We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to: Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 – Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284; E-mail: rob@isranet.wpsitie.com
Answers to Key Questions Will Determine Iran Deal’s Success: Michael Singh, Washington Post,, Nov. 25, 2013— The “first-step” agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear program is a timeout rather than a breakthrough. Under the accord, Iran pauses but does not significantly roll back its nuclear progress, and the West does the same with sanctions.
Just a Temporary Halt: Jerusalem Report, Dec. 16, 2013 — “This is not a roll-back of the program. No enrichment capability is dismantled. But it is a temporary halt of many of the elements of the program,” says Olli Heinonen in an interview.
A Stronger Iran, a Weaker America and a Region Teetering On The Brink: Zvi Mazel, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 9, 2013 — Three years ago, in May 2010, the Islamic Republic News Agency of Iran – IRNA – published a stern, if flowery, warning following a series of incidents involving the Gulf states.
Liberals Follow the Pied Piper to a Nuclear Iran: Karin McQuillan, American Thinker, Dec. 9, 2013 — Democrats march docilely behind their president toward a nuclear Iran. They are loyal beyond good sense and morality.
Obama’s Rouhani Smokescreen: Evelyn Gordon, Commentary, Dec. 9, 2013
Iran Nuclear Deal Raises Fears of Proliferation Among Arab States: Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 29, 2013
Iran Announces Refusal to Recognize Israel at United Nations Session: Algemeiner, Dec. 7, 2013
The Nuclear Deal: Netanyahu vs. Obama: American Thinker, Nov. 29, 2013
Containing Iran is the Least Awful Choice: George Will, Washington Post, Dec. 6, 2013
ANSWERS TO KEY QUESTIONS WILL DETERMINE IRAN DEAL’S SUCCESS
Michael Singh
Washington Post, Nov. 25, 2013
The “first-step” agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear program is a timeout rather than a breakthrough. Under the accord, Iran pauses but does not significantly roll back its nuclear progress, and the West does the same with sanctions. The emerging debate — critics assert that more should have been demanded of Iran; defenders counter that this was the best the United States could do and that the alternative would have been not a better deal but rather a military conflict — is important, but with the deal signed, the most critical questions regard what comes next.
Three questions will determine whether this deal ultimately advances or sets back U.S. national security interests. The first concerns implementation of the deal. Previous nuclear accords with Iran, such as the ones signed by Tehran and the European Union in 2003-04, foundered in implementation, not negotiation. At some point in the next six months, Iran may engage in activities that violate the deal in letter or spirit. In addition, the Geneva deal covers only one of three elements of Iran’s nuclear program: fuel fabrication. The other two elements, weaponization research and the development of missile delivery vehicles, are proscribed by the United Nations but not addressed in the accord and may well continue. The United States and its allies must prepare contingency plans to respond to any Iranian cheating on the deal and to punish Iranian nuclear-related work not addressed in the deal. Recall that when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossed President Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons, U.S. officials found themselves scrambling to formulate a response. That sort of ad hoc policymaking cannot be repeated with Iran.
The second question concerns the ultimate end-state of Iran’s nuclear program. The interim agreement permits Tehran to retain all of its nuclear capabilities without requiring it to disclose all about its nuclear weapons-related work, past or present. This is a dangerous combination. Without insight into the full extent of Iran’s clandestine nuclear activities, no amount of monitoring and inspection can provide true confidence that Iran lacks a parallel program beyond inspectors’ view. A final agreement must sharply curtail the nuclear capacity left in place by this first diplomatic step and require Iran to come clean on the full range of past and present nuclear work by all Iranian entities. To make clear to Tehran the alternative to such terms, the Obama administration should threaten to impose additional sanctions if no deal is reached and should take steps to strengthen the credibility of its military options. This is not just good policy but a matter of practicality: Any final agreement, or even a renewal of the six-month interim period “by mutual consent,” as the Geneva deal allows, would require the cooperation of Congress. It was hard enough to get congressional agreement to lift sanctions on Libya after that country agreed to dismantle its nuclear program and abandon its support for terrorism. Obtaining Congress’s blessing of a deal that requires far less of Iran is unrealistic.
Finally, and most important, the agreement raises questions about the U.S. strategic position in the Middle East. Our allies already believe that the United States is retreating from the region; the Geneva agreement is likely to reinforce that view as it legitimizes nuclear activities that the United States and the U.N. Security Council have opposed for the past decade. Accordingly, many will see this as a sign that flirting with U.S. red lines brings rewards — which is, regrettably, the same lesson that many have taken from U.S. non-intervention in Syria.
Combating this impression will require vigorous and proactive efforts, in contrast with the ambivalent approach Washington has taken toward the Middle East in recent years. An important element will be to energetically enforce the sanctions Iran still faces on its nuclear program, as well as those tied to terrorism, human rights and other issues. Washington must deter countries and companies from prematurely returning to business-as-usual with Tehran.
Furthermore, to signal to both Iran and our allies that the United States is not looking for the exit but remains committed to the region, U.S. officials should coordinate with allies regarding the content of a final agreement rather than presenting them with a fait accompli. Beyond the nuclear issue, Washington should continue to work to thwart hostile Iranian policies, defend our interests and those we share with our allies and otherwise deepen American engagement in the region.
The Geneva accord has been aptly characterized as a “first step.” Only time and our own actions will tell whether it is a step toward Iran’s denuclearization or its rise as a nuclear power, a step toward U.S. retrenchment or the reassertion of U.S. leadership in the Middle East.
Jerusalem Report, Dec. 16, 2013
What does a former deputy director of the IAEA think of the deal the United States (as part of the P5+1 group) reached with Iran — to restrict Iranian nuclear activities for six months, while some sanctions against Iran are eased? “This is not a roll-back of the program. No enrichment capability is dismantled. But it is a temporary halt of many of the elements of the program,” says Olli Heinonen in an interview.
Dr. Heinonen, who is from Finland, spent 27 years at the International Atomic Energy Agency. He is credited with identifying as a danger A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani who was traveling from country to country, selling nuclear knowhow. Heinonen was also notably critical of his former boss, Mohamed elBaradei, the Egyptian who headed the IAEA for a dozen years until 2009. The hint was that elBaradei was too soft on Iran.
Heinonen, as head of the IAEA’s Safeguards department, was able to visit nuclear facilities in Iran many times. He is certainly one of the world’s leading experts on Iran’s nuclear work — and one of the few who are very knowledgeable yet able to speak openly. Heinonen, after all, is now a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
“The agreement says that Iran will not build new facilities, but I would have preferred to have a statement included that Natanz and Fordow are the only ones existing or under construction,” he says. “I also welcome the monitoring of Iran’s yellowcake production, with the understanding that the yellowcake imported or produced until now will be subject to monitoring.”
Concerns have been raised because Iran’s semi-industrial-scale enrichment capacities and its stockpile could be further enriched to weapons-grade uranium.
“Indeed. With its current inventory of 20%-enriched uranium, it would take about two weeks in its new centrifuges to produce enough weapons-grade material for one nuclear device…If Iran uses 3 to 5%-enriched uranium as feed material at all 18,000 of its currently installed, old-generation IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, the same result would be achieved in two months…In terms of stockpiled enriched uranium, Iran has more than 7 metric tons of 3 to 5%-enriched uranium. This amount translates to roughly the amount of fissile material for about four bombs…A more attractive route to break out for Iran is a covert route. A covert facility with 3,000 more advanced IR-2m centrifuges using 20%-enriched uranium would require less than two weeks to produce one bomb-grade amount of fissile material.”
So how long will it take Iran to produce a nuclear weapon?
“Weapons-grade UF6 still has to be turned into uranium metal, components of the weapon have to be machined, and a nuclear device assembled. This would take about a month or two. At this stage, one would have a crude nuclear device — which could be delivered, for example, by a jet fighter, as was the plan of Pakistan at the time of its nuclear test in 1998… Obama has set, as his red line — [the limit] for Iran’s nuclear capability — a nuclear device fitted on a missile. That capability appears to be at least one year away.”
The Arak heavy water reactor, unless its construction is truly stopped, is likely to come online by the end of 2014. Would this reactor contribute to Iran’s ability to produce plutonium?
“Pakistan, India and Israel have used similar reactors to produce plutonium for their nuclear weapons. The Arak reactor could produce more than one bomb’s worth of plutonium on an annual basis…Once the reactor starts operation, it becomes highly radioactive since the spent fuel it churns out will contain fission products and plutonium. Iran would also need to build a reprocessing plant to extract plutonium from the spent fuel. While there is no present indication that Iran is building such a facility, Iran did conduct plutonium separation experiments in the early 1990s…There may still be ways to modify the Arak reactor so that it would produce less plutonium. Since Iran has stated that the reactor will be used for the production of medical isotopes, it could be modified to a more proliferation-friendly and smaller-sized light water reactor… At this stage, the most reasonable way forward is to freeze the construction of the IR-40 reactor, including the manufacturing of fuel and of reactor components, and to halt the production of additional heavy water pending the completion of any final agreement…To sum up, the measures taken by the agreement regarding Arak are good, but I would have also included the manufacturing of key components in the deal.”
A STRONGER IRAN, A WEAKER AMERICA AND A REGION TEETERING ON THE BRINK
Zvi Mazel
Jerusalem Post, Dec. 9, 2013
Three years ago, in May 2010, the Islamic Republic News Agency of Iran – IRNA – published a stern, if flowery, warning following a series of incidents involving the Gulf states. “There is no lion in the region save the one crouching on the shore opposite the Emirates states,” IRNA said. “He protects his lair, the Persian Gulf. Those who believe that there is another lion in the area [the United States], his claws and fangs have been broken in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine.”
“No good can be expected from him or from his hunting forays. He is merely counting the days until he can find a way to escape when he still can. Iran, the Emirates and the others countries of the region will forever be neighbors because of their geographic situation.” Today, those words have become reality. The Geneva agreement appears to be another step in America’s flight from the Middle East rather than a genuine effort to stop Iran’s rush to nuclear weapons.
The special relationship between Washington and Riyadh had been the cornerstone of America’s policy in the Gulf and the Middle East for nearly a century. The United States needed Saudi oil and secure export routes through the Gulf. It supplied the kingdom with sophisticated weapons. The Gulf states believed themselves safe thanks to this special relationship, which endured for decades. With the fall of the Shah and the rise of Khomeini in 1979, Iran became the main threat to the safety of the Gulf while America stood firm against Iranian subversive activities. That era appears to be coming to an end.
What happened in Geneva came after a series of steps that can only be seen as demonstrating the overwhelming will of the American president to distance himself from the region: getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, with no tangible success; abandoning Mubarak, backing the Muslim Brothers and even turning his back on the new Egyptian regime battling radical Islam; zigzagging about Syria; and recently rumored to be conducting secret talks with Hezbollah and radical Islamic factions in Syria. Taken together, these steps point to a deliberate strategy and game changer.
The anti-Iranian pragmatic front that united Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Egypt – with Israel as a silent partner – is no more. It was already seriously weakened when Obama deserted his old ally Mubarak in January 2011 and hastened his fall. Geneva was its death knell. Iran is no longer the enemy of America, which views it as a potential partner in reshaping the Middle East.
Moreover, the Geneva agreement appears to be the outcome of secret talks between Teheran and Washington, with the mediation of Oman, leading the Iranians to grasp that Obama is even more eager to get rid of the issue and distance himself from the Middle East, something they had long suspected.
They were therefore able to achieve remarkable results. Their nuclear infrastructure remains intact; the West acknowledges their right to enrich uranium – in stark contradiction with the six Security Council resolutions in the framework of Article 7 of the UN Charter – that is, binding resolutions assorted with the threat of sanctions, including the use of force should they not be acted upon. Considering the spotty record of Iran in implementing those resolutions, it is doubtful whether it will do better with the Geneva agreement.
That this “preliminary” agreement will be followed by a final settlement is no less doubtful. In fact, in exchange for practically no concession from Iran, the United States and the European Union agreed to unravel the fabric of sanctions that was strangling the Iranian economy. Had the sanctions been maintained, they might have brought results. Instead, international companies are eagerly planning their reentry to Iran. It is a process that will be hard to stop and impossible to reverse.
For Saudi Arabia, the agreement also means that Iran has been given a tacit nod to pursue its subversive activities in the Gulf. This is a direct threat to the stability of the kingdom. At home, the opposition that has long been calling for the establishment of a constitutional monarchy will step up its pressure, while the Shi’ite minority will clamor for an improved status.
It must be remembered that Saudi Arabia, being the bulwark of Sunni Islam, is facing Shi’ite Iran not only in the Gulf states, but in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. This was brought painfully home a few weeks ago when a pro-Iranian Shi’ite Iraqi militia opened mortar fire on the Saudi border. Riyadh also has not forgotten the failed assassination attempt of its ambassador to Washington by Iranian agents. In addition, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are no longer sure that America will maintain its military presence in the area to secure the flow of oil. Iran is already building on what it sees as a victory of the first order. It immediately turned to its Gulf neighbors, which are aware of its military and technological superiority and now feel more exposed than ever.
Teheran hosted the foreign minister of the Emirates while its own foreign minister, Jawad Zarif, went on a much-publicized tour of the Gulf states. He has been so far to Kuwait, Qatar, the United Emirates and Oman, and is due to visit Saudi Arabia. As a peace offering, he stated that his country was ready to discuss the fate of one of three disputed islands in the Straits of Hormuz, for years a bone of contention with the Emirates. However, Zarif did not withdraw another threat, that of invading Bahrain. Nor did he assuage the fears of the Gulf states concerning its subversive activities through their Shi’ite minorities. Iran has very much the upper hand in the area. There could be attempts at dialogue in the coming months, but Saudi Arabia may be left with no alternative but to start its own nuclear program. At the same time, the monarchy has had preliminary talks with Russia on the basis of shared interests, such as fighting the Muslim Brothers and supporting the new Egyptian regime. Others might develop.
As to Egypt, the largest Arab country, it will in all likelihood also feel it has to develop its own program of nuclear energy. The new rulers have already stated that they were going to issue a tender for a first nuclear plant in the Dabaa area, where Mubarak had laid the cornerstone for four such plants to produce electricity.
The fact that the United States is no longer a stabilizing factor in the Middle East is preoccupying. It appears to favor subversive radical elements – from Iran to the Muslim Brotherhood, and even Salafi movements – which detect a growing Western weakness in this trend. As a result, America’s traditional allies are deeply worried in spite of US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s efforts this week in Bahrain to pledge continuing military support. Russia is making a spectacular comeback in the region while a new race for nuclear weapons is about to begin.
LIBERALS FOLLOW THE PIED PIPER TO A NUCLEAR IRAN
Karin McQuillan
American Thinker, Dec. 9, 2013
Democrats march docilely behind their president toward a nuclear Iran. They are loyal beyond good sense and morality. The enormity of nuclear armed terrorists, or war between Iran and Israel, is too terrible to believe, so it becomes easy for Democrats to dance behind their Pied Piper President, pretending that his fare is beautiful music. Advancing Democrat political interests by betraying national security and Israel is a road to self-destruction. They are dishonoring us and bringing grave danger to America.
Yesterday, liberals agreed that it was crucial to maintain sanctions on Iran. Today, congressmen who don't want to lift sanctions are attacked in the New York Times as un-American. Liberals feel good that their guy is showing those redneck Republicans how you make friends in the Muslim world. What changed? Iran's nuclear ambitions didn't change. Iran's threats to unleash a dirty bomb in New York didn't change. Iran's Mein Kampf goal of a global caliphate free of Jews didn't change. Only Obama changed. Though he didn't really change, either; he just revealed what conservatives knew all along. Obama couldn't care less about American national security or our most important military ally, Israel. Making deals that consolidate the mad mullahs' power is his idea of success.
America chose to ignore Hitler's anti-Semitism in the 1930's, thinking German Jews' trouble was nothing to us. That's how complicity in scapegoating works: it lulls the other targets into thinking only Jews will be killed. Hitler was allowed to militarize Germany. We all know how that ended. Seventy million people dead, including most of the Jews of Europe and over 400,000 American soldiers. President Obama unveiled the results of his five years of secret negotiations, and liberal dogma on Iran reversed overnight. Democrats didn't even wait to learn what the deal contained; it was whatever Obama said it was. Its benefits were what the president told us they were. You can almost hear the little feet pitter pattering behind the Pied Piper.
Henry Kissinger and George Schultz describe the breakthrough the Democrats are celebrating: Iran has been permitted … to add to its existing stockpile of seven tons of 3.5%- to 5%-enriched uranium with the proviso that this stockpile must be reduced again to its original level by the end of six months. (This means that Iran retains the additional enriched material throughout most of the agreement, adding to its leverage in the follow-up negotiations.) Iran has agreed to "neutralize" its small stockpile of 20%-enriched uranium by converting it to an oxide by the end of the agreement, though Iran retains the technical capability to enrich an equivalent stockpile at a later date. Progress on a heavy-water reactor and plutonium-reprocessing facility at Arak has been paused, though it appears that ancillary work on the site will continue. … it achieves, albeit temporarily, a small lengthening of the "breakout" time Iran would need to construct a nuclear weapon by several weeks, as described by administration spokesmen.
The White House did not post Obama's deal with Iran for Americans to read. Iran did. Iran is more transparent than our White House. (Hat tip: Powerline.) Iran is right, as we wrote here. The agreement does confirm Iran's right to continue to enrich uranium, now and forever. That the Obama administration would try to deny what the agreement plainly states testifies to its confidence that American reporters are too stupid, or too corrupt, to read the agreement-a whopping four pages-and truthfully inform the American people what it says. Pro-Israel Democrats like Senator Chuck Schumer and Alan Dershowitz say it's dangerous, a potential catastrophe, but that's empty talk designed to quiet upset people who trust them. Read the details: Democrat senators plan sanction legislation, but will "delay its implementation for six months to allow time to gauge the deal."…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link – ed.]
Iran Announces Refusal to Recognize Israel at United Nations Session: Algemeiner, Dec. 7, 2013 — As the United Nations General Assembly met to approve the credentials of member states on Thursday, Iran took the floor to announce its refusal to recognize the State of Israel.
The Nuclear Deal: Netanyahu vs. Obama: American Thinker, Nov. 29, 2013 — The Obama administration and Israel see the deal deal that was struck in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China, and Germany) from entirely different perspectives.
Obama’s Rouhani Smokescreen: Evelyn Gordon, Commentary, Dec. 9, 2013 — Speaking at the Saban Forum last weekend, President Barack Obama reiterated that the election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani heralded a new direction in Iran that Washington would be irresponsible to ignore.
Iran Nuclear Deal Raises Fears of Proliferation Among Arab States: Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 29, 2013 — The Obama administration is hailing the accord with Iran as a victory in its campaign to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but the deal is already feeding concerns of Arab governments and some proliferation experts that it could have the opposite effect.
Containing Iran is the Least Awful Choice: George Will, Washington Post, Dec. 6, 2013 — In his disproportionate praise of the six-month agreement with Iran, Barack Obama said: “For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program.”
Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.
The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.
Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org
Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
