While most media attention focused on the cartoon bomb presented by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, something even more newsworthy passed almost without notice: Netanyahu made it clear that he has endorsed U.S. President Barack Obama's policy on Iran. By literally drawing a red line to show how far he could tolerate Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu in effect approved of the international efforts led by the Obama administration to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
In fact, while he would never admit it in the midst of a campaign, even Mitt Romney picked up on this view and has, in practice, endorsed Obama's approach. That sudden outbreak of unspoken consensus is the real story of the last week of diplomacy. The real question now is, what can be done with the broad agreement that there is both time and space for a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear program that has created a new window of opportunity? And that depends on two big wildcards: what Netanyahu's red lines really are, and Iran's real intentions and capabilities.
In Netanyahu's speech, he made it clear that Israel has a red line for the Iranian nuclear program. While this red line for military action has evolved over the years, it now appears to be the point at which Iran has enough low enriched uranium --- at nearly 20 percent enrichment levels -- to potentially produce one nuclear bomb. In Netanyahu's estimation, that time won't come until sometime next year, perhaps in the spring or even the summer. If Iran were to achieve that level, it would be threatening enough for Israel to justify striking Iran, according to Netanyahu.
The prime minister identified this as his red line because it would be the furthest point at which Israel could feasibly attack Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.
As the prime minister said:
"The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb. The red line must be drawn on Iran's nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target."
Israel, according to nearly three-dozen bipartisan national security leaders who signed onto a report by the Iran Project, doesn't have the capacity to conclusively destroy Iran's nuclear program. However, it does have the capacity to delay it through bombing enrichment facilities. But that would be a disaster, as it would likely unravel the international pressure on Iran to come clean, unleash a devastating war in the region, fuel antagonism toward the United States and fail to permanently end the international community's concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Yet if past is prologue, Israel tends to strike its adversaries' nuclear facilities when it feels vulnerable, not when the international community deems it wise. Israel struck the nuclear facilities at Osirak in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 -- but only made limited strikes. In the case of Iraq, the attack drove the program underground and accelerated its push for nuclear weapons -- an outcome that Israel would not want today in Iran.
In this case, by appearing to set a red line Netanyahu actually gave a boost to the role of serious U.S. diplomacy to resolve this issue. This is because of what Netanyahu didn't say in his speech: that any Iranian nuclear program is unacceptable. This little-noticed absence gives a crucial boost to the prospects for a nuclear deal. He only said that Iran should not be allowed to enrich enough uranium to have the makings of a bomb. By implication, this means that -- with strict safeguards, commitments to cap enrichment levels, and export or conversion of uranium for reactor fuel plates -- Israel could live with an Iranian nuclear program. This is where the international negotiations, led by the Obama administration, have been heading. And now Netanyahu has publicly signed off on this approach.
Of course, Iran has a role to play, and could continue to keep Israel and the international community on the edge of their seats by proceeding to raise and lower the levels of its stockpile as it sees fit. This is because it takes roughly 225 kg of nearly 20 percent enriched uranium to make one bomb's worth of fissile material -- although that material would still need to be purified up to 90 percent levels. It's important to remember that, according to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, Iran recently reduced its stockpile of 20 percent uranium to less than half of that red line, from 101 kg to 91 kg, by converting a portion of the stockpile into fuel plates for use at the Tehran Research Reactor.
But there are severe downsides for Iran to continue to play such games, as the devastating sanctions currently in place will remain. Iran, which needs to get out from under international pressure and isolation, should seize the opportunity to credibly deal at the negotiating table with the United States and its international partners. There is no guarantee that it will do so, but the time will soon come when it must show its cards.
Now that the speeches are over and the threat of immediate war has receded, the real work of diplomacy must step in to resolve this dispute. It's clear from Netanyahu's speech last week that a diplomatic deal that allows for some type of Iranian nuclear program is in the cards. It's also clear that Israel depends on the sanctions that the Obama administration has orchestrated, on the information gathered by IAEA inspectors about Iran's nuclear program and on the multilateral negotiations underway.
So all eyes are on Washington to guide the diplomacy to resolve this sticky situation without a war. Backing up the support for diplomacy is the fact that the American people oppose getting involved in another war of choice in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the United States and Israel may still decide that they, in fact, have no choice. Yet one thing is certain from last week: U.S. leadership in the Middle East is neither diminished nor irrelevant. If anything, it is clear that it is working, and that it will be counted-on even more in the days to come.
This piece was originally posted on Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel.
Follow Joel Rubin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JoelMartinRubin
To the degree that his warmongering increases the possibility of an otherwise avoidable and pointless war, Netanyahu constitutes a far greater threat to the US than the Iranians, nuclear or not, ever could.
Some of Garcia's inflammatory quotes were:
"By supporting Israeli occupation with US foreign aid, we are all complicit and guilty of their crimes against humanity."
"And, I deeply resent US taxpayer funds being used to continue Israeli aggression (yes, confiscating other peoples' land and building illegal settlements is aggression), not to mention "incursions" that kill PEOPLE, destroy civilian homes and infrastructure all over, mass concentration prison camps, etc,etc,etc."
Loren Londner, one of the recipients of the emails, recently made the emails public saying, " When I heard this person was running for office, I felt the public should know about the emails."
"This kind of speech almost qualifies as hate speech. This should be made public no matter who the person is or what their party," said Londner.
Don't forget that Obama has pledged before Congress to fully support an armed attack on Iran's nuclear siters if evidence of weaponization is discovered. He doesn't wish to be remembered as the President under whom Iran announced it has a nuclear warhead capable of reaching Israel and 160 US bases.
Evelyn Garcia represents a very poor area in Florida and has made both anti-Israel and anti-Jewish statements in the past. She does not represent the administration but represents one far-Left element in the Democratic Party that has little real influence.
Only those who are willing to turn a blind eye to the horror of the settlements could possibly come to that conclusion. As for, Quite literally, the rest of the nations and people on earth, She is simply expanding upon the magnitude of the crimes associated with the settlements, crimes which the Geneva convention bans for very good reason.
Condemning apartheid was not anti Afrikaner, and condemning the settlements is simply the act of a healthy moral conscience, not hate speech.
Israel, the liberal democratic and sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people, is hardly the one to object to the application of civil rights, anywhere!!
Furthermore, the thinking among Jews, within and without their nation-state of Israel, is that human rights takes president of all other rights. And the very first of all human rights is the right to life and the defense of one's life. Sadly, Israel has had to engage in upholding this very right when it comes to Jews. And, since we, Jews, are also humans, this right applies to us as well.
I hope the poster doesn't have any problems with that, or does she/he...??
Why are Bernard Lewis's views on MAD ignored?
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/why-are-bernard-lewiss-views-on-mad.html
You can look at his words anyway you want, but he's been begging for US bombs all summer -- and he didn't get them -- yet. That's all I see. He's had to backtrack on his timetable. He's still threatening (begging) US action in defense of his claims.
Bibli, more cartoons, please. You gave us all a laugh.
Gates, who headed the Pentagon during the administration of former President George W. Bush and remained at the post when Barack Obama became president, said the United States must also make it clear to Israel that it cannot launch an attack that would harm vital American interests, the Jersusalem Post reports.
Israel's leaders "do not have a blank check to take action that could do grave harm to American vital interests," Gates said at an event in Norfolk, Va.
Gates' comments come on the heels of his very public criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a Bloomberg interview last month, he called Netanyahu an ungrateful ally and blamed him for isolating Israel diplomatically."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gates-israel-iran-attack/2012/10/05/id/458791
National Intelligence Estimate? Just pretend that it doesn't exist, because it flatly contradicts the scare tactics of Netanyahu and all the neocons who want the USA to wage war on Israel's behalf.
Obama states Iran must not have the bomb but that's a universe away from Bibi's position--that Iran can't have enough low enriched uranium to have the potential to make a bomb. Obama's position explicitly leaves open the possibility Iran could obtain the materials to make a bomb in short order without actually moving to make one. And is there any doubt that Iran feels it needs such a capability given decades of Israeli military threats?
Also, Israel doesn't attack when it's national interests at at stake. At least not lately. The Lebanon War and the Gaza punishment mission were both directed at domestic Israeli politics. As any attack on Iran will be.
Bibi knows this and his bluff has been called by Obama.
http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/document-friday-when-iran-bombed-iraqs-nuclear-reactor/