Annexation "IN" – Iran "OUT"
Israel Undermines the Struggle against Iranian Nuclearization
Israel Undermines the Struggle against Iranian Nuclearization
Written by the Institute for Policy and Strategy Team, IPS
Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilead
Executive Director
Executive Director
June 29, 2020
Beyond significant future diplomatic and security risks inherent in implementation of annexation in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley, Israel’s total fixation on this move has already undermined the country’s ability to deal with and reduce existing threats, first and foremost Iran’s expanding nuclear program.
Focus on annexation, in practice reflects the Prime Minister’s choice at a critical point in time to waive Israel standing, in the forefront of the world struggle with the Iranian threat - a policy position that has been a guiding principle of the State of Israel in recent decades.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported recently that since February 2020, Iran has increased by fifty percent its stockpile of low-grade enriched uranium, which stands today at 1,571 kilograms. If Iran decides, in a worst-case scenario, to pull out all the stops and dash forward to enrich weapons-grade material, the breakout time to sufficient quantity for one nuclear weapon will be a number of months.
Parallel to this the IAEA expressed deep concern that in recent months Iran has not been cooperating with the Agency, has been hiding evidence and refusing to answer questions regarding activities tied to nuclear weaponization it carried out about two decades ago at three suspect enrichment sites, and has blocked access to two of them by international inspectors.
Moreover, despite Iran’s blatant and systematic violations of Security Council resolutions that forbid Iran to export weapons and military capabilities, in another four months the United Nations arms embargo on Iran will expire. The United States is endeavoring to extend it, but has found itself alone on this issue. Lifting the embargo is expected to encourage Russia to supply Iran with advanced weapons systems, including air defense systems that could provide Iran with a sense of immunity and down the road, encourage it to accelerate its nuclear program even more.
Totally out of character, Israel’s voice in the international arena can hardly be heard on this string of challenges, and Israel has not embarked in force to oppose these challenges which constitute the gravest threat to Israel’s security. Silence on the Iranian issue is ‘thunderous’, in light of the fact that until annexation was placed at the top of the agenda, Israel - led by Prime Minister Netanyahu - was the moving force behind a resolute stand against the Iranian threat in the international arena. This leadership was evidenced in diplomatic initiatives to present evidence of Israel’s allegations, exposure of intelligence findings and even threats, veiled to this or that degree, to attack Iran.
The multidimensional challenge that Iran presents, first and foremost in the nuclear realm, is massive and complex. In its efforts to restrain Iran, it is essential that Israel mobilize the world. Instead, current Israeli policy only ‘draws fire’ and deflects international attention - which, in any case, is limited in the shadow of the Coronavirus crisis - away from the expanding Iranian threat. Thus, in lieu of mobilizing the world to rein-in the nuclear program of the regime in Teheran, Israel has forced its allies to invest considerable energy and effort in attempts to thwart the annexation plan, including growing inclinations to recognize a Palestinian state with ‘67 borders.
This problem surfaced in a clear fashion in moves surrounding the visit to Israel of the German minister of foreign affairs Heiko Maas. Germany is a great friend of Israel, and has played an important role in all aspects of dealing with the problem of Iran’s nuclearization. Germany was the only country that joined the permanent members of the Security Council in negotiations with Teheran on the nuclear agreement, and stands to become the next President of the Council of the European Union..
Under normal circumstances, the Iranian question would have been at the top of the agenda during Maas’s visit, but under prevailing realities, it took place as part of Germany’s efforts to dissuade Israel from the annexation move. The visit even triggered a diplomatic incident with Berlin when Israel prevented Maas from visiting Ramallah during the same visit. Maas warned Israel that Germany could not prevent steps for sanctions against Israel in Europe, and warned there was growing support behind the idea of recognizing a Palestinian state in response to annexation, and some countries were liable to take concrete steps in this direction.
Furthermore, for the Gulf States, the shared threat of Iran constitutes a key motivation behind warming relations with Israel and cooperation with Israel outside the limelight. Now, with annexation as the background, they are reconsidering their moves. Israel received a strategic warning in the form of a high-profile maneuver initiated by the United Arab Emirates: In a bid to speak directly to the Israeli public in an op-ed published by Abu Dhabi’s ambassador to Washington Yousef Al Otaibab in the Yediot Aharonot Hebrew daily. The ambassador warned that annexation would undermine the stability of the entire region and “upend” warming ties with Israel by Arab countries.
The bottom line: Israel can’t have it both ways - both annexation and dealing with the Iranian challenge in the most effective way possible. Current circumstances make it clear that Israel has chosen annexation, over the Iranian threat. This move has forged ‘out of nowhere’ avoidable strategic challenges to our national security, while in the same breath preventing us from coming to grips with clear and growing threats from Iran. In opting for annexation, Israel is liable to loose hold of one of its core strategic achievements over years of effort in facing the Iran threat - transformation of the Iran issue into an international problem, not just an Israeli one.
Focus on annexation, in practice reflects the Prime Minister’s choice at a critical point in time to waive Israel standing, in the forefront of the world struggle with the Iranian threat - a policy position that has been a guiding principle of the State of Israel in recent decades.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported recently that since February 2020, Iran has increased by fifty percent its stockpile of low-grade enriched uranium, which stands today at 1,571 kilograms. If Iran decides, in a worst-case scenario, to pull out all the stops and dash forward to enrich weapons-grade material, the breakout time to sufficient quantity for one nuclear weapon will be a number of months.
Parallel to this the IAEA expressed deep concern that in recent months Iran has not been cooperating with the Agency, has been hiding evidence and refusing to answer questions regarding activities tied to nuclear weaponization it carried out about two decades ago at three suspect enrichment sites, and has blocked access to two of them by international inspectors.
Moreover, despite Iran’s blatant and systematic violations of Security Council resolutions that forbid Iran to export weapons and military capabilities, in another four months the United Nations arms embargo on Iran will expire. The United States is endeavoring to extend it, but has found itself alone on this issue. Lifting the embargo is expected to encourage Russia to supply Iran with advanced weapons systems, including air defense systems that could provide Iran with a sense of immunity and down the road, encourage it to accelerate its nuclear program even more.
Totally out of character, Israel’s voice in the international arena can hardly be heard on this string of challenges, and Israel has not embarked in force to oppose these challenges which constitute the gravest threat to Israel’s security. Silence on the Iranian issue is ‘thunderous’, in light of the fact that until annexation was placed at the top of the agenda, Israel - led by Prime Minister Netanyahu - was the moving force behind a resolute stand against the Iranian threat in the international arena. This leadership was evidenced in diplomatic initiatives to present evidence of Israel’s allegations, exposure of intelligence findings and even threats, veiled to this or that degree, to attack Iran.
The multidimensional challenge that Iran presents, first and foremost in the nuclear realm, is massive and complex. In its efforts to restrain Iran, it is essential that Israel mobilize the world. Instead, current Israeli policy only ‘draws fire’ and deflects international attention - which, in any case, is limited in the shadow of the Coronavirus crisis - away from the expanding Iranian threat. Thus, in lieu of mobilizing the world to rein-in the nuclear program of the regime in Teheran, Israel has forced its allies to invest considerable energy and effort in attempts to thwart the annexation plan, including growing inclinations to recognize a Palestinian state with ‘67 borders.
This problem surfaced in a clear fashion in moves surrounding the visit to Israel of the German minister of foreign affairs Heiko Maas. Germany is a great friend of Israel, and has played an important role in all aspects of dealing with the problem of Iran’s nuclearization. Germany was the only country that joined the permanent members of the Security Council in negotiations with Teheran on the nuclear agreement, and stands to become the next President of the Council of the European Union..
Under normal circumstances, the Iranian question would have been at the top of the agenda during Maas’s visit, but under prevailing realities, it took place as part of Germany’s efforts to dissuade Israel from the annexation move. The visit even triggered a diplomatic incident with Berlin when Israel prevented Maas from visiting Ramallah during the same visit. Maas warned Israel that Germany could not prevent steps for sanctions against Israel in Europe, and warned there was growing support behind the idea of recognizing a Palestinian state in response to annexation, and some countries were liable to take concrete steps in this direction.
Furthermore, for the Gulf States, the shared threat of Iran constitutes a key motivation behind warming relations with Israel and cooperation with Israel outside the limelight. Now, with annexation as the background, they are reconsidering their moves. Israel received a strategic warning in the form of a high-profile maneuver initiated by the United Arab Emirates: In a bid to speak directly to the Israeli public in an op-ed published by Abu Dhabi’s ambassador to Washington Yousef Al Otaibab in the Yediot Aharonot Hebrew daily. The ambassador warned that annexation would undermine the stability of the entire region and “upend” warming ties with Israel by Arab countries.
The bottom line: Israel can’t have it both ways - both annexation and dealing with the Iranian challenge in the most effective way possible. Current circumstances make it clear that Israel has chosen annexation, over the Iranian threat. This move has forged ‘out of nowhere’ avoidable strategic challenges to our national security, while in the same breath preventing us from coming to grips with clear and growing threats from Iran. In opting for annexation, Israel is liable to loose hold of one of its core strategic achievements over years of effort in facing the Iran threat - transformation of the Iran issue into an international problem, not just an Israeli one.