Israel Furious with US: Iran Deal Makes World More Dangerous
The interim Iran nuclear pact forced through by Americans in Geneva last weekend has led to a huge crisis in U.S.-Israel relations.
Although U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry praised the deal, claiming it would make the world — and the Middle East in particular — safer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched into a tirade: “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world ….”
Netanyahu also said, “Now, for the first time, the international community has formally consented that Iran continue its enrichment of uranium.”
Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman dubbed the Geneva deal the “greatest diplomatic victory” for Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution; Naftali Bennett, the Israeli minister of trade and industry, went even further and declared that “Israel will not be committed to a deal that endangers its very existence.”
It was not only the conditions of the agreement that enraged Israel, but also the manner in which it was signed. Only after the Geneva meeting was it revealed that the U.S. had been holding secret direct talks with Iran for months. John Kerry participated in them even before he officially became the U.S. secretary of state; the government in Israel learned about it only a month ago.
Israel’s fierce criticism of the pact evoked fierce reactions in the United States. Former NATO ambassador Nick Burns stated that the problem with Israel (as with Saudi Arabia) is that “they seem not to favor any negotiations with Iran …. It may not be in their interest to negotiate. But, it is clearly in the interest of the United States government and the American people …. I think the very public and aggressive Israeli and Saudi criticism of the Obama administration is unwarranted and unwise. The U.S. has been a good and loyal friend to both countries. We deserve better. Both countries are free to disagree, of course, but that is always more effective behind the scenes and in a tone of mutual respect.”
Burns is currently only a Harvard professor, so he can afford to be straightforward and frank. The active diplomats use of course the language of diplomacy. For example, Kerry explained on Sunday that he understands Israel's "deep concerns" over Iran's nuclear program because Iran kept it secret in the past.
But it is obvious that the great friendship between Washington and Jerusalem has been put to the test — maybe the most severe test in the last 40 years. And the fact that many U.S. congressmen — both Democrats and Republicans — have cut themselves off from the Obama administration and sided with Israel does not help much.
What drove a wedge between the two friends is an issue of uranium enrichment. The nuclear technology can be used for both civilian and military purposes. In most cases, centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordow plants enrich uranium of less than 5 percent grade to produce fuel for the nuclear power plants, but they can equally well be used — if the enrichment reaches the level of 90 percent — to produce a nuclear bomb. The only difference is that in the second case, the centrifuges need to spin the uranium gas proportionally longer.
At the moment, the Iranians have stopped at the threshold of 20 percent enrichment. Such uranium was used at the Tehran Research Reactor. Under the Geneva deal, Iran promised not to enrich more uranium above a level of 5 percent for six months and promised to dilute or convert its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium to a level below 5 percent. They agreed to the daily U.N. inspections at Natanz and Fordow, promised that they will not install any new centrifuges and assured that they will halt work on a heavy water reactor at Arak. The last issue is important; the reactor, set for completion next year, could provide plutonium that — like highly enriched uranium — can be utilized to make bombs.
So Obama and Kerry are right. The Iranian nuclear program will be significantly reduced. Nevertheless, when sounding a warning about enrichment of uranium by Iran, Netanyahu is right, too. Indeed, it is merely 5 percent enrichment, yet from the practical point of view, it makes hardly any difference. Iranians can still improve their nuclear technology and — if they want — can use it to build an atomic bomb.
Interestingly, Tehran gained in Geneva much more than in 2004, when it agreed to stop enriching uranium entirely (but only a year later, it changed its mind and let the uranium gas spin in the Natanz centrifuges). Israel is afraid that Obama will allow Iran to spin uranium in the final deal, which is to be signed within the next six months (the Geneva pact is only binding for half a year).
Netanyahu will only be satisfied if Iran removes all its centrifuges and completely closes the Natanz and Fordow plants. However, the international community cannot require that. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) allows a peaceful nuclear program for all countries that agree to conduct it under U.N. supervision. Although the treaty is not explicit on the enrichment of uranium, the production of fuel for the power plants is undoubtedly a peaceful activity and as such gives Iranians the right to do it.
If Iran is not willing to give up its centrifuges itself, there is no legal basis for forcing the matter. After all, it meets the conditions: It is an NPT signatory and agrees to U.N. supervision. Therefore, it is possible that the Israelis are right and that Iran did actually win — but not at 3 a.m. on Sunday, when the interim agreement was signed in Geneva, but 45 years ago, when the NPT was created.
Although U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry praised the deal, claiming it would make the world — and the Middle East in particular — safer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched into a tirade: “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world ….”
Netanyahu also said, “Now, for the first time, the international community has formally consented that Iran continue its enrichment of uranium.”
Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman dubbed the Geneva deal the “greatest diplomatic victory” for Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution; Naftali Bennett, the Israeli minister of trade and industry, went even further and declared that “Israel will not be committed to a deal that endangers its very existence.”
It was not only the conditions of the agreement that enraged Israel, but also the manner in which it was signed. Only after the Geneva meeting was it revealed that the U.S. had been holding secret direct talks with Iran for months. John Kerry participated in them even before he officially became the U.S. secretary of state; the government in Israel learned about it only a month ago.
Israel’s fierce criticism of the pact evoked fierce reactions in the United States. Former NATO ambassador Nick Burns stated that the problem with Israel (as with Saudi Arabia) is that “they seem not to favor any negotiations with Iran …. It may not be in their interest to negotiate. But, it is clearly in the interest of the United States government and the American people …. I think the very public and aggressive Israeli and Saudi criticism of the Obama administration is unwarranted and unwise. The U.S. has been a good and loyal friend to both countries. We deserve better. Both countries are free to disagree, of course, but that is always more effective behind the scenes and in a tone of mutual respect.”
Burns is currently only a Harvard professor, so he can afford to be straightforward and frank. The active diplomats use of course the language of diplomacy. For example, Kerry explained on Sunday that he understands Israel's "deep concerns" over Iran's nuclear program because Iran kept it secret in the past.
But it is obvious that the great friendship between Washington and Jerusalem has been put to the test — maybe the most severe test in the last 40 years. And the fact that many U.S. congressmen — both Democrats and Republicans — have cut themselves off from the Obama administration and sided with Israel does not help much.
What drove a wedge between the two friends is an issue of uranium enrichment. The nuclear technology can be used for both civilian and military purposes. In most cases, centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordow plants enrich uranium of less than 5 percent grade to produce fuel for the nuclear power plants, but they can equally well be used — if the enrichment reaches the level of 90 percent — to produce a nuclear bomb. The only difference is that in the second case, the centrifuges need to spin the uranium gas proportionally longer.
At the moment, the Iranians have stopped at the threshold of 20 percent enrichment. Such uranium was used at the Tehran Research Reactor. Under the Geneva deal, Iran promised not to enrich more uranium above a level of 5 percent for six months and promised to dilute or convert its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium to a level below 5 percent. They agreed to the daily U.N. inspections at Natanz and Fordow, promised that they will not install any new centrifuges and assured that they will halt work on a heavy water reactor at Arak. The last issue is important; the reactor, set for completion next year, could provide plutonium that — like highly enriched uranium — can be utilized to make bombs.
So Obama and Kerry are right. The Iranian nuclear program will be significantly reduced. Nevertheless, when sounding a warning about enrichment of uranium by Iran, Netanyahu is right, too. Indeed, it is merely 5 percent enrichment, yet from the practical point of view, it makes hardly any difference. Iranians can still improve their nuclear technology and — if they want — can use it to build an atomic bomb.
Interestingly, Tehran gained in Geneva much more than in 2004, when it agreed to stop enriching uranium entirely (but only a year later, it changed its mind and let the uranium gas spin in the Natanz centrifuges). Israel is afraid that Obama will allow Iran to spin uranium in the final deal, which is to be signed within the next six months (the Geneva pact is only binding for half a year).
Netanyahu will only be satisfied if Iran removes all its centrifuges and completely closes the Natanz and Fordow plants. However, the international community cannot require that. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) allows a peaceful nuclear program for all countries that agree to conduct it under U.N. supervision. Although the treaty is not explicit on the enrichment of uranium, the production of fuel for the power plants is undoubtedly a peaceful activity and as such gives Iranians the right to do it.
If Iran is not willing to give up its centrifuges itself, there is no legal basis for forcing the matter. After all, it meets the conditions: It is an NPT signatory and agrees to U.N. supervision. Therefore, it is possible that the Israelis are right and that Iran did actually win — but not at 3 a.m. on Sunday, when the interim agreement was signed in Geneva, but 45 years ago, when the NPT was created.