Skip to comments.Israel canít accept the emerging US-Iran accord (Is war near?)
Posted on 04/24/2014 1:32:00 PM PDT by Dave346
Ostensibly, official US policy on Irans nuclear program is clear: The US will not allow Iran to produce a nuclear bomb. Moreover, US President Barack Obama has said that, for this purpose, all options are on the table implying a military option as well. In addition, according to many reports in American newspapers, Obama has ordered the development of diversified US military capabilities with which to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, far beyond what existed in the previous administration providing further evidence of the presidents seriousness.
But many people do not understand the meaning behind the vague statement, We will not allow Iran to manufacture a nuclear bomb. When will this happen? Who will decide that this is the time for action? How? What does manufacture mean? Robert Einhorn seeks to answer these questions in a 56-page comprehensive paper, just published by the Brookings Institution, titled Preventing a Nuclear-Armed Iran: Requirements for a Comprehensive Nuclear Agreement.
This paper cannot be ignored, since until a few months ago Einhorn was one of the top officials on Iran in the Obama administration, and he is very knowledgeable on the topic. (Einhorn was the secretary of states special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control. During the Clinton administration, he was assistant secretary for nonproliferation.) In addition to analyzing Irans intentions toward nuclear weapons and discussing the principal issues in the negotiations, Einhorn outlines the key requirements for an acceptable comprehensive agreement that, in his view, would prevent Iran from having a rapid nuclear breakout capability and deter a future Iranian decision to build nuclear weapons.
According to Einhorn, the essence of an agreement between Iran and the P5+1 could be as follows: Iran will retain the capability to produce the material necessary for a bomb (full fuel cycle), so theoretically it will be able to produce a bomb should it decide to do so. But the agreement that the US should try to reach will include the most sophisticated and exacting controls and monitoring, which will immediately spot any breakthrough in Irans nuclear program. The capability that Iran will be permitted under the agreement will be greatly reduced compared with its current capability (for example, far fewer centrifuges), so that from the moment of the breach and its identification, the US will have enough time to respond with very severe sanctions, and with force too, if necessary.
In order to dissuade the Iranians from advancing toward a bomb, it will be made clear to them by various means that Iran will pay a heavy price for violating the agreement, and that the US will respond quickly in the event of a violation to prevent any possibility of the Iranians reaping the rewards of the violation.
Einhorn proposes a new world of deterrence not against the use of nuclear weapons, but against producing nuclear weapons. This deterrence is needed because this approach would permit the Iranians to keep the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. The West (and Israel) will have to live with this Iranian production capability, because it is a fact that, Einhorn says, cannot be change.
In short, violating the agreement will be cause for penalizing Iran, not the fact that Iran will have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon.
In my opinion, Israel should oppose such an agreement for three reasons.
The proposal assumes that it will be possible to build a control and monitoring system that the Iranians wont be able to deceive. This system will be partly built on the basis of monitoring arrangements agreed to by the Iranians, stricter than what the International Atomic Energy Agency currently carries out; and partly based on covert intelligence efforts that have been in place for many years.
However, the reality in other places as well as Iran itself indicates that there is no such thing as a monitoring system that cannot be sidestepped. There is no way to guarantee that the world will spot Irans efforts to cheat. American intelligence officials have publicly admitted that they cannot guarantee identification in real time of an Iranian breakout move to produce a nuclear weapon.
The Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans, and North Koreans, just like the Iranians, succeeded in tricking the world and concealing large parts of their system for building nuclear capabilities for a very long time. Israel, too, failed to discover these nuclear programs for a long time. In each of these cases, there are specific reasons how and why the West did not see what was happening. But the accumulation of cases forces the assessment that Iran, too, will be able to deceive the West even after signing a monitoring agreement, and in my opinion is likely to do so, with a high degree of probability.
Assuming that a violation of a nuclear agreement is identified, will the US respond immediately or begin a plodding process to clarify, verify, and confirm the alleged violation? Afterward, wont the US, with or without its P5+1 partners, enter into negotiations with Iran about the situation? Would not the US, in line with international practice, compromise under the new circumstances? Such compromise can be expected to further facilitate slow but steady progress of the Iranian nuclear effort, to the point where it will be completely impossible to stop Irans program.
Anyone who thinks that a US administration would respond immediately to an Iranian agreement violation, without negotiations, is deluding himself. This will be especially true of a US administration years down the road in the indeterminate future, which will undoubtedly be less committed to the dictates of the agreement than its predecessor. Israel cannot accept the existential threat caused by this delusion. Our experience in this matter is clear and unequivocal.
How do I know that such an erosion in P5+1 determination to halt the Iranians will develop in the future? Doesnt everyone want to prevent Iran from going nuclear? From a thorough study of the ongoing chain of P5+1 concessions ever since the negotiations with Iran began 15 years ago, I fear, and am certain of, an erosion of P5+1 resolve.
Over time, first the Europeans, and then the P5+1, together and separately, including the US, repeatedly lowered their demands of Iran.
The current excuse for a lower threshold of demands on Iran is not that the threshold is sufficient, but rather the very sad admission that the Iranians will not agree to a higher and more strict threshold. This statement reveals the defeatist mind-set of todays P5+1 negotiators. In other words, for the world, the agreement is more important than the content; and in order to secure this desired agreement, it is worth waiving or forgoing the demands of Iran that two or three years earlier were considered essential. And thus, instead of asking how to bring the Iranians to an agreement, the threshold of world demands is constantly lowered.
The Iranians understand this, which is why they are dragging out the negotiations as long as possible while intensifying their efforts to get closer to the bomb. Over the years they have won significant concessions even before starting serious discussions about an agreement.
According to US Secretary of State John Kerry, the Iranians are just two months away from a bomb, a reality which is the end result of years of negotiations.
The third leg on which the conciliatory approach rests is deterrence. The assumption is that Iran will understand that, if a breach is identified, the US will get into the thick of things and respond extremely harshly, up to and including the use of force against Iran.
Is this assumption valid in the contemporary world? Does anyone believe that the use of force is a possible option for the US? What are the chances that the US would obtain the support of the Security Council for the use of force against Iran? What are the chances that Washington would act without UN support? Is there any reason to think that, at the moment of truth, Iran would truly fear American military action for violating the agreement in a way that does not include an act of war or violation of the sovereignty of a neighboring state? What if the circumstances that will be chosen for violating the agreement by the Iranians will be when the US is engaged in another international crisis? In that case, would the administration really have the necessary energy to apply military force? Today, we more or less know that the Iranians assess the likelihood of an American military action against Irans nuclear program as very, very low, close to negligible unless Iran precipitates hostilities in the Persian Gulf. Why should Iran think that the chances of this will increase in the future? If the past proves anything, it proves that the chances of American force in the future will only diminish.
Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that the world is dealing with Iran, a murderous Shiite revolutionary regime that seeks regional and even global hegemony; that sponsors international terrorism and stands behind the slaughter in Syria on Syrian President Bashar Assads side; and that has purposefully deceived the West time and time again regarding its nuclear program. Thus, Iran cannot at all be trusted to abide by any accord with the West.
Thus, the solution to the Iranian crisis proposed in the Brookings Institution paper which I fear represents mainstream administration thinking is unsound. None of its assumptions can be used as a good basis for an agreement: neither the assumption that a monitoring regime can guarantee identification, in real time, of Iranian violations; nor the assumption that the US will act with alacrity if a breach is identified; nor the assumption that, in the real world, Iran will truly be deterred by US threats.
Einhorns proposals for an agreement with Iran are important because of his expertise, and they are worrying because they probably represent mainstream thinking in todays Washington. In any case, the proposals fall far from meeting the needs of Israel on this very existential matter. An agreement along the lines proposed in the Brookings paper would be far worse than the absence of an agreement, because it would improperly calm the nations of the world and permit full commercial relations with Iran.
With such a flimsy agreement, I wonder what will be left of Western commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And Israel will have to draw its own conclusions.
Question is at what point do the warnings finally end and turn into action?
Note to Israel: Beware of any red line Obama seems to have pledged.
I don’t blame Israel one bit
hell, I can’t handle the traitorious behavior of our administration either
Fact Iran is a rogue state
Fact; neocons & isralis (behind the scenes) got us into 2 wars we could have handled differently
Fact 3 war with iran ain’t worth it
Let's look at it from a different viewpoint. A guy on your block comes rushing at you, do you attack him? No. A guy on your block threatens to kill you, do you attack? Probably not. A guy on your block threatens to kill you and your entire family and burn your house down, gathers a bunch of goons in the neighborhood at his side, and stockpiles a bunch of deadly weapons pointed at you, do you now attack him? Oh, a neighbor a mile away warns the guy to not use the biggest weapon, but doesn't bother stopping him otherwise. At this point, do his warnings matter at all? Will the warnings ever turn into action? You or I could move away. Israel can't. You betcha that Israel will take action long before Obama ever does. Her survival requires it.
Obama is just buying time for his fellow Islamists to get their nukes built.
at what point do the warnings finally end and turn into action?
Is war near?
It will have to be, Israel has to strike before Iran gets nukes; we certainly won’t under El-Presidente. The only people he is serious about stopping are Republicans and Conservatives.
We will not allow Iran to manufacture a nuclear bomb.
The Bush administration used to say the same thing about North Korea. That and “North Korea is 2-5 years away from getting a bomb”. Then a funny thing happened. One day the tested one, and nobody even pretends they will do anything about it anymore.
The Mossad should detonate a ‘dirty’ bomb near the Iranian nuclear facilities, then deny any knowledge of what happened, “Oh my! What a shame! The Iranians must have blown themselves up with their nuclear experiments.”
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
No reason they should. The purported Iran-US accord is as significant to Israel as the Hitler-Stalin accord to Poland.
Fact; neocons & isralis (behind the scenes) got us into 2 wars we could have handled differently
1. Israel and neoconservatives are different.
2. which wars? Iraq War 1 fought for Kuwait or Iraq War 2, which Ariel Sharon opposed?
Fact 3 war with iran aint worth it
Iran's government chants "Death to America" It's leaders declare that they will sacrifice their country for thier aims. They believe a riegn of fire on them will bring their messiah. And barring that, an Iranian nuke means a Saudi, Egptian and Turkish nuke. And that means terrorists nuke America.
Israel has there own (REAL) red line and will act quickly and precisely. The attack will be calculated to bring the US into the fray. The only question is, what is Israel’s red line? A test, X amount of enriched uranium, who knows?
you can say Iran is in a state of war with us in the same way North Korea is. They do various things against us, but it not like its full fledged war. OK maybe neo-cons and Israelis are different. Iraq I was done for oil and the Bushies love for the Saudi royals. Those girls were scared sh*tless. Even though Saddam attacked Israel with Exocet missiles, I can’t say that Israelis instigated that one. But they did instigate Iraq II. Don’t you think Israelis and neocons (largely Jewish) are working hand and hand? Saddam really couldn’t do us very much harm. By the time 2004 rolled around he was so incapacitated due to the bombings etc that had occurred since the Gulf War. Look at the place now with all those Americans dead and wounded —a cesspool before and a cesspool now. Did our soldiers die for nothing? Israeli PMs Sharon Bibi and all the rest say a lot of stuff in public just as American presidents do. What Iranian have done are b*tch slaps —we just have to give b*tch slaps back, not a full fledged ground war....and get Israel to join as a partner with soldiers....which they have never done....because they expect us to do their dirty work.
Israel gained virtually nothing from the second Gulf War. Iraq was no threat to Israel. All it did was fund terrorists attacking Israel. But so were US allies. Ariel Sharon and other Israelis privately warned President Bush not to invade Iraq, but stayed quiet publicly in order not to embarrass him. But your assumption that Israel pressured America into the war is false.
Your related theory that neoconservatives serve Israel would be hysterical lunacy, if so many people did not believe it. Neoconservatives support Israel, but they don't take orders from Jerusalem. The neoconservative plan to oppose Al Qaeda of democratizing the region would never help Israel. The Arabs and Muslim peoples hate Israel and want it destroyed. And a democratic Middle East would undermine support for Israel as the only democracy there. This isn't retrospect, I and others have said this for over a decade. But nationalist Jews are shut out of the public America debate except at a few conservative sites.
No one is advocating a ground war in Iran. That's a red herring and you know it. There are calls for air strikes to take out nuclear facilities, air defense, and perhaps strategic regime sites like the IRCG hq and training facilities. Iran has done little to America because they lacked capabilities to do more. When they and Sunni Arabs have nukes, then they can easily pass nukes onto third party terrorists to attack us with plausible deniability.
I would have no problem with the Israelis going in and bombing Iran nuke cites —and I wouldn’t mind it I we gave them some help —but not for us to be the primary military force if that should come to pass.
There will never be a democracy in the Middle East. Islamic culture and democracy just aren’t compatible. The only solution is unfortunately is keeping strong men (as was Mubarak) dictators (as is/was Assad/Saddam Hussein)or the profligate royal Gulfie sheiks and Saudi royal family. This regimes except for Mubarak’s have always been some kind of pain in the butt for the US. Ok we do lots of business with Saudis and Gulfies but they fund radical imams over here and in Europe. That crap should stop. Syria yup, Iranian controlled, but a hell of a lot better than Al Qa’ida. The only half way decent dude in Mid East is Jordanian king — but not a real powerful guy. Peace process is and was a joke. I don’t blame Israelis for wanting no part of it. Clinton did it for his resume as is Obama trying to do the same. As far as Syria is concerned, too bad the shit is hitting the fan with Russia —because if anyone had leverage in that area—it would be the Russians. Yes, they want a Mediterranean port at Latakia, but we’re being idiots (at least our government) and thinking it’s a good thing for Assad to go. If Assad goes, ok Mullahs lose an ally, but Iran doesn’t really need Assad—it/they would survive without him. Deal with Syria should be—ok Assad, we will let you stay under condition. Dump Hezbollah on its head and improve relations with Israel (don’t have to get huggy-kissy)but improve them. Look now at the Palestinian love fest going on. One thing I will never understand about Arabs (Muslims), they cry for a Palestinian state, yet when they scream in their religious voice —they cry for an caliphate (the antithesis of a nation state).