Jerusalem of Gold
Dr. Jonathan Schachter:
Senior Advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on
International Affairs
"The Challenges of the new Israeli Coalition Government: Iran and the Palestinians."
Talk given in a Jerusalem hotel, May 2015.
IRAN: "We could talk about the Palestinians, ISIS, Daesh, etc for twenty hours but, by far, the most important issue is Iran. The two concerns are not even close. Our concerns are:
1) The deal leaves Iran with a massive infrastructure which it does not need for civilian purposes. Break-out could happen in a short time, which is shorter than advertised.
2) The fixed expiration date. At the end of ten, twelve years, it's not clear, the restrictions are lifted irrespective of Iran's behaviour. In just ten years they would have this unrestricted nuclear infrastructure. In ten years, Iran would have 190 centrifuges, whereas today they have one tenth of that. This is why Netanyahu says this deal doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb, it paves Iran's path to the bomb.
3) It gives Iran a massive infusion of cash. Tens of millions of dollars up front and $350 billion over the course of lifting sanctions. Iran today, under sanctions, is funding terror in Syria, Islamic jihad, Lebanon, Hamas. And that's under sanctions! Imagine what it will fund after this influx of cash. It's a source of great concern.
And that's our concerns about the (current Iran) deal.
The idea that the only alternative is war is a myth. For example, the toughest sanctions kicked in from 2012 from the U.S., which by far bring the heaviest sanctions on the Iranian central bank, and the Swiss banking system, through which funds are transferred. This drove Iran, after eighteen months, to negotiations. What needs to be done is increase the pressure, not back off sanctions. Israel has the most to lose, both because of Iran, but also from the consequences of the reaction to using force on Iran.
So pressure needs to be applied in three ways:
Diplomatic
Economic
Militarily
"If you don't give up your nuclear programme we'll use force"; the stronger position you negotiate from, the less likely you are to have to use that force.
Yet the deal says: "We need a deal to prove that Iran is peaceful." But the evidence is obvious. That's like saying, "We need a deal to show the sky is green"! You don't need to enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear energy programme. The U.S. says, "Don't enrich uranium" and big countries, like Canada, Mexico, Malaysia, seventeen countries that we know of, agree to not enrich uranium.
The other way towards a nuclear bomb is re-processing plutonium. A heavy water facility is very efficient at re-processing plutonium. And this is the other thing Iran wants.
The military dimensions; triggers, warhead design, explosive testing, these are all usually not allowed. In addition, Iran say, for example of Parchin Nuclear Facility, "You can't inspect Parchin as it's a military facility, not a nuclear facility." Iran had two facilities that were hidden, then discovered. And from that, the U.N. passed resolutions saying Iran cannot export, enrich, or use heavy water facilities. Yet, at the very same time, Iran says Israel's destruction is non-negotiable. So, making the case that this is a threat to Israel is pretty straight forward.
But in addition, if Iran becomes a nuclear power, or threshold nuclear power, none of the Sunni nations are going to sit quietly; Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, maybe also the Emirates, will enter a nuclear arms race. Then that's another level. All these other countries are going to say, "We did everything you asked, yet here are these guys not complying, so why should we comply if Iran breaks all the rules?" This isn't just an Israel problem. It's a global nuclear proliferation problem.
The Prime Minister will continue to make his concerns known but he can't do it on his own. Besides the U.S. there are five other players in these talks. (P5+1 consists of U.S.A., China, France, Russia, U.K. plus Germany) All these countries have nuclear weapons, in addition to other countries around the world, significantly North Korea has nuclear weapons! If you look at that deal, it had all the same language. To show you how these things go, the U.N. did a human rights report and because North Korea weren't happy with that, they did a "nuclear test blackmail" saying, "If you publish that report we will carry out another test." The (Iran) deal relies heavily upon intelligence and inspections. This deal even says the inspections will be "unprecedented". That "language" concerns me. It may be true, but it's not "effective".
But, the fact that Iran has two factories that we didn't know about, is an intelligence failure. And as an example of what then happens, North Korea kicked out inspectors, broke the cameras and broke the seals, once they had their materials. Even if you say break-out is a year, if inspectors do feel something is not right, you have to bring it to a committee, make a report, the international community may be distracted (with something else), then agree to come to decisions about the action to take. It takes too much time.
Mutually assured destruction to Iran is not a deterrent but an incentive. Israel is a one bomb country. Iran thinks it's a multiple bomb country, so they figure they'll survive, but they think, "At least Israel won't survive."
When it's so obvious, why do the nations allow this deal with Iran? The interests of the nations are, I would say:
An inclination to over rely on inspections
A desire not to get involved militarily
Business interests. There are countries lining up to do business with Iran, there are a lot of cars to sell! But sanctions are not a one-way street, sanctions took years to take affect.
"Death to Israel, death to America" is a central reason-for-being for Iran, it's written inside many mosques around the world.
I'll tell you a story about Netanyahu: There's a guy named X, a central Russian dissident. Bibi met him. And he (X) said, "Back in 1979, in the Soviet Union, most people knew the Soviet Union was completely rotten on the inside. But the ability of the regime to parade red-tipped nuclear missiles up through Red Square extended the facade of the regime for decades." And we don't want that with Iran.
Now to the THE PALESTINIANS AND THE TWO STATE SOLUTION: Bibi, as you know, on the eve of the Israeli elections said, "Today, there cannot be two states." But when it appeared in the papers it said "never". What he was clearly saying is that calls for peace depend on a demilitarised Palestinian state that recognises Israel i.e.: the Jewish people with national rights, recognised as the Jewish state. The Palestinians continue to not recognise this. And then they try to argue about language and say it's racist. But non-Jewish citizens are guaranteed rights by law in religion, gender and race.
The Palestinians say, we "Recognise Israel who's future will be determined at some point later." So, they won't say they recognise Israel, they will never say it. If we go back a little from April 2014, Kerry's negotiations began in July 2013. By November those talks were no longer direct (between the parties), by February 2014 the negotiations were no longer on final status but on the framework for just continuing the talks! And by the end of March 2014 it was clear the Palestinians were not serious. Abbas went to New York and the U.S. said to him, "Here's the framework to continue talks, do you agree?" And Abbas is still yet to reply.
And, at the same time, on the other hand, Abbas made their pact with Hamas. If you haven't read their charter I would recommend it, it reads like Nazi propaganda. And also, Abbas continues to push for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. It doesn't make sense. And these moves of his happened just after the kidnapping of the three teenagers (Schachter is referring to the kidnapping and murder of the three Jewish teenagers, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah, in Gush Etzion, by Palestinian men on 12 June 2014.)
So, Israel continues to support a two states - with security! Netanyahu looks at Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Syria; Israelis have no doubt what would happen to them if they fell into their neighbours hands. So, we see two moves from the Palestinians:
No recognition (of Israel) and no security arrangements
Increased unilateral actions at the U.N. Security Council
We can't be in a position where we withdraw from Judea and Samaria, then ISIS move in and we have to deal with rockets from the West Bank. That would be about seven miles from the airport where you all landed. Think about the implications of that. So, it is an attack from two directions:
Militarily - there's a massive influx of weapons into Gaza, there are 100,000 rockets from Lebanon.
Diplomatically - from the I.C.C. and U.N.H.R.C., which is a kangaroo court. The resolutions make it so that we, as Israel, can't defend ourselves from those attacks, to delegitimise us. (It's) an offensive attack, plus an attack to stop us on defence. It's the same with the B.D.S. movement.
So, having covered all the light stuff (laughter), this country is growing at an incredible pace. Now we lead in tech, cyber, economics and agriculture. Israel is a success story despite all these threats. And that is something of which we are very proud. Thank you. I hope you enjoy the rest of your stay."
Comments: In his late forties, Dr. Schachter looked, not unsurprisingly, tired beyond his years. As Senior Advisor to Netanyahu on International Affairs, his job is one of rapidly increasing responsiblity for the safety of Israel and the Jewish people. It was an immense privilege that he took an hour out of his day to come talk through these points with us. Dr. Schachter has written for the Institute for National Security Studies and the Jerusalem Post.
If you meet in a Christian group to pray for Israel, please remember him and those with whom he works.