This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-israel.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Iran Deal Denounced by Netanyahu as ‘Historic Mistake’ Iran Deal Denounced by Netanyahu as ‘Historic Mistake’
(about 2 hours later)
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu furiously denounced a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program on Tuesday as a “historic mistake for the world,” accusing the United States and five other global powers of making “far-reaching concessions” in order to achieve an agreement “at any price.” JERUSALEM — Furiously denouncing the accord to limit Iran’s nuclear program on Tuesday as “a historic mistake,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not be bound by the agreement and warned of negative repercussions in a region already riven with rivalries and armed conflict.
Speaking before a formal announcement of the deal, Mr. Netanyahu said that initial reports indicated that the concessions were made “in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability.” Contrary to President Obama’s assertion that the agreement will cut off every pathway for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, Israel’s leaders rejected the deal as a dangerous compromise that will exacerbate regional tensions and pave the way over time for Iran to produce multiple bombs — “an entire arsenal with the means to deliver it,” Mr. Netanyahu said.
“In addition,” he said, referring to the expected lifting of sanctions, “Iran will receive hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe.” Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its survival. For Mr. Netanyahu, the accord is the bitter culmination of a long struggle that has severely strained Israel’s relations with the United States, its crucial ally. Even before the deal was formally announced Mr. Netanyahu accused the United States and the other five world powers of making “far-reaching concessions” in their determination to reach a deal “at any cost.”
For Mr. Netanyahu, the Iran nuclear deal is the bitter culmination of a long struggle that has severely strained Israel’s relations with the United States, its crucial ally. Israeli leaders have indicated that the country will not be bound by the agreement and have warned in recent days that it will continue to maintain its ability to defend itself. The disagreement showed no sign of abating. In a phone call hours after the signing of the deal, Mr. Obama told Mr. Netanyahu that it “will remove the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran, an outcome in the national security interest of the United States and Israel,” according to a statement from the White House. Mr. Netanyahu told Mr. Obama that the agreement raised the danger that Iran would obtain nuclear weapons either by waiting out the 10 to 15 years of restrictions specified by the accord, or by violating it.
“We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement,” Mr. Netanyahu said at the start of a meeting here with the Dutch foreign minister, Bert Koenders. “We did commit to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and this commitment still stands.” Referring to the expected lifting of sanctions Mr. Netanyahu said in a televised statement in English: “In the coming decade, the deal will reward Iran, the terrorist regime in Tehran, with hundreds of billions of dollars. This cash bonanza will fuel Iran’s terrorism worldwide, its aggression in the region and its efforts to destroy Israel, which are ongoing.”
The Israeli defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, issued a warning on Monday as the deal appeared imminent. “Obviously we are going to have to continue to prepare to defend ourselves by ourselves,” he said. Describing Iran as a “rogue regime,” he added, “We will always defend ourselves.”
Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a potentially existential threat, and Mr. Netanyahu has said that a deal will eventually pave the way for Iran to quickly produce multiple bombs. Israeli experts said that even though the agreement contained positive aspects that freeze or even roll back Iran’s nuclear program over the coming decade, it was still deeply problematic given the Israeli conviction that Iran is patient when it comes to building its nuclear capabilities.
Even before the details of the deal were made public, Israeli experts pointed to some fundamental principles that they said posed deep problems. Ephraim Asculai, who worked at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission for over 40 years, said the main problem he foresaw after reading the agreement was verification of Iranian compliance, particularly inspecting sites other than declared nuclear installations. Mr. Asculai said the verification mechanism “is lacking.”
“Unlike the policy originally declared by the United States to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capability,” said Yaakov Amidror, a former Israeli national security adviser who is now at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, “that moved to managing the Iranian nuclear capability.” “Access is limited,” said Mr. Asculai, who is now at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. “One cannot go and search for undeclared facilities or undeclared materials and activities.”
In addition, Mr. Amidror, a former major general and head of research at Israel’s military intelligence division, said the deal afforded Iran legitimacy for a partial nuclear program now and for a full program after 10 or 15 years. Permission to visit an undeclared facility depends on inspectors presenting evidence of why they want to go there, he said. Since he speculated that that would involve revealing sensitive intelligence to the Iranians, he said “their hands are tied from the beginning.”
Although Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is meant for peaceful purposes, there is “not one piece of logic — not even a slight one — related to this project that is not military,” Mr. Amidror said. He added that there was nothing about it that was “remotely connected to a civilian program.” Emily Landau, the director of the institute’s arms control and regional security project, asked, “If there is no perceivable change in Iran’s military aspirations in the nuclear realm, the question is, why would sun-setting the deal be a good idea?”
More fundamentally, Israeli experts say the agreement empowers Iran and affords legitimacy to its nuclear program, which it insists is for peaceful purposes. That, they say, is likely to trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey likely to want to acquire similar capabilities.
In a rare display of Israeli consensus, criticism of the deal crossed the political lines.In a rare display of Israeli consensus, criticism of the deal crossed the political lines.
Tzipi Livni, a leader of the center-left Zionist Union party, which leads the opposition in Parliament, told Ynet, a Hebrew news site, that “Iran is getting legitimacy despite being a state involved in terrorism in the region.” Isaac Herzog, the leader of the center-left Zionist Union party and head of the opposition in Parliament, said that Israel was on the verge of “a new era in the Middle East that poses security and diplomatic challenges for Israel that are more dangerous and complex than any we have known before.”
She added, “The agreement is terrible not only because of what it includes but also what it does not.” Avigdor Lieberman, the former foreign minister and leader of the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, which is also in the opposition, compared the accord to the Munich Agreement reached with Nazi Germany in 1938, saying, “It is an agreement of total capitulation to unrestrained terrorism and violence in the international arena.”
Avigdor Lieberman, the former foreign minister and leader of the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, which is also in the opposition, said: “This agreement ignores the big dangers. It is an agreement of total capitulation to unrestrained terrorism and violence in the international arena.” But Mr. Netanyahu’s domestic opponents have differed on Israel’s approach, particularly toward relations with the Obama administration. Some critics are portraying the deal as a personal failure for the prime minister, who infuriated the White House by addressing a joint meeting of Congress in the spring to attack the negotiations. They say that the spoiled relations with the Obama administration harmed Israel’s ability to influence the outcome.
But Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents have differed on Israel’s approach, particularly toward relations with the Obama administration. Mr. Netanyahu is now gearing up for the next fight: to lobby Congress to reject the deal and ultimately override any presidential veto. Mr. Netanyahu is now gearing up for the next fight: to lobby Congress to reject the deal and ultimately override any presidential veto. But that is likely to lead to further confrontation between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama at a time when many Israelis say what is needed is the rebuilding of trust and intimacy between the allies.
Mr. Netanyahu’s domestic critics say that the deal is a personal failure for the prime minister, who infuriated the White House by addressing a joint meeting of Congress in the spring to attack the emerging Iran deal. Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israel’s military intelligence, said in an interview that his recommendation was for Israel “not to meddle in internal American affairs.”
They say that the spoiled relations with the Obama administration harmed Israel’s ability to influence the outcome, and that what is needed now is not more political confrontation with Washington, but the rebuilding of trust and intimacy. But he said that Israel could still come to understandings with the United States about what happens if Iran violates the agreement or decides to race toward building a bomb.
At the same time, Mr. Yadlin said, Israel should maintain its “operational options,” including a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities “for when all other options are exhausted.”
Aside from a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East, Israeli experts are also concerned that American compensation for the deal in the form of arms packages for other United States allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, could also erode Israel’s so-called qualitative edge when it comes to weapons.
Although Israel and Saudi Arabia share joint concerns about Iran, they do not have diplomatic relations.
“There is an agreement between Israel and the United States, which I hope won’t be violated, that Israel should keep its qualitative edge under any circumstances,” said Yaakov Amidror, a former Israeli national security adviser who is now at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. “This is not compensation but an obligation,” he added.
“In the Middle East,” Mr. Amidror said, “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but another enemy.”