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.

Turkey’s Despicable Betrayal – But Who Leaked the Story?

 In the murky world of international espionage and covert operations, there are certain rules that are “carved in stone”. 

The cardinal rule is that you do not betray confidential and sensitive information to your ally’s enemy. 
   In 2011 Turkey broke that rule in a way that caused serious damage to Israeli and American intelligence operations in the Middle East, cost the lives of at least ten Mossad agents in Iran and badly damaged Turkey’s worldwide reputation as a reliable ally.
   Background: In 1949, Secular Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel and establish full diplomatic relations with the Jewish State. Strong military, strategic, and economic relations developed over the next six decades. 
   By 1999, trade and tourism were booming, the Israeli Air Force trained in Turkish airspace, joint military exercises were the norm, Turkey purchased drones from Israel and the Israelis upgraded Turkish combat jets and tanks. There was high-tech cooperation on numerous projects, as well as plans for regional water sharing.
   A unique intelligence alliance started with a secret meeting in Ankara in 1958 between Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and Turkish PM Adnan Menderes. “The concrete result was a formal but top-secret agreement for comprehensive cooperation” between the Mossad and Turkish intelligence, wrote Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman in their 2012 book, “Spies Against Armageddon.”
   As noted in a well-researched expose by David Ignatius published on October 16 in the Washington Post [1]: “The groundwork had been laid secretly by Reuven Shiloah, the founding director of the Mossad, as part of what he called a ‘peripheral alliance strategy’. Through that partnership, Israel provided training in espionage to the Turks...” and Turkey facilitated Israeli intelligence and military operations in Syria, Iraq and, after 1979 – Iran.
   Relations cooled after Islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Prime Minister in 2003. Though Erdogan paid an official visit to Israel in 2005, his strong anti-Israeli rhetoric and close relations with the Moslem Brotherhood (MB) indicated an intentional shift of Turkish alignment from a secular, Israel-oriented position to an Islamist, pro-MB one. 
   While relations got worse after the 2010 flotilla incident, military and intelligence cooperation continued quietly, with crucial, actionable information on Iran being shared with the US and NATO.  
   With the revelation last week by David Ignatius of Turkey’s responsibility for the capture of the Israeli spies in Iran, relations have hit a new low.
   In his article, Ignatius says: “The Turkish-Israeli relationship became so poisonous early last year that the Turkish government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to have disclosed to Iranian intelligence the identities of up to ten Iranians who had been meeting inside Turkey with their Mossad case officers.” 
   According to Iranian sources these suspects, all Iranian Kurds, were arrested, “interrogated” until they confessed, tried in secret and executed. Sources in the US describe the Turkish action as a “significant” loss of intelligence. The Israelis call it a despicable, wicked betrayal.
   The intriguing question is: Why did this story come out only now…and who leaked it?  
   Four countries know exactly what happened: Iran, Turkey, Israel and the US. Does one of them have a motive to ruin Turkey’s standing in the world of international diplomacy and espionage, at this delicate time?

• Iran? – No. Why “burn” a highly prolific “fifth column” in NATO.
• Turkey? – No. The exposure caused huge embarrassment and loss of face and trust throughout the world.
• Israel? – No. Maintains a good relation with the Turkish army (though NOT with Turkey’s equivalent of the CIA).
• The US? No. Why disgrace a US ally, NATO member and close friend of the administration? 

But maybe that’s just the point…:  
   According to Israeli analysts, the leak about Turkey’s “betrayal” and the fingering of Hakan Fidan, Turkey’s all powerful spy chief and close confidant of Erdogan, as the person who has been passing highly sensitive information to Iran for years, actually came from high level US sources, but not from the White House.
   These analysts argue that in the US government there are those who are uncomfortable with the current Middle East Policies. By leaking facts to discredit Turkey and its spy-chief, they hope to throw a proverbial monkey-wrench into a key component of that policy, thus forcing the administration to rethink what’s best for America, Egypt…and Israel.  As of now, and in the absence of more details, I find it hard to dispute their logic.
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-turkey-blows-israels-cover-for-iranian-spy-ring/2013/10/16/7d9c1eb2-3686-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html

Egypt – America’s Ill-advised policy

   A popular axiom of Mid-East experts is: “As Egypt goes – so goes the Arab World.”  Modern history bears that out. 

   When Egypt attacked Israel in 1948, so did Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. When Egypt aligned with the Soviet Union in the 50’s and 60’s, so did many other Arab countries. 
   And when Egypt signed a formal peace treaty with Israel in 1979, so did Jordan, and within a short time Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and other Arab states established informal ties with the Jewish State.
   Egypt, with over 80 million citizens and the strongest Arab military, is the natural leader of the Sunni Arab countries. The Egyptian military is the most respected organization in the Arab world.
   Egypt also owns, secures and operates the Suez Canal – one of the major strategic and commercial waterways in the world and where the US currently enjoys special privileges no other country has.
   The American brokered peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is a cornerstone of US Middle East policy. 
   Since 9/11 Egypt, has been a staunch ally of the US in the war against Islamist terrorism. For months the Egyptian army has been fighting a war in Sinai to eradicate a Muslim Brotherhood (MB) inspired base of jihadist terrorist groups, including those with American blood on their hands. 
   So it’s ill-advised that, with the Egyptian military playing an important role in fighting America’s enemies, the US announced that it was suspending military and economic aid. The justification was that: a. the military overthrew a democratically elected president, and b. the military used “excessive force.” against demonstrations by MB supporters. 
   Both arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny:

1. While Muhammad Morsi, ranked #3 in the MB hierarchy, may have been elected democratically, he immediately took the undemocratic (and illegal) steps of nullifying the Egyptian Constitution and writing a strictly Sharia based one, gave himself the power to legislate, and issued very undemocratic orders that he and his edicts were above the law and the courts. 
2. With the majority of Egyptians fed up with Morsi’s extreme Islamism, the deteriorating economy, and the fact that he allowed the establishment of an MB controlled terrorist base in Sinai, millions took to the streets throughout Egypt to peacefully demand Morsi’s resignation and new elections.
3. When the army refused Morsi’s order to use force against the demonstrators, he and the MB leadership sent in their armed thugs, resulting in many casualties.
4. After Morsi and the rest of the MB leadership were arrested on charges of incitement to violence and murder, the Chief of Staff immediately appointed a civilian acting president, who set up a civilian government that is writing a new constitution. Elections for the presidency and parliament are planned for early spring. So much for the “military coup” argument.
5. Last month’s pro Morsi demonstrations were violent. Government buildings were attacked with firebombs and live ammunition. Though 54 demonstrators were killed, the army used reasonable force in defending itself. Many of the pro-MB demonstrators wore green headbands proclaiming their intended martyrdom for Islam.  

   While conflicting US statements about the arms freeze were nuanced, the reaction in the Arab world was anything but.
   Anti-American sentiments in Egypt and other countries were whipped up by the usually pro-Western media claiming that the arms freeze was accompanied by a demand to release Morsi and the other MB leaders, and that the MB be included in the interim government (it was invited but refused to join). There are now calls to revoke America’s special privileges in the Suez Canal.
   Saudi Arabia, angered by the American move, immediately transferred another $2 billion to the Egyptian interim government, and promised to finance or supply any military equipment needed.
   Justified or not, the perception today is that America supports the anti-west Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most undemocratic and oppressive organizations in the world. And in the Middle East – perception is everything. 
   Sometimes you have to be smart…in addition to being right. Remember the axiom…
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Then Bibi Arrived

   Last week, this column discussed the “charm offensive” launched in the US by Iranian president Hassan Rouhani. As pointed out, anyone who just scratches the smiling front Rouhani presents will find beneath it a smart, ruthless, calculating, extreme Islamist cleric who has spent the last thirty five years faithfully serving the Ayatollah regimes in Iran and their obsessive quest for nuclear weapons.

   Let me make this as clear as I can – The current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, understood that with  sanctions taking a punishing toll on Iran’s economy while the US and Israel threaten military action against his precious nuclear bomb program…it was not in his interest to have another divisive “Ahmadinejad” type as president. Nor, he suspected, would the people elect one.
   So he hand-picked his trusted smiling minion, Rouhani, and marketed him (especially through social media) as a “moderate” and “reformer” compared to the other five scowling candidates. 
   Khamenei made sure to hide inconvenient fly-specs in Rouhani’s past, like the fact that he oversaw Iran’s nuclear weapons project for sixteen years (“he was just a negotiator”), or the fact that his son committed suicide in protest and disgust over his father’s blind obedience to the Supreme Leader (left an unambiguous suicide note). Few in Iran were surprised that Rouhani won by a landslide.      In NY, war weary delegates at the UN, as well as star struck media personalities and politicians hung on to his every word.
   "Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions," he said to a gullible world.
  He said that he listened carefully to president Obama's speech, and hoped that the United States "will refrain from following the short-sighted interests of warmongering pressure groups" so that the two nations "can arrive at a framework to manage our differences." 
       Back in Iran Rouhani boasted that the Americans had literally begged his people five different times to arrange a handshake or short meeting with President Obama – and that he refused because “it would not have been appropriate”.
   Only after lengthy negotiations between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (and at what price?) did he reluctantly agree to accept a short phone call.
    Much of the media and a few politicians fell right into the Iranian honey-pot trap. After all, he said in front of every camera that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. He’s the President of Iran and a devout cleric – surely he must be telling the truth. Just look at that smile...
   
And then Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived in the US…and the honey (hopefully) turned to vinegar. 
   With no cartoon gimmicks and no flashy presentations this time, Bibi gave a simple and laser-sharp message to President Obama, the UN General Assembly and as many TV cameras and radio microphones he could get in front of.    
   He said that he did not believe Iran's claims that its nuclear program was intended for research purposes; That Rouhani is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’; That only the Supreme leader decides regarding Iran’s nuclear program and that "The world mustn’t fall for the Iranian ploy and alleviate the sanctions as long as the Iranians do not dismantle their nuclear program."
   Bibi made it clear that any lifting of sanctions as part of negotiations must come AFTER, not before:

1. A total and verified cessation of all Uranium enrichment
2. Dismantling the unfinished Heavy Water nuclear reactor at Arak (which could produce Plutonium) 
3. Removal from Iran of all enriched Uranium.
4. Removal from Iran of enrichment equipment including centrifuges and conversion facilities. 

 Speaking to the Iranians directly on BBC’s Persian station, Netanyahu warned them that Israel was dead serious about using the military option if sanctions and real negotiations do not succeed, and in a short time.
   In his meetings and interviews last week, Bibi made it clear that Israel can, and will, stop Iran from reaching nuclear break-out, even if it has to it alone.
  Was Bibi more convincing than Rouhani? I hope so, because for the US, the Iranian nuclear issue is part of a multi-player global chess game.  For Israel, it’s a question of national survival. And I mean that in the broadest Jewish perspective.

Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.