UK: no deal with Iran would satisfy Israel


July 15, 2015
Sarah Benton

UK’s Hammond: Israel wants permanent state of stand-off with Iran

British foreign secretary to visit Israel to discuss nuclear deal with Netanyahu; tells UK parliament that Israel would not have been satisfied with any kind of deal with Tehran.

By Reuters / Ynet news
July 15, 2015

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond will arrive in Israel on Wednesday evening [July 15th] to discuss the nuclear deal signed between Iran and world powers the previous day with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Earlier on Wednesday, Hammond told parliament that Israel would not have been satisfied with any kind of nuclear deal with Iran, dismissing criticism of the agreement struck between Tehran and foreign powers.

“The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer of course is that Israel doesn’t want any deal with Iran,” Hammond said in response to an opposition legislator who said he objected to the agreement and cited dismay in Israel.

“Israel wants a permanent state of stand-off and I don’t believe that’s in the interests of the region. I don’t believe it’s in our interest,” Hammond said.

 Ian Austin MP

As expected, Netanyahu was critical of the deal, calling it a “stunning historic mistake,” asserting that the deal gives Iran every incentive not to change. By not dismantling the nuclear programme, the deal will give “an unrepentant” and “far richer” Iranian regime more regional power, the prime minister said.

But while Netanyahu vowed to continue fighting the agreement signed in Vienna on Tuesday, US President Barack Obama told the New York Times that Netanyahu “perhaps thinks he can further influence the congressional debate” but that he was confident the agreement would be approved.

“But after that’s done, if that’s what he thinks is appropriate, then I will sit down, as we have consistently throughout my administration, and then ask some very practical questions: How do we prevent Hezbollah from acquiring more sophisticated weapons? How do we build on the success of Iron Dome, which the United States worked with Israel to develop and has saved Israeli lives?” the US president said.


 Philip Hammond

Iran: Nuclear Deal, HoC debate

Hansard, House of Commons debates – Wednesday 15 July 2015

Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab):

The Foreign Secretary has kept his promise not to do a bad deal, but only because he has done an absolutely terrible one. That is why people are celebrating in Tehran, but are utterly dismayed in Tel Aviv. The truth is, as President Obama said, that this will allow Iran to reduce the time needed to acquire nuclear weapons almost to zero when restrictions expire in 10 to 15 years. This will trigger a middle eastern arms race. In response to an earlier question, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the potential release of $150 billion, which is utterly naive, given that while sanctions existed and its economy was in trouble, Iran still used its money to send thousands of rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Mr Hammond:

The question we have to ask is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer, of course, is that Israel does not want any deal with Iran. It wants a permanent state of stand-off, which I do not believe is in the interests of the region or in our interest.

The hon. Gentleman says that this agreement reduces the time needed to produce a nuclear weapon. It does not: it increases the time needed to do so. He talks about the restrictions expiring, but Iran has undertaken restrictions that are perpetual in nature in the non-proliferation treaty. Of course, any country in the world can break its internationally binding legal obligations, but the world has a set of measures to deal with that, including UN sanctions. If in 15 or 20 years’ time, we are sitting here talking about how to deal with an Iranian dash for a bomb, it will mean we have failed to exploit the opportunities that the deal offers. I think we should be optimistic. We should go into this trying to ensure that we draw Iran back into the international community, reinforce the hand of the moderates within Iran and make a positive outcome for the region and the world.

Notes

Ian Austin‘s adoptive father was a Czech Jew, born Fredi Stiler, who was adopted by an English family on the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. Ian Austine was a political advisor to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (later Prime Minister), Gordon Brown until his own election in 2005.

Philip Hammond 

He has held multiple jobs, including from 1984 as a director of Castlemead Ltd – a healthcare and nursing company. From 1995-97 he acted as a consultant to the government of Malawi.

Is the second richest member in cabinet with a net worth of £8.2 million, just under Lord Strathclyde with £9.6 million. Mr Hammond is said to have achieved his worth from stakes in a health care and nursing home developer and “consultancy work”.

© Copyright JFJFP 2024