Netanyahu’s Regime Will Not Swallow Two Bitter Pills
Published in De Volkskrant
(Netherlands) on 16 November 2013
by Paul Brill (link to original)
(Netherlands) on 16 November 2013
by Paul Brill (link to original)
Translated from
by Daniel Baker.
Edited by Kyrstie Lane.
Under the American Secretary of State John Kerry, the State Department was supposed to take on a greater degree of strategic significance than under his predecessor Hillary Clinton. Thus far, however, he is doing nothing to eclipse her memory, writes Paul Brill.
The National Security Agency may be eavesdropping on proceedings in all of the major European capitals, but in Paris the equipment doesn't seem to be working properly. Either that, or once again the American government’s left hand doesn't know what its right hand is doing. One gets this impression because it would appear that Secretary of State Kerry was taken completely by surprise when his French — note: French — colleague, Laurent Fabius, raised eleventh hour objections to the draft agreement with Iran. This is particularly noteworthy because, under socialist President Hollande, France has been the main opponent to the international community's attempts to reach an agreement with the Iranians over their nuclear program.
What lies behind France’s opposition? According to some commentators, it is the result of a particularly intense phone call that took place between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and François Hollande. Others believe it is because of a deal worth billions that the French have recently concluded with the Saudis, the details of which still have to be worked out. That is all speculation though. According to many nuclear experts, however, the French criticisms are valid, even if it is only a first step toward a comprehensive agreement.
This applies particularly to the question of what should be done with the 20 percent enriched uranium that Iran already possesses and with the heavy water reactor in Arak. This reactor, which can produce plutonium as a byproduct, is not really ideally suited to the purposes for which Iran says it has been constructed — namely the production of electricity and medical isotopes. Up until now, Tehran has refused to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency access to the complex in Arak.
Little Enthusiasm
There are therefore good reasons to demand cast iron guarantees on this point. In fact, it is hard to understand why John Kerry has not done this himself. Note that two important allies in the region have watched these discussions with Iran with suspicion and also that there is little enthusiasm in Congress for the easing of sanctions on Iran, which is supposed to happen during the first stage of this process. The Iranian government, after all, has misled the international community about its nuclear program for the last 18 years, so it makes sense to block any possible escape routes right from the start.
It would appear that Kerry himself began to worry about how things were panning out because on the way back from Geneva, he felt the need to criticize the Iranian negotiators, saying that at the last minute they had backed out of the deal, feeling that they could not accept the help that was necessary to close out the first part of it. This interpretation of what happened during the talks is regarded with deep suspicion in Tehran and Paris.
Not the First Time
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Kerry has talked himself into trouble. When the standoff occurred over chemical weapons in Syria, he uttered some ominous words about Assad's regime having crossed Obama's “red line.” This ended up unintentionally offering a diplomatic opening to the Russians and then he had to watch as his president suddenly changed course by cancelling planned military action. His recent remarks in Israel, where he raised the specter of a new wave of violence coming from the Palestinians, were not very well judged either.
Under Kerry, the State Department was supposed to take on a greater degree of strategic significance than under his predecessor Hillary Clinton; thus far, however, he is doing nothing to eclipse her memory. What, for example, can one make of the time pressure he put on the peace process between Israel and Palestine when it resumed in the summer? It was particularly unfortunate that this tour de force coincided with the talks regarding the Iranian nuclear program. No matter how much pressure is put on Israel to make significant concessions in order to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, it is politically completely unrealistic to expect Netanyahu's regime to swallow two bitter pills at the same time, both of which pose a threat to the very existence of the state and both of which require a fundamental change in direction.
A Bitterly Ironic Paradox
These negotiations are leading to a bitterly ironic paradox. If there is any prospect of a breakthrough in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, then the negotiations with Iran are causing those hopes to be crushed once again. Obama's regime clearly thinks that reaching an agreement with Iran is more pressing than resolving the differences between the recalcitrant Israelis and Palestinians and is therefore willing to stake more political capital on it. This could mean that Iran, which is so keen to emphasize its solidarity with the Palestinians, indirectly ends up causing their hopes to be dashed once again.
Israel, meanwhile, is digging its heels in, particularly when it concerns Iran. This is understandable but not helpful. Netanyahu's approach strongly suggests that, as far as he is concerned, there is only one sensible option: a military strike against Iran's nuclear installations. But this misjudges the mood not only in the White House, but also in America as whole, where there is very little desire to embark on another military adventure. This is a situation where what is needed more than ever is diplomatic ingenuity.
The National Security Agency may be eavesdropping on proceedings in all of the major European capitals, but in Paris the equipment doesn't seem to be working properly. Either that, or once again the American government’s left hand doesn't know what its right hand is doing. One gets this impression because it would appear that Secretary of State Kerry was taken completely by surprise when his French — note: French — colleague, Laurent Fabius, raised eleventh hour objections to the draft agreement with Iran. This is particularly noteworthy because, under socialist President Hollande, France has been the main opponent to the international community's attempts to reach an agreement with the Iranians over their nuclear program.
What lies behind France’s opposition? According to some commentators, it is the result of a particularly intense phone call that took place between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and François Hollande. Others believe it is because of a deal worth billions that the French have recently concluded with the Saudis, the details of which still have to be worked out. That is all speculation though. According to many nuclear experts, however, the French criticisms are valid, even if it is only a first step toward a comprehensive agreement.
This applies particularly to the question of what should be done with the 20 percent enriched uranium that Iran already possesses and with the heavy water reactor in Arak. This reactor, which can produce plutonium as a byproduct, is not really ideally suited to the purposes for which Iran says it has been constructed — namely the production of electricity and medical isotopes. Up until now, Tehran has refused to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency access to the complex in Arak.
Little Enthusiasm
There are therefore good reasons to demand cast iron guarantees on this point. In fact, it is hard to understand why John Kerry has not done this himself. Note that two important allies in the region have watched these discussions with Iran with suspicion and also that there is little enthusiasm in Congress for the easing of sanctions on Iran, which is supposed to happen during the first stage of this process. The Iranian government, after all, has misled the international community about its nuclear program for the last 18 years, so it makes sense to block any possible escape routes right from the start.
It would appear that Kerry himself began to worry about how things were panning out because on the way back from Geneva, he felt the need to criticize the Iranian negotiators, saying that at the last minute they had backed out of the deal, feeling that they could not accept the help that was necessary to close out the first part of it. This interpretation of what happened during the talks is regarded with deep suspicion in Tehran and Paris.
Not the First Time
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Kerry has talked himself into trouble. When the standoff occurred over chemical weapons in Syria, he uttered some ominous words about Assad's regime having crossed Obama's “red line.” This ended up unintentionally offering a diplomatic opening to the Russians and then he had to watch as his president suddenly changed course by cancelling planned military action. His recent remarks in Israel, where he raised the specter of a new wave of violence coming from the Palestinians, were not very well judged either.
Under Kerry, the State Department was supposed to take on a greater degree of strategic significance than under his predecessor Hillary Clinton; thus far, however, he is doing nothing to eclipse her memory. What, for example, can one make of the time pressure he put on the peace process between Israel and Palestine when it resumed in the summer? It was particularly unfortunate that this tour de force coincided with the talks regarding the Iranian nuclear program. No matter how much pressure is put on Israel to make significant concessions in order to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, it is politically completely unrealistic to expect Netanyahu's regime to swallow two bitter pills at the same time, both of which pose a threat to the very existence of the state and both of which require a fundamental change in direction.
A Bitterly Ironic Paradox
These negotiations are leading to a bitterly ironic paradox. If there is any prospect of a breakthrough in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, then the negotiations with Iran are causing those hopes to be crushed once again. Obama's regime clearly thinks that reaching an agreement with Iran is more pressing than resolving the differences between the recalcitrant Israelis and Palestinians and is therefore willing to stake more political capital on it. This could mean that Iran, which is so keen to emphasize its solidarity with the Palestinians, indirectly ends up causing their hopes to be dashed once again.
Israel, meanwhile, is digging its heels in, particularly when it concerns Iran. This is understandable but not helpful. Netanyahu's approach strongly suggests that, as far as he is concerned, there is only one sensible option: a military strike against Iran's nuclear installations. But this misjudges the mood not only in the White House, but also in America as whole, where there is very little desire to embark on another military adventure. This is a situation where what is needed more than ever is diplomatic ingenuity.
Next article![]( "End of the American Internet")
