The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
OCT. 19, 2014
JERUSALEM — Israel is deeply concerned about
the trajectory of the ongoing negotiations concerning Iran’s nuclear program.
The talks are moving in the wrong direction, especially on the core issue of
uranium enrichment.
Although Iran has modified its tone
recently, there have hardly been any changes of substance since the soft-spoken
president, Hassan Rouhani, took over the reins from his aggressive predecessor,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Neither administration has budged from the insistence
that Iran should retain most of the 9,400 operational centrifuges it deploys to
enrich uranium, as well as its nearly completed nuclear reactor in Arak, which
could produce plutonium in the future.
Iran has softened its inflammatory anti-Western rhetoric
and shown some flexibility on less important issues but we must not be duped by
these gestures. President Obama must stand by his declaration that no deal with
Iran is better than a bad deal.
Israel also worries that the ongoing campaign against the
Islamic State will come at the expense of the critical struggle against Iran's
nuclear program.
Fighting the Islamic State is vital and Israel
unequivocally supports the global effort to prevent the formation of a new
Islamic caliphate in the Middle East. But even more important is the imperative
to preclude the already existing Islamic Republic of Iran — with its infamous
track record of sponsoring terrorist groups, abusing human rights, calling for
Israel’s destruction, and lying unabashedly for almost 20 years about its
nuclear program — from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
Many experts argue that because a deal with Iran would
necessarily include some restrictions on the Iranian nuclear project, an
imperfect agreement is better than no agreement. They are wrong.
That’s because Iran has already made considerable
progress in its attempt to advance toward nuclear weapons. An agreement that
allows Iran to continue circling in a holding pattern will resemble what
happened with North Korea after the 2007 agreement left large parts of
Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities intact, which enabled the North Koreans to
produce several nuclear weapons in the following years. Under such conditions,
nothing will stop Iran’s mullahs from landing, sooner or later, at their
ultimate destination.
Second, a flawed deal would hand Iran practical
advantages in return for almost nothing. In return for an insignificant and
temporary reduction of its enrichment capacities, Iran stands to reap $100
billion per year when the sanctions are lifted; gain formal legitimacy for its
uranium enrichment activities; and, despite its history of nuclear fraud and
concealment, preserve the capability to produce nuclear weapons at a time it
deems appropriate. Three factors will determine the breakout time needed for
Iran to produce nuclear weapons: the quantity and quality of its remaining
operational centrifuges; the amount of 3.5 percent enriched uranium that it is
permitted to stockpile; and the final destiny of its remaining centrifuges and
their infrastructure. The international community must have full and complete
clarity on these fundamental issues.
Finally, a bad deal would pave the road to nuclear
proliferation and herald the dawn of a nuclear arms race in the unstable Middle
East. Other countries in the region will rush to build equivalent enrichment
programs, which the international community will no longer be able to resist in
good conscience, and which will drastically increase the risk of nuclear
weapons falling into the hands of radical Islamists.
This actually leaves the negotiators with only two real
options at the moment: a bad deal, or no deal at all. Barring a surprising
change in Iran’s negotiating stance, there is zero chance of reaching a
satisfactory good deal before the Nov. 24 deadline.
Choosing the “no deal” option will very likely produce
extra pressure — including some new sanctions — on Iran and, subsequently,
might pave the way for a better deal in the near future.
Standing our moral ground will transmit a clear message
to the leaders in Tehran that the only way to escape mounting pressure will be
through ultimately making the necessary significant compromises.
Not reaching a nuclear deal at this stage must not be
considered a failure. It can even be regarded a qualified success, since it
would represent the integrity of an international community adhering to its
principles rather than sacrificing the future of global security because it is
distracted by the worthy fight against Islamic State terrorists.
The 2003 war in Iraq came at the expense of blocking a
greater threat: Iran’s nuclear project, which was then only in its embryonic
stage. The international community must not repeat this mistake in 2014. The
Islamic Republic of Iran remains the world foremost threat. We must guarantee
that it never obtains nuclear weapons.
Yuval Steinitz is Israel's minister of
intelligence.
