By Vestnik Kavkaza
The former head of the Israeli Air Force Reserve Gen. Ido Nehushtan said that Israel cannot tolerate under any circumstances the appearance of nuclear arms in Iran, and in the event of failure of talks between Iran and the West it will be forced to act alone.
According to the correspondent of VK in Israel, Peter Lyukimson, Nehushtan, who remains a highly influential figure in the military and political circles in Israel even after his resignation, said that Iran, through negotiations with the West, "wants to get everything giving nothing or almost nothing back". Israel has every reason to fear that the West either will not come to an agreement with Iran or will reach an agreement that would allow Iran to build its own nuclear weapons - albeit with a delay. The last option, according to Ido Nehushtan , cannot be good for Israel, and it will be forced to carry out military action against Iran .
"Of course, we are talking only about the strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, but not on settlements and the civilian population”, Nehushtan said. “It is clear that this can cause a reaction from Iran, but such a reaction from the Islamic republic devoid of nuclear capability will be the lesser evil". The former head of the Israeli Air Force also expressed confidence that the Israeli strike at Iran's nuclear facilities will not result in painful anti-Israeli sanctions because, as he said, "in reality, both the Arab world and the West are interested in such a strike". The main meaning of the statement by Gen. Ido Nehushtan was the fact that the question of whether to take military action against Iran or not will be resolved in the next few weeks – he said that Israel has almost no time to think.
The “group of six”, which met on October 15 in Geneva, shares quite a different opinion. “This crisis in the first place is not nuclear; this is a crisis of confidence between Iran and the United States, primarily between Iran and the West. Secondly, the nuclear aspect is rather a consequence”, Anton Khlopkov, director of the Center for Energy and Security, said. “The Geneva meetings took place in a narrow format. But the atmosphere changed. Iran stands with its proposals, and certainly this situation is quite new. Moreover, based on the information which is available to the media and which is credible, we can say that the things offered by Iran are a new approach compared to what was in the election previously. In my view the main question today is the time when Iran is ready to compromise and the readiness of the Western countries to go to these trade-offs. In my view, both China and Russia are willing to show some flexibility. Are the European countries and the United States ready to demonstrate this flexibility? In my opinion, the question remains”.
According to Khlopkov, “Iran is ready to limit certain nuclear activities, go to the extension of control by the International Atomic Energy Agency of the nuclear activities in Iran. But in response Iran naturally expects certain steps, primarily from the "five" and Germany, and probably from a wider circle of countries. And, of course, first of all, this lies in the plane of sanctions, facilitating the sanctions regime against Iran which has been introduced”.
There are three main groups of sanctions against Iran: UN sanctions, unilateral U.S. sanctions and EU sanctions. “Is the EU ready to implement the abolition of sanctions in response to the moves by Iran? This is a great issue, and, in my opinion, this is lots of work”, Khlopkov said. “If in the foreseeable future negotiations do not bring concrete results, then, of course, both in Iran and in the U.S. the positive attitude and high expectations that exist can therefore be significantly reduced. Those powers, which, for example, President Rouhani has today, the support that he has within Iran regarding his flexibility, accordingly, may disappear”.
John Acton, senior researcher at the Nuclear Policy Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that “the governments of the U.S. and other Western countries believe that now there is an opportunity to find a solution in the course of negotiations. Now they want to examine the Iranian leadership and see whether Iran is ready to actually hold serious negotiations. One needs to be more optimistic about the possible solutions through negotiations than before the election of President Rouhani, but of course there is still a long way ahead and I can tell you about what happened in Geneva. From officials in the West we have heard a lot of optimistic comments. Ambassador Ryabkov said that the sides are still kilometers apart. Although we do not know the details of the negotiations, it is clear that there are a number of issues that need to be resolved. The good news is that, apparently, there is a consensus on one critical issue. Apparently, the U.S. and Western countries are willing to accept 5% uranium enrichment in Iran on a limited basis and Iran is ready for 5% enrichment. I think it is a jigsaw puzzle that seems to be fitting together”.
According to Acton, Iran is ready to limit the number and types of centrifuges: “But here we must, of course, discuss all the details: how, how much, what type of centrifuges, and what measures will be taken? In addition, there are a number of issues that have not yet been resolved between the parties and in regard to which the parties have very different positions. For example, the 25--percent-enriched uranium which is already in Iran, who will recycle it? Iran? Or should it be shipped overseas? What happens to the nuclear reactor which is under construction in Arak, which, when it is launched (at the moment it is still not running), will produce plutonium, which is quite suitable for use in nuclear weapons? What will happen with this reactor in Arak?”
Besides that, Acton has a lot of other questions: “What measures related to the production of nuclear weapons will Iran be allowed to proceed with? Can one draw a line that will separate what is allowed and what is not allowed? After all, there are many activities associated with the production of nuclear weapons. Finally, the mechanics of the agreement: who does what in the first place? What and when does Iran do, and what and when does the West do? How to coordinate these measures so that both parties remain satisfied? And this is a number of very complex issues that... It is good that everyone has a positive attitude to Geneva, but there should be no illusions about the complexity of these issues either. Two more thoughts in the end, or perhaps two questions. First, there is a legitimate question about whether President Rouhani will succeed in negotiating with Iran. He has some authority, it is clear, but can he return to Tehran and persuade the Supreme Leader, as well as others, that it is a good deal? The second question is whether President Obama will find an agreement to the deal in Washington. I am certainly more optimistic than I was a few months ago, but one should not not indulge in illusions, given the scale of the challenges ahead”.
