Overshadowed in the media by the senseless violence in the Middle East and North Africa, you can’t help but wonder what new intelligence Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has that led to his demand for a tougher American stance on Iran this past weekend.
Without giving details, last week Netanyahu told CNN’s State of the Union: “They’re [Iran] moving very rapidly to completing the enrichment of the uranium that they need to produce a nuclear bomb. In six months or so, they’ll be 90 percent of the way there.”
Hammering home to the American audience how the regime in Tehran is a growing reason for concern, the same day on NBC’s Meet the Press he said: “It’s the same fanaticism that you see storming your embassies today. You want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?”
Netanyahu went on to call for the United States to establish “red lines,” clearly specifying how far Iran could go in expanding its nuclear program’s capabilities, including fissile-material stockpiles, before Washington would respond with drastic measures.
More than scolding the American president on his Iran policy, the Israeli prime minister sailed a warning shot across President Obama’s bow by saying, “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have the moral right to place a red light before Israel,” according to the New York Times.
Beyond the straight—and often blunt—talk, what is even more interesting is the timing, which surprised many. Netanyahu certainly risked thrusting his relationship with Obama to even lower levels—if that is possible—by calling out the president during the waning days of a tight race for the White House.
While publicly available estimates for Iranian ability to actually build a nuclear weapon run from one to two years, it seems pretty clear that Israel is exceedingly nervous about the speed at which Iran is making progress on its nuclear program, which many see as having an unambiguous military dimension.
Though timelines may differ—indeed, this summer British spymaster John Sawers said publicly he believed Iran could build a bomb in the next two years—there is good reason to be worried about the state of Tehran’s program.
For example, Iran has a couple of uranium-enrichment facilities, which operate thousands of centrifuges, including a plant ensconced in the side of a mountain on an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) base near Qom.
According to the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has nearly 100 kg of uranium enriched to 20 percent purity. This stockpile, if enriched to 80-90 percent purity—that is, “weapons grade”—means Iran probably already has enough uranium on hand for two to three weapons—maybe more.
The IAEA also has been concerned that Iran has been involved in a precision-explosives testing program at Parchin military base that is related to the development of a nuclear warhead. Of course, Tehran has not been very forthcoming on this issue or on its other atomic activities, all of which U.N. investigators would like to know more about.
Needless to say, Israel is probably concerned—and rightfully so—that Iran is on the brink of entering a “zone of immunity,” which would allow it to assemble a bomb at will, severely limiting the effectiveness of a military strike on Tehran’s nuclear program.
And while Iran already can cover the Middle East and parts of Southeastern Europe with its current arsenal of ballistic missiles, it is eagerly working on missiles with greater range. The U.S. Air Force estimated that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.
Unfortunately, after nearly ten years of negotiating with Iran over its previously undeclared nuclear program (at that time already twenty years old and in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Tehran is a party), diplomacy has basically failed. Unless, of course, you consider a seemingly endless series of meetings “progress.”
There were multilateral meetings with Iran last summer in Baghdad and Moscow to discuss the diplomatic impasse—not to mention a recent round of talks to try to just restart talks in Istanbul between the European Union’s foreign-policy chief, Catherine Ashton, and Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili.
Other than diplo-speak proclamations—the meetings were “useful,” “constructive,” full of “common points”—not to mention replete with promises to meet again, these confabs have produced little more than allowing Iran to buy time to continue to develop its nuclear know-how.
Punitive economic sanctions were hoped to bring Tehran to its knees, forcing it to come to a diplomatic agreement on its nuclear program with the likes of the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia and Germany).
However, while there is little doubt that the economic sanctions have been biting, there has been no evidence to date that Iran is willing to curtail enriching uranium to ever-higher levels, beyond what is needed to fuel its Russian-supplied reactor at Bushehr (3-4 percent for nuclear fuel rods).
The bottom line is that there has been little to no progress on slowing Iran’s nuclear program. No wonder Netanyahu is edgy.
The increasingly tense situation has been made worse by overheated Iranian rhetoric. According to the Associated Press, IRGC commander General Mohammad Ali Jafari recently said that “Nothing of Israel would remain” should Israeli Defense Forces attack Iran.
Comments
So let's see, we have the leader of a *foreign* country clearly trying to incite *our* country to shed *our* blood and treasure in a war that, by any measure imaginable would benefit *his* country far more than it would our country. (If indeed it would benefit us at all.) And the leader of this foreign country comes and tells us that the target he wants us to make war upon is not only working on enriching uranium to bomb grade, but is on the *imminent* brink of having enough to create a bomb. *Imminent.* So what does Peter Brookes do? Does he, say, question this? Even a little? Just a tad? No. He simply says as follows:
Well I have an idea: How about the "new intelligence" that must have led Mr. Netanyahu to say—in 2002—that Iraq was "feverishly working to develop nuclear weapons." Indeed he said then: "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons—no question whatsoever." Or maybe it was the same "new intelligence" that led Mr. Netanyahu—again way back in 2002—to say that Iran was only 3 to 5 years away from having a nuclear weapon. Or the same "new intelligence" that had Mr. Netanyahu saying in 1995 that Iran was only five years from having nuke bomb. Or the same "new intelligence" that had him saying the same thing in 1992. (Re citations for all see http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/iraqiran-is-feverishly-working-to-develop-atomic-weapons-netanyahu-2012-echoes-netanyahu-2002.html) ... And the author of all this was once a deputy assistant secretary of our defense against the wiles of foreign powers?
I hope you are not forgetting the name of your web page is National Interest and I hope National Interest does not mean Israeli National Interest. The reason I say that is; we all know that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has Nuclear Weapons and I don't see the author of this article mentioning that.The Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia just mention not long ago within this month that Iran is not building Nuclear Weapon. Russia should know; they are working with Iran when it comes to Iran's Nuclear Energy Program. I have read at your web page an Iranian Ambassador saying that Iran was ready to give up, it's uranium enrichment program, if the International Community was willing to grantee it is rights within the framework of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and that it's supply will not be subject to political change over time. It was the United States under pressure of Israel that will not accept any enrichment program for Iran.So I ask your author and many others who are beating the drums of war with Iran; why is it that Israel is never question when it comes to WMD or Nuclear Weapons for that matter, but they all have the audacity to preach to Iran what it can and cannot have? Why the double stander?Also how can the author keep straight face; when he talk about Iranian General stating that Iran will attack Israel and US bases in the Persian Gulf, while he fail to add at the end of the sentence that, the General only says he will attack our bases, if we side with Israel and only if we attack Iran. Also why he is not mentioning almost daily Israeli PM talking about Israel will attack Iran? Who gave Israel the right to attack other countries, but not expecting others to respond that they have a right to defend their country and people and that they will attack back Israel?Why also talk about attacking Iran so much, when our country is getting ready for election, if some people don't have an agenda to change the outcome of our election, when our 16 Intel Agencies all concur that Iran is not ready to weaponize it is nuclear program yet? So are their motive is to take Obama out, because Natanyahoo say so? You know it is time we check the patriotism of some of the people whose loyalty is not with United States of America and they use this country for the benefit of Israel. It is time we hold everyone accountable as to where their loyalty is.As an American Veteran and a Disable American Veteran; I am sick and tired of my fellow military people been used to fight wars that are not for the interest of the United States of America. No more wars for the sake of Israel or anyone else for that matter. We have enough problems here at home and we should clean up our own mess, rather than fighting none stop wars all the time. We can defend ourselves against anyone anytime. Iran and everyone else know that if they pick fight with United States, there will be a great price to pay. I will ask that you be honest with the American people and not try to play with their emotions, for advocating a war that we don't need right now and not at the point where we need to take action yet. Give sanctions and diplomacy a chance to work or fail, before you beat the drums of war. Remember Iraq war was fought for in the name of WMD, and we know no WMD was found in Iraq, after we destroy that country? How many American soldiers died in Iraq, just so we can be told, Iraq did not had WMD? I value every American soldier life and I don't want anyone of them to die any unnecessary war ever again. It is your obligation to your country that you tell the truth, when ever necessary, to stop anyone who is advocating for something that is in the best interest of our nation.