SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
iran nuclear deal
Israel 'Utterly Rejects' Iran Nuclear Deal That Could Avoid War
'Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to defend itself,' says defiant Netanyahu
Nov 08, 2013
As international hopes rose around the possibility of successful talks on Iran's nuclear program in Geneva on Friday, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a message for the world: No, no, no.
"Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to defend itself, to defend the security of its people," Netanyahu said in one of two videos released to reporters ahead of talks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at Ben Gurion airport that took place Friday morning. Many interpreted the comments as the latest in a series of veiled threats about Israel's desire to strike militarily against Iran.
Watch:
PM Netanyahu's Statement Prior to Meeting with US Sec of State John Kerry - 8/11/2013Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statement prior to meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry הצהרת ראש הממשלה בנימין ...
Though not perfect, numerous diplomatic experts and observers are calling the brewing deal a potential best hope for de-escalating the threat of a dangerous military confrontation in the region. Netanyahu, however, said his country would not be bound whatsoever by the agreement, which he called a "monumental," "grievous" and "historic" mistake.
"This is a very bad deal. Israel utterly rejects it," Netanyahu said.
Netanyahu was referring to information he had received coming out of the ongoing talks in Geneva between the P5+1 group of Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany with Iran over its nuclear program, although no official announcement of a deal has been made.
Though no official statements on the details have yet emerged, Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said that a joint statement on the framework of a nuclear deal could be issued as early as Friday. Other reporting suggests that though progress has been made, the high-level talks may continue into the weekend before a deal or framework is announced by the parties.
Netanyahu's comments represent the continued hostility of the Israeli government towards Iran's nuclear program. Though Iran has repeatedly claimed its nuclear program is for power generation and medical research purposes only, Israel refuses to acknowledge its own nuclear arsenal. Unlike Iran, Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Following his meeting with Kerry, Netanyahu showed no signs of backing down from his hawkish stance, but criticism of his remarks were proliferating. As Ian Black, Middle East editor for the Guardian, reports:
Israel's ill-tempered opposition - even before anything has been formally agreed - looks set to further strain its already tense relations with Washington. "Netanyahu unwise to challenge US so openly/dismissively on possible Iran nuclear deal," tweeted Nicholas Burns, a former senior US diplomat. "Netanyahu's outburst was a serious tactical error." The Israeli prime minister has taken a hard line on this issue for years, so it is no surprise he is taking the news badly. It is still hard to imagine, however, that Israel would attack Iran - even if it has the military capability to do so alone - while a prolonged and internationally backed agreement is in place.
Kerry did not make a statement before he left Israel for Geneva, though the White House pushed back, at least mildly, against the Israeli Prime Minister by saying that any criticism of the deal is "premature," because no deal yet exists.
Upon his arrival in Geneva, Kerry told reporters that he was hopeful that a deal could be made. But, he added, "I don't think anybody should mistake that there are some important gaps that have to be closed."
Late in the day Friday, according to the Guardian'slive reporting from Geneva, the closed-door talks were heading into their second hour.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Kissinger Said: 'I Do Not Believe That We Can Make Conditions'
Sep 27, 2008
Jim Lehrer missed an opportunity last night to help clarify for people watching the debate what is in dispute between Democrats like Barack Obama and Republicans like John McCain about U.S. policy towards Iran. For the record, this is what McCain adviser and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said about U.S. policy towards Iran, according to the transcript on CNN's website:
This was at an event with five former U.S. Secretaries of State, three Republicans (Kissinger, Powell, and Baker) and two Democrats (Christopher and Albright.) All five agreed that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran, without preconditions.
What "without preconditions" means in this context is quite straightforward and well-known. The current policy of the Bush Administration has been that the United States will not enter into substantive talks with Iran unless Iran first agrees to suspend the enrichment of uranium. The five former U.S. Secretaries of State agreed that this was a mistake, and that the United States should drop this precondition for the beginning of talks.
Our former Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering, who has spent much of his adult life being paid by the United States government to be an expert on diplomacy, put it this way in an interview earlier this year:
"Certainly, there's been a lot of suspicion of Iran, I join in being concerned about Iran's nuclear program, I don't dismiss that at all, it's serious. But I think asking for a price to open talks is not a feasible way to get the conversation going, and it was not the posture of the United States when it opened talks with North Korea...my own feeling is that with Iran we should start talks with Iran without preconditions."
It's John McCain's position - the neoconservative position - that is the outlier. And besides electioneering, there's only one plausible, logical explanation for the McCain-neoconservative position: they don't want an agreement between the United States and Iran. What they fear is not that talks would be useless, but that they might be productive.
After all, as everybody knows, if the U.S. seriously pursued talks and the talks failed, it would be a huge propaganda victory for the United States. "See," the United States could say. "We tried."
What the neoconservatives are afraid of is that there might actually be an agreement, and that an agreement would acknowledge and accept Iran's status and interests in the region. Then the neocons would have to give up their fantasies of "regime change" in Iran and "roll back" of Iranian influence.
The neoconservatives are married to the precondition of suspension of enrichment because they believe it is a deal-breaker for the Iranian side. There is an overwhelming consensus of Iranian public opinion that Iran has and must exercise the right to its own nuclear energy program. This consensus includes every political faction with significant influence in the country's politics. So, if your real goal is to prevent any agreement between the United States and Iran, insisting that Iran abandon its nuclear program (which is how Iranians interpret the U.S. demand) as a precondition for talks is an excellent policy.
There is a proposal on the floor that would meet U.S. concerns about the future capacity of Iran to use nuclear technology for a weapons program while satisfying the demand of Iranian public opinion for an Iranian nuclear energy program. That is Ambassador Pickering's proposal for multilateral enrichment in Iran, with full transparency and vigorous inspections. This week in New York Iranian officials restated Iran's willingness to negotiate on such a proposal.
That is what is in dispute. Do we want four more years - or even eight more years - of confrontation with Iran in a McCain-Palin Administration pursuing the neoconservative policies of the early Bush Administration, or do we want to seriously pursue negotiations that could lead to an agreement that would help stabilize the whole Middle East, significantly facilitating U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and promoting stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Amb. Pickering on Iran Talks and Multinational EnrichmentFormer Ambassador Thomas Pickering calls for talks without preconditions and advocates a plan for a multinational uranium ...
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular