One of the under-the-radar news stories these past several weeks has been mysterious indirect negotiations between American and Iranian officials regarding Tehran’s nuclear program. The Iranian nuclear program is worrisome to most western powers not because it would provide Iran with an alternative power source, but because if Tehran were to convert its civilian-level nuclear capabilities and enrich uranium to weapons-grade quality, it could obtain nuclear weapons. This in turn would throw off the entire balance of power in the Middle East, which is currently dominated by only one (unofficial) nuclear power: Israel.
Iran has shown a growing influence in recent years and has proven itself to be a star regional rising power. For evidence, look no farther than its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its close ties with Syria, its commandeering and confusing relationships with Gulf States, its participation in Caspian politics, its perseverance in creating a gas cartel with Russia and Qatar, its development of the India-Pakistan-Iran Pipeline, and its ambiguous and mysterious dealings with internal Afghan affairs. While neither an Arab nor a Sunni-led nation, Iran has become a beacon of hope for many in the Sunni-Arab street. Iran also can be admired for its relatively developed democracy (in comparison with many of its neighbors), its emphasis on women’s education, and a high literacy rate. Iran is clearly rising, and that is certain cause for worry among those concerned with a regional balance of power.
Of course, the most worried party in the whole intricate web is Israel. In the eyes of many, a nuclear Iran would mean an “existential threat” to Israel. (However, on a side note, a report released today by Israeli military authorities says that Iran currently poses a “a substantial but not existential threat” to Israel due to its emphasis on missile technology. Read more here.) Many Israeli leaders have issued repeated and continued threats against Iran, saying that it would perform preemptive strikes on any Iranian nuclear facility with or without US approval. Israeli fighter jets have been seen as far as Gibraltar (the distance from Israel to Gibraltar is roughly the same distance as Israel to Tehran), and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have been particularly clear in expressing their hawkish views.
Given the US’ new and more hardliner stance on Israel as evidenced by Vice-President Joe Biden’s statements at the AIPAC summit in Washington last week calling for no exceptions to a two-state solution including the dismantling of West Bank settlements, some predict a growing clash between Israel and Washington. Lieberman, who has been appointed as leader for strategic dialogue with this US and is well known for his stance on Israeli nationalism, stated last week: “For us it is important to underline that the greatest problem at the moment in the Middle East is Iran; an Iran that is becoming nuclear and is becoming, or has already become, a destabilizing factor for the entire world”. Read more here. Netanyahu, coming to Washington this week to sit down with US President Barack Obama, also visited Egypt, reportedly, among other issues, in an attempt to win Cairo’s support against Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
Indeed, it is the nuclear issue, much more than the elusive topic of Palestinian statehood, that has appeared to be most controversial between Israel, the US and Iran. And the issue took a new turn last week when US Assistant Secretary of State and nuclear negotiator Rose Gottemoeller stated at the UN that all nations must abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea, which have not signed the agreement. The NPT is one of the few international documents that seek to curtail the limits of nuclear technology and prevent the spread of nuclear arms. For various reasons, largely due to diplomatic immunity provided by the US and its allies, Israel, India and Pakistan have become nuclear weapons states without signing the NPT. As the UN meets to revamp the NPT, it only makes sense that some nations should call for complete international adherence to the treaty. However, it was unexpected that the US would lead the call, especially against its staunch ally Israel.
So what’s going on? Some analysts and pundits suggest that the posturing and hardened stance by the US against Israel is part of a strategic plan by the Obama Administration to placate Iran to a certain degree so that it can enter into talks regarding Tehran’s nuclear program. Given the Obama Administration’s attempts to create venues to meet with Iranian diplomats (such as at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Moscow, a UN meeting on Afghanistan at The Hague, or a G8 summit on Afghanistan/Pakistan), this argument holds water. What is curious, however, is that it is largely Israeli media sources that are covering developments as they relate to US-Iran interactions. For example, on Sunday, it was revealed the US reportedly sent a letter to Iranian negotiator Said Jalili that set an October deadline for a first round of Iranian nuclear talks. The story was broken by the Israeli paper Ha’aretz, which relied on “a political source in Jerusalem” for its information. Iran quickly denied the allegation that it had received any letter giving a deadline, and the story then dissipated in the media, barely mentioned in the North American press.
Other articles related to Iran have had their first appearance in the English language in the Israeli press as well. On Tuesday, a story coming from Saudi Arabia’s Arabic language paper Al-Watan was translated first into English by Israel’s Ynetnews. The story explains that Iran deployed several mobile surface-to-air and anti-ship missile batteries to locations on the Persian Gulf in anticipation of a joint Israeli-US aerial attack on its nuclear facilities. Al-Watan’s source is a “high-ranking Iranian official”.
There are several potential explanations for these stories about Iran’s nuclear program being broken first by Israeli media. Some of the most credible hypotheses are these:
1.) Journalistic rigor. Israeli reporters are inherently interested in Iran, and Israeli readers want to read about any potential threat to their state. Israeli reporters would be naturally more concerned with Iran’s rising star than, say, journalists from Asia or North America.
2.) Governmental meddling. One cannot help but construct a theory surrounding these reports coming from the Israeli media. Might certain politicians in Jerusalem be seeking to drive their own agendas by leaking top-secret stories to certain Israeli reporters? Given the number of anonymous government sources cited, this could be a possibility.
3.) A grand bargain. Iran is a rising regional power, like it or not. The Obama administration is doing its best to adapt to this inevitable reality that could very well include an Iran with nuclear weapons. These media leaks through Israeli sources could point to backchannel negotiations between Washington and Tehran that constitute part of the fabled “grand bargain” which could lead Iran, the US, and many other powers to a new and supposedly equitable playing field.
No matter what the case or reason for the locus of Iranian nuclear stories in the Israeli press, the issue will continue to develop as officials from Washington and Tehran perform their diplomatic dance. The key question that remains is how the Israeli media — and the Israeli government — will react to these ongoing developments.
