Israel's 'last-gasp battle'

This coming Monday will be November 24, the final day of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 group of Western powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany. It is on this day that the sides will make an effort to reach a final-status agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.

For years, Israel has warned of the inherent danger in permitting the project to continue. Now, all parties involved are approaching decision time. We will soon learn whether an acceptable deal has been reached, or whether Jerusalem's worst fears will materialize and the sides come to an agreement that would eventually permit Iran to gain possession of a nuclear device.

Last year, Iran and the West came to terms on an interim agreement. As the lengthy negotiations have progressed, the prevailing opinion was that both the Islamic Republic and the Western powers were interested in reaching a final settlement. Israel, whose destruction has been publicly championed by the leaders of Iran in recent months, continues to argue that it would be preferable to have no agreement rather than a bad agreement. Israel has also marked a clear red line -- Iran mustn't be permitted to enrich uranium, enabling it to become a nuclear threshold state that could make a sprint to the bomb within a year.

The global public relations blitz, which is intended to expose the threat that would arise if the ayatollah regime comes into possession of a nuclear weapon, is being led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But the man who has taken charge of the Israeli diplomatic dialogue with the Western powers in a bid to prevent the Iranians from making gains at the negotiating table is the intelligence and strategic affairs minister, Yuval Steinitz. In a special sit-down with Israel Hayom, the minister provides a special, behind-the-scenes glimpse of the latest efforts by the diplomatic echelon in Jerusalem. He also delineates Israel's goals that will thwart a bad agreement, analyzes the steps taken by the parties, and makes clear that the military option is still on the table.

"From Israel's point of view, we are waging a last-gasp battle with the understanding that we cannot and do not expect to achieve a certain outcome, but we are trying to prevent or at the very least to minimize the fallout from a bad agreement," Steinitz said. "No good deal can be made with Iran because the interim agreement created a bad starting point for talks. Since then, the negotiations that have taken place have been problematic."

"Despite the tremendous effort we are making, which I have spearheaded in concert with other agencies, like the Mossad, the National Security Council, Military Intelligence, the Atomic Energy Commission, and staff members of my ministry, we are utilizing a secret back channel through which we are communicating with the Western powers. While they are holding talks with Iran, we have succeeded in creating a mechanism that tracks the progress of the talks and enables us to have dialogue with [the West]."

"We've decided to enter the picture and to try to bring our influence to bear on the dialogue with the understanding that our ability to influence the talks from the get-go is very limited," the minister said. "Our influence is not nonexistent, but obviously we cannot dictate to the parties what their positions are."

"There was a real question of whether we need to sit on the sidelines or open up a back channel intended to minimize damage," Steinitz said. "Immediately after the interim agreement, I told the prime minister that there is no chance that we will bring about a good agreement. There is a chance we could bring about a deal that is not as bad as a deal that would be reached without our involvement."

"A dialogue free of delusions"

From the standpoint of the Western powers, what would be the ideal agreement-

"The right deal, the ideal agreement, should be very simple. If Iran wants to save its economy, and if the world wants to remove the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons, the solution then is to allow it to generate nuclear energy for civilian purposes without enabling it to possess centrifuges that make it possible to enrich uranium."

"Practically the only concession that the Iranians needed to make was to accept the terms similar to those accepted by countries like Spain, Sweden, Korea, or South Africa, all of whom agreed to buy fuel rods for their nuclear reactors which were in another country, like France, Holland, or Russia."

"It would've been best if after six resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council demanding that Iran dismantle its array of centrifuges, this demand would be reintroduced before the start of negotiations. Unfortunately, thanks to the Iranian charm offensive and the Western yearning for a different Iran, [President Hassan] Rouhani managed to get a bad clause inserted into the interim agreement."

"This clause made it clear to us that this was a seriously bad mishap. It states that in the final agreement, Iran will be permitted a limited uranium enrichment capability for civilian purposes under international supervision. This opened the door. From that moment onward, there's been no expectation that Iran will relinquish its uranium enrichment program. Instead the focus has been on getting Iran to place limits that would postpone its enrichment of uranium to fissionable material."

"At the moment, there isn't a good agreement on the table. Since the Iranians haven't made any significant concessions, any agreement that is eventually signed leaves Iran as a nuclear threshold state with a breakout ability to sprint to the bomb within a year. Steps could have been taken to distance Iran from the bomb by three years. There is a major gap between the ability of Israel and the West to react and the allure of developing a nuclear weapon in such a short time, which the Iranian leadership would find appealing, with the hope that nobody catches on in time."

Where did the West go wrong-

"The reason that the negotiations are going in all the wrong directions stems from the fact that from the outset nobody has demanded of Iran that it heed the directive and relinquish its centrifuges. The philosophical framework of negotiations needed to be based on the six Security Council resolutions which have already established that Iran has violated understandings that it pledged to uphold."

"But the West's point of departure was that it needed to 'cut corners' so as to allow Rouhani room to maneuver in dealing with the instructions he is receiving from the supreme leader, [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei. The Iranians successfully managed to play good cop-bad cop, saying: 'These are the instructions we received. Let's see how we proceed with the mandate we have been given'."

"The West very quickly assumed that it was impossible to concede on things that Iran has already attained, and Khamenei's instructions were incorporated as part of the negotiations. There was a process here in which the stubborn, shrewd Iranians made a mockery of the world."

Does it seem that the U.S. and the other powers are interested in reaching an agreement and putting the issue behind them-

"On the one hand, the powers want an agreement because there are other problems in the world they'd like to deal with. There's tension in Ukraine, which has created a serious rift between the West and Russia. There's a prolonged global economic crisis, and there's a war in Iraq and a war against terrorism. There's a desire to clear up the Iranian question and close this file. There's also a hope that once the sanctions against Iran are lifted, this will help not only the Iranian economy but also the global economy since it would impact investments in gas and petroleum."

"In the past, Iran was a major market for investments and exports, so the negotiations are taking place in disadvantageous circumstances. We are constantly emphasizing the point that the fate of the world hangs in the balance, not just our future or the future of the Middle East. On the other hand, there are many other interests at play here."

Perhaps it would have been best for Israel not to get involved in the negotiations.

"Initially, there was an attitude of 'Let's sit on the sidelines, since either way we can't really impact the outcome.' But ultimately what won out was the argument that we needed to do everything in our power in order to minimize damage, explain our position, and tie up any loose ends. We did this so that we could say to ourselves that we did everything in our power and also so that nobody could later say, 'Well, if this is so serious, why didn't you sound the warning before it was too late-' The decision was taken to do something very unusual, and that was to force ourselves on the Western powers who are handling the talks with Iran, which places a great burden on them, and to persuade them to listen to our positions, our intelligence, our insight, and our observations."

"And it has had an effect. The world recognizes the fact that we are a main target of this threat. We don't have any standing. Secondly, we have terrific intelligence services and very good intelligence monitoring of the Iranian nuclear project, so we can say what it is the Iranians are doing, what they're hiding, and what they intend to do. We share quality intelligence which has tremendous value in negotiations like these, and we share it with all of the Western powers, not just the U.S."

"As such, since we have great interest in the subject and the Iranians have marked us as a target, we've developed an expertise on the topic. So there is a great fear out there that we will act. What this has created is a dialogue that is bereft of illusions."

Has Israel scored any achievements by bringing its influence to bear on the negotiations-

"While the interim agreement was a bad one, by virtue of the dialogue we have held with the West we have managed to get two important amendments. One obligates the Iranians to halt its heavy water reactor in Arak. Another says that Iran must give up its medium-level enrichment of 20 percent, which is the same red line drawn by Israel. Iran also agreed that it will not enrich uranium of over three percent."

What are the new red lines that will determine whether the agreement signed is a bad one-

"It's difficult to say, because there are so many topics on the agenda. I'm still not sure that an agreement will be reached by the deadline that was set. On the face of it, there was no breakthrough in talks between the two sides in Oman this week. We are still hopeful that we could prevent an agreement, unless the Iranians make three key concessions, something that is not expected to take place."

"Sometimes a crisis is needed"

In recent weeks, Steinitz has held talks with officials in Washington, London, and Paris. He has also penned a number of op-eds in some of the leading newspapers, articulating Israel's position. Jerusalem is the "present absentee" in the talks with Iran, and the intelligence minister is the one spearheading these discussions.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. president is secretly exchanging letters and correspondences with Khamenei. How can we respond to this kind of behavior from Israel's best friend on such a critical issue-

"The report wasn't denied, but I'm not interested in commenting on the letter. Instead, I want to talk about the principle of the issue, which is that we mustn't create linkage between the war against Islamic State and the Iranian nuclear matter."

Steinitz revealed to Israel Hayom that he and Yossi Cohen, the national security adviser, asked Russia not to interfere with the coordination between the Western powers despite the tensions generated by the fighting in Ukraine.

"Just as we made this request of Russia, we also asked the Americans not to allow the war against ISIS, as important as it may be, to influence the Iranian issue. There must be a proper set of priorities."

Are you disturbed at all by how U.S. President Barack Obama is handling this issue-

"We have disagreements, but we should be grateful for the intensive strategic dialogue which the Americans have made us privy to. They haven't concealed anything. The dialogue is beneficial. We are seeing that we are making an impact. This is a rare, unusual dialogue. Every week there are updates and talks. My visits at times were inconvenient for them, but discussions were held and they were completely serious, and this is something that should be appreciated."

"In addition to my visits, there are also delegations of experts who are engaging in talks. We also established a joint forum with the Americans which is monitoring the talks with Iran. This is being done with the knowledge and the blessing of President Barack Obama. The channels of discussion are open. It is impossible not to appreciate this. They could've just as well said, 'You're not part of these negotiations, even if we will update you here or there,' but they don't say this."

Do you still trust Obama's pledge that he will not allow a nuclear Iran to come to pass-

"Yes, even though this pledge is subject to interpretation. The Americans have emphasized that they will not permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and we are insisting that Iran be denied a nuclear capability. There are nuanced differences between our position and that of the Americans and the Western powers."

"There will either be an agreement or an extension allowing for further talks, which is preferable to a bad agreement. There's also a third option, but with little chance of coming to pass, and that is a crisis in the negotiations, which from Israel's standpoint would be the proper move. Sometimes a crisis is what is needed. The Iranians are interested in salvaging their economy, and the odds are that they will come to the next round of talks after making additional concessions. The planning for this is not happening because there's a fear in the West that a crisis will be interpreted as an end to the talks. I'm trying to persuade them that a crisis is not such a bad option."

If there is a bad agreement which leads to a bomb, is the option of an Israeli military response still alive-

"There are things that I can't comment on, though I can repeat what the prime minister has said over and over. From our standpoint, all options are on the table, including the military option, if there is no other choice. We prefer a reasonable diplomatic solution, but Israel won't allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons."

Netanyahu has been wont in comparing the Islamic Republic of Iran to Nazi Germany. While Steinitz agrees with the comparison, he's not certain that this is the best time to say so publicly.

"On the one hand, it's hard to make historical comparisons because history doesn't repeat itself precisely," he said. "The Nazi ideology was an insane one, but it was secular, while the ayatollahs in Iran base their ideology on religion and extremist jihadism. Germany at that time was a global power and a leader in military technology and science on par with the U.S. today. You can't say the same thing about Iran."

"On the other hand, there are similarities, particularly when it comes to the desire to destroy us and to ethnically cleanse the Middle East of Jews, and there is a common goal: to change the global balance of power. Iran wants to tilt the balance between the West and the Islamic world, and that is the goal of its nuclear project."

Steinitz admits that "the world today is doing more than what was done then to prevent a scenario similar to what the Nazis carried out." There have been sanctions placed on Iran and U.N. Security Council resolutions, "but this should be judged based on results."

"What's been done thus far is better than nothing, but it's still not enough," the minister said. "Does this comparison [between Nazis and Iran] serve a benefit? The question that needs to be asked is not whether the comparison is historically accurate, but whether it is useful to make this comparison now, when the ears of the world are tilted our way."

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו