a US détente with Iran that led, in November, to an interim deal that paused but did not disable the country’s nuclear program. The US and Israel disagree both on the terms of a permanent agreement and the nature and significance of Iran’s recent warming to the West.

Meeting with Molina earlier in the day, Netanyahu called for the international community to clamp down on Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities, reiterating a demand made the night before in an address to the Saban Forum in Washington.

“Here’s what this means: no enrichment, no centrifuges, no heavy water reactor, no weapons program, no ballistic missiles and a change in Iran’s policies — no genocide against Israel, no terrorist support, no undermining of regimes in the Middle East,” he said, according to a statement from his office.

Molina told Netanyahu that his country shared concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.

“It is a tradition for Guatemala, we have always been in favor of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, both in Latin America as well as in the rest of the world, and we hope that this concern that we can see today, which is a great threat to the State of Israel, will find a resolution as soon as possible,” he said, according to the statement.

Ya’alon, who has been in lockstep with Netanyahu on Iran, said that the global terror infrastructure is indicative of the regime’s aspirations. The regime, he said, is willing to go to great lengths in order to spread the Islamic revolution around the world. In the Middle East, he said, Iran supports whoever seeks to harm Israel or the West.

“Their goal is regional and global hegemony, today through terror and subversiveness. That’s why they want a nuclear bomb, both in order to protect the regime and as a nuclear security policy that will allow them to accelerate their diplomatic subversiveness,” he said. “This is a threat to the stability of the world, and therefore we insist that one way or another it’s impermissible for them to get the bomb.”

Stuart WIner contributed to this report.

Iran knows there is ‘almost no’ chance of strike, ex-top adviser says | The Times of Israel.

Geneva deal delegitimized military action, says Netanyahu’s recently retired top security adviser; adding that Tehran is unbending in its aim to destroy Israel

By Raphael Ahren December 9, 2013, 7:44 pm

ATHENS –  The interim deal reached in Geneva last month between Iran and six world powers has drastically reduced the likelihood of military intervention to thwart the rogue Iranian nuclear program,  Israel’s former national security adviser said Monday.

A military strike has been “almost delegitimized” by the deal, and Tehran knows that the likelihood of military intervention now “is almost zero,” Yaakov Amidror said, addressing European Jewish leaders in the Greek capital.

Amidror also rejected US President Barack Obama’s suggestion Saturday that Iran, “like any country” could “change over time,” positing that the destruction of Israel is one of the Iranian regime’s key goals, for ideological and religious reasons, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

However, it is in Jerusalem’s interest to see the Iranian nuclear standoff resolved diplomatically, since Israel will be the country to feel the heat of retaliation if the Islamic Republic were attacked, he said. But the alacrity with which the US and five other world powers struck the interim deal with Iran weakened the position of the international community for the upcoming talks of a comprehensive settlement, Amidror warned.

Asked by The Times of Israel whether Israel might be reconciled to Iran retaining what Obama called “some modest enrichment capability” under stringent international supervision in a final agreement, Amidror would not be drawn. “The answer is that we will have to decide,” he said. “I’m not answering theoretical questions.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday told the Saban Forum that a permanent accord needed to ensure the complete “termination” of Iran’s military nuclear capacity. A day earlier, in remarks to the same forum, Obama said he could “envision an end state that gives us an assurance that even if they have some modest enrichment capability, it is so constrained and the inspections are so intrusive that they, as a practical matter, do not have breakout capacity.”

Amidror, a retired general who dealt mostly with military intelligence, headed the Israel National Security Council until last month.

Giving his assessment of the Iranian leadership’s attitude to Israel, he said: “It’s not a game. Those people really believe that Israel doesn’t not have the right and the legitimacy to be an independent state in the Middle East.”

Speaking to delegates of the European Jewish Congress, holding its annual executive meeting in the Greek capital, Amidror added: “It’s not only [rhetoric intended] for the Iranian population; it’s not for elections. They really believe Israel should not exist. And this is the source of all these problems. The belief of those people, who are leading now Iran, that Israel should not exist. Everything other than that is tactics.”

Israel is acutely alarmed by the Iranian threat precisely because it understands that this is the mindset of the regime, he went on. “The elimination of Israel is one of the great, important strategies of the Iranians, and this the main problem when we’re dealing with this issue. It is based on their religious belief and this is something that I don’t see changing in the years ahead.”

Amidror reiterated Jerusalem’s criticism of the interim deal with Iran, which partially freezes the nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief. For a start, he said, the agreement was bad because the P5+1 countries had shown that they wanted to sign it more than the Iranians did. “That’s a very important factor for the next stage of the negotiations: When you negotiate with someone you know is more eager to have an agreement than yourself, you’re in a better position during the negotiations.”

The deal also “almost delegitimized” a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Amidror posited. “So, everyone says ‘all options are on the table,’ but it is well understood in Tehran that the chance that the other options will be taken is almost zero.”

He added: If the Iranians see that the other side is more eager to have an agreement, and that the other [military] option practically does not exist, that means that the P5+1 lost the best leverage that they have against the Iranians, and they are coming to the next stage of the negotiations in a weaker position than in the first stage.”

Talks on a permanent accord are supposed to start when the interim deal takes effect, and to last six months. However, the interim deal has not yet taken effect because “technical issues” relating to its implementation are still being negotiated.

Amidror added: “I want to be very clear. It is the interest of the state of Israel [for the international community] to have a good agreement with the Iranians. A good agreement means an agreement in which it will be clear that the Iranians cannot [attain] nuclear capability. But this [interim] agreement does not even hint towards this direction.”

If anyone — even the US — attempted to attack Iran’s nuclear site, Israel “will be the only one that will have to deal with the real capability of the Iranians,” he said, referring to potential Iranian military retaliation.

The Iranians know it would be a mistake to act against US interests in the Persian Gulf or elsewhere, because they don’t have the military means to severely damage such targets, he said. “What they have is Hezbollah, which might be used — will be used — against Israel.”