World

Netanyahu speech: Iran negotiations aren't derailed—yet

Nuclear negotiations with Tehran could still be disrupted

March 04, 2015
What does Netanyahu's victory mean for Israel's arabs? © Susan Walsh/AP/Press Association Images
What does Netanyahu's victory mean for Israel's arabs? © Susan Walsh/AP/Press Association Images

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the US Congress on Tuesday arguing that a potential forthcoming international deal with Iran would “inevitably lead to a nuclear war." The speech, which was boycotted by multiple Democratic Party legislators and fiercely rebutted by the White House, has become one of the most controversial addresses given by world leaders and dignitaries to the US legislature.

Netanyahu’s intervention comes as international negotiations with Iran, brokered by the P5+1 group of nations (United States, United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Germany), are approaching an end-March deadline for a possible framework accord. It is reported that a breakthrough deal is emerging that would curb Tehran’s nuclear programme for at least a decade with gradual easing of both economic sanctions and constraints on its uranium enrichment.

The Israeli Prime Minister made clear yet again in his speech that he perceives such an agreement as a disaster and asserted that The foremost sponsor of global terrorism [Iran] could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy." He added that “that’s why this deal is so bad: it doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb."

This analysis is hotly disputed by the White House, and US National Security Adviser Susan Rice even asserted last week that the Israeli Prime Minister’s latest visit to Washington is “destructive to the fabric of the [US-Israeli] bilateral relationship." Such comments by a top White House official are remarkable and underlines what is becoming a significant breach in a traditional pattern of bipartisan support for Israel in Washington.

The reasons for the controversy, and highly unusual public recriminations, are at least threefold. Firstly, at a time when the relationship between the Prime Minister and US President Barack Obama is already rocky, the speech was arranged by House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, a leading Republican, without prior knowledge of the White House.

Secondly, the address came just two weeks before the closely fought March 17th Israeli elections. Numerous Democrats indicated their concern that the Prime Minister was given such a prominent platform so close to the ballot which could give him domestic electoral advantage.

Thirdly, at a time when there is also discontent towards Obama’s Iran policy in Congress, especially amongst Republicans, the White House rightly fears that Netanyahu’s speech will catalyse this opposition. A significant number of these critical lawmakers want to see bills passed in both the House and Senate levying additional sanctions against Tehran, which has the potential to torpedo the international negotiations.

The preliminary deal reached in 2013 between the P5+1 and Tehran froze key elements of the latter’s nuclear programme, but not (yet) permanently dismantled them. Amongst the key bones of contention in the current international negotiations is how fast sanctions will be lifted in the event of a final agreement, and how far Iran needs to go in unwinding its nuclear facilities.

No deal that Tehran is likely to agree to will eliminate its ability to build a nuclear weapon, of that there is agreement between all key players. US Secretary of State John Kerry asserts that it would currently take Tehran around “two months” to produce sufficient material for such a bomb.

However, buttressed by greater international monitoring and oversight of Iran’s programme, the P5+1 want to significantly lengthen this "break-out period" to at least a reported 12 months. This is a sensitive issue with conservatives in Tehran.

It is unclear if any deal could allow both Iran and the P5+1 to plausibly claim "victory" in coming months. The most likely deal which would allow them to do so would be for prohibitions to be placed upon the nature of the equipment that Tehran uses for enrichment. Moreover, the P5+1 could seek to make permanent the current temporary ban on uranium enrichment beyond 5 per cent purity, which would still allow the country to service its nuclear energy sector.

While such an agreement would have major critics, with Israel potentially reserving the right to take unilateral military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it may give the P5+1 enough to assert it has significantly disabled Tehran’s potential to build nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani could try to sell the deal to conservatives in Tehran on the basis that it secures the international legitimacy of the country’s longstanding position that it has the right to enrich uranium.

A deal would represent a major foreign policy win for Obama and Rouhani. This is not only because, as Obama has said, a deal would “take a big piece of business off the table and begin a long process in which the relationship not just between Iran and [the US] but the relationship between Iran and the world, and the region, begins to change”. It would also constitute a key victory for long-standing efforts to combat nuclear non-proliferation. And this at a crucial moment when, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, more than 40 countries have expressed interest in joining the ‘club’ of 30 states with nuclear energy.

Taken overall, Tuesday's speech will not fundamentally change the dynamic of international negotiations where momentum is building for a framework deal in March which could significantly exacerbate the rift in US-Israeli relations, especially if Nethanyu is re-elected. If such an agreement is reached, domestic and international critics of Iranian-US rapprochement are likely to raise the tempo of their opposition and could yet derail a final nuclear settlement before July.