Over at the U.S. Israel lobby, the alarms are squawking loudly. There are dangerous signs that negotiators in Vienna are nearing agreement on a new Iran nuclear deal.
The counterattack against these rumblings of peace is already underway. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the front for Israel that masquerades as an independent Washington, D.C., think tank, is already calling a new agreement “a surrender pact.” Over the weekend, Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett told the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that “Israel won’t accept Iran as a nuclear threshold state.” And the New York Times, characteristically, has already published one biased article, which raises objections to the proposed deal without giving its supporters much space to defend it.
Meanwhile, though, the most respected newspaper in Israel, Haaretz, has just editorialized in favor of a new Iran agreement. The Haaretz headline reads, “The Iran nuclear deal isn’t a threat, and Israel must find a new approach.”
Reuters reported today that an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said the Vienna talks have made “significant progress.” Anti-deal advocates are now losing their hope that the hard-line Iranian government elected last June would be intransigent enough to prevent any new agreement. FDD trotted out a “senior fellow,” a former Israeli general named Jacob Nagel, who charged chief U.S. negotiator Rob Malley with making “concessions to the Iranians’ demands” which will result in “an exceedingly problematic deal that will pave a certain path for Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb in the coming years.”
The New York Times report last week was slanted in favor of the deal’s critics. The paper first quoted 2 opponents, including giving four paragraphs to Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who voted against the original 2015 agreement that Donald Trump tore up 3 years later. You had to wait until paragraph 17 to find Democratic senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut endorse a new deal. Buried at the end of the Times report was an all-too-brief but still persuasive pro-deal argument by Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, which to its credit supports a new agreement.
Leave it to the editorial writers at Haaretz to add some sanity to the debate. The Israeli paper noted that Israel had pushed the U.S. to withdraw from the original agreement — but that Iran waited an entire year before starting to violate it. Haaretz recognizes that a new deal “won’t allay all of Israel’s fears.” But it is worth noting that the paper’s staff actually live in Israel, instead of being armchair warriors elsewhere — which gives their editorial conclusion added weight:
Israel’s government must view the agreement with suspicion, participate in the international supervisory effort to ensure that all its provisions are indeed upheld and work to thwart any Iranian threat against Israelis. But when the government views the agreement itself as a threat, it is undermining its aspiration to neutralize the existential threat Iran poses to Israel’s citizens.
Much like everything else with Israel, what it says that it wants and what it is willing to do are two separate worlds.
Israel could have an actual seat at this table, but has decided it doesn’t want ANY deal with Iran to prevent nuclear weapons. Not a good deal, not a bad deal, not a great deal, not a terrible. Simply no deal… EVER!
Does that sound like a rational player that truly doesn’t want Iran to be a nuclear state? Or a refusenik that doesn’t really care one way or the other, because it wants to do whatever it wants whenever it wants, knowing that the US will simply tow the line anyway and go to war, fight, and die, while Israel sits back on a lawn chair, watches, and laughs. Yet again.
If Israel wanted any kind deal or wanted a better deal, it would have picked up the phone decades ago and started to make one. Instead it amassed an ungodly arsenal of its own nukes, while yapping like a dog for nearly 40 years about Iran being a month away from a nuclear weapon. The longest fucking month in history apparently, but whose counting? Right?
1 of 2
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/.premium-the-iran-nuclear-deal-isn-t-a-threat-and-israel-must-find-a-new-approach-1.10624130
“The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t a Threat, and Israel Must Find a New Approach”
Haaretz Editorial. Feb. 21, 2022
“The latest reports on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program have sown fear in the hearts of Israeli decision makers. There has apparently been significant progress in the talks between Iran & the Western powers in Vienna, & they may soon sign a new nuclear agreement. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was quick to warn that ‘two things have happened’ since the original deal was signed in 2015 – ‘the Iranians have made great strides in building their enrichment capability & time has passed. If the world signs the agreement again – without extending the expiration date – then we are talking about an agreement that buys a total of two & a half years, after which Iran can & may develop & install advanced centrifuges, without restrictions.’
“Bennett forgot to mention that Iran began to violate the agreement only about a year after the United States withdrew from it unilaterally in 2018. He also forgot to mention that Israel made a big contribution to that American decision. Israel invested all its diplomatic efforts & military capabilities into torpedoing the agreement before it was signed, & now, it’s complaining that the new agreement will freeze Iran’s nuclear program for too short a time.
“This complaint is inaccurate. The supervision & most of the restrictions will remain in place for many years, & in any case, Iran won’t be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Moreover, had the agreement still been in force, the reduced sanctions & Iran’s increased profits would have made it possible to scrutinize its intentions more seriously, so there would be no need to automatically continue nurturing the idea of an existential threat.” (cont’d)
2 of 2
“After the negotiations with Iran were frozen last June due to the election of a new Iranian president, Israel rushed to market the theory that Iran didn’t intend to return to the negotiating table. When the negotiations did resume, Israel predicted that Tehran would try to buy time & that its goal was to further develop its nuclear program under cover of the talks. Both of these prophecies proved wrong. Iran is negotiating aggressively – & while the negotiations haven’t been free of ups & downs, Tehran has demonstrated seriousness & appears determined to sign a deal.
“If the deal is signed, it won’t allay all of Israel’s fears. Iran will still be able to continue developing ballistic missiles, & it’s not expected to stop supporting Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis in Yemen or militias in Iraq. At the same time, Tehran is seeking to repair its relationships with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates & the other Gulf states that are considered Israeli allies.
“Israel’s government must view the agreement with suspicion, participate in the international supervisory effort to ensure that all its provisions are indeed upheld & work to thwart any Iranian threat against Israelis. But when the government views the agreement itself as a threat, it is undermining its aspiration to neutralize the existential threat Iran poses to Israel’s citizens.”
Iran is not a saintly nation, but Israel looks much worse when you consider the endless attacks on Iran, including getting its terrorists to brutally kill Iranian scientists inside a sovereign nation. Imagine the howls of outrage had Iran killed Israeli scientists inside Israel. Iran would have been attacked, and innocent people would have been killed. Israel has threatened Iran in every way it can, including having their PM stand in front of the world, thump his chest and show cartoon bombs, lying that we were months away from being blasted by Iranian nukes. Bibi (remember him?) has tried to sabotage Obama’s efforts to get that Nuclear deal, even inviting himself to Congress to openly attack Obama and his efforts, and cheered on by his servants in Congress. It was Israel (and Saudi Arabia) who convinced the idiot in chief in the White House, to tear up the nuclear deal, which Iran was complying with.
Instead of supporting the US (like those who receive the most US aid and weapons should do), Israel has been consistently trying to prevent any kind of agreement. DO they want to be the only kid in the block with the shiny toys, or is it insecurity and jealousy that makes them not want Iran to be part of the world community?
While Israeli leaders are acting like drama queens, their IDF officials disagree with them.
“A return to the JCPOA – otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal – is better for Israel than a situation where no agreement is reached, Military Intelligence chief Aharon Haliva said at a meeting of the security cabinet on Sunday, according to Walla.
Haliva elaborated during the meeting, saying that the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program within the framework of the deal are better for Israel than total non-compliance with the agreement, Walla reported.”
As far as I can tell the primary Israeli objection to the agreement is its sunset clause, expiring after 15 years. Indeed that is a short period of time. Couldn’t Obama negotiate something more substantial timewise. (25 or 35 years sounds far more substantial.) In fact the cancellation of the treaty resulted in an immediate threat, not one delayed by any time. So 15 years is better than no years.
It seems to be the opinion of most commenters in this comments section that Iran is a good actor in the region. It seems that every single regime independent of Tehran disagrees.
Mr.North, in your opinion, is Iran a good actor?