Israel's alarm spiked, Tehran rejoices
This posting has these items 1-3 celebrate the deal, the rest express doubts or oppose it:
1) NTY Times: The fruits of diplomacy with Iran, William Burns urges people to deal with reality and look at the gains and the challenges;
2) Ha’aretz: Netanyahu faces new danger in U.S. following Iran deal: Being ignored, as Israel’s objections were easily ignored, Chemi Shalev asks if this means Israel is no longer the guiding point for US policy;
3) NY Times A Promising Nuclear Deal With Iran, welcomes the deal;
4) FP: Iran Deal Threatens to Upend a Delicate Balance of Power in the Middle East, how other countries in the region respond to the deal;
5) Ma’an: Netanyahu tells Obama Iran deal ‘threat to Israel’s survival’, no, really?;
6) JPost: I’m not trying to kill deal with Iran, just a bad deal’, beleaguered Netanyahu puts up his flag, hoping Congress will follow;
8- LA Times: Israel’s Netanyahu blasts Iran nuclear deal as paving way for a bomb
Iranians celebrate in the street of Tehran, Iran, after nuclear talks between Iran and World powers ended in Lausanne, Switzerland. Photo by EPA
The fruits of diplomacy with Iran
By William J, Burns, Opinion, NY Times
April 02, 2014
WASHINGTON — IN a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We can’t wish or bomb away the basic know-how and enrichment capability that Iran has developed. What we can do is sharply constrain it over a long duration, monitor it with unprecedented intrusiveness, and prevent the Iranian leadership from enriching material to weapons grade and building a bomb.
Those are the goals that have animated recent American diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue, including during the back-channel talks with Iran that I led in Oman and other quiet venues in 2013. Against a backdrop of 35 years without sustained diplomatic contact, filled with mutual suspicion and grievance, it was hardly surprising that our discussions were difficult, and our Iranian counterparts as tough-minded and skeptical as they were professionally skilled. But our efforts helped set the stage for the interim agreement, or Joint Plan of Action, concluded in November 2013.
Much maligned at the time, the J.P.O.A. has proved its value, freezing and rolling back Iran’s nuclear program for the first time in a decade, applying innovative inspections measures, allowing only modest sanctions relief and keeping substantial pressure on Iran.
From left, the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini; Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister; British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond; and Secretary of State John Kerry at a news conference on Thursday in Lausanne, Switzerland. Photo by Jean-Christophe Bott/Keystone, via Associated Press
The understanding announced in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Thursday is an important step forward. Many crucial details still have to be resolved. But the understanding outlines a solid comprehensive agreement that would increase, for at least a decade, the time it would take Iran to enrich enough weapons-grade material for a single bomb from the current two-to-three-month timeline to at least one year. It would significantly reduce Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium, substantially limit the country’s enrichment capacity and constrain Iranian research and development on more advanced centrifuges. And it would cut off Iran’s other possible pathways to a bomb, including by effectively eliminating Iran’s potential capacity to produce weapons-grade plutonium at its planned Arak reactor and banning enrichment at the underground Fordow facility for at least 15 years.
In addition to these significant limitations, we would create an inspection regime unparalleled in intensity, going well beyond current international standards and ensuring that any breakout effort would be quickly detected. Only a negotiated deal gets us the verification and monitoring we need to close off any covert path to a weapon.
Through carefully phased sanctions relief with built-in procedures to reimpose sanctions immediately in case of Iranian noncompliance, we would also preserve ample enforcement leverage. With more eyes on less material in fewer places, and clarity about the harsh costs of cheating, we would be well positioned to deter and prevent Iranian breakout.
As consequential as this understanding is, much more remains to be done. Three challenges loom largest.
The first is the most obvious and immediate: the difficult, painstaking work of negotiating the details of a comprehensive agreement. Rigorous execution of such an agreement will be a critical priority for this administration and its successor, and that will depend on the quality of its verification and enforcement provisions. There is no reason to rush this effort, especially given the continued freeze on Iran’s program under the J.P.O.A. What’s crucial is to get it right.
The second and third challenges are more long-term, but equally important. Completing this comprehensive nuclear accord with Iran must be one part of a cleareyed strategy for a Middle East in deep disarray. I do not assume that progress on the nuclear issue will lead anytime soon to relaxation of tensions with Tehran on other regional problems, or to normalization of United States-Iranian relations. Nor do I assume that the Iranian leadership will make an overnight transformation from a revolutionary, regionally disruptive force to a more “normal” role as another ambitious regional power.
That means we must work to reassure our partners in the region, whose concerns about both Iranian threats and the impact of a nuclear deal are palpable. We should urgently pursue new forms of security assurances and cooperation. Taking a firm stance against threatening Iranian actions in the region, from Syria to Yemen, not only shores up anxious longtime friends. It also is the best way to produce Iranian restraint, much as a firm stance on sanctions helped persuade Iran to reassess its nuclear strategy.
Similarly, it’s important to embed a comprehensive Iranian nuclear agreement in a wider effort to strengthen the global nuclear order. New inspection and monitoring measures applied through an Iran agreement may create useful future benchmarks. The Iranian problem has exposed significant vulnerabilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, especially the absence of a clear divide between civilian and military programs. The Iran case makes clear that the gray zone in the treaty between the right to use nuclear energy and the prohibition against manufacturing nuclear weapons is too wide. As nuclear technology and know-how become more diffuse and states turn to nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, building a sturdy firewall between military and peaceful activities will be an increasingly important task.
None of this will be easy. But the prospect of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran in the next few months, if executed rigorously and embedded in wider strategies for regional order and global nuclear order, can be a significant turning point. It can also be a much-needed demonstration of the enduring value of diplomacy.
The history of the Iranian nuclear issue is littered with missed opportunities. It is a history in which fixation on the perfect crowded out the good, and in whose rearview mirror we can see deals that look a lot better now than they seemed then. With all its inevitable imperfections, we can’t afford to miss this one.
William J. Burns, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was deputy secretary of state from 2011 to 2014 and continues to advise the government on the Iran talks.
Netanyahu faces new danger in U.S. following Iran deal: Being ignored
The State Department quickly dismissed Netanyahu’s new demand that Tehran recognize Israel as U.S. officials debated if it was more far-fetched or more pathetic.
By Chemi Shalev, Haaretz
April 04, 2015
It was Elie Wiesel, One of Benjamin Netanyahu’s great admirers, who once said, in another context: “The opposite of love isn’t hate. It’s indifference”. This is the emerging nature of the prime minister’s current relations with the Obama administration and with liberal public opinion in America: instead of sparking anger, Netanyahu is being increasingly ignored. Netanyahu claims the new Iran agreement is “a threat to the survival of Israel?” Nu, shoyn, as they say in Yiddish: “Hot er gezogt.” So he said.
Netanyahu used his doomsday weapon a month too early, when he preferred to reap immediate electoral gains rather than wait for the ripe diplomatic moment: He spoke to Congress in early March, when the Iran deal was still a theoretical flight of fancy, instead of waiting for it to become a clear and present target, which is what happened in Lausanne on Thursday. The impact of his speech, such as it was, is long gone with the wind and even House Speaker John Boehner can’t book a return engagement for his good friend Bibi – which is why Netanyahu now finds himself firing blanks.
Add to this the serious damage that Netanyahu brought on himself with his election-eve statements on Palestinian statehood and Israeli Arabs voting – and the possibly cynical decision by the administration to amplify them in order to further erode Netanyahu’s credibility. Netanyahu hasn’t reached the level of hyperbolic hysteria of right-wing polemicist Thomas Sowell – who labelled a deal with Iran “the most catastrophic decision in human history”, no less – but he seems to be closing in fast. His new demand from deep left field to stipulate that Iran recognize Israel as a precondition to any nuclear accord was summarily dismissed in public by the State Department, but in private the officials’ reactions went from ridiculous to pathetic.
Even if we assume that Netanyahu is right in his criticism of the Lausanne understandings, he is being all thumbs when it comes to shooting them down. In the P5+1 forum that agreed to the Lausanne framework by consensus, there is only one country that genuinely cares for Israel’s security – but it is also the only one that Netanyahu has chosen to combat. Despite all the reports of outrage in Sunni Arab countries at Washington in the wake of the Iran deal, their leaders have reacted with polite restraint, leaving Netanyahu as a solitary prophet of doom railing against the world. This posture might serve the narrative of Netanyahu as a Churchill warning against the Nazi menace, with one important distinction: It was Churchill who coined the term “special relationship” between the United Kingdom and America and nurtured them, and it was Churchill who made sure that there was never a sliver of doubt about his admiration and appreciation for the President.
Netanyahu still enjoys the unequivocal support of Republicans in Congress, though many of them have issued reactions that are more restrained than those emanating from Jerusalem. Illinois’ Mark Kirk did say that “Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than Wendy Sherman got out of Iran,” a reference to a top State Department negotiator on the deal, but maybe that was to camouflage the demise of the sanctions bill that he co-sponsored with the now-indicted Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey. The main remaining battleground is over the bill that Menendez initiated with Bob Corker from Tennessee, which would impose Senate supervision over the continuation of the talks and any future accords. Ostensibly at least, the Corker bill, which has been publicly backed by AIPAC and other Jewish organizations, enjoys solid support from all Republicans and enough Democrats to potentially render it immune from a Presidential veto.
In order to derail the Corker bill, or to postpone or dilute it at the very least, Obama has launched a wide ranging PR offensive that included his Rose Garden speech on Thursday as well as his weekly radio address on Saturday, which was unusually devoted to something other than domestic affairs. White House officials can be heartened by reactions, which have ranged from hearty approval to a skeptical wait and see attitude in most of the media, excluding the far right. But even in the bastion of Obama-loathing Fox News there appear to be some wide cracks, as evidenced by the shock suggestion of Bill O’Reilly that the Iran deal should be given a chance, because the alternative is a “world war that nobody wants.”
To which the immediate historical association for Netanyahu would have to be the famous saying rightly or wrongly attributed to Lyndon Johnson when he saw Walter Cronkite’s pessimistic reports from Vietnam following the Tet Offensive in 1968: “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the American people.”
L-R) EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, an unidentified Russian delegate, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, US Secretary of State John Kerry, pose for a group photo during a press event after the end of a new round of Nuclear Iran Talks Photo: EPA
A Promising Nuclear Deal With Iran
By The Editorial Board, NY Times
April 02, 2015
The preliminary agreement between Iran and the major powers is a significant achievement that makes it more likely Iran will never be a nuclear threat. President Obama said it would “cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Officials said some important issues have not been resolved, like the possible lifting of a United Nations arms embargo, and writing the technical sections could also cause problems before the deal’s finalization, expected by June 30. Even so, the agreement announced on Thursday after eight days of negotiations appears more specific and comprehensive than expected.
It would roll back Iran’s nuclear program sufficiently so that Iran could not quickly produce a nuclear weapon, and ensure that, if Iran cheated, the world would have at least one year to take preventive action, including reimposing sanctions. In return, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations would lift sanctions crippling Iran’s economy, though the timing of such a move is yet another uncertainty.
Iran would shut down roughly two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges producing uranium that could be used to fuel a bomb and agree not to enrich uranium over 3.67 percent (a much lower level than is required for a bomb) for at least 15 years. The core of the reactor at Arak, which officials feared could produce plutonium, another key ingredient for making a weapon, would be dismantled and replaced, with the spent fuel shipped out of Iran.
Mr. Obama, speaking at the White House, insisted he was not relying on trust to ensure Iran’s compliance but on “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program.”
There is good reason for skepticism about Iran’s intentions. Although it pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons when it ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, it pursued a secret uranium enrichment program for two decades. By November 2013, when serious negotiations with the major powers began, Iran was enriching uranium at a level close to bomb-grade.
However, Iran has honored an interim agreement with the major powers, in place since January 2014, by curbing enrichment and other major activities.
By opening a dialogue between Iran and America, the negotiations have begun to ease more than 30 years of enmity. Over the long run, an agreement could make the Middle East safer and offer a path for Iran, the leading Shiite country, to rejoin the international community.
The deal, if signed and carried out, would vindicate the political risks taken by President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and President Obama to engage after decades of estrangement starting from the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Talking to adversaries — as President Ronald Reagan did in nuclear weapons negotiations with the Soviets and President Richard Nixon did in his opening to China — is something American leaders have long pursued as a matter of practical necessity and prudence.
Yet in today’s poisonous political climate, Mr. Obama’s critics have gone to extraordinary lengths to undercut him and any deal. Their belligerent behavior is completely out of step with the American public, which overwhelmingly favors a negotiated solution with Iran, unquestionably the best approach.
Sunni Arab nations and Israel are deeply opposed to any deal, fearing that it would strengthen Iran’s power in the region. This agreement addresses the nuclear program, the most urgent threat, and does not begin to tackle Iran’s disruptive role in Syria and elsewhere. Iran is widely seen as a threat; whether it can get beyond that will depend on whether its leaders choose to be less hostile to its neighbors, including Israel.
Iranians celebrate nuclear deal: ‘This will bring hope to our life’
Tehran residents rejoice and drivers honk their horns after the announcement of a landmark deal that will lift sanctions and avert the threat of war
By Saeed Kamali Dehghan, The Guardian
April 02, 2015
Jubilant Iranians took to the streets on Thursday night to celebrate news of a breakthrough in nuclear negotiations with the West, and to express their hopes that the deal will end years of international isolation and economic hardship – and avert the threat of war.
The news from Switzerland was especially sweet coming as Iranians celebrated the final day of their Nowruz new year holidays. Even though newspapers, bazaars and state institutions were closed, many welcomed the landmark agreement which they believe will have a dramatic effect on the lives of ordinary Iranians.
Drivers in the streets of Tehran honked their car horns as news of the deal started to break. At 1am in the morning, t the capital’s longest street, Val-e-Asr Avenue, was still lined with cars, with men and women waving flags and flashing V-for-victory signs from open windows.
“Whatever the final result of the negotiations, we are winners,” Behrang Alavi told AFP. “Now we will be able to live normally like the rest of the world.”
Others shared the news via texts or on Twitter. “The winter is over,” read one widely shared text message.
“This will bring hope to our life,” said Ali, a 34-year-old Tehrani citizen. “It was as if someone had blocked my airways but I can now breathe. Everyone is happy, we’ve been waiting for this for too long.”
Sanctions over Tehran’s nuclear programme – including an EU and US embargo on imports of Iranian oil – have compounded the country’s economic woes in recent years.
Iran’s currency, the rial, dropped dramatically against the dollar at the height of the sanctions in 2012, but is likely to benefit almost immediately from Thursday’s announcement.
Analysts predict that the rial will strengthen and Tehran’s stock market will rally when markets open on Saturday, the beginning of the Iranian week.
A Tehran resident who works for an electronics company said that many businesses which rely on goods and materials from abroad would be pleased with the outcome of the talks. “For our company, this is basically a new life,” he said. “Lots of the spare parts we need comes from the US, but we had to obtain them from the black market in cash and with higher prices. Now we might be able to access them normally in the near future.”
“There have already been discussions between Iranian aviation officials and the two global aerospace giants,” he said. “Those discussions have happened with the approval of Europeans and Americans. They recognise how important an issue this is for Iranians, who have some of the oldest passenger planes in the world.
“From a psychological standpoint there will be a sense from the people that things are heading in the right direction,” he said.
“Major European and American multinationals will be very skittish to jump into the Iranian market. They will look for the assurances from their governments that it is OK to come back in and it doesn’t like that’s going to happen right away.”
Under the sanctions, Iran’s banks, were cut off from the outside world and those firms that did business abroad had immense difficulties transferring money.Those restrictions will begin to be lifted when the agreement comes into force.
Amin, who has a car parts and accessories shop in Tehran’s Cheragh-Bargh street, said: “We’ll have less stress and even though we might not benefit from the agreement immediately, people will be a little bit relaxed psychologically.”
Saeed, a 29-year-old who works in publishing and the printing business, said the news has re-energised him and his co-workers. “I have a good feeling, and our business will gain from this because all the materials and equipment in our business comes from abroad. If the dollar gets cheaper, business will certainly go up,” he said.
“Due to sanctions, we had little profit in the recent years, sometimes we would deliver a job but we would have to wait for months to receive its payment,” he added.
People flash the “V for Victory” sign as they celebrate on Valiasr street in northern Tehran. Facebook Twitter Pinterest
People flash the “V for Victory” sign as they celebrate on Valiasr street in northern Tehran. Photograph: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images
Homa, an Iranian housewife who has recently become a grandmother, said she did not know much about politics but she welcomed news of peace and reconciliation.
“We would like to be friends with other nations,” she said. “Since the revolution, we’ve had problems with many countries. We had so many enemies. But people are alike. Now we’re on better terms with the world and that’s a good thing. People are tired of constantly being at odds with other countries. I’m happy for myself, for my children and for my grandchildren.”
But others were more sceptical: Kianoush Amiri, a Tehran-based journalist and translator, said he thought ordinary Iranians would not benefit from a deal. “It will only help officials travel more easily and transfer their money,” he said.
Mehrdad, another resident of Tehran, was similarly gloomy. “It will not change people’s lives significantly,” he said. “This is only good for the Islamic republic and its allies in the region: Iraq, Syria and Yemen.”
Davood, a retired teacher with three children, said: “Why should we be happy? I don’t trust either of the parties in the negotiations,” he said. “It all happened in secrecy, nobody knows what they agreed on.”
His wife, Manijeh, said: “If the economy improves, it will be good for people. We are all under pressure and many people can’t make ends meet now but things might get better.”
Majid, a Tehran resident, said he hoped the agreement would pave ways for greater social freedoms. “Rouhani was quite preoccupied with the nuclear issue since his presidency began, and he neglected a lot of social issues meanwhile so now with the nuclear issue being solved, maybe he’ll have time for other issues such as the continued house arrests of opposition leaders.”
An Iranian journalist based in Tehran contributed to this report. Some names have been changed to protect people’s identities.
Iran Deal Threatens to Upend a Delicate Balance of Power in the Middle East
From Riyadh to Jerusalem, leaders are watching warily for signs of Tehran’s ascendance.
By David Kenner, Foreign Policy
April 02, 2015
BEIRUT — As negotiators in Lausanne, Switzerland, agreed on a tentative deal to constrain Iran’s nuclear program and waive sanctions pending verification of the eventual terms of the agreement, countries across the Middle East have already begun to adapt to the new regional political landscape.
While both the United States and Iran insist that negotiations pertain solely to Tehran’s nuclear program, leaders across the Arab world see the agreement through the prism of the Middle East’s delicate balance of power and the many conflicts racking the region. It’s not a crazy idea: In a sign of how the agreement could affect broader ties between Tehran and Washington, Iranian television, for the first time ever, aired live U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden on Thursday, April 2. Depending on which side of the conflict the regional leaders stand on, they either hope or fear that Iran will be enriched by the lifting of economic sanctions and empowered by its integration as a respected member of the international order.
In a bid to assuage the fears of his anti-Iran allies in the Persian Gulf, Obama announced on Thursday that he would invite the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to Camp David this spring to “further strengthen our security cooperation.” He also said that he had already called King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Iran’s main regional antagonist, to explain the agreement — moving even quicker to speak to the king than to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to whom Obama said he would speak later in the day.
But Obama will face a challenge in winning over the Gulf states, whose interests are arrayed against Iran across the Middle East, notably in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. In a letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in October, Obama seemed to confirm Gulf states’ fears that a nuclear deal would lead to a broader regional rapprochement between the United States and Iran, perhaps including a hint of support for Tehran’s proxies in Syria: According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama linked co-operation against the Islamic State with an agreement and “sought to assuage Iran’s concerns about the future of its close ally, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.”
Some analysts believe efforts by Saudi Arabia to contain the regional repercussions of the deal have already begun. In Yemen, a Saudi-led coalition has launched airstrikes against Iranian-backed Shi’ite rebels, while in Syria, Saudi-backed rebels have recently made gains against the Assad regime.
“The timing of the Yemeni operation was basically to send a clear message to the Iranians, and to the United States, that the region is going to stand against Iran’s expansionist policy,” said Mustafa Alani, director of the national security and terrorism studies department at the Gulf Research Center.
The intervention in Yemen is only one example of how Saudi Arabia has played a more aggressive role in the Middle East. Islamist rebels backed by Saudi Arabia recently captured the northern Syrian provincial capital of Idlib from the Assad regime — even as Washington moves slowly on its plan to train and arm a Syrian rebel force.
“We see the beginning of a new policy, where [Saudi] interest is basically more important than U.S. objections or with Security Council resolutions,” said Alani. “Basically, we are adopting the Iranian style and the Israeli style: When it comes to your national interest, you go ahead and do it.”
Israel, like Saudi Arabia and its allies, has also raised a red flag about Iranian expansionism across the Middle East. Having recently fought wars against Iranian-backed organizations Hezbollah and Hamas — while bombing Assad-allied forces in Syria — its leaders have been hostile to an agreement that they say will only embolden Tehran. Netanyahu famously spoke in front of the U.S. Congress in March to lay out his objections to the deal, and as the agreement neared on Thursday, he tweeted an image showing Iran’s interventions across the Arab world and called for an agreement that “stop[s] its terrorism and aggression.”
Tehran’s allies in the Middle East — from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah to its many allies in Baghdad — hope that Iran would be strengthened by the lifting of sanctions and its integration into the international system. As far back as 2013, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said, “Our side will be stronger locally, regionally, and internationally” in the event of a nuclear deal.
“Obviously, [Hezbollah leaders] are rooting for a lifting of the sanctions against Iran,” said Kamal Wazne, a Lebanese political analyst close to the party. “They felt in the first place that these sanctions were unjust, and the lifting of the sanctions will allow Iran to engage the international community and give it a better position at the international arena.”
Among Saudi Arabia’s allies elsewhere in the Arab world, there are fears that a bad deal would also spur a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Egypt, for instance, has long made the case that the region should be a nuclear-free zone — a policy meant to pressure Israel into giving up its nuclear weapons, but which has also constrained the development of nuclear weapons programs elsewhere in the Arab world. If Arab leaders believe that the current outlines of the deal leave Iran a path to construct a nuclear weapon, “the thinking will be, ‘why don’t we have the same status?’” said Abdel Moneim Said Aly, the director of Cairo’s al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies. “That will mean developing all the capabilities for uranium enrichment that Iran got.”
Saudi Arabia has long been interested in nuclear power and plans to build 16 nuclear reactors over the next two decades. More concerning to anti-proliferation experts are reports that Riyadh itself is interested in producing fuel for nuclear reactors. If the kingdom mastered the fuel cycle, that would give it an indigenous source of enriched uranium that could also be repurposed for a bomb. Asked in late March whether Riyadh would rule out building or acquiring a nuclear weapon, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, said the issue was “not something we would discuss publicly.”
All this has led to the perception, in certain corners, that power in the Middle East is up for grabs in a way that it has never been before. “I am 67 years old — I lived through the 1956 and 1967 wars, the Arab-Israeli peace, the revolutions and coup d’états,” said Said Aly. “Despite all that, I never had the same uncertainty that I have now about the region. Everything is possible.”
Netanyahu tells Obama Iran deal ‘threat to Israel’s survival’
By AFP / Ma’an news
April 03, 2015
JERUSALEM — The framework nuclear deal agreed with Iran would jeopardize Israel’s existence if implemented, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s spokesman quoted him as saying to US President Barack Obama on Friday.
“PM Netanyahu to Pres Obama: A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel,” Mark Regev wrote on his official Twitter account.
Regev quoted the Israeli premier as saying in the telephone conversation that the deal as it appears to be emerging “would not block Iran’s path to the bomb. It would pave it.
“It would increase the risks of nuclear proliferation and the risks of a horrific war,” he added.
The White House quoted Obama as telling Netanyahu that the framework deal between Iran and world powers represented “significant progress.”
“The president emphasized that, while nothing is agreed until everything is, the framework represents significant progress towards a lasting, comprehensive solution that cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb,” it said.
The White House said Obama spoke to Netanyahu from aboard Air Force One to discuss the framework agreement that would see Iran scale back its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Israeli officials earlier branded it a “historic mistake” and “dangerous.”
Obama, Kerry Ask Lawmakers To Give Iran Nuclear Deal Time
By David Francis, The Cable, Foreign Policy
April 02, 2015
President Barack Obama hailed the nuclear framework agreement with Iran as a “good deal” that paves a path toward a final accord that would prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
“If this framework leads to a final, comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies, and our world safer,” the U.S. president said at the White House.
Speaking from the Rose Garden after the framework deal over Iran’s nuclear program was announced, Obama called on lawmakers to give Tehran a chance to follow through on the promises it made by the June 30 deadline. He said the only alternative would be military action to stop Iran from pursuing a bomb.
“If we can get this done and Iran follows through on the framework that our negotiators agreed to, we will be able to resolve one of the greatest threats to our security and to do so peacefully,” Obama said.
“If Congress kills this deal not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative, then it’s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy,” the president added, a reference to Republicans and some Democrats who want to give Congress the power to approve or reject a deal.
In Lausanne, Switzerland, where the framework agreement was reached, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking to reporters shortly after the president, also appealed to lawmakers to give Iran time to show its commitment to the agreement.
“The political understanding with details that we have reached is a solid foundation for the good deal we are seeking,” Kerry said. But he also offered a note of caution, adding that many technical details still need to be worked out.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said soon after Obama’s remarks that he still plans to bring the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 to a committee vote on April 14. The legislation is supported by many Republicans, as well as some Democrats, including co-sponsors Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who pleaded not guilty to public corruption charges Thursday, April 2; Tim Kaine (D-Va.); Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.); and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“Rather than bypass Congress and head straight to the U.N. Security Council as planned, the administration first should seek the input of the American people,” Corker said in a statement. Recent polls suggest that the Iran deal has the support of about 50 to 60 percent of the U.S. public, though many doubt Iran’s willingness to fully comply.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a statement urged fellow lawmakers to have patience and hold off on anything that could “potentially jeopardize this historic opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) also called on lawmakers to hold off on any action that could scuttle the deal.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said Congress should allow Iran time to show its commitment.
“Congress must restrain itself from unhelpful actions in the coming months. It is not constructive to demand a ‘better deal’ that no negotiator could secure,” the Oregon lawmaker said in a statement.
I’m not trying to kill deal with Iran, just a bad deal’
Nuclear deal “leaves the pre-eminent terrorist state of our time with a vast nuclear infrastructure,” PM tells NBC.
By Herb Keinon, JPost
April 05, 2105
Prime Minister Netanyahu took his arguments against the Iran nuclear deal to the US public on Sunday, giving interviews on three Sunday morning news shows and saying he was not against any deal with Iran, just a “bad deal.”
Netanyahu said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” that he was trying to “kill a bad deal.” He said to those calling it a “historic deal,” that it “could be a historically bad deal.” This, he added, is “because it leaves the preeminent terrorist state of our time with a vast nuclear infrastructure, not one centrifuge destroyed, thousands of centrifuges would be left spinning uranium, and not a single facility – including an underground nuclear facility – is being shut down.”
Netanyahu said that the deal will leave Iran with a capacity to produce material for many nuclear bombs, and “does so by lifting the sanctions pretty much up front.”
“The billions of dollars Iran will have flowing through its coffers will not be for schools, hospitals or roads, “but to pump its world wide terror machine and military machine that is busy conquering the Middle East as we speak.”
Netanyahu said the “preeminent terrorist state of our time should not have access to the vast nuclear capability that will ultimately give them nuclear weapons.”
Asked whether he doesn’t feel isolated, given that the US, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia are all in favor of the deal, he recalled that the entire world celebrated the nuclear deal with North Korea in 1994. “It was deemed to be a great breakthrough,” he said, “with inspectors that would do the job. And everyone applauded it. But it turned out to be a very, very bad deal.”
The prime minister said he feared that the same thing would be true of Iran, “except Iran is a great deal more dangerous than North Korea. It is a militant Islamic power bent on regional and world domination.”
Asked if Israel still had a military option, Netanyahu demurred, saying that he “is the only Israeli left standing that never talks about our military option.” He said it was obvious Jerusalem preferred a diplomatic option, because in any military action Israel would be the country to pay the biggest price.
“We want a diplomatic solution, but a good one, one that rolls back Iran’s infrastructure and ties the final lifting of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program with a change in Iran’s behavior,” he said.
Netanyahu also said that one of the “tragic” results of the deal is that — if it goes through — it would “spark “ a nuclear arms race among the Sunni states in the region.” A Middle east crisscrossed with “nuclear trip-wires” is a “nightmare” for the world,” he said.
Netanyahu also granted interviews to ABC and CNN, and on the later network argued that the crippling sanctions imposed in 2012 were what brought Iran “immediately” to the table.
“If they worked to get them to the table, why when you get to the table, do you start lifting them immediately? In fact, apply those pressures because they do work. That is what’s required” he said.
Asked to what degree he was co-ordinating strategy on this issue with the Republican leadership, given that House Speaker John Boehner was in the country last week, Netanyahu denied that he was approaching the issue “on a partisan basis.”
“I’ve talked to about two-thirds of the representatives of the United States House of Representatives and probably an equal number of senators, from both sides of the aisle,” he said. “This is not a partisan issue. This is not even solely an Israeli issue. This is a world issue, because everyone is going to be threatened by the preeminent terrorist state of our time.”
Netanyahu was also asked whether he trusted US President Barack Obama, and replied that he trusts that the president was doing what he thought was good for the US. “I think that we can have a legitimate difference of opinion on this, because I think Iran has shown to be completely distrustful,” he said.
The prime minister added that this was not “a personal issue,” between him and Obama, whom he said he respected, and with whom he has a “mutually respectful” relationship.
He asserted that this was “a difference in policy, not a clash of personalities.”
The Iran deal is particularly opposed by defence minister Moshe Ya’alon and those fixed on military ‘solutions’. Photo by Ariel Hermon / Israeli Defence Ministry
Israel’s Netanyahu blasts Iran nuclear deal as paving way for a bomb
By Carol J Williams and Batshevia Sobelman, LA Times
April 02, 2015
Israeli leaders lashed out at Thursday’s announcement of a framework agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear development with demands that the foreign powers negotiating the deal further roll back Tehran’s programs and warnings of possible military strikes on Iran if they don’t.
“A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in a statement after speaking by telephone with President Obama.
“This deal would legitimize Iran’s nuclear program, bolster Iran’s economy, and increase Iran’s aggression and terror throughout the Middle East and beyond,” Netanyahu said of the pact forged over more than a year of tense negotiations and announced Thursday in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Even before details of the agreement were disclosed in news briefings by the brokers from the six major powers involved, Netanyahu demanded via Twitter that “any deal must significantly roll back Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
The Israeli leader reiterated accusations that Iran was backing Shiite Muslim militants in unrest plaguing Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon.
“Such a deal would not block Iran’s path to the bomb. It would pave it,” Netanyahu insisted. “It would increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war.”
Netanyahu was quoted by the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday as claiming an Iranian general had “brazenly declared” a day earlier that Tehran believes “Israel’s destruction is nonnegotiable.”
“Evidently giving Iran’s murderous regime a clear path to the bomb is negotiable,” the prime minister said. “This is unconscionable.”
Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz denounced the agreement unveiled in Lausanne as “disconnected from the sad reality” of violence gripping the region.
Steinitz also put the brokers of the agreement on notice that Israel would continue to work against the plan to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons as negotiations continue through June to draft the formal documents. The agreement calls for sanctions relief in exchange for Iranian concessions on uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel storage.
“Since the declaration is far from being a real agreement, we will continue in our efforts to explain and persuade the world in the hope of preventing a bad agreement, or at least to insert corrections and improvements,” Steinitz announced in Jerusalem.
Steinitz added his voice to those of other Israeli leaders opposed to any relief of European and U.S. sanctions on Iran, warning that Israel would consider military action against Iranian facilities if it believed its security was at risk.
Asked on Israel Radio whether he would support a military option in the face of U.S. opposition to such a strike, Steinitz replied: “If we have no choice, we have no choice.”
“I don’t want to talk about a military option, other than to say that it exists,” Steinitz said, reminding the audience that Israel attacked a nuclear reactor being buil in Iraq in 1981 in spite of U.S. opposition.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon has also lamented the “bad deal” emerging with Iran over its nuclear facilities.
Lawmaker Omer Bar Lev, a member of the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee, told Israeli media that, from the detailed report offered by European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, “this is, as we feared, an agreement that is not good for Israel.”
Bar Lev said the main danger of the emerging deal was that if Iran chose to develop a nuclear weapon it could do so in less than a year. But he also criticized Netanyahu for weakening Israel’s voice in the negotiations between Iran and the six powers — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — by antagonizing Israel’s allies.
“The mission now is to change the policy, to try to rehabilitate relations with the Obama administration as much as possible and in this way influence the final agreement that is to be signed in three months,” the lawmaker said.
Times staff writer Williams reported from Los Angeles and special correspondent Sobelman from Jerusalem.