Israel shifts tactics over Iran nuclear talks

Israel is shifting its tactics over the Iran nuclear talks, moving from fierce public criticism of the Obama administration to private pressure about the next stage of the negotiations, according to US, Israeli and western officials.

After several weeks when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly tried to lobby US public opinion against the interim agreement with Iran reached last month in Geneva, the Israeli government is now looking to use its influence in Washington to shape the administration’s negotiating position.

A team of senior Israeli officials led by Yossi Cohen, national security adviser, is due to visit Washington in the coming days to begin detailed discussions with the Obama administration.

Mr Netanyahu described the Geneva deal as a “historic mistake”, appearing to open a new breach in relations between the two countries and offering a reminder of the difficult relationship Mr Obama and the Israeli leader have had over the past five years.

However, Israel’s government, despite its sharp words, believes the deal that was finally reached was better than a previous draft on the table because of its lobbying of the six powers involved and now plans to continue the effort in Washington.

“Our opinion is still that the first deal was a move in the wrong direction,” said an Israeli official. “But that’s water under the bridge and we will now focus on what is going to happen in the coming months.”

Israeli officials said that alongside their engagement with the administration, they would continue talking to members of the US Congress, some of whom have been highly critical of the Geneva agreement and are pushing for new sanctions to be imposed on Iran. Aipac, the biggest of the pro-Israel lobby groups, is pushing for new sanctions that would come into effect if a final deal is not reached.

Although Israel sees the Iranian nuclear programme as an existential threat, many observers believe it would also be highly dangerous for the country’s long-term relationship with the US if it were blamed for pushing America into a new war in the Middle East.

A senior western official said of the Israelis: “Their emphasis is now on trying to influence a final agreement rather than trying to blow up the interim agreement.”

Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador and senior state department official, said that the Israeli approach had shifted “overnight” from criticising the deal to “working with us to try and refine some of the questions and issues Israel would like to see covered” in the next round of the talks.

“I do not know how permanent this Israeli shift is or how long it will last, but I thought it was interesting,” he said.

Mr Netanyahu’s public stance on the issue is ostensibly unchanged, with the Israeli leader saying during a visit of John Kerry, US secretary of state to Israel this week that a final agreement with Iran must bring about “the termination of Iran’s military nuclear capability”.

Mr Kerry, perhaps with one eye on Israel’s allies in Congress, referred to Mr Netanyahu as “my friend Bibi” and sought to reassure the Israeli leader that existing sanctions would not fray. “We will be stepping up our enforcement through the Treasury department,” he said.

However, among western officials involved in the Iran talks, there is a growing belief that Mr Netanyahu has come to terms with the idea that Iran will have some form of uranium enrichment capacity in any final agreement – a position he has until now adamantly opposed.

“Netanyahu would publicly deny it, but it does seem as if the Israelis have understood that this will be the nature of the deal,” a western official said.

Instead, some officials say Israel is turning its attention to pushing for different conditions for a final deal, including transforming the Arak heavy water reactor into a light water reactor and significantly reducing the number of centrifuges that Iran has from the current 19,000 closer to between 1,000 and 2,000.

Dennis Ross, a former senior White House adviser on the Middle East, said that one of the main worries of the Israelis was that the talks would drag on far beyond six months, which would undermine international support for the tough sanctions regime.

“We need to be talking with the Israelis about what happens if there is no deal in six months and the Iranians effectively opt to have other interim steps or freeze the situation,” he said.

He also suggested that the US and Israel should re-establish a working group that existed in Mr Obama’s first term to discuss sanctions on Iran. “The purpose would be to plug any holes and shine a spotlight on those trying to do business with Iran in defiance of the existing sanctions,” Mr Ross said. “We could do a great deal to emphasise the reputational costs to deter companies from thinking about doing business with the Iranians.”

Source: The Financial Times Limited 2013