Courcy’s Intelligence Brief

In the latest nuclear talks with Iran, which ended in Kazakhstan’s capital Almaty on 27 February, the Western powers demanded as before that Iran cease enriching uranium to 20% and that it give up its existing stockpiles.  In return for progress towards these goals, they promised to enable Iran to participate once again in the international gold trade and that some other sanctions would be lifted.  The talks ended with an agreement to resume in early April.  One doveish interpretation of Iran’s response is alarming Israel.

Israel’s own response has been predictably negative.  On 3 March, Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said: “I was briefed over the weekend on the major powers’ talks with Iran on the nuclear issue.  The American representative briefed National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidor on these talks.  My impression from these talks is that the only thing that was achieved was to stall for time which Iran intends to continue enriching nuclear material for an atomic bomb, and it is indeed continuing towards this goal.”  The following day, Netanyahu told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) by video link: “Words alone will not stop Iran.  Sanctions alone will not stop Iran.  Sanctions must be coupled with a clear and credible military threat if diplomacy and sanctions fail.”

Netanyahu will have been encouraged that US Vice-President Joseph Biden also supported the possibility of military action when he told Aipac: “We are not looking for war. We are looking to and are ready to negotiate peacefully, but all options, including military force, are on the table.”

Biden added, however, that the important thing is to exhaust all other options before resorting to military action, and Netanyahu, we are told, is now resigned to having to wait at least until the completion of the next round of talks.  However, he will be on high alert for any signs that Western prevarication could go beyond that, and he will be alarmed by one interpretation that has gained some momentum in Europe.  It is being said that the widespread presentation in Iran of the Almaty talks as a success may be intended to prepare the population for an eventual compromise deal.

To support this contention, it is pointed out that senior Iranian officials were quick to call the talks “positive” and to say that the West was moving from a strategy of “pressure and negotiation” to one of “negotiation and cooperation”.  On 1 March, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi went as far as to say “the nuclear issue will be solved in the foreseeable future”, and a similar positive spin was put on the talks at Friday prayers by Imams who are known to be close to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – and he is the one who will make the final decision.

This is no doubt all true, but where Israel would differ is in making the considerable jump to assuming that this means that Iran is preparing the population for compromise.  For those who have made that jump, this is another argument to support the idea that nothing should be done ahead of Iran’s presidential election in June.  For Israel, on the other hand, Iran’s tactics are all about gaining time and getting its nuclear programme beyond the point at which it can be stopped or seriously delayed by Israeli military action.