We’re going to wrap our coverage of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, in which he railed against a proposed deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
“This is a bad deal, a very bad deal. We’re better off without it,” Netanyahu said, calling for the US to overhaul its negotiations with Iran. He said that besides a military option the alternative is “a much better deal”.
The proposed deal “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb,” Netanyahu said, arguing that inspectors could not stop Iran from violating rules, that the agreement would leave much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact, and that it would lift restrictions on the program in a decade.
President Barack Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s speech as “nothing new”, and the White House insisted the proposed deal represents “the best possible way to confront the threat from Iran’s nuclear program.”
Most of Congress embraced Netanyahu with open arms, although many Democrats and the Obama administration have kept him at arm’s length. More than 50 Democratic lawmakers boycotted the speech, accusing Netanyahu of fearmongering and political theater.
The Guardian’s diplomatic editor Julian Borger (@julianborger) offers one last assessment of Netanyahu’s remarks today, looking at just how quickly could Iran militarize a nuclear arsenal.
The claim: “[Virtually] all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade … Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs … Iran’s supreme leader says that … Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges … enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.”
Julian’s comment: “Any deal agreed in Geneva would have an expiry date, after which quantitative restrictions would be lifted, but it would probably not be automatic. Iran would have to fulfil a list of conditions to make that transition, or trigger a return of international sanctions, similar to the situation it faces today.
“Even after the period of the agreement, it would remain (unlike Israel) a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which involves constant monitoring aimed at insuring the nuclear programme is not used for military ends.
“Repurposing a huge number of centrifuges from making low enriched uranium to weapons-grade uranium, would be very complicated and would most likely take months to carry out effectively. The process of turning that material into usable warheads is also fraught with difficulty and requires nuclear tests to be confident weapons designs work.
“But in the context of the same kind of regime in Tehran and the same degree of volatility in the Middle East, it would mean a return to tension and uncertainty, once the agreement had lapsed.”
The bitter re-election campaign Netanyahu is waging in Israel may not be much affected by the theater of his speech in Washington, the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont (@petersbeaumont) reports Jerusalem.
Reflecting the criticism of Obama and senior US officials, Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the US now running for office, conceded that while Netanyahu gave a “powerful” speech to he “did not offer any new ideas.”
The criticism is bound to be amplified in coming days in what has been a bitterly contested election campaign – that Netanyahu risked damaging US-Israeli relations for no obvious benefit on the Iran question.
Indeed, ahead of the speech an unnamed Israeli official traveling with Netanyahu had appeared to suggest that the Israeli prime minister would reveal damaging details of the US-led negotiations with Iran over it’s nuclear programme, prompting warnings from some US officials.
In the end, however, Netanyahu’s speech – while heavy on emotion and rhetorical devices – departed very little from the warnings he has delivered over the years.
Earnest now says that he thinks Congress tried to obviate the White House somewhat by inviting Netanyahu to speak.
“I think what’s clear is that Congress in arranging this speech tried to go around the executive branch. … There is a role for Congress to play in foreign policy,” Earnest says, but in this case members of Congress tried to “run around” the president.
“The president will be able to make a very persuasive case … that we can make a very good case that this is the best possible way to confront the threat from Iran’s nuclear program. That if we know what’s happening in Iran’s nuclear program on a daily basis … then we have resolved [the concerns of the international community]. Now we’re going to have to be vigilant … but if we do, we know that we’re going to be able to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”
Earlier today Obama said he would take the terms of a deal to Congress should they be finalized.
Obama says he will make the case to Congress if he signs off on an Iran deal
Obama is “not focused on the politics or the theater, he’s focused on ending the threat from Iran’s” nuclear ambitions, White House press secretary Josh Earnest tells reporters who ask whether the president “disrespected” Netanyahu by not watching his speech.
“There was a lot of talk from prime minister Netanyahu criticizing and in some cases condemning a deal that hasn’t been struck … there will be ample opportunity for Congress and the American people to review [an agreement],” he says.
“At that point we can have a discussion and maybe even a debate about whether or not the president is making the right judgment when he says this is the best way.”
The Guardian’s diplomatic editor Julian Borger (@julianborger) continues to check through Netanyahu’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program and the attendant negotiations around it.
He checks here on the statement that Iran “refuses to come clean” about the military abilities of its program.
The claim: “[The] IAEA said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught – caught twice, not once, twice – operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.”
Julian’s comment: “The IAEA has said consistently that Iran has not resolved all its questions about the ‘possible military dimensions’ of the Iranian nuclear programme, almost all dating back to 2003 and earlier.
“However, the IAEA questions do not represent certainty about that past weapons work. Some could be based on misleading intelligence. But Iran was indeed caught operating the Natanz enrichment plant in 2002-3, and the Qom underground site in 2009, without having told IAEA. Iran says it was not obliged to inform the agency. The IAEA disagrees.
The White House continues to describe Netanyahu’s statements as unhelpful, with press secretary Josh Earnest saying that the prime minister’s proposal of an alternative “better deal” is “not a plausible outcome”.
A reporter asks (paraphrasing): “Is Netanyahu imagining things by suggesting a world where this is possible?”
Earnest: “It certainly is not a plausible outcome in the minds of the United States. What is a plausible outcome is an outcome that has Iran voluntarily rolling back key aspects … that has Iran agreeing to a set of monitoring restrictions that would allow international experts routine and frequent access so they can confirm for themselves that Iran is living up to the agreement.”
Earnest says the US attitude is akin to that summaraized by national security advisor Susan Rice: “distrust and verify”. He agrees with Netanyahu that Iran has given many reasons to distrust its promises, and that the US commitment to Israel has in no way changed or diminished.
But he defends the proposed agreement with Iran, saying it would require “detailed verification that will includem, of course, as you would expect, the routine inspection of nuclear facilities in Iran, … regular inspection of uranium mines,” and inspection of attendant facilities.
“We’re talking about an in-depth, rigorous inspections regime that can verify through the international community that Iran is living up to their end of the deal.”
Earnest says that the negotiations are working toward the outcome that “we can count on to best resolve our concerns. … That’s the best possible way to resolve the international community’s concerns … The alternative supported by prime minister Netanyahu and others falls far short of that.”
“The only X factor is whether Iran’s going to sign onto an agreement that does all of those things.”
How does Netanyahu’s claim about North Korea’s nuclear violations stack up against his assertion that Iran has cheated similarly over the years? The view from the Guardian’s diplomatic editor Julian Borger (@julianborger).
The claim: “North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb. Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs. Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions – 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.”
Julian’s comment: “North Korea did indeed stage a breakout, and could have a significant arsenal in five years. Iran did break the seals put in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005 (at a uranium conversion plant in Isfahan) and 2006 (at a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz).
“In 2010, Iran took the IAEA by surprise by stepping up the level of enrichment from 3.5% to 20% without notice, though seals were not physically broken in the process. There are significant differences with the North Korea case, however. When Iran broke IAEA seals, it resumed activities which had civilian purposes, converting uranium to gas, and producing low-enriched and medium-enriched concentrations. It did not represent a breakout.
“In the case of North Korea, there was no credible military deterrent to breaking out. The immediate neighbour, South Korea had no stomach for fight with its capital within easy range of Pyongyang’s missiles.
“The strategic situation facing Iran is dramatically different. An Iranian breakout would almost certainly draw an rapid and devastating response from Israel, the US and the Gulf Arab states.”
Are Iran and ISIS competing for the crown of militant Islam, as Netanyahu said they are? The Guardian’s Middle East editor Ian Black casts some doubt on that assertion.
What Netanyahu said: “Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world.
“They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.”
The editor’s analysis:not convincing.
“The Israeli leader was on firmer ground with his description of the ambitions of Isis (aka the Islamic State) though he appeared to ignore evidence that it is becoming weaker in the face of shrinking revenues and a fightback by the US, Kurdish forces and four Arab states.
“Isis is an extremist Sunni jihadi group which treats Shia Muslims (most Iranians) as apostates who can be killed. Iran seeks political and strategic influence and allies and uses proxies, especially Hizbullah in Lebanon and militias in Iraq.
The theories floated by Netanyahu are “dated and wrong” in this case, he continues.
“But the idea that it is still ‘exporting’ the Islamic Revolution as it pledged to do after 1979, let alone seeking an ‘empire’, is dated and wrong. Iran’s political system is dominated by a theocratic “supreme leader” yet it also has a parliament and regular elections.
It is a repressive country and regularly uses the death penalty. It broadly respects the rights of religious minorities including Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, though it persecutes the Bahai. Not a convincing argument.”
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion