In his September 23, 2012 speech at the United Nations General Assembly,�Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the United States and its�allies to define clear red lines for the Iranian nuclear program,�emphasizing that Iran will reach the threshold at which it could�manufacture a nuclear bomb by mid 2013. A deep scrutiny of the past and of�present events and trends tells a different story.
After Iraq�s defeat in the 1990 war in Kuwait, Israeli officials focused�on the Iranian nuclear program as the main threat to Israel security. At�first they alleged that Iran had bought nuclear weapon components from the�former Soviet Republics. Then they put aside that argument and stressed�that Iran was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, and would reach that target within a few years and requested that the U.S. and EU to do�everything possible to prevent Tehran from achieving that goal. Israel had�sufficient influence in the U.S. to see sanctions imposed on the Iranian�oil industry in mid the 1990s. But European powers that were tired of�following the U.S. and Israeli lead after the end of the Cold War were not�prepared to accept these arguments. They improved their relations with�Tehran and consequently the attempt to apply U.S. laws regarding Iran�extraterritorially failed.
However, Israeli lobby succeeded in convincing the U.S. of the threat�posed by Iraq. Sanctions and military attacks against Iraq continued until�that country was invaded by a U.S.-UK arranged coalition in 2003. During�the presidency of G.W. Bush, Israel benefited from the support of�Neoconservatives who held high office in his administration. Tel Aviv put�aside the peace process and launched military attacks against Lebanon in�2006, Syria in 2007 and Gaza in 2009. Israel also encouraged the U.S. to�put increased military and economic pressure on Iran. To satisfy Israel,�the Bush administration undermined the �EU3�s� negotiations with Tehran,�and constantly emphasized that �all options were on the table�[1].
However, the U.S. administration was hamstrung, because of the situation�in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, realities weakened the Neoconservatives�and brought Realists back to power in Washington. The bipartisan Iraqi�Study Group recommended negotiation with Iran to stabilize Iraq.
The Bush administration found a clever method by which to deflect Israeli�pressure and Neoconservative rhetoric. After years of emphasizing that��all options were on the table,� the administration had two options-�either: (i) to implement their threats or (ii) to take the military option�off of the table. The U.S. also gradually began to feel the economic�consequences of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at home and was therefore�not able to launch another war. President Bush did not change his position�but the U.S. intelligence agencies rather acted to remove the urgency of�the Iranian threat. In 2007 the U.S. intelligence community published a�National Intelligence Estimate �(NIE) that assessed that Iran had halted�its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The NIE paved the way for the U.S. to�negotiate with Tehran in Baghdad and to join in the nuclear negotiations�with Tehran.
The U.S. intelligence community�s position on Iran�s nuclear program has�not changed. Moreover, the current positions of Iran and the U.S. are�compatible with one another. The U.S. emphasizes that Iran be prohibited�from acquiring nuclear weapons, �while Iran emphasizes its right as a�signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich nuclear fuel.
The NPT accommodates both of these sets of interests. Consequently Iran�and the U.S. have a common basis for negotiation. During the Bush�administration, the Israeli lobby in the United States succeeded in�imposing a red line on U.S. conservative establishment policy that was�illegal under international law. And that was to insist that no enrichment�take place in Iran. The Obama administration changed this redline to one�compliant with international law, whereby Iran not be permitted to acquire�nuclear weapons. The swap agreement [2] that was proposed and then�rejected by the U.S. included tacit agreement to the idea that nuclear�fuel could continue to be enriched in Iran. In the recent nuclear�negotiations with Iran that took place in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow,�the EU3+3 have also tacitly accepted that the enrichment of nuclear fuel�in Iran can continue; the negotiators have asked that Tehran refrain from�enriching nuclear fuel up to the twenty percent purity level�even though�such enrichment is legal under the International law.
The Israeli position continues to differ from that of the U.S. and the�EU3+3. Tel Aviv emphasizes denying nuclear technology to Iran, but its�main target is actually to weaken Iran irrespective of the state of Iran�s�nuclear program. Israel�s main problem is not with Iran but with its�immediate neighbors. Tel Aviv has lost its control over its neighborhood�and cannot influence the situation there. At a minimum, Israel feels�besieged by new, unknown forces. By emphasizing the Iranian nuclear issue�Israel is pursuing two goals: (i) to create a new (Iranian-Israeli)�conflict so that (ii) the world forgets the old (Arab-Israeli) one.
Due to the fact that Arab governments are concerned about the Iranian�nuclear program and Iranian regional influence, Israel has somehow been�able to create a loose Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran. We should not�forget that Arabs did not condemn the Israeli military actions against�Lebanon in 2006 and Hamas in 2009. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more�concerned about Iran than about Israel. The Syrian conflict and�Saudi-Qatari support for extremists there demonstrate this very clearly.
The question is, if the extremists succeed in Syria, who will their next�targets be? Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or the U.S.? This is why�the U.S. and EU are hesitant about intervening in Syria.
What Israel fears most is not Iran but being left to its own devices by�the West in an instable region. For the first time, Israel really feels�isolated in the region. Because of their internal economic problems, the�EU and the U.S. are not capable of defending Israel by going to war.�Israel has lost both its supremacy in the region and the commitment of its�allies. What Israel is seeking to achieve is to keep the U.S. and EU�engaged in the region by maneuvering them into launching another war. For�Israel, the costs of the war and the degree of success it achieves are�secondary issues. The main objective is a long-term U.S. and EU commitment�and involvement in the conflict on Israel�s side.
Israeli security is important for the U.S. and EU but not more important�than their own interests. The U.S. knows very well that, if the Israelis�attack Iran, the U.S. has no option but join them. If they do so, however,�they will not be able to defend their own interests. The U.S. has great�military power, but many vulnerable interests as well. The EU�s�vulnerabilities are even more pronounced than those of the U.S.�Consequently, long-term conflict in the Middle East will be too costly for�the U.S. and EU to tolerate.
Iranian behavior during the past decade demonstrates that Tehran is not�seeking nuclear weapons. By implementing the Additional Protocol to the�NPT from 2003 to 2005 and by subsequently resolving outstanding issues�with the IAEA, Iran demonstrated that its nuclear program is peaceful.
Iran�s religious leader has issued a fatwa against the acquisition of�nuclear weapons as a clear demonstration of Iran�s future intentions. This�fatwa has the capacity to prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass�Destruction (WMD) in Muslim countries and to prevent the use of such a�weapons by Islamic groups.
After years of intervention, sanctions, political pressure, covert warfare�and cyber- attacks, Iran has much more reason to be concerned about the�real intentions of Israel, the U.S. and its allies than the latter have to�be concerned about those of Iran. A nuclear capacity has simply provided a�minor form of reinsurance of Iran�s security; it does not deter any attack�on Iran. But those who intend to attack Iran, should think twice or more.
Iranians have now understood the importance attached to such a nuclear�capacity in U.S. and Israeli military calculations. This shows that a�peaceful nuclear capacity can also contribute to peace and stability�it is�not even necessary to have nuclear weapons in order to deter rational�enemies.
If we compare the behavior of Iranian and Israeli leaders, we can easily�conclude that Iranian behavior has been much more rational. Voluntary�cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, implementation of�the modality agreement, acceptance of the swap proposal, cooperation and�negotiation with the U.S. to bring peace and stability to Iraq and�Afghanistan are all clear indicators of rational behavior in Tehran. If�any of the Western countries had faced the threats and pressures that Iran�faces, they would surely have behaved differently. Israel will not be able�to achieve sustainable peace by force in the new Middle East. Regional�concerns about Iran's nuclear program can be solved through regional�security dialogue. Iran has always supported bilateral and multilateral�dialogue with neighboring countries.
U.S. and Israeli options are limited: accept an Iranian nuclear enrichment�capacity under the IAEA control or strike and then accept the�reconstitution of the same capacity outside of IAEA control. It took many�years for the U.S. to change its position from no enrichment to low�enrichment. Israel has not yet been able to make up its mind. Someone�needs to go to Tel Aviv and help Israelis comprehend that Iran�s nuclear�capacity is a reality and that Iran is a rational player. The existence of�such a capacity in the hands of a rational player that has been engaged�and integrated at the regional and global levels, will be different from�its existence in the hands of a player that has been attacked by all�means. Sanctions, cyber attacks, isolation, and the terrorization of�Iranian nuclear scientists have simply exacerbated the situation and led�to a loss of Western influence on Iran.
The Middle East is already unstable enough. Israel has just one option:�accept the new realities, change its behaviors and look for sustainable�peace. During the last decade the U.S. and its allies were the main losers�due to instability in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economic and social�instability paved the way for moderate Islamists to come to power, but if�the instability continues to grow, they will not be able to solve problems�and keep their positions. �Extremists are at the gate from North Africa to�Central and South Asia. These developments have limited U.S. and Israeli�freedom of action in the Middle East, not the Iranian nuclear program.
If being moderate or extremist is a criterion for being entitled to�possess a nuclear capability, then Israel clearly fails, as it currently�has a most extreme government. That is why EU and the US should set a red�line for Israel and not let it to impose its policies on them. In recent�weeks Israeli officials have repeatedly talked about a military strike�against Iran and Western countries have mostly remained silent. Extremists�in Israel have clearly demonstrated their intention and if they strike�Iranian nuclear facilities, Western officials cannot say that they have�not been informed. Those who provide all kinds of weapons for Israel have�more responsibility. Just as in the case of the ongoing economic war�against Iran, innocent people will be the main victims of any military�strike. The Iranian nuclear program enjoys strong national support. U.S.,�Israeli and EU pressures target �Iranian nation, �nationalism in Iran and�will have long-term �consequences for the West.
Netanyahu�s request at the UN General Assembly strengthened the�well-established belief in the Middle East that Israel and its lobbies�determine European and American policies toward the region. With this�opinion widespread in the Middle East, Washington and Brussels will not�benefit from Arab Spring. It is time for Western countries to stop Israel�from intervening in their domestic and foreign policies and for them�distinguish between values and interests that they do and do not share�with Israel. Netanyahu�s speech in the UNGA demonstrated his arrogant�approach toward the West. If Western powers cannot control Israel, it will�impose at least another three trillion dollars in costs upon them. During�the past decades, Israeli officials have followed one imaginary enemy�after another: Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and now Iran are�among the list and it will extend to other countries in the Middle East�and North Africa. This approach needs to be stopped. The U.S. and EU need�to clearly impose the following redlines on Israel:
First: Do not interfere in U.S. and EU politics. Western officials are�wise enough to recognize their interests and know how to decide.
Second: Occupation, intervention, violation of Palestinian rights, and the�terrorization of scientists are not values and interests that Israel, the�U.S. and EU share in common. Tel Aviv must desist from these policies.
Third: A regime which has manufactured nuclear weapons and is not a member�of the NPT does not have right to tell an NPT member state what to do.
Fourth: A regime that has repeatedly attacked its neighbors during the�past five decades cannot accuse a peaceful nation of having such an�intention.
Fifth: Israeli officials should not mislead the international community.�It is twenty years that they have been saying that Iran will reach nuclear�weapons within a few years. All those years have passed without any�nuclear weapon and the next year will also end in the same way.
Sixth: The U.S. and EU are no longer ready to pay the price for Israeli�mistakes. Because of past unconditional support, Israel has repeatedly�attacked its neighbors and has not learned how to live with them.
Seventh: Preventing war is a global responsibility and the international�community will stop Israel from launching another one.
Solving the Iranian nuclear issue has never been complicated. Transparency�for recognition is still the best solution. Iran is ready to increase�transparency if the other parties to the EU3+3 negotiations negotiate�seriously. Iran has not rejected re-implementing the Additional Protocol�either. �A transparent nuclear program will not endanger anyone�s�security. Many countries around the world have such a capacity, including�Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and Brazil. �Iran has�no problem with transparency; the problem is that the U.S. and some of its�allies have not been able to recognize Iran�s rights, role and interests.
The U.S. has tried to exclude Iran from any regional and international�mechanism. They have just tactically engaged Iran in some cases such as�Iraq and Afghanistan. �Israeli pressure has been an important factor, but�we should not neglect other domestic and international elements.
Iranophobia is not limited to Israeli extremists. Many people, even some�elites, in the West suffer from a distorted image of Iran. Reinforcing�closed doors by sanctions, isolation, military threats, and cyber attacks�will not lead to transparency and cooperation. All sides need to pave the�way for doors to open.
Notes:
[1] i.e. including a possible military attack on Iran
[2] whereby nuclear fuel enriched to twenty-percent purity in Iran would�be shipped out of Iran in exchange for enriched nuclear fuel to power the�Tehran Research reactor (TRR) supplied from abroad
Published under an arrangement with Iran review 8 October 2012.
The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.
# Tags
prev
next
