The Geneva Deal- Winners and Losers

   The goal of the international economic sanctions on Iran was to pressure the regime to give up its obsession with developing and producing nuclear weapons.

   The goal of the P5+1 negotiations with Iran last week was to finalize a deal that would end Iran’s race towards having nuclear weapons.
   As I predicted in last week’s column, this “interim deal” neither addresses Israel’s (and the Saudis’) concerns, nor does anything to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It does not dismantle even one of the over 18,000 centrifuges currently installed and operational in Iran’s nuclear facilities, it does not reduce by even one gram the stockpile of some 7 tons of low enriched uranium (3.5-5%) which can be converted within weeks to bomb grade fissile material and it allows Iran to continue unlimited enriching (after 6 months) to that level. As for “enhanced intrusive monitoring” – the only thing “enhanced” that we’ll see over the next six months is the Iranian version of “whack-a-mole”.
   In the “deal” signed on Saturday, Iran agrees to slow construction of the Arak heavy water, plutonium producing nuclear reactor for 6 months (while continuing maintenance on both the nearly completed reactor and the nearby heavy water production facility) and to convert some of its 200 Kg. of 20% enriched uranium to fuel rods.
   In other words, in exchange for significant and immediate sanction relief, Iran essentially maintains its full six week nuclear break-out capability, while resuming trade and commerce with the world. Does anyone really believe that, aside from Canada, any country would have the appetite to renew sanctions in 6 months – if the permanent deal isn’t reached?
   A serious flaw in the Geneva deal is that it does not include an immediate Iranian commitment to uncover the development and construction of the explosive devices and warheads being worked on at secret, well hidden facilities.
   So who are the winners and losers in this “interim deal” signed in Geneva? (note that some appear in both columns)
       Winners:
• Iran – Enhanced Status – Gave nothing, got everything:

• Some sanctions relief and no new ones.
• No degradation of nuclear weapons breakout capabilities
• Keeps full enriched uranium stockpile
• Can continue enrichment after 6 months
• Arak reactor untouched.
• No supervision of weaponization facilities
• No mention of delivery system (Missile) production and stockpiling

• USA:

• Administration hailed as instrumental in reaching the diplomatic deal.
• Military option off the table
• Economic benefits

• P5+1:

• Economic benefits
• Lessens chance of war
• Lessens chance of Iranian sponsored terrorism in Europe

• Israel: - New alliances with Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia
   Losers:
• Israel:

• Major damage to relations with the US administration
• Military action harder (though not impossible)
• Risks worldwide condemnation if it takes military action

• USA:

• Loss of influence and status in Sunni Arab countries
• Loss of trade with Saudi Arabia
• Probable loss of military assets in the Gulf States

   The biggest loser however, is the security of the Middle East and the world. With this capitulation of the West to Iran’s “charm offensive”, and the ill-advised signing of this unfortunate “deal”, the Pandora’s Box of a Middle East’s nuclear arms race has been opened. It looks like only Israel and her new allies may have a small window of opportunity to close it.
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Iran Nukes – A Terrible Interim Agreement

Error correction: The current estimated population of Iran is close to 80 million (CIA World Fact Book) and not as stated in last week’s column. Thanks to all those who wrote to bring my attention to the typo.

      
   Now back to the present. As of this writing, all indications point to the possibility that by the time you read this column, the P5+1 (US, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany) will have signed a preliminary agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program.
   If my information is accurate then it is a terrible deal. As you will see below, the formidable and effective sanctions architecture will be breached, while Iran’s ability to enrich Uranium and build nuclear weapons will not be degraded in any significant way.
   As reported in this column last month, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and former UN nuclear Inspector David Albright, founder and President of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in D.C., said that with the new, next-generation centrifuges already installed in military enrichment facilities, Iran can now produce sufficient highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium for 3-5 Hiroshima size nuclear devices…every 8 weeks.
   And it can do that from its already huge stockpile of over 7 metric tons of 5% enriched Uranium.
   That’s why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu strongly asked President Obama and the other leaders of the P5+1 not to agree to any deal with the Iranians that didn’t include removing all enriched Uranium from Iran, preventing Iran from enrichment to any level by removing or dismantling all centrifuges and conversion facilities, and halting construction on a new Heavy Water reactor that will produce bomb-grade Plutonium.
   While none of these measures will stop a determined Iran from eventually acquiring nukes in the future, at least they would put their program back 10-15 years, and hopefully prevent a nuclear arms race in a very unstable region.
   According to intelligence sources, Saudi Arabia has already purchased 2-4 nuclear warheads from Pakistan and will take delivery the minute Iran builds its first bomb. Turkey, Egypt and several Gulf States, all Sunni and feeling threatened by a nuclear Shiite Iran, will quickly follow suit, with financing from the Saudis.  
   So any deal with Iran that in any way allows the Islamic Republic to keep its centrifuges (even if temporarily shut down), keep its 7 ton stockpile of 5% enriched Uranium 235, keep its 200kgs of 20% enriched Uranium (only 50kgs less than needed for a bomb!) and finish its Plutonium producing reactor in Arak, is a terrible deal.
   According to several reliable reports, the proposed “Interim Deal”, worked out mainly between the US and Iran over the past 10 days is that in exchange for releasing funds frozen in European banks and “selective” easing of sanctions, Iran agrees to: 

1. Freeze construction of the Heavy Water reactor (according to some versions dismantle or mothball it).
2. Temporarily suspend enrichment operations at Natanz and Fordow for 6 months.
3. Convert part of its 20% enriched Uranium to reduce the inventory to below 125kgs.
4. Continue negotiating with the P5+1 for 6 months (!) over a “final resolution”.

   Since, according to these reports, during the interim 6 months Iran keeps its 7 ton inventory of 5% enriched Uranium, keeps the centrifuges capable of converting that inventory into bomb-grade fissile material within weeks, keeps its weaponization and weapons production facilities intact and can either extend or simply walk away from the talks at any time – this is a terrible interim deal.
   Since any breach in the architecture of the current sanctions on Iran will open the floodgates and effectively render the sanctions toothless – this is a terrible interim deal.
   Since it virtually guarantees no American military action for at least 6 months (an eternity in the Middle East), and makes an Israeli strike much more difficult (though not impossible) – this is a terrible interim deal.
   Israel says it’s terrible and t The Arab countries say it’s terrible. When Israel and the Arab countries are fully coordinated on something this important – it would behoove world leaders to pay attention.
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

The Geneva Talks and new Jerusalem-Washington friction

   This was not the first time Iranian delegates met with representatives of the P5+1 (USA, Russia, France, Great Britain, China and Germany) to negotiate a deal that would end the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. But this time was different:

1. All the participants were high level officials: Foreign Ministers or Secretary of State.
2. The talks were held after heavy, ongoing sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy.
3. Recent reports confirm that Iran is already at, or very near “break-out” stage in its nuclear weapons program, and therefor close to both the US and Israeli “red lines” for military action.
4. Iran is rushing to complete a heavy-water nuclear reactor, capable of producing weapons-grade Plutonium.

   But while eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat is a top priority of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states, this is not the case with the rest of the world. Most industrial countries, including the US, are eager to see the sanctions lifted so that they can resume profitable commercial ties with the Islamic republic.
   And the Iranians are playing directly to that gallery with promises, “as soon as the sanctions are lifted”, of lucrative energy, construction and trade contracts, of opening Iranian oil fields to foreign exploration and extraction, and of a population of 17 million mostly middle class consumers. No wonder powerful multi-national corporations are pressuring world leaders to come to an agreement that will lift the sanctions – even if it means that Iran has a few nukes.
   “What’s the big deal?” they ask cynically, “If worse comes to worse Israel has great ‘second strike’ capabilities. On the other hand, in the current world financial downturn, opening this huge and eager market will raise the economic strength and prosperity of our countries!” It’s hard to argue against that.
   Fortunately one country, France, refused to go along with the proposed deal that would have let Iran not only keep the low-enriched Uranium they already have stockpiled, but continue enrichment for 6 months and complete the heavy-water reactor (which once activated cannot be destroyed with explosives or bombs).
  The Geneva talks ended with no agreement, and are scheduled to resume on November 20. In the meantime the centrifuges will continue to spin as Iran races towards its nuclear objective.
   Who won this round? The Iranians came to Geneva with two goals:

1. To buy time to continue Uranium enrichment as well as completion of their heavy-water, Plutonium reactor.
2. To open a crack in the punishing sanction regime, hoping to render it ineffective.

 They achieved the first, at least until November 20. They failed the second (though there are reports that the US has granted sanction wavers over the past few months…).
   The P5+1 came with only one goal: To get Iran to agree to an immediate 6 month halt of enrichment, in exchange for a partial release of Iranian oil funds frozen in European banks. Score…1:0 Iran.
   In the meantime, there is a new and ominous growing rift between the US and Israel. Last Friday, on his way to Geneva, John Kerry stopped briefly in Israel, met Netanyahu at the airport, and showed him a document that he said was the P5+1 proposal that would be presented to the Iranian Foreign Minister. 
   Netanyahu warned the Secretary of State that he was offering Iran "the deal of the century." "This is a very bad deal. Israel utterly rejects it," Netanyahu said, vowing that Israel would not be bound by any agreement. Netanyahu reminded Kerry of his own words that “no deal is better than a bad one”. 
   Netanyahu found out on Saturday that the actual proposal presented to the Iranians in Geneva was much more lenient than the one Kerry showed him. Bibi, according to several reports, went ballistic, saying again that Israel is not obligated to this agreement and will take any measures needed to defend itself. 
   According to Ynet, a source close to the prime minister said: "Some three days ago we received an update – both from the Americans and from other sources – about an overall deal with Iran. Israel was against it. Then, over the weekend, we learnt that the deal is even worse than we had been told, simply a massive mistake, and we lost it. Kerry left with a lot of food for thought after a very difficult conversation with Bibi.”
   Attila Somfalvi reported on Sunday in Ynet: “The tension between Israel and the US signals a tough road ahead for the twin American goals of finding a diplomatic solution for Iran's nuclear program and forging peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It also raises the specter of a return to the uncomfortable relationship that has often characterized dealings between Obama and Netanyahu.”
   However with or without US blessings, I believe that Israel will do whatever it takes to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon…and I know that Israel is fully capable of it. 
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Are US-Saudi Relations Beyond Repair?

As of this writing, Secretary of State John Kerry is in Riad to try to rescue the disintegrating relations between the US and Saudi Arabia. This is more than just a temporary falling out between friends. The now very public rupture between the US and the House of Saud, has probably reached the point of no return. 

    When Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, Director General of the Saudi Intelligence Agency (equal to the CIA), questions the US reliability and urges the kingdom to look elsewhere for a strategic ally, you know that the situation is very, very serious.
   Bandar, a powerful insider and possible future king, served for 32 years as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US.
During his tenure he dealt with five U.S. presidents, ten secretaries of state, eleven national security advisers and sixteen sessions of Congress. He had extensive influence in the US administrations and Congress. According to many analysts, during his career he was frequently referred to as both the King's exclusive messenger…and the White House's errand boy. President George W. Bush affectionately called him “Bandar Bush”.
   Bandar is a master at negotiating complicated international deals and smoothing ruffled feathers, often times with large donations to “favorite charities” from what seems to be a bottomless purse. 
  For over three decades, he was the face of Saudi Arabia both in the US and around the world. Adored by the media and admired by the public, Bandar was a frequent speaker at major fundraising events, including in the Jewish community. 
   Until last week he always advocated for strong US-Saudi relations and good Saudi-Israeli relations – that he claimed have existed since January 3, 1910, when then Emir (later King) Feisal signed a peace and cooperation accord with then World Zionist Congress president Chaim Weitzman, regarding the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
   If Bandar Bin Sultan, a moderate, pro-Western, anti-Islamist, high-ranking Saudi leader is leveling derogatory accusations against the US, with full encouragement of the ailing King, you know that the relationship is on the rocks.
   It’s important to understand that for the last 70 or so years, the sometimes wobbly US-Saudi alliance was based on the simple premise that in exchange for America providing military protection for the family run dictatorship, the Saudis will keep the global price of oil down and, during the Cold War, provide the US with military facilities and use its incredible wealth to help keep the USSR out of the region.
   But today there is a new worldwide threat: The very real probability of a nuclear armed Iran that threatens the Sunni Arab countries in general and Saudi Arabia in particular. 
   So what is the Saudi beef with the US?  According to Simon Henderson’s article, published on Nov 1 by the Washington Institute: “Saudi Arabia has a litany of complaints about U.S. policy in the Middle East. It faults Washington for pursuing a rapprochement with Iran, for not pushing Israel harder in peace talks with the Palestinians, and for not more forcefully backing efforts to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Saudi royals are also angry that the United States did not stand behind Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed an anti-government uprising in 2011, and that Washington has criticized the new Egyptian government, another Saudi ally, for its crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood protesters.”
   Any weakening of the US-Saudi alliance will have far reaching ramifications. America’s influence in the region would weaken even more, while Russia and China would certainly step in. US arms sales would decline and the price of oil could increase – both impacting American jobs and the economy.
   By the time you read this column, Secretary of State Kerry will have completed his talks in the region. Tasked with putting out major diplomatic fires in Riad, Cairo (US relations with Egypt) and Israel (the recent negativity over the peace talks and reported resignations of senior members of the Palestinian team)…all in less than a week, I seriously doubt that we will see anything more than a few polite and non-committal statements to the press following each short visit.
   The only thing that can alter America’s deteriorating status in the Middle East today is a US lead military action against Iran.      
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.