INSPECTIONS
The inspections terms and verification measures allegedly stipulate that Iran will be required to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency access to Iran’s facilities and possible covert enrichment sites. However, there appears to be no requirement that Iran will permit “snap” inspections and unfettered access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is not only a concern because of the standard enrichment facilities, but it does not appear to include guaranteed access to Iran’s military bases. Iran is suspected to have worked on military dimensions to its nuclear program at some military bases.
SANCTIONS
There is a stark disparity between Iran and the P5+1’s characterization of when international sanctions would be lifted against Iran.
The Iranian leadership had recently been pressing its team to ensure that there would be an immediate lifting of economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic once a deal was reached. Indeed, that is the way the Iranian team has characterized the agreed-upon timing for sanctions relief regarding Iran’s nuclear program (other human rights-based and other sanctions currently in place on Iran are unaffected by this deal).
The U.S. claims that sanctions will be lifted after the IAEA verifies that Iran has complied with “all of its key nuclear-related steps.” These sanctions will “snap back” if Iran fails to comply with its commitments.
The snap-back image is a good one, but no one really believes there will be any snap in the response, let alone a determination of whether Iran is in compliance, especially given the pass it has already been given on so many violations of previous commitments.
ISRAELI RESPONSE
During the recent election season in Israel, the main parties disagreed about almost everything with one exception: Iran. From the far left members of the Labour/Hatnua party, right through to Likud, Bayit Yehudi and Yisrael Beitenu, the candidates agreed there was no daylight between them and Israeli Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s critical position regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.
Speaking after a cabinet meeting about the proposed agreement with Iran on Friday, April 3, Netanyahu said that the cabinet “is united in strongly opposing the proposed deal” which would “pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the State of Israel.”
After ticking off the many problematic aspects of the deal – that no centrifuges would be destroyed, no nuclear facilities would be destroyed, that it will bolster Iran’s economy just as Iran is increasing its footprint of global terrorism and that it leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and the capacity to build a nuclear bomb within a matter of months in just a few years, Netanyahu offered this grave condemnation:
Such a deal does not block Iran’s path to the bomb.
Such a deal paves Iran’s path to the bomb.
And it might very well spark a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East and it would greatly increase the risks of terrible war.
The Israeli prime minister once again asserted the alternative approach he suggested when addressing the joint houses of Congress on March 3. His suggestion was to increase the pressure on Iran until a good deal is achieved. This approach flips on its head the allies’ approach of giving the carrot to the poorly behaved donkey hoping it will cause the donkey to repent and mend its ways especially after such a reward.
The Israeli prime minister quoted an Iranian commander who said just two days ago, while the Lausanne negotiations were taking place, “The destruction of Israel is non-negotiatble.”
Netanyahu’s response: “I want to make clear to all. The survival of Israel is non-negotiable.”