Washington think tank: 'Critical aspects of the JCPOA may fall short of the standards outlined in [our] June 24 statement'
It takes time for academics to take a position on most issues. But this
joint statement on behalf of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy - the United States' top pro-Israel think tank - doesn't look good for mainstream Jewish support of Barack Hussein Obama's Iranian nuclear sellout.
Most of the names on the statement will sound familiar to anyone who reads academic material on Israel. Robert Satloff, Dennis Ross, James Jeffrey, Patrick Clawson, David Makovsky, Michael Eisenstadt, and Simon Henderson. Ross, as you might recall, was
in charge of the Iran portfolio during the first term of the Obama administration. They haven't made up their minds yet, but they raise some pretty serious issues.
The June 24 statement outlined five technical parameters for the
agreement as well as additional points on deterrence and a “resolute
regional strategy”:
-
Monitoring and verification. The agreement meets the
study group’s parameters for access to all known sites in Iran,
including 24/7 access to declared sites such as Natanz and Fordow.
However, we are concerned about whether it provides adequately “timely
access” when it comes to undeclared sites. The 24 days allotted to
potential delaying tactics by Iran before the issue is transferred for
UN Security Council action would probably not permit Iran to hide or
scrub sites where nuclear material is being used in illicit fashion. But
it may very well make it possible to hide other types of violations,
including potential violations of Iran’s commitments in terms of weapons
design work, design and manufacture of nonnuclear components used in
nuclear weapons, etc. We urge the administration to clarify its plans to
address these important issues to ensure the integrity of the JCPOA’s
monitoring and verification provisions.
-
Possible military dimensions. Because the precise
terms of the IAEA “roadmap” agreement with Iran on this issue are so
vague, and because the agreement on access to the Parchin military site
has yet to be made public, it is difficult to know whether it meets the
terms specified in the study group statement: that IAEA inspectors have
the ability "to take samples, to interview scientists and government
officials, to inspect sites, and to review and copy documents as
required for their investigation.” Further clarification is needed.
-
Advanced centrifuges. In the June 24 statement, the
study group called for measures that "preclude the rapid technical
upgrade and expansion of Iran's enrichment capacity after the initial
10-year period.” On this issue, the agreement appears to meet our
standard insofar as it stipulates a cap of 300 kilograms on the
stockpile of low-enriched uranium that Iran can have for 15 years. At
year 10, however, limits on centrifuges begin to be removed, and at year
15, all limits are terminated. While Iran is obligated to share with
the IAEA its long-term plan for research and development on centrifuges,
that plan is neither public nor binding. Without knowing the content of
the plan, it is difficult to judge whether this parameter has been
fully met. Given that an essential element of the JCPOA is that Iran has
promised “transparency” in exchange for retaining its nuclear
infrastructure, we believe it is essential that Iran’s long-term R&D
plan be made public soon to allow considered judgment of whether the
limitations outlined in the text reflect the intent of the JCPOA.
-
Sanctions relief. The JCPOA does condition the most
substantial sanctions relief on Iran’s fulfillment of its core
requirements, as called for in our statement. Moreover, U.S. officials
have committed publicly that nonnuclear sanctions will remain fully in
force. In addition, U.S. officials have also clarified for members of
the study group what was not spelled out clearly in the deal:
-
that institutions and individuals on whom nuclear-related sanctions
will be lifted can subsequently be sanctioned for terrorism or other
reasons, should they merit such designations;
-
that because the secondary nonnuclear sanctions remain in place,
the United States will still not allow use of the U.S. dollar in trade
with Iranian individuals and institutions in any way associated with
Iran’s support for terrorism, meaning that Iran cannot use dollars in
its oil trade; and
-
that the United States will continue to designate for nonnuclear
sanctions individuals and institutions, even those on whom nuclear
sanctions are being lifted, if their conduct so merits.
These are important statements. Equally important is to make sure that
other members of the P5+1, especially our European allies, understand
the scope of continuing U.S. sanctions, so that tensions with our allies
do not substitute for pressure on Iran. The administration should
publicly clarify U.S. policy on this issue and ensure that our allies
have a common understanding.
-
Consequences of violations. The agreement includes a
creative mechanism to provide for the reimposition of UN sanctions in
the event of Iranian noncompliance, as called for in the study group's
June 24 statement. But this relates to significant violations of the
agreement. The snapback function may work for significant violations,
but there is concern whether it will work for lesser violations and
whether the United States and its partners will risk the whole agreement
in order to impose penalties for lesser violations, particularly given
Iran’s statement in the agreement that it reserves the right to “cease
performing its commitments . . . in whole or in part” in response to
reimposition of any sanctions.
And then there's part that includes Israel:
In addition to these technical issues within the text, the JCPOA does
not address two other essential elements of the June 24 statement:
To strengthen deterrence of Iran, it is also important for Israel to
have its own independent deterrent capacity. To that end, we urge the
Obama administration to commit to providing technology to Israel that
would secure this objective over time, starting with proposing to
transfer to Israel the Massive Ordinance Penetrator and the requisite
aircraft, which will ensure that Israel has the ability at a later date
to deter Iran from reaching a nuclear weapon.
-
A call for the United States to affirm that it is U.S. policy to use
all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing sufficient fissile
material (highly enriched uranium) for a nuclear weapon – or otherwise
acquiring or building one – both during the agreement and after it
expires. This is a vital initiative because Iran will remain a nuclear
threshold state (and will clearly have retained the option of becoming a
nuclear weapon state) as restrictions on stockpiles of uranium and
centrifuge production lapse gradually after 10 years and, along with the
ban on reprocessing, end after 15 years, and the question is raised
about what would deter Iran from then developing a nuclear weapon. One
powerful element of deterrence would be for the United States to go on
record now that it is committed to using all means necessary, including
military force, to prevent this. While some senior administration
officials have made positive statements in this direction, such as the
statement made in recent Congressional testimony by energy Secretary
Moniz to the effect that development of HEU by Iran at any point in the
future would be a red line that the United States should not allow, we
urge the president now to formalize this as a declaration of a U.S.
policy and Congress should formally endorse it.
To strengthen deterrence of Iran, it is also important for Israel to
have its own independent deterrent capacity. To that end, we urge the
Obama administration to commit to providing technology to Israel that
would secure this objective over time, starting with proposing to
transfer to Israel the Massive Ordinance Penetrator and the requisite
aircraft, which will ensure that Israel has the ability at a later date
to deter Iran from reaching a nuclear weapon.
-
Separate from the agreement, the study group called on the president
to articulate a “resolute regional strategy” to counter Iranian negative
behavior throughout the Middle East. We believe the articulation and
implementation of this enhanced effort to counter Iranian negative
behavior—and to support allies and partners—in the region is both
important and urgent, given the substantial financial benefits Iran will
receive early in the implementation of this agreement and the
likelihood that considerable sums will be directed toward Iran’s
destabilizing regional activities. Working with our allies, we urge the
administration to build on the president’s GCC Summit and discussions of
Secretaries Carter and Kerry and adopt a number of tangible steps as
soon as possible.
I have to wonder about the usefulness of "a declaration of US policy" endorsed by Congress that says that the US will take military action against Iran to stop it from developing a nuclear weapon. We've
been down that road before.
All in all, however, the academics display a healthy skepticism over the Obama administration's nuclear sellout to Iran. Whether that translates into opposition remains to be seen, but the administration's touting the report as backing its position seems clearly premature.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, David Makovsky, Dennis Ross, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, Robert Satloff
America needs Israel more than ever
Robert Satloff calls it
brief, Jennifer Rubin calls it
lengthy, but both agree that Michael Oren's passionate defense of the US - Israel relationship is
timely and a must-read. (Incredibly, at this writing, not yet picked up by
Memeorandum). Here are some highlights:
Israel has always sided with the United States on major global issues. At the United Nations and in other international institutions, the two countries' voting patterns are virtually identical, as are their policies on human rights and international law. Beginning with the Korean conflict and throughout the Cold War, Israel backed America's military engagements, and it has maintained that support in the struggle with radical Islam. In times of danger, especially, Israel has responded to America's needs. Acceding to Richard M. Nixon's request to intervene to save Jordan from Syrian invasion in 1970, Israel mobilized its army, and in 1991, in spite of missile attacks from Iraq, Israel honored George H.W. Bush's request not to retaliate.
Israel is not, of course, situated in some geographical backwater, but at the junction of paramount American interests. Its prominence on the eastern Mediterranean littoral, at the nexus of North Africa and Southwest Asia, has enabled the United States to minimize its military deployments in the area. In the Persian Gulf, by contrast, the absence of a dependable and sturdy ally like Israel has impelled the United States to commit hundreds of thousands of troops and trillions of dollars. Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig's observation 30 years ago still resonates today: "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security."
The strategic synergy between the United States and Israel melds into tactical realities. U.S. troops train with their Israel Defense Forces (IDF) counterparts in aerial combat and special operations. U.S. Navy ships routinely dock in Haifa, Air Force planes refuel at Israeli bases, and the Marines will soon use an Israeli laser to pinpoint targets. In addition to pre-positioning $800 million of arms and medical equipment in Israel, the United States guarantees by law its commitment to preserving Israel's "qualitative military edge," enabling the Jewish state to defend itself, by itself, against Middle Eastern adversaries. As Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro put it, "Israel is a vital ally and a cornerstone of our regional security commitments," and, accordingly, the two countries have developed the world's most advanced anti-ballistic missiles. Together with the X-band radar station in the Negev -- manned by the first American troops deployed permanently on Israeli soil -- these systems can protect friendly nations from Iranian rockets.
In the intelligence field, in particular, the cooperation between Israel and the United States is vast. According to Maj. Gen. George J. Keegan Jr., former head of U.S. Air Force intelligence, America's military defense capability "owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence," the worth of which input, he estimated, exceeds "five CIAs." Israeli and American intelligence agencies continuously exchange information, analyses, and operational experience in counterterrorism and counterproliferation. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its Israeli counterpart also share technical know-how in defending ports and terminals from terrorist attacks, countering unconventional weapons and cyberthreats, and combating the drug trade. On the battlefield, Israeli armament protects Bradley and Stryker units from rocket-propelled grenades, while Israeli-made drones and reconnaissance devices surveil hostile territory. U.S. fighter aircraft and helicopters incorporate Israeli concepts and components, as do modern-class U.S. warships. The IDF has furnished U.S. forces with its expertise in the detection and neutralization of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the largest cause of American casualties.
...
In return for its aid to Israel, the United States receives not only an armed but an innovative ally, enhancing America's military edge. That contribution is real and requires no lobbyists to fabricate it. While organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) press Israel's case in government and in popular forums, they represent American citizens who view the alliance with Israel as a national American interest. By contrast, the lobbyists for the Arab states and their domestic oil industries represent foreign interests. The hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on lobbying and public relations campaigns and donations to influential universities such as Harvard and Georgetown have vastly exceeded the budgets of Israel's advocates in Washington.
...
The official U.S. documents released by WikiLeaks show that Arab rulers are not preoccupied with Israel but with the perils posed by Iran. One report recounted Saudi King Abdullah urging the United States to "cut off the head of the snake" -- Iran -- and to attack the country's nuclear facilities at once. Bahrain's king warned that "the danger of letting [the Iranian nuclear program] go on is greater than the danger of stopping it." The word "Israel" does not appear.
Middle Eastern populations, meanwhile, have shown that they, too, are less concerned with Israel than with urgent issues at home. When able to express themselves freely, they have preferred to focus on political rights and economic opportunity. Conspicuously absent from the protests that swept the region in 2011 were burning Israeli -- or American -- flags or any reference to the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Although emerging Arab governments might in the future -- as in the past -- seek to gain legitimacy by harnessing anti-Israeli sentiment, the claim that American support for the Jewish state axiomatically translates into anti-Americanism in the Middle East is no longer sustainable.
...
WHO ARE AMERICA'S ALLIES in the world today? Which countries are both capable and willing to advance American interests? A truly realist assessment would strive to answer these questions and fairly weigh Israel's worth.
In the Middle East, every Arab or non-Arab Muslim country has at times vacillated in its support of the United States or adopted anti-American positions. Some regimes have also placed oil embargoes on Americans and bankrolled their enemies. Although democratic governments may yet emerge in some Middle Eastern states, autocracy, monarchy, and dictatorship remain the region's norm. And even elected representatives can be profoundly hostile to the United States, as in Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza.
Elsewhere in the world, new powers are arising, but few are likely to act as American allies in the realist sense. Others will be robust competitors. America's European allies, meanwhile, are further restricting the conditions under which their forces fight and drastically slashing defense budgets. British military sources estimate that troop numbers will soon be reduced to 80,000, leaving Britain with its smallest army since the 1820s. With similar cuts expected in Germany, Italy, and France, the United States will become harder-pressed to rely on European support during crises."[W]e won't be able to defend the security on which our democratic societies … depend," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has warned. "We risk a Europe increasingly adrift from the United States."
Israel is the only Middle Eastern state never to oppose America on major international issues. Its fundamental interests, like its values, are America's. For the price of annual military aid equaling roughly half the cost of one Zumwalt-class destroyer, the United States helps maintain the military might of one of the few nations actively contributing to America's defense. It reinforces the only country capable of deterring Hamas and Hezbollah and impeding the spread of Iranian hegemony. According to published sources, the Israel Defense Forces is larger than the French and British armies combined. The IDF is superbly trained and, when summoned, capable of mobilizing within hours.
These benefits of the U.S.-Israel relationship are of incalculable value to the United States, far outweighing any price. Americans know that Israelis have always stood by them, ready to share technology, intelligence, and innovation -- ready to aid them in conflict and to make the painful sacrifices for peace. Israel may be one of a handful of countries that fully fits the definition of ally, but its willingness to support the United States unwaveringly makes it the partner par excellence, America's ultimate ally.
Read the whole thing. And make sure to read the
brief and
lengthy comments about it too. Jennifer's comments on the Obama administration's hostility to Israel (something Oren the diplomat would never say) are particularly prescient.
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jennifer Rubin, Michael Oren, Robert Satloff, US-Israel relationship
Grounds for optimism in Tunisia
There are grounds for optimism over Tunisia (which I guess can now be called 'last week's revolution') in this
fascinating article in Sunday's Washington Post by Robert Satloff.
In writing a book and narrating a film on what happened in Arab lands during the Holocaust, I have studied Tunisia closely over the past decade. Only 90 miles from the southern tip of Italy, this small North African country was the sole Arab state to suffer a full-fledged German occupation during World War II. I have visited the places where SS officers rounded up Jews and sent them to concentration camps.
Yet Tunisia was also where I found the most stories of Arabs protecting Jews during the war. As in Europe, these Muslim rescuers were ordinary people performing extraordinary acts - like the Tunis bathhouse owner who hid a Jewish man in his hammam or the Mahdia country squire who sheltered two dozen Jews on his farm. This moment in Tunisian history - which had a much happier ending for Jews than did events on the other side of the Mediterranean - gives hope that the current chaos will end reasonably positively.
Tunisia's largely homogenous population has blended a 1,400-year-old Sunni Arab identity with an organic, deeply embedded connection to Europe. Its capital once rivaled Beirut and Alexandria as the most cosmopolitan Arab city, with large communities of Italians, French, British and Maltese injecting a heady mix of energy and ideas into the local culture.
One result is that the Tunisian people have historically sought engagement with the world and rejected extreme ideologies, whether fascist, Nasserist or Islamist. This openness has enabled Tunisia to escape the self-induced savagery and backwardness, respectively, of neighboring Algeria and Libya. Tunisia has its share of radicals, many of whom have recently made their way to the infantry of al-Qaeda and other movements, and the threat of religious extremism is not fantasy, as some suggest. But the local Islamist movement, an-Nahda, is not poised to step in.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Holocaust, Politics, Robert Satloff, Tunisia, World Politics
