IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL: “AN HISTORIC MISTAKE FOR THE WORLD”

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication.

The Best Arguments for an Iran Deal: Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2015 — In formal rhetoric, prolepsis means the anticipation of possible objections to an argument for the sake of answering them.

Why Israel Won’t Be Celebrating the Iran Deal: Michael B. Oren, Time, July 14, 2015— In Israel, one of the world’s rowdiest democracies, politicians rarely agree on anything.

To Obama, Iran’s Threats Never Matter: Shmuley Boteach, Algemeiner, July 13, 2015 — On Friday, “Al Quds Day,” Iran had an orgy of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” chants.

Israel's Military Option Won't Vanish in a Post-Iran Deal Era: Yaakov Lappin, Jerusalem Post, July 13, 2015 — Israel's defense establishment is quietly monitoring every development in the nuclear talks between world powers and Iran, and any forthcoming deal will be subject to the most intense scrutiny.

On Topic Links

Could the Iran Deal Be the Worst International Accord of All Time?: Daniel Pipes, National Review, July 14, 2015

16 Reasons Nuke Deal is an Iranian Victory and a Western Catastrophe: David Horovitz, Times of Israel, July 14, 2015

Truth and Reality in Iran: Ed Royce, Fox News, July 13, 2015

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards: Destroying Israel is “Muslims’ First Priority”: The Tower, July 8, 2015

The Impossible Dream: Obama, Israel, and Iran: James Kirchick, World Affairs, Fall 2015

THE BEST ARGUMENTS FOR AN IRAN DEAL                                                                                                    

Bret Stephens

Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2015

In formal rhetoric, prolepsis means the anticipation of possible objections to an argument for the sake of answering them. So let’s be proleptic about the Iranian nuclear deal, whose apologists are already trotting out excuses for this historic diplomatic debacle.

The heroic case. Sure, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is an irascible and violent revolutionary bent on imposing a dark ideology on his people and his neighborhood. Much the same could be said of Mao Zedong when Henry Kissinger paid him a visit in 1971—a diplomatic gamble that paid spectacular dividends as China became a de facto U.S. ally in the Cold War and opened up to the world under Deng Xiaoping.

But the hope that Iran is the new China fails a few tests. Mao faced an overwhelming external threat from the Soviet Union. Iran faces no such threat and is winning most of its foreign proxy wars. Beijing ratcheted down tensions with Washington with friendly table-tennis matches. Tehran ratchets them up by locking up American citizens and seizing cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Deng Xiaoping believed that to get rich is glorious. Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, a supposed reformer, spent last Friday marching prominently in the regime’s yearly “Death to America, Death to Israel” parade. If there is evidence of an Iranian trend toward moderation it behooves proponents of a deal to show it.

The transactional case. OK, so Iran hasn’t really moderated its belligerent behavior, much less its antediluvian worldview. And a deal won’t mean we won’t still have to oppose Iran on other battlefields, whether it’s Yemen or Syria or Gaza. But that doesn’t matter, because a nuclear deal is nothing more than a calculated swap. Iran puts its nuclear ambitions into cold storage for a decade. In exchange, it comes in from the cold economically and diplomatically. Within circumscribed parameters, everyone can be a winner.

But a transaction requires some degree of trust. Since we can’t trust Iran we need an airtight system of monitoring and verification. Will the nuclear deal provide that? John Kerry will swear that it will, but as recently as January Czech officials blocked a covert $61 million purchase by Iran of “dual-use” nuclear technologies. A month before that, the U.S. found evidence that Iran had gone on an illicit “shopping spree” for its plutonium plant in Arak. That’s what we know. What do we not know?

Also, how does a nuclear deal not wind up being Iran’s ultimate hostage in dictating terms for America’s broader Mideast policy? Will the administration risk its precious nuclear deal if Iran threatens to break it every time the two countries are at loggerheads over regional crises in Yemen or Syria? The North Koreans already mastered the art of selling their nuclear compliance for one concession after another—and they still got the bomb.

The defeatist case. All right: So the Iran deal is full of holes. Maybe it won’t work. Got any better ideas? Sanctions weren’t about to stop a determined regime, and we couldn’t have enforced them for much longer. Nobody wants to go to war to stop an Iranian bomb, not the American public and not even the Israelis. And conservatives, of all people, should know that foreign policy often amounts to a choice between evils. The best case for a nuclear deal is that it is the lesser evil.

Then again, serious sanctions were only imposed on Iran in November 2011. They cut the country’s oil exports by half, shut off its banking system from the rest of the world, sent the rial into free fall and caused the inflation rate to soar to 60%. By October 2013 Iran was six months away from a severe balance-of-payments crisis, according to estimates by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. And that was only the first turn of the economic screw: Iran’s permitted oil exports could have been cut further; additional sanctions could have been imposed on the “charitable” foundations controlled by Iran’s political, military and clerical elite. Instead of turning the screw, Mr. Obama relieved the pressure the next month by signing on to the interim agreement now in force.

It’s true that nobody wants war. But a deal that gives Iran the right to enrich unlimited quantities of uranium after a decade or so would leave a future president no option other than war to stop Iran from building dozens of bombs. And a deal that does nothing to stop Iran’s development of ballistic missiles would allow them to put one of those bombs atop one of those missiles.

Good luck. Americans are a lucky people—lucky in our geography, our founders and the immigrants we attract to our shores. So lucky that Bismarck supposedly once said “there is a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America.”

Maybe we’ll get lucky again. Maybe Iran will change for the better after Mr. Khamenei passes from the scene. Maybe international monitors will succeed with Iran where they failed with North Korea. Maybe John Kerry is the world’s best negotiator, and this deal was the best we could do. Or maybe we won’t be lucky. Maybe there’s no special providence for nations drunk on hope, led by fools.                                                     

Contents                                                                                      

WHY ISRAEL WON’T BE CELEBRATING THE IRAN DEAL                                                                     

Michael B. Oren

Time, July 14, 2015

In Israel, one of the world’s rowdiest democracies, politicians rarely agree on anything. Which is why their reaction to the nuclear arms deal with Iran is so unique. For the first time in living memory, virtually all Israelis – left, right, religious, secular, Arabs, Jews – are together calling the deal disastrous.

The reasons might not be clear to many readers of the agreement. According to preliminary reports, its 100 pages contain bewilderingly complex provisions for supposedly delaying Iran from making a bomb. There are international inspections of the Iranians’ nuclear facilities but none that would actually catch them off guard. There are limits to the number of centrifuges with which Iran can enrich uranium to weapons grade, but only for a decade during which not a single centrifuge will be dismantled. And Iran can continue to research and develop more advanced technologies capable of producing nuclear weapons even faster. Most mystifying still, the deal recognizes Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear power without demanding that Iran cease promoting war throughout the Middle East and terror worldwide.

For Israelis, though, there is nothing mystifying about this picture. We see an Iranian regime that will deceive inspectors and, in the end, achieve military nuclear capabilities. We see an Iranian nuclear program that, while perhaps temporarily curtailed, will remain capable of eventually producing hundreds of nuclear weapons.

This is a picture that we’ve all seen before. Back in 1994, American negotiators promised a “good deal” with North Korea. Its nuclear plants were supposed to be frozen and dismantled. International inspectors would “carefully monitor” North Korea’s compliance with the agreement and ensure the country’s return to the “community of nations.” The world, we were told, would be a safer place. It wasn’t. North Korea never forfeited its nuclear plants and the inspections proved useless. The community of nations is threatened by North Korean atomic bombs and the world is anything but safe. And yet, against all logic, a very similar deal has been signed with Iran.

And Iran is not North Korea. It’s far worse. Pyonyang’s dictators never plotted terrorist attacks across five continents and in thirty cities, including Washington, D.C. Tehran’s Ayatollahs did. North Korea is not actively undermining pro-Western governments in its region or planting agents in South America. Iran is. And North Korea – unlike Iran – did not kill many hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

So why, then, are only Israelis united in opposing this deal? The answer is that we have the most to lose, at least in the short run. We know that the deal allows Iran to break out and create nuclear bombs in as little as three months, too quickly for the world to react. We know that the Ayatollahs, who have secretly constructed fortified nuclear facilities that have no peaceful purpose and have violated all of their international commitments, will break this deal in steps too small to precipitate a powerful global response. And we know that the sanctions, once lifted, cannot be swiftly revived, and that hundreds of billions of dollars Iran will soon receive will not be spent on better roads and schools. That treasure will fund the shedding of blood – of Israelis but also of many others.

Israelis know that, while the world might weather its deception by North Korea, they cannot afford to be duped by Iran. But neither, in fact, can the United States. Just last week, Iran’s President attended a rally in Tehran where tens of thousands of protesters chanted “Death to America.” The deal will better enable them to carry out that attack – if not today, then against future generations. And Iran’s Supreme Leader has publicly pledged to do just that.

The planned celebrations in Tehran and Iranian declarations of victory contrast starkly with the gloom hanging today over almost all Israelis. We believe that with stronger sanctions and tougher demands, a better deal is still possible. But we also understand that the present deal poses grave dangers not only to us, but ultimately to America and the world.

Contents        

TO OBAMA, IRAN’S THREATS NEVER MATTER

Shmuley Boteach                   

Algemeiner, July 13, 2015

On Friday, “Al Quds Day,” Iran had an orgy of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” chants. I witnessed some of it here in Toronto where I’m filming a new TV series. Thousands of Israel haters protested in front of the American consulate accusing Israel of being a Nazi state and perpetrating a holocaust against the Palestinians. The entire nuclear deal with Iran, which may be agreed before this column is published, is predicated on the idea that Iran’s words don’t matter. They’re for domestic consumption only. They don’t really mean they want to kill millions of Americans and the six million Jews of Israel.

And yet, President Obama who says that these words don’t much matter is the same leader who took a very different approach to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s words about a Palestinian state. “We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership,” President Obama told The Huffington Post. The President said Netanyahu’s statement was cause for a “reassessment” of American ties with Israel.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest echoed the sentiment in his White House briefing that the Prime Minister’s words could bring punishment. “Words matter,” he said. There could be “consequences” for Netanyahu’s statements. “Everybody who’s in a position to speak on behalf of their government understands that that’s the case, and particularly when we’re talking about a matter as serious as this one.” Well, what about the matter as serious as wanting to destroy America and Israel. That seems pretty serious to me.

So, according to the White House, when foreign leaders speak, it matters. What they say is consequential. Bibi’s going to have to pay for his remarks. But, there is an exception. None of this applies to Iran? The Iranians are screaming in their thousands and tens of thousands, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that America has to die, even as John Kerry is expressing optimism the very same day that the United States is going to conclude a nuclear deal with Iran where we’ll trust them not to build bombs to kill millions of people. Suddenly, Iran’s words don’t matter?

The most hair-raising aspect about the American rapprochement with the barbaric government of Iran is that it has all happened while Iran has continued to repeatedly threaten the annihilation of the Jewish people. Ayatollah Khamenei has called Jews dogs and tweeted as recently as this past November that “there is no cure for Israel other than annihilation.” Now, if words matter, how can the United States continue to speak to his government while they are openly threatening a second holocaust? Why did President Obama and John Kerry not establish a repudiation of these genocidal words and threats as a precondition for any talks?

The hypocrisy is startling. And it leads to a more important point. By now it’s pretty clear to most that President Obama kind of dislikes Prime Minister Netanyahu more than any other world leader. His hostility to the Prime Minister has become so pronounced that a famously cool President finds it difficult to control his emotions when it comes to Bibi. But am I the only one who finds it just a touch unseemly for the leader of the free world to kind of despise the leader of the only free country in the Middle East while he continually gives a pass to Khamenei, the genocidal wannabe?

The President has a good relationship with Erdogan, the tyrant of Turkey, who has destroyed his nation’s democracy and allows fighters to pass through his nation to join ISIS and decapitate American journalists. President Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia to pay his personal condolences upon the passing of arch-misogynist King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a man who wouldn’t even allow women to drive a car. But he finds Netanyahu odious. Go figure.

For years we Americans have heard that our President is cerebral and unflappable. That he famously remains controlled under the most emotionally challenging circumstances. It turns out that this is true for every world leader except one, Benjamin Netanyahu, who makes the President’s blood boil. Don’t we deserve to know why? If the two leaders merely had bad personal chemistry, I could understand. They’re not the best of friends. Fine. But for Obama the dislike of Netanyahu has become visceral.

I’ll leave it to the armchair analysts to explain why. What’s far more important to me is why President Obama hasn’t even once warned the government of Iran to stop publicly calling for the destruction of his own country, America, and the annihilation of all Israeli Jews.

Would it be so hard for the President to say at a press conference, “We want to get this deal with Iran done. But let me be clear. It will not proceed so long as Iran publicly calls for the death of my fellow countrymen and the holocaust of Israel’s Jews. The United States is opposed to genocide on every level, including genocidal incitement. Ayatollah Khamenei’s public calls for the destruction of the United States and Israel is a red line that will lead to the collapse of these talks, should they continue.”

Such a statement would be righteous, courageous, and inspiring. And it might go a long way toward the President recapturing some of the moral authority he has lost ever since this appeasement of Iran began. Yes Mr. President. Words do matter.             

Contents                                                                                      

ISRAEL'S MILITARY OPTION WON'T VANISH IN A POST-IRAN DEAL ERA                                                                  

Yaakov Lappin                                                                                                   

Jerusalem Post, July 13, 2015

Israel's defense establishment is quietly monitoring every development in the nuclear talks between world powers and Iran, and any forthcoming deal will be subject to the most intense scrutiny. The final form of a nuclear deal will influence Israeli military plans for the possibility of, one day, receiving an order from the cabinet to launch an assault on the Iranian nuclear program. This is a capability that Israel has no intention of forfeiting, even in a post-deal era.

The IDF will need to set aside considerable defense budget funds in the forthcoming multi-year military plan, dubbed Gideon, to continue to build on its long-range strike options. According to Israeli intelligence assessments, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has not given up on his goal of possessing nuclear weapons. Yet, constraints posed by a complex reality have forced Khamanei to delay this goal, at least for the time being.

Hence, the first conclusion one can draw is that a nuclear deal does not mean Iran has given up on nuclear weapons as a goal, but also, that an arrangement, even a poor one, could result in a short-term decrease of the threat of Iran breaking out to the weapons production stage. As a result, the option of a military strike remains firmly on the table, but does not appear to be imminent, since only an Iranian attempt to break through to the nuclear weapons stage can trigger an Israeli attack.

Over the past year, Israel has not detected an active nuclear weapons project in Iran. What is active in Iran is a large-scale uranium enrichment program, based on a relatively high number of spinning centrifuges. Additionally, Iran continues to make progress in research and development of more advanced enrichment techniques.

The Iranian missile arsenal, which could act as a delivery mechanism for a future nuclear weapon, is expanding. Iran has hundreds of liquid fuel missiles that can strike Israel and parts of Europe, and it is working on solid fuel missiles for much longer strike ranges. Senior Israeli defense sources hold that in the short term, a combination of intelligence monitoring and intrusive international inspections could actually result in a decrease of the threat from Iran.

It seems, however, that the deal being put together in Vienna now falls short of ensuring adequate inspections, meaning that intelligence will play a crucial role as a tool that can deliver a warning of an Iranian breakout attempt. Iran could reactivate the nuclear weapons project at any time.

The reason the nuclear deal is bad is because it leaves too much enrichment capability in Iranian hands and infrastructure that can lead to nuclear weapons in the future. A good agreement would have ensured that Iran would not possess enrichment abilities for many years. Instead, Iran is left with a high number of centrifuges and no guarantee that these won't be diverted into a nuclear weapons production drive in the future. That is bad news for Israel, the region, and for international security.

The Iranian regime continues to officially call for Israel's destruction, and so long as Tehran retains a basis from which it could one day build nuclear weapons, the defense establishment will retain its ability to intervene, if ordered to do so. In the meantime, the IDF and intelligence agencies will have their hands full with Iran's regional subversive activities and aggression, and its weapons and funding network, for Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Islamic Republic's many activities in Syria.

Contents

On Topic                                                                                        

Could the Iran Deal Be the Worst International Accord of All Time?: Daniel Pipes, National Review, July 14, 2015 —Barack Obama has repeatedly signaled during the past six and a half years that that his No. 1 priority in foreign affairs is not China, not Russia, not Mexico, but Iran. He wants to bring Iran in from the cold, to transform the Islamic Republic into just another normal member of the so-called international community, thereby ending decades of its aggression and hostility.

16 Reasons Nuke Deal is an Iranian Victory and a Western Catastrophe: David Horovitz, Times of Israel, July 14, 2015—Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday unsurprisingly hailed the nuclear agreement struck with US-led world powers, and derided the “failed” efforts of the “warmongering Zionists.” His delight, Iran’s delight, is readily understandable.

Truth and Reality in Iran: Ed Royce, Fox News, July 13, 2015—We’ve reached peak farce. On Friday, while signaling yet another extension of the Iran nuclear negotiations, Secretary of State John Kerry struck an optimistic note: “I think it’s safe to say that we have made progress today.” “The atmosphere,” he added, “is very constructive.”

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards: Destroying Israel is “Muslims’ First Priority”: The Tower, July 8, 2015—Ahead of Friday’s commemoration of Qods Day, an Iranian holiday calling for the destruction of Israel, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a release stating that the annihilation of the Jewish state “is Muslims’ first priority,” Iran’s Tasnim New Agency reported today.

The Impossible Dream: Obama, Israel, and Iran: James Kirchick, World Affairs, Fall 2015—Early in Ally, a memoir of his tenure as Israel’s ambassador to the United States between 2009 and 2013, Michael Oren, who was born and raised in the US, recounts playing the title role in his New Jersey high school’s production of Man of La Mancha.