Israel lists demands on iran deal
Wants tighter centrifuge restrictions
• Clearly unsatisfied with assurances from Washington, Israel Monday listed specific requirements it said it wanted in any final deal with Iran over that country’s nuclear program.
Whereas Israel’s public diplomacy has so far focused on what many have said is an unrealistic demand for the complete dismantlement of Iran’s potentially military nuclear infrastructure, Yuval Steinitz, the minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, presented a list of desired modifications for the final agreement, set to be concluded by June 30, that he said would make it “more reasonable.”
Those changes, the Israeli government says, are necessary to close dangerous loopholes in a preliminary framework agreed between Iran and world powers including the United States in Lausanne, Switzerland, last week.
The Israeli list includes an end to all research and development activity on advanced centrifuges in Iran; a significant reduction in the number of centrifuges that can quickly become operational if Iran breaks the agreement and decides to build a bomb; the closing of the underground Fordo facility as an enrichment site, even if enrichment activities are suspended there; Iranian compliance in revealing its past activities with possible military dimensions; a commitment to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of Iran; and the ability for in- spectors charged with verifying the agreement to go “anywhere, anytime” in Iran.
The reaction from Israel came after assurances by President Barack Obama that the preliminary agreement was the “best bet by far” to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and his pledge to the Israelis that the United States had “got their backs.” Mr. Steinitz said the suggestion that there was no alternative to the Lausanne framework, or that Israel had not put forward an alternative, “is wrong.”
“The alternative is not necessary to declare war on Iran,” he said, briefing international reporters at a Jerusalem hotel. “It is to increase pressure on Iran and stand firm and make Iran make serious concessions and have a much better deal.”
Mr. Steinitz said that Israel would be making further efforts to persuade the Obama administration and Congress, as well as Britain, France, Russia and other world powers, “not to sign this bad deal or at least to dramatically change or fix it.”
Referring to Mr. Obama’s explanation in an interview with Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times, that if Iran objected to site inspections, an international mechanism would be in place to assess those objections, Mr. Steinitz said that was “not good enough.”
It was unsatisfactory, Mr. Steinitz said, because of the time required to refer suspicions to a committee and also because nobody would want to expose sensitive intelligence data to a committee that included an Iranian presence. Israel is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal but maintains a policy of ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying that it possesses nuclear weapons.
Under the framework, negotiated with the United States and five other world powers, Iran has agreed to scale back its nuclear program significantly for 10 to 15 years and to accept intensive international inspections, though the structure of the inspections was left vague.
Iran is supposed to limit enrichment of uranium at its Natanz facility to a level useful only for civilian purposes and to cut back the number of installed centrifuges by about two-thirds. It would convert Fordo into a centre for peaceful research and forgo enriching uranium there for at least 15 years, though the proposed agreement allows Iran to retain about 1,000 centrifuges in its underground halls. Iran would also modify its Arak heavy water reactor to render it incapable of producing plutonium for a bomb.
In exchange, the United States and other nations would lift sanctions that have constrained the Iranian economy. Mr. Obama said the sanctions would be lifted only after Iran had delivered on its commitments regarding Fordo, the centrifuges and other issues, although he said there were details still to be worked out.
Regarding Mr. Obama’s statement that the U.S. would back Israel in the face of any Iranian aggression, Mr. Steinitz said, “We do appreciate it.” But he added that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would be an existential threat to Israel. “Nobody can tell us that backing and assistance are enough to neutralize such a threat.”
[Pushing] not to sign this bad deal or at least to change or fix it