No one knows what Israel's actual intentions are regarding Iran and its nuclear program. How much of what Israeli leaders say reflects their real intentions and how much is intended to goad the international community to action is unknown. The revelation of the sophisticated computer virus known as Flame reminds us that non-military solutions are clearly part of the mix.
If, however, Israel is actually still seriously weighing the option of a military strike in the next six months, then events of the last week significantly increased the odds of that happening. The credibility of Israel's concerns and sense of urgency took a leap forward with the results of both the diplomatic and inspections tracks.
There is much talk of a potential U.S.-Israel gap in the negotiations -- with Israel reportedly insisting that all enriched uranium be turned over and the Fordo nuclear enrichment plant be dismantled, and speculation that the U.S. is reportedly ready to settle for the end of uranium enrichment only above 3.5 percent and that Fordo plant only be suspended.
The negotiations in Baghdad revealed that it is not a potential gap between allies that is the core issue -- though that still may be a concern -- but the very real, continuing and possibly unbridgeable gap between Iran and the world's position. Iran is not ready to consider giving up on its 20 percent enriched uranium. It is not ready to open its most secret nuclear facilities to unfettered inspections. In sum, it sticks to its position that it has every right to develop nuclear fuel and that it is for civilian purposes.
These are the fundamental gaps that show no sign of being closed. Tactical issues as to when the West will ease sanctions in exchange for Iranian steps may be open to finding some common ground, but they are meaningless while Iran stands firm on the fundamentals.
The Baghdad meeting enhanced the credibility of the Israeli position that the Iranians see diplomacy as merely a stalling tactic to enable it to move forward on its nuclear program. The basic criticism of Israel in some quarters that Israel was rushing to judgment seemed far weaker after Baghdad.
The Israeli position was similarly enhanced regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency chief's meetings in Tehran.
It was duly noted, when optimism about the joint tracks was in the ascendency, that this was the first time a U.N. nuclear chief had been invited to Tehran since 2009. The IAEA's Yukiya Amano came and negotiated in good faith and left Tehran with the belief the Iranians would be allowing U.N. inspections at the most sensitive nuclear sites. No sooner had he left when Iranian nuclear officials made it clear they had conceded nothing of the sort and the Fordo site remained off-limits to inspectors.
So after all these years and with greater sanctions looming -- July 1 is the date for Europe to cut off oil purchases for Tehran -- nothing much and everything have changed. The "nothing much" is Iran's willingness to back off its program; the "everything" is Iran's getting closer and closer to a nuclear weapons capability and the creation of a "zone of immunity" through a deeply embedded nuclear facility.
Israel undoubtedly took in all these developments with profound interest. Its skepticism about Iran's willingness to seriously engage turned out not to be a "worst-case scenario," but reality. The sense of urgency about the need to act, whether by tougher sanctions or a military option, reemerges to the top of the agenda.
And the international case against Israeli military action -- give diplomacy a chance, Iran seems to be hurting so it will be more flexible, the Israelis are out of control and even paranoid -- is looking more divorced from reality than Israel's fears.
The old questions about a military option remain: Can Israel succeed alone? What will be the consequences for Israel and the West? Where are Israel's military leaders on that matter?
But what may have changed the balance is the greater possibility of getting U.S. and international support for an Israeli action. Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli Military Intelligence and current Director of Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, has wisely said that even in the best-case scenario, an Israeli attack would set back the Iranian program only four to five years.
The key for success beyond that, he said, will be the willingness of the U.S. and Europe to support continued sanctions against Iran after an Israeli attack. In such a case, the four to five years can be stretched well into the future, and there wouldn't be a need to revisit the military option theme in a few years.
Undoubtedly, the goal of getting at least some legitimacy for an Israeli military option gained ground over the last week. And with it, the logic of the value of a military strike rose as well.
None of which is to say that we know what Israel intends to do. But Iran's clear intransigence at a critical moment may have changed the dynamic of decision-making in Jerusalem and maybe in time in Washington and elsewhere as well.
"In April 2009 Jean-François Fechino from ACDN was part of a four-person team which went to Gaza for the Arab Commission for Human Rights . Samples that the team brought back were analysed by a specialist laboratory which identified carcinogens: depleted uranium, caesium, asbestos dust, tungsten and aluminium oxide. Thorium oxide was also found, which is radioactive, as are depleted uranium and caesium. The analysis also identified phosphates and copper, along with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are a health hazard, especially to children, asthmatics and elders. "
http://www.countercurrents.org/cook150411.htm
Watch out for Uncle Sam and Empire America that has its strings pulled from Tel Aviv.
Israel, while ruled by a messianic settlement-building (build Bibi build crap) right-wing government, under the tutelage of Netanyahu and Avigdor "child-beater" Lieberman is a world-wide threat that has on several occassions threatened to use their clandestine nuclear arsenal to destory major city centers.
The so-called "Samson Option", Israel not Iran is the real nuclear threat, and a Netanyahu dictated nuclear attack would be the greatest existential threat to humanity.
"Yuval Diskin said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak – who have been saber-rattling for months – have their judgment clouded by "messianic feelings" and should not be trusted to lead policy on Iran. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/28/yuval-diskin-slams-netanyahu-iran_n_1461180.html
""We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
having a WMD is a sovereign right.
They want terrorists to be able to do a better job trying to harm Israel.
A bunch of such people post on this website each day.
That means that anyone wanting to be serious can't simply give Iran's wanting to do much less than Israel already did as signs that Iran is unreasonable. But fortunately for Foxman, beating the drums for a military attack by Israel apparently doesn't require being serious.
This is not to say that Israel should not be applauded for the deal at Camp David, but it is hardly unprecedented. And it certainly does not mean that Israel is therefore exempt form ordinary moral considerations (like the ban on building settlements in occupied territories or that they do not actually possess a right to attack their neighbors whenever they decide it might make them marginally safer).
after all of these years.....they had Just Discovered that
Iran was somehow, somehow, involved with
911......she tossed softball questions at this
and there were no Mid East experts with her
to laugh and easily show this was politically
motivated....
actually that was a complex day....
FBI statement " Israeli Involvement in
it is classified ! "
I don't get that last bit though. I hope you are not hinting at an Israeli link to 9/11. With the limited context you provide it is not clear what the FBI statement is about.
at the end of the day will be the Iran deterrent, if it decides.
israel is deluding himself, and his fans too.
So here goes my new leaf: I love Israel and the Israel lobby in America has no power: in fact, it doesn't have enough power because if it did, we would've already nuked Iran by now. No, no, I am getting a little too exuberant now.
So let's start again.
Thank you Mr Foxman for presenting such an evenhanded view of the Iranian nuke problem. As you so cogently stated at the end of your brilliant and loving article, the real problem is getting the American government and maybe even people on board for a full scale attack on Iran.
And just to make things clear: I take my the comment I made in my (now) banned post that the only way that Israel could even think about penetraing the deep underground facilities is to use some sort of tactial nuclear weapons.
Now, I also take back the point about tens if not hundreds of thousand of dead people in case of prolonged airstrikes, undoubtedly accompanied by troops on the ground … for a limited time period.
And who cares about the cost of an operation that could last for months if not years? We Americans have tons of money, no debt and no sacrifice is too high:$1 trillion, $2 trillion, who's counting!!
So please accept my heart-felt greetings from a new supporter!
Shalom!
Who wants to pay for war and who wants to bury the dead? ho wants to be the first to use a nuclear bomb since 1945 on civilian populations?
On the flip side.
Who wants another nuclear power in the world? Who wants to encourage people who have already been meddling on the world stage providing terrorists information and money and now could offer enriched fuel for dirty bombs?
Who wants to see a nation that says they only want peaceful use of nuclear technology but REFUSES ANYONE who would like to take a look (in underground sites as well).
Who can trust a nation that was willing to sacrifice children against a neighbor who wrongly conducted a war against them?
So much for war.
How about a nation that provided money, materials and directions for bigger and better I.E.D.s for insurgents to use against U.S. forces in Iraq?
Is this a country we want to support?
So tell me should I stay or should I go?
Should I ignore or support war?
All I want is someone that is independent to provide an hands (and eyes) on opinion (that I could trust) that Iran really IS in the business of making fuel rods and nuclear medical usage tech in underground sites.
Is that too much to ask a civilized nation? Please????
Not foreign leftists always hostile to Israel.
If the Israeli inteligence services discover hard evidence of actual weapons work at any of Irans nuclear sites, a war will begin.
No ground invasion, no China or Russia, no WWIII, and no nukes.
The current regime in Iran is unlikely to still be ruling after a few days of war with Israel.
thank cory, you made me laugh a lot
'There is much talk of a potential U.S.-Israel gap in the negotiations'
for a change...at least pretend to be on US side...
Believe me, we get it.
Hurts don't it.
Wow, you didn't deny it. Now, let's open them up for inspection and sign the treaty. Iran can work on their program.
Problem solved.
The problem is that deranged Islamic terrorist groups want to destroy Israel, and Iran, which supports such groups, make get nuclear weapons.
Aww.
The USA, hopefully, is too smart to get involved with another war, one that is NOT in the US interest.
Israel won't attack.
Hey, I thought ADL was a DOMESTIC organization concerned with discrimination. Why is the head of ADL advocating for a war that would kill many Americans and damage our economy? How does this guy end up making more than the President of the USA?
You have explained why the leader of the ADL has the right to advocate something that is against US interests, but the question above was why he would choose to do so. These are different questions.
"This is perhaps the strongest expression of support for Iran by NAM , representing some 118 nations, and it could put Amano and the Western envoys at the IAEA on the defensive.
In addition to raising the issue of Israel's nukes and the IAEA's investigation of Syria's alleged nuclear site that was bombed by Israel in 2007, the 22-page NAM statement is sharply critical of Amano for accepting at face value Western intelligence information on Iran's nuclear activities. "
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LI17Ak02.html
general james mattis: "US army can't stop iran from making bomb"
but for israeli fans, israel can of course lol !
Anything you can do I can do Better
I can do anything better than you
I can stop Iran from getting the Bomb
and poor little Johnny won't be away from his Mom.
Anything you can do I can do Better
I can do anything better than you
Israel has no military options to destroy the Iranian program. Neither does the US. Both rely on effective deterrent nuclear forces to prevent an attack (which work), and sanctions to change policy, which probably won't.
its clear like cristal !