By Peter Lyukimson, Israel. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
The action plan developed by Tehran and six mediators in Geneva at the end of last week is far from perfect, despite its general appraisal.
Iran will stop enriching uranium to 20%, get rid of 20%-enriched stockpiles of uranium, halt the launch of the Arak heavy-water reactor and open the doors of its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspectors in exchange for an easing of financial and economic sanctions. A special commission of six mediators will monitor the fulfillment of conditions set out in the agreements.
Meanwhile, there was a skeptical attitude towards the Geneva agreements was not only among experts but among certain states too. The majority of Israeli politicians still insist that it is a very bad deal for Israel, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a grave historic mistake of the West.
As things quieten down, Israeli experts have started analyzing the Geneva agreements.
Yoel Guzansky, a scientist of the Israeli Institute for National Security, said: “Just before signing of the agreement, Israel presented its demands publicly, understanding well that the majority of them would not be approved. I think neither the prime minister nor his supporters expected it because it was unreal. Now, the question is not what is written in the agreement but what will Israel do tomorrow.”
“It would be a big mistake to say that the agreement is definitely bad or definitely good because it is an exceptionally complicated document with positive and negative aspects for Israel. I do not agree with those who describe the case as though a nuclear catastrophe will happen tomorrow. On the contrary, I think that it is very important to continue the dialogue with the US and strengthen all positive of the temporary agreement in a permanent agreement, trying to negate all the negative ones,” continues Guzansky.
The expert clarified that the most important part of the agreement is recognition of Iran as a nuclear state, bringing it out of international isolation, ignoring the fact that Iran remains one of the main guide of Islamic terror forces and the main sponsor of terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. Guzansky believes that the negative sides of the Geneva agreements are what should be discussed.
Guzansky sees other threat in prevalence of economic interests over the strategic ones. Iran and the West will immediately start making profit from lifting sanctions. Even if Tehran gets caught violating the agreements, giving up such money would be very hard.
Concerning the positive moments of the agreement for Israel, experts note the fact that it neutralizes Iranian uranium enriched to 20%. Many sanctions, mainly banking and financial restrictions for Iran, will remain in force. The nuclear program will indeed be partly frozen and put under better control.
Amos Yadlin, ex-Head of the Military Intelligence Directorate of Israel, stated that, in any case, the final version of the agreement was a lot better for Israel than its draft 10 days before signing. It means that efforts of Netanyahu and Israeli diplomats were not wasted. Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea compared the Geneva agreement with Israeli cheese, saying that it had many ‘holes’, although it was not the end of the world.
At the same time, the struggle for the composition of text for a permanent agreement for Israel is starting. Yitzhak Molcho, a lawyer and personal representative of Benjamin Netanyahu, will visit Washington in the near future to discuss the text. The half a year remaining to sign the final agreement will be exceptionally tense for Israel.
