Any deal is better than war
The P5+1 and Iran reach the moment of truth on negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. There are plenty of stumbling blocks, not least Israeli intransigence.
5 min read
Iranian students make their point (AFP)
As Monday’s deadline dawns upon us, it is almost certain that the 5+1 talks with Iran aimed at ending its alleged ambition to join the nuclear weapons' club will be extended.
While in public major disagreements centre on how much capacity Iran can retain to make nuclear fuel and how quickly economic sanctions can be suspended, the critical point for closing the deal seems to be the question of how to detect any effort by Iran to covertly develop an atomic bomb.
The United States wants to impose an airtight regime with spelled-out commitments to highly intrusive inspections designed to detect any precursors and/or parts that can supply Iran’s uranium complex.
Washington seems to have made progress in negotiating
with Jawad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister. 'Hardliners' in Tehran, however, fear that such an agreement would open Iran's sky and airwaves in a way that compromises the country's sovereignty.
Since last Tuesday, when this latest round of the 5+1 meetings with Iran began, the US state department has regularly fed the press with background updates. These have generally related to schedules and meetings and mundane status reports, but occasionally they’ve included implicit messages that things were moving forward.
These reports also indicated that US Secretary of State John Kerry has updated Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the status of the talks almost to the minute. But Israel, it seems, finds any deal unacceptable.
The Israeli press reports that while Netanyahu expressed his appreciation to the Americans for keeping him "updated", he showed no flexibility. If anything, he adopted ever less flexibility as the talks appeared to be making progress, or whenever he sensed more Iranian flexibility.
The Jerusalem Post reported early on Sunday that, "Israel has issued a stark, public warning to its allies with a clear argument: Current proposals guarantee the perpetuation of crisis, backing Israel into a corner from which military force against Iran provides the only logical exit."
The paper goes on to say that according to Israeli officials: "Without an exit ramp, Israel insists its hands will not be tied by an agreement reached this week, this month or next, should it contain a clause that ultimately normalizes Iran's home-grown enrichment programme."
However, American negotiators are guided by the erstwhile classified report from the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which concluded that Iran ended its race for a bomb in late 2003, after the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Aforementioned report says: "This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons." It stipulates further: "Rather, it examines the intelligence to assess Iran’s capability and intent (or lack thereof) to acquire nuclear weapons, taking full account of Iran’s dual-use uranium fuel cycle and those nuclear activities that are at least partly civil in nature."
It goes on to say, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment programme and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work."
But Israel insists otherwise, noting that President Barack Obama himself received in his first intelligence briefing in late 2008 (before assuming office on January 20, 2009), evidence until then undisclosed, that Iran was constructing a hidden centrifuge facility deep in a mountain outside the holy city of Qum, capable of withstanding American bombing.
Israeli officials insist that Iran is intent on making a nuclear bomb, and the evidence is that this programme was so secret, that the Obama adminstration only learned about Fordo facility at the end of 2009.
It should be noted that the American intelligence agencies have stuck to the 2007 intelligence assessment (NIE) and never wavered from its authenticity although Israel (and for some odd reason, British intelligence) keep insisting that when they look at the same intelligence, they see different data.
The odd thing about Israel's position is this: Israel says that the Fordo facility is buried so deep in the mountain outside of the Holy city of Qum that not even American Bunker Buster bombs can't reach it, but insists that it should have the right to strike Iran and end it's weapons programme. Ok then, if American bombs are not able to destroy these Iranian capabilities, are we supposed to believe that Israel can?
Another thing. Most experts – and there are so many of them in Washington – say Iran's nuclear programme is scattered over thousands of sites all across the large country. The truth is that Israel wants to keep the world busy with Iran as a ploy so it can continue to do what it is doing in the occupied Palestinian territories. If it can trap the United States in another endless war, one that would require the US to bomb day after day, week after week and month after month, etc., so much the better.
Fredrick Kagan, a rightwing analyst with the rightwing American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and a first rate defender of the Likud, told the US senate early last summer that sanctions should not be lifted even if Iran is proven not to pursue nuclear weapons.
He said: "The nuclear issue is at the core of America’s current policy concern with Iran, but it is at the periphery of Iran’s strategic calculus. The rational explanation for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is the desire to be able to deter an American or Israeli attack on Iran once and for all."
He added: "Iran’s nuclear programme is meant to be a strategic enabler, not a strategy unto itself."
Although the news from Vienna has consistently conveyed a message of progress, the message from Israel, which has determinedly tried to undo any deal throughout, has been typically consistent in designating any talks with Iran will necessarily mean 'rewarding Iran and abandoning Israel'.
As those negotiating a deal on Iran's nuclear future get to the moment of truth, they should realize that any deal is better than dropping bombs and starting yet another endless American war in Southwest Asia.
It doest not hurt to keep in mind that Iran is the most stable country in the Middle East, with serious democratic elements in among its theocracy.
While in public major disagreements centre on how much capacity Iran can retain to make nuclear fuel and how quickly economic sanctions can be suspended, the critical point for closing the deal seems to be the question of how to detect any effort by Iran to covertly develop an atomic bomb.
The United States wants to impose an airtight regime with spelled-out commitments to highly intrusive inspections designed to detect any precursors and/or parts that can supply Iran’s uranium complex.
Washington seems to have made progress in negotiating
 |
If American bombs are not able to destroy these Iranian capabilities, are we supposed to believe that Israel can? |
Since last Tuesday, when this latest round of the 5+1 meetings with Iran began, the US state department has regularly fed the press with background updates. These have generally related to schedules and meetings and mundane status reports, but occasionally they’ve included implicit messages that things were moving forward.
These reports also indicated that US Secretary of State John Kerry has updated Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the status of the talks almost to the minute. But Israel, it seems, finds any deal unacceptable.
The Israeli press reports that while Netanyahu expressed his appreciation to the Americans for keeping him "updated", he showed no flexibility. If anything, he adopted ever less flexibility as the talks appeared to be making progress, or whenever he sensed more Iranian flexibility.
The Jerusalem Post reported early on Sunday that, "Israel has issued a stark, public warning to its allies with a clear argument: Current proposals guarantee the perpetuation of crisis, backing Israel into a corner from which military force against Iran provides the only logical exit."
The paper goes on to say that according to Israeli officials: "Without an exit ramp, Israel insists its hands will not be tied by an agreement reached this week, this month or next, should it contain a clause that ultimately normalizes Iran's home-grown enrichment programme."
However, American negotiators are guided by the erstwhile classified report from the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which concluded that Iran ended its race for a bomb in late 2003, after the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Aforementioned report says: "This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons." It stipulates further: "Rather, it examines the intelligence to assess Iran’s capability and intent (or lack thereof) to acquire nuclear weapons, taking full account of Iran’s dual-use uranium fuel cycle and those nuclear activities that are at least partly civil in nature."
It goes on to say, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment programme and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work."
But Israel insists otherwise, noting that President Barack Obama himself received in his first intelligence briefing in late 2008 (before assuming office on January 20, 2009), evidence until then undisclosed, that Iran was constructing a hidden centrifuge facility deep in a mountain outside the holy city of Qum, capable of withstanding American bombing.
Israeli officials insist that Iran is intent on making a nuclear bomb, and the evidence is that this programme was so secret, that the Obama adminstration only learned about Fordo facility at the end of 2009.
It should be noted that the American intelligence agencies have stuck to the 2007 intelligence assessment (NIE) and never wavered from its authenticity although Israel (and for some odd reason, British intelligence) keep insisting that when they look at the same intelligence, they see different data.
The odd thing about Israel's position is this: Israel says that the Fordo facility is buried so deep in the mountain outside of the Holy city of Qum that not even American Bunker Buster bombs can't reach it, but insists that it should have the right to strike Iran and end it's weapons programme. Ok then, if American bombs are not able to destroy these Iranian capabilities, are we supposed to believe that Israel can?
Another thing. Most experts – and there are so many of them in Washington – say Iran's nuclear programme is scattered over thousands of sites all across the large country. The truth is that Israel wants to keep the world busy with Iran as a ploy so it can continue to do what it is doing in the occupied Palestinian territories. If it can trap the United States in another endless war, one that would require the US to bomb day after day, week after week and month after month, etc., so much the better.
Fredrick Kagan, a rightwing analyst with the rightwing American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and a first rate defender of the Likud, told the US senate early last summer that sanctions should not be lifted even if Iran is proven not to pursue nuclear weapons.
He said: "The nuclear issue is at the core of America’s current policy concern with Iran, but it is at the periphery of Iran’s strategic calculus. The rational explanation for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is the desire to be able to deter an American or Israeli attack on Iran once and for all."
He added: "Iran’s nuclear programme is meant to be a strategic enabler, not a strategy unto itself."
Although the news from Vienna has consistently conveyed a message of progress, the message from Israel, which has determinedly tried to undo any deal throughout, has been typically consistent in designating any talks with Iran will necessarily mean 'rewarding Iran and abandoning Israel'.
As those negotiating a deal on Iran's nuclear future get to the moment of truth, they should realize that any deal is better than dropping bombs and starting yet another endless American war in Southwest Asia.
It doest not hurt to keep in mind that Iran is the most stable country in the Middle East, with serious democratic elements in among its theocracy.
Follow the Middle East's top stories in English at The New Arab on Google News
More In Analysis
