UK Jewish establishment sets alarm about Iran's 'worldwide terror' network

1) Stephen Pollard warns of the dangers Obama has created by his desire for a legacy; 2) Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies, says the deal buys 30 years without MidEast nuclear war; 3) the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews issue a joint statement warning that we must all remain vigilant as Iran is a sponsor of ‘terror worldwide’. 4) Anshel Pfeffer says ‘Mr Netanyahu has made the Iranian issue his chief crusade over the last six years, and his credibility has taken a blow.’

The IDF’s Galilee Formation at the border with Lebanon to repel any attack from Hezbollah, April 2015. Photo by Reuters

A catastrophe in the making

From Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle

Editor’s newsletter
email, July 16, 2015

There is only one story this week: the Iran deal. Regular readers will need no reminding of where we stand on it. The JC’s view is that President Obama’s desperation for some sort of legacy has pushed the West towards a deal that has the potential to be catastrophic – not just for Israel but the West as a whole.

This agreement will stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon

By Lawrence Freedman, Jewish Chronicle
July 15, 2015

The agreement to curtail Iran’s nuclear programme has sharply divided opinion.

There is a risk of its being oversold as much over-condemned. It is not going to bring peace to the Middle East and it will not turn Iran into a moderate and easy-going power. The intention, however, was only to stop Iran becoming a nuclear state, and on this vital test, the deal should succeed. Iran cannot become a nuclear threshold state — that is, one that could with a push acquire weapons — for at least 15 years and in practice much longer.

Without a deal, Iran could become a nuclear power well before this time. The current sanctions regime could not prevent it and pre-emptive military strikes would be a huge gamble. The deal does allow Iran to enrich uranium, but doing that to a low level does not break any international agreements. Only enrichment to weapons grade causes concern. Here, the limits on programmes are real, and the verification provisions will be intrusive, more so than many anticipated.

All but a couple of percent of the enriched uranium already accumulated will have to be given up, and the number of centrifuges kept running reduced and not upgraded. The Arak research reactor will be reconfigured so that it can no longer produce plutonium for a bomb. Iran will also be prohibited from exploring technologies relevant to nuclear weapons design.

Therefore if it wants a nuclear weapon before 2030, Iran will have to engage in cheating on a massive scale, to a level that would carry a high risk of discovery. State of the art sensors, seals and cameras will watch key facilities and every aspect of Iran’s nuclear programme, including the movement of scientists, will be tracked. Were it to be caught cheating, the issue could then be taken back to the Security Council and sanctions restored.

No single power, for example Russia, could stop this with a veto. Such a gross violation would also risk a military response. Even after 2030, Iran will still be covered by the same International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring regime that guards against other states proliferating.

If left unfettered, the Iranians could have built nuclear weapons within a year or so. This would have had dire consequences, giving Tehran more freedom of action while encouraging other states in the region, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to develop their own nuclear programmes.

There are, however, plenty of vexatious issues left to resolve. The end of sanctions, it is feared, will give Iran an economic boost and embolden it as a regional power. But relief will only come progressively, as the deal is implemented. To get the main benefit, Iran will need to open up to foreign investment and reform. There is not going to be a sudden surge of Iranian oil onto international markets.

The wider consequences of this deal will depend on the broader context. The Middle East has become a progressively more dangerous, violent and in many respects confusing place. Iran is one of the reasons.

The US might come under pressure to compensate the deal’s many regional opponents by taking a tougher line against Iran in other areas.

Optimists will hope that the deal strengthens moderate elements in Iran, and it might, but there no guarantees. Iranian politics is complex. Which is why the safest assessment remains that the deal achieves what it was asked to do; but not peace in our time.

Sir Lawrence Freedman is Emeritus Professor of War Studies, King’s College London

Board and JLC urge caution about Iran deal

Board of Deputies
July 14, 2015

The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council call for caution and vigilance in response to today’s nuclear agreement with Iran.

While we hope that the deal which has been reached between Iran and world powers will limit its ability to develop nuclear weapons, we would urge extreme vigilance on those who are policing the agreement.

This is essential so that Iran, which remains a sponsor of terror worldwide, has no opportunity to develop weapons of mass destruction. We would also caution against the complete abandonment of sanctions which have had the effect of bringing Iran to the negotiating table and keeping them there.

Hezbollah raises its flag in Damascus. 10,000 of its fighters arrived in Syria in 2013 to support Assad’s regime. As its total force including the part-time men, known as Saraya, is reckooned to be 50,000, of which 10,000 to 15,000 are elite forces it seems unlikely they have enough skilled and experienced soldiers to invade Israel, even if they wanted to..

Iran maintains its support for proxies, including Hezbollah, which destabilise the entire region. Iran is also known to have been involved in the murder of Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria in 2012, the bombing of the AMIA Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in 1994.

The Iranian regime also continues to persecute Baha’is, Christians and the LGBT community. The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni has recently been outlining his blueprint for the destruction of Israel on social media. He also stated that regardless of the deal his country would continue its struggle against the US.

Alongside the agreement, vigilance and preparedness for action is necessary to sufficient to stop Iran producing nuclear weapons. Failure to do so would have grave consequences both for regional stability and for world peace.

Iran deal is a blow to the credibility of Netanyahu

By Anshel Pfeffer, Jewish Chronicle
July 16, 2015

Benjamin Netanyahu’s response on Tuesday morning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme was hardly surprising.

The deal that he had spent years fighting, that had prompted him to sacrifice his government’s relationship with Barack Obama’s White House, was, he said, “a mistake of historic proportions” that “threatens Israel’s security and the security of the entire world”.

But the prime minister who normally projects a confident – some say arrogant – image, looked ashen-faced when he tried to explain to Israelis what had just happened.

Likud ministers were briefed to tell the media that if it had not been for Mr Netanyahu’s efforts, there would have been no sanctions on Iran to begin with and the agreement would have been a lot worse.

Mr Netanyahu said he had been fighting the issue for 20 years. And yet it was hard to understand how this deal could have been any worse from his perspective. He himself detailed how the agreement would enable Iran to build a nuclear weapon – either by stealth over the next few years, or in ten to 15 years once the freeze period on advanced nuclear development is over; how it would gift the Iranians hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen funds, allowing it to triple transfers to Hizbollah and Hamas.

Mr Netanyahu has made the Iranian issue his chief crusade over the last six years, and his credibility has taken a blow.

Even though most of the opposition agrees that this is a “bad deal”, some, like Yesh Atid Leader Yair Lapid, have been calling for his resignation. He probably will not lose his job over this but it has cast a shadow over his judgment, particularly the way he clashed with the Obama administration.

None of this will help him deal with a tiny and fractured coalition.

As far as the prime minister is concerned, this is not over. There is still a 60-day “review” period in the Senate during which the US administration will have to defend the agreement. Mr Obama has made it clear that he will veto any attempt to obstruct the deal.

Assuming that all the Republican senators vote against, Mr Netanyahu will still need 13 Democratic senators to join the opposition and deny their president his main foreign policy legacy. It promises to be an ugly battle in which the chances of success are slim.

For now, the US administration is making an effort to patch up relations. Next week Defence Secretary Ashton Carter will arrive in Israel (and Saudi Arabia) to discuss an expected package of new arms and other forms of cooperation aimed at boosting Israel’s capabilities. None of this is likely to prevent another showdown between the two strategic allies.

Links
Iran Rekindles Relations With Hamas, WSJ, April 21, 2015

‘Homes in Lebanese villages won’t be standing after next Israel-Hezbollah war’, JPost, April 8th, 2015

Analysis: Hezbollah takes Syrian centre-stage, yet remains in shadows, Reuters, June 2013

Israel air raid kills Hezbollah commander, Israeli air-strike on Syrian side of Golan Heights kills total of six Hezbollah fighters, Al Jazeera, Janauary 2015.