It’s been a while since I wrote about the nuclear agreement of July 14, 2015, between Iran, the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Its ostensible purpose was to prohibit Iran from developing a nuclear weapon by limiting its enrichment of uranium, and to provide with for periodic inspections of nuclear sites to assure compliance. Sunset provisions in the agreement, however, allowed Iran to increase enrichment of uranium in 2016, which reduced breakout time to less than 12 months.
In return for Iran’s promises, economic sanctions were lifted, and frozen assets were released.
The agreement had no provisions limiting Iran’s financial and weapons support of its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon, bordering Israel on the north, and Hamas, bordering Israel on the south in Gaza, as well as guerillas fighting in Yemen, threatening its neighbor Saudi Arabia.
The agreement was far from universally agreed upon. It was opposed by many Jewish organizations, members of Congress and by Israel. They objected to the sunset provisions, the lack of adequate inspection to prevent cheating as well as time to enhance scientific knowledge for developing nuclear weapons. In addition, it was feared that Iran, a Shiite Muslim country, freed from economic sanctions, would increase their support of Hezbollah and Gaza threatening Israel as well as its destabilizing activities in the Gulf against Sunni Moslem counties, particularly Saudi Arabia. And the fear became a reality.
For these reasons President Donald Trump on May 18, 2018, withdrew the United States from the agreement and reinstated the economic sanctions. His purpose was to make it difficult for a weakened Iran government to provide adequate services to its people, decrease funding for its proxies, and bring it back to the table to negotiate a longer, stronger and more inclusive agreement, limiting missile development and support of its proxies.
When President Joseph Biden took office on Jan. 20, the economic sanctions had significantly weakened Iran’s economy. During the presidential campaign, Biden promised to negotiate with Iran for reinstatement of the nuclear agreement with additional and strengthened provisions. Iran refused to negotiate directly with the United States but agreed to negotiate with Great Britain, France, Russia and China. The United States is present at the site and negotiates through these countries. It is unclear whether any progress has been made; press releases likely are used in attempt to affect ongoing negotiations.
Israeli made known in many meetings with the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China of its opposition to restoration of the agreement. In response, President Biden has assured Israel that Iran will never be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. He has not indicated what actions he would take absent an agreement. Israelis, in large measure, doubt he would take military action and fear he will reinstate a weak agreement in order to avoid confrontation and domestic political turmoil so he can concentrate on policies vis-à-vis China and Russia.
Israel’s Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, Foreign Minister Yaier Lapid, Defense Minister Benny Gantz, and its Chief of Staff and others have made it clear that Israel will take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, whether there is, or is not, an agreement. Likely Saudi Arabia and the Sunni gulf states, feeling similarly fearful of Iran, will likely support Israel’s action.
Israel’s preference is that the United States end negotiations, impose maximum economic sanctions and develop with Israel a credible military plan to deter Iran from its continued nuclear weapon development.
But even if the United States returns to an agreement, Israel will consider military action if its intelligence reports that Iran is on the precipice of developing a nuclear weapon. It presently is developing a military plan, generally called plan B.
Israel’s risk is huge. The task is fraught with difficulty and may fail. But whether it would succeed or fail, Iran would massively retaliate and unleash Hezbollah to fire its hundreds of thousands of missiles striking every part of Israel. Hamas in Gaza also would send its missiles. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem may revolt as well as some Israeli Arabs. There will be fighting on every front. Israel will suffer terrible devastation and loss of life.
Considering the inevitable suffering, one must ask, why would Israel take the risk of such action? For an answer I turn to Daniel Gordis, an Israeli author and speaker who recently wrote that “Just over a week ago … the spokesman for Iran’s armed forces stated, ‘We will not back off from the annihilation of Israel … We want to destroy Zionism in the world.’” These are not empty word for Iran, with nuclear weapons, would have the capacity to carry out the eradication of Israel, the homeland and center of the Jewish people.
Gordis writes of his conversation with Yossi Klein Halevi, an Israeli bestselling author and journalist who advocates attacking Iran. Klein Halevi told him, “I am not willing to take that chance (that Iran is bluffing). I’m wary of Holocaust analogies. But for me, this is a ‘never again moment.’”
Given the risk of annihilation of Israel by a nuclear-weaponized Iran, Gordis surmises that Prime Minister Bennett is kept awake by the question, What must be done to save the Jewish people? Is it a “never again moment,” compelling action despite the resulting suffering and deaths of Israelis?
May Prime Minister Bennett and the leaders be granted the wisdom to make the necessary decisions to protect Israel – and may it be achieved by a credible Israeli military deterrence rather than war.
Harold Halpern is a retired attorney residing in Lakewood Ranch and is a board member of the West Coast of Florida chapter of the American Jewish Committee and of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.
This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: OPINION: Israel’s fear, and response, if Iran gets nuclear capability