August 26, 2022 | Israel Hayom

Israel may need a paradigm shift on Iran

Israel could benefit from a new Iran strategy if a nuclear deal is restored, along the lines of the Reagan Doctrine in the 1980s.
August 26, 2022 | Israel Hayom

Israel may need a paradigm shift on Iran

Israel could benefit from a new Iran strategy if a nuclear deal is restored, along the lines of the Reagan Doctrine in the 1980s.

During President Joe Biden’s visit, the most difficult task was explaining to him the dangers posed by returning to the 2015 nuclear deal. Not surprisingly, Israel failed miserably in this effort – not in the actual explanations to Biden but in the ultimate results. The administration has remained bent on doing every possible mistake on its path to restoring the JCPOA. Biden is being helped in this mission by having a chorus of supporters of irresponsible prominent Israelis – including some who are still in public office – who have been engaged in “background briefings”  and various overseas meetings to convey a view that runs contrary to Israel’s official position.

The IDF chief of staff, the Mossad director, and the political echelon (including, of course, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) are convinced that re-entering the deal would be a big mistake. Israel’s political echelons are mostly working hard to get this message across to the US, using all available platforms, despite some claiming that they are not making themselves heard loud enough. As is customary in a democracy, it is time that their subordinates fall in line.

Both Iran and the US have escalated their rhetoric (in the ayatollahs’ case it is also about preparing the public opinion for a return to the deal), with both sides highlighting the benefits they would secure through the deal. Likewise, both sides have been stating that the deal entails almost no concessions on their part, although unfortunately, this is true only on the Iranian side.

Although the recent talks in Vienna were reportedly a big failure because Iran has refused to accept the deal, which was presented as “take it or leave it”, the fact of the matter is that intense negotiations have continued since in Brussels, Washington, and Tehran. The Europeans have even tweaked their latest offer by adding major concessions. Iran responded by saying that they may accept the deal only to return it o the US so that they could “make more concessions.”

The agreement has yet to be finalized, probably because Iran, true to form, want to extract last-minute concessions. The US media was gearing up for an announcement last weekend, but no deal was announced – because of Iran’s demands.

This is a very bad deal. The talks were primarily led by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his envoy to the talks, Ambassador Mikhail Ulyanov. Russia has all the while continued its onslaught in Ukraine with the help of Iran, which has been providing arms and sanction-busting advice to the Kremlin. Meanwhile, Iran has continued to plot the assassination of Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and other former Trump administration officials. But despite all this, the US and Europe have played along, pursuing the goal of reaching a deal at all costs. Russia and China could just sit back and enjoy the view as Iran humiliates them. How long will the US and Europe call this spit rain?

The emerging deal is much worse than the original one. It may have been cast as just a tweaked version but it includes many more concessions. What’s worse is that it does not take into account the time that has gone by since 2015 and the limited time left before the sunset clauses take effect. The deal does not address the Iranian nuclear archive and the various violations that the International Atomic Energy Agency has been investigating over the possible military dimension to the nuclear program.

The concessions that have already been agreed upon in the new deal include allowing Iran to keep the assets it has gained by breaching the deal, including the use of advanced centrifuges and sophisticated manufacturing capabilities. Iran will also get to keep the uranium it has enriched over the years since its effectively left the deal, although it will be converted to a lower purity level. Starting in 2026, Iran will also be allowed to install advanced IR6 centrifuges instead of the current ones, and in 2029 it will be allowed to manufacture as many sophisticated centrifuges as it sees fit. From 2031 onwards, it will no longer be limited by the amount of enriched uranium, but under the limits set by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its inspection regime, but we all know how toothless this document is.

Iran will also get massive sanction relief, including lifting restrictions on companies that do business with the Revolutionary Guards. This is almost as good as de-listing the IRGC from the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Lifting sanctions will allow Iran to rake in hundreds of billions of dollars almost immediately and about $1 trillion by the time the deal expires. The money will let Iran rebuild its economy, as well as upgrade its nuclear and conventional capabilities and bolster support for terrorism through Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and others.

Iran has insisted that under a new deal it would get guarantees that would protect it should a future US president pulls out of the deal. The parties are trying to find a formula that would be in compliance with US law and ensure that companies that continue to do business with Iran will not be adversely affected in such a scenario for the first few years.

On top of all this, Iran has insisted that the deal include a pre-determined mechanism that would ensure the IAEA investigations into its suspicious activity are closed. They have made this a precondition for making the deal come into effect. This devoids the claim of having “unprecedented inspections” under the former deal of any real meaning and severely undermines the IAEA’s standing. On the other hand, even if the investigations don’t closer, this would let Iran hold off on implementing the deal despite having already been granted most of the sanction relief.

Israel must prepare for the real possibility that a deal is about to be finalized, although the Iranian foot-dragging could ultimately result in the US waiting until after the November midterm elections.

President Ronald Reagan introduced in the 1980s a new doctrine to make the Soviet Union collapse by using a multidisciplinary approach, mainly economic, as described in the book “Victory” and in various articles authored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in 2017. Although israel is not the US, neither is Iran the USSR. And despite the massive cash flow that would make its way to Iran thanks to a revived deal, its economy will remain fragile.

If a deal is signed, preventing Iran’s ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade level would no longer be an option, regardless of any new capabilities we develop. One of the most plausible paths that could remain at our disposal is through comprehensive plans to weaken the regime. We don’t have to immediately make plans for regime change; it would suffice if we weaken it so that it prevents it from taking provocative action under the auspices of the deal. For example, the recent attacks inside Iran, some of which have been attributed to Israel by foreign media, have led to paranoia, hysteria, and a reassessment of Iran’s aggressive conduct. This is just one example of a paradigm shift that could quickly lead to unexpected results.

Those who say that returning to the deal is a very bad option but it is the lesser evil because it would allow Israel to better prepare for action are wrong and misleading. The time Israel “buys” through this deal will cost it dearly because under a deal Iran will greatly enhance its capabilities and nuclear infrastructure, and will become ever closer to a situation where Israel’s newly developed capabilities will no longer be affected. Under a deal, even if Iran rapidly advances in its nuclear program, Israel will find it very hard to put the capabilities it had developed in the time it had so-called bought thanks to the deal. Without a deal, Iran will be in an inferior position and without legitimacy, even if decides to break toward a bomb at a rapid pace. Returning to the deal will guarantee it becomes a nuclear threshold state, albeit more slowly, which would trigger a nuclear arms race in the region.

Former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said this week that “bad deals are better than good wars.” This is a strategic error because bad deals usually lead to wars that are much worse than the “good wars” that we sometimes have to wage rather than contain bad deals. The IDF, the Mossad, and the entire national security apparatus have received hefty budgets and get their demands prioritized for this exact purpose: so that they could prepare and fight if needed, while obviously seeking to avoid war as much as possible.

Israel must engage public opinion and make it clear to decision-makers, particularly in the US what the dangers of a nuclear deal with Iran are, while simultaneously building legitimacy for increasing its activity in the “war between wars.” It must start thinking of a paradigm shift toward a comprehensive plan to weaken Iran, along the lines of the Reagan Doctrine, including by setting measures of success to gauge its effectiveness.

Brig. Gen. (Res.) Professor Jacob Nagel is a former national security adviser to the prime minister and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focused on national security and foreign policy. 

Issues:

Iran Iran Global Threat Network Iran Nuclear Israel Nonproliferation