The United States must include Israel as a major component in any negotiations with Iran, according to a variety of academics speaking at the Tel Aviv University’s Center for Iranian Studies annual conference convened today.
Due to Israel’s unfortunate status as the principal target of Iran’s nuclear program, some of the analysts concluded that no U.S.-Iran deal could succeed without acknowledging the Jewish state’s unique role in the region.
In discussing renewed talks with Iran, the Obama Administration repeatedly mentioned the need to tie negotiations to progress in the Israel-Palestine peace process.
“Don’t believe for a moment that if there is no different situation in Palestine then things can be easier between Iran and Israel,” Prof. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs said at the event.
However, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy stressed the multifaceted relationship between Israel and Iran that compromises far more issues than merely peace negotiations.
Aside from Iran’s nuclear program affecting Israel, the Iranian regime consistently meddles in issues affecting Israel by supporting the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas and Hezbollah. According to Levy, Israel and Iran maintain a conventional war with recent confrontations including Operation Cast Lead, the Second Lebanon War, Israel’s strike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility, and the destruction of an arms convey in Sudan en-route to the Gaza Strip.
“What we have is an undeclared war.” Halevy said at the event. “It will not be possible to reach an understanding… without Israel being part of this ultimate understanding.”
Halevy noted that Iran repeatedly emerged “with a bloody nose” from any confrontation with Israel, including the “debilitating blow” to Hamas during Operation Cast Lead. “The Iranians were incapable of lifting a figure from saving the forces in Gaza,” he said. He described the Israeli attack on the convoy in Sudan as “an Iranian setback, and they know it.”
Cotta-Ramusino stated that negotiations could only succeed if all sides receive a positive gain. While the West maintains its nonproliferation objectives, Iran would require a broader role in the Middle East.
Halevy disagreed with the approach of rewarding Iran, stressing the high price the world would pay by elevating the Iranian regime. He also noted that the Obama Administration would refuse this option and, more importantly, opposes this route as a positive approach to the situation.
Harvard University Prof. Steven Miller noted that an era of U.S. pressure on Iran failed, therefore the United States must pursue an alternate approach. He stressed that President George W. Bush employed serious diplomatic pressure while Iran transformed Natanz from a “hole in the ground” into the site of the country’s nuclear program. “When it doesn’t work, maybe its time to try something else,” Miller said, stressing unfortunate reality that a zero-centrifuge outcome for Iran remains unlikely and that the United States should focus on restricted the Iranian nuclear program instead of destroying it.
Cotta-Ramusino concurred, noting that. “All the nuclear activity should be controlled.” However, he expressed hope that changes in Tehran could positively affect the capacity for negotiations. “There are chance the situation will improve on a regional level.”
However, Halevy dismissed the idea of change in Iranian posture towards democracy and human rights, stating facetiously “and maybe apple pie will become a staple.” Instead, Halevy tacitly advocated intense pressure from the United States mentioning his own experience with U.S. negotiators at the bargaining table. “Its’ not a pretty picnic,” Halevy recalled, noting that he did not “emerge smiling” from the meetings.
