European negotiators in talks to salvage Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers presented no "new practical initiatives" and were not constructive in the last round that paused on Dec. 17, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said on Thursday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The negotiations are slated to resume on Dec. 27, Russia and the European Union's foreign service said earlier on Thursday, a day after the US national security adviser warned the troubled talks with Iran could be exhausted within weeks.

"We do not see the position of some European countries as constructive, specifically that of France," Iranian state media quoted Amirabdollahian as saying.

"When they say they are concerned about the progress of Iran's nuclear program, we say out loud: 'If you want to have your concerns addressed, then all sanctions must be lifted.'"

The talks have made scant progress since they resumed earlier this month after a five-month hiatus following the election of hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi.

Tehran has sought changes to an outline of a deal that had taken shape in six previous rounds of talks, leaving them largely deadlocked while Western powers warned that time was running out to rein in Iran's fast-advancing nuclear activities.

Senior British, French and German diplomats offered a pessimistic assessment of efforts to revive the deal under which Iran had limited its disputed nuclear program in return for relief from U, European Union and UN economic sanctions.

Amirabdollahian said Iran had "managed to get [our] views orally approved by all parties in the draft that will be discussed next week." He did not elaborate.

Meanwhile, Iranian media on Thursday reported that Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein has called for direct negotiations between Iran and the US.

Hussein spoke at a news conference after meeting his Iranian counterpart in Tehran, stressing that heightened tension between Iran and the US – Baghdad's two powerful allies – directly affects his country's stability.

While Iraq remains a pillar of Washington's security policy in the region, Iranian-backed militias wield extensive power in the country.

"Any opening in Tehran-Washington relations will positively impact Iraq's internal situation from political, economic and security perspectives," Hussein said.

"We think it's time for direct talks between Tehran and Washington so that the two countries reach a common understanding not only on the nuclear issue but also on sanctions imposed on Iran," he said.

Hussein also touched on the hasty evacuation and sudden death of Iran's top diplomat in war-torn Yemen, Hassan Irloo, whom Washington has identified as a member of Iran's powerful paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. He said the US cooperated with Saudi Arabia and Iran to transfer Irloo on an Iraqi plane from Yemen to Tehran, where Iranian authorities said he died of COVID-19.

There was no immediate comment from Washington on its reported assistance. Yemen's Houthi rebels had sought permission for his transfer from Saudi Arabia, which maintains an air blockade on Yemen's capital of Sanaa.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Iranian FM: European stance at Vienna nuclear talks unhelpful appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett meet Wednesday with US national security advisor Jake Sullivan in Jerusalem.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The main crux of the meeting was the Iran nuclear talks in Vienna.

"Welcome to Jerusalem, Jake," Bennett told Sullivan, adding that he was happy to host the US national security advisor. Bennett thanked him for making the trip so close to Christmas.

The visit comes as Channel 13 News reported Tuesday that Biden had been dodging phone calls from Bennett. According to the report, the cold shoulder is a response to Bennett's refusal to stop construction in the settlements in general and the Atarot neighborhood of Jerusalem in particular.

Bennett's office denied the report, and some two weeks ago, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the relations between Biden and Bennett were good.

Bennett said on Wednesday that "I want to say that relations between my government and the Biden administration, between Israel and the US, are stronger than ever. Because they are so strong and the friendship we have built is so meaningful, we can talk openly and honestly about all the shared challenges we face."

"This is a very important time," Bennett said. "What is happening in Vienna has far-reaching ramifications for the stability of the Middle East and Israel's security for the next few years. Yes, this meeting is taking place at the right time."

Sullivan said he had been asked to send Bennett the regards of Joe and Dr. Jill Biden.

"They wanted me to come this week, before Christmas, because we are at a critical point in time for both our countries on a number of important security issues," Sullivan said.

Sullivan added that it was important for the US and Israel to "develop a shared strategy and point of view," and find a way to move forward that would guarantee both countries' interests.

"We are strong together," Sullivan said.

Bennett and Sullivan discussed the negotiations under way between Iran and the western powers, as well as other issues of interest to both Washington and Jerusalem.

Israeli Ambassador to the US Mike Herzog and US Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides also participated in the meeting.

Earlier, Sullivan met with his Israeli counterpart, national security council chief Eyal Haluta.

Sullivan, joined by the National Security Council's Middle East director Brett McGurk and other US officials, arrived in Israel on Tuesday. Sullivan has already met with President Isaac Herzog.

In their meeting Tuesday evening, Herzog expressed his concerns about Iran's program toward nuclear weapons as the Vienna talks were ongoing, and told Sullivan that the Middle East was split into "coalitions" – one comprising Israel and the Arab states that sought peace, and were fighting Iran and working toward a better world for their citizens, and Iran's "coalition of terrorism" that sought to destabilize the region.

Herzog thanked US President Joe Biden for his friendship for Israel.

Sullivan is also expected to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to discuss strengthening US-Palestinian relations, a Biden administration official said.

The visit comes as Channel 13 News reported Tuesday that Biden had been dodging phone calls from Bennett. According to the report, the cold shoulder is a response to Bennett's refusal to stop construction in the settlements in general and the Atarot neighborhood of Jerusalem in particular.

Bennett's office denied the report, and some two weeks ago, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the relations between Biden and Bennett were good.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Bennett: What is happening in Vienna has ramifications for Israel and the region appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A lot of words have been devoted in the past few weeks to the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran. One after another, senior officials in the defense establishment and the political echelon have made it clear that as far as Israel is concerned, "all the options are on the table" when it comes to stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

There is a clear purpose to these threats: to push Western powers to take a more aggressive line on Tehran. They are mostly aimed at the US administration, which has consistently declared that it will not allow Iran to nuclearize, but in effect, is taking a passive stance. To put it simply, Israel is telling the world that if it won't stop Iran, we will have to take military action. 

Israel made a similar threat a decade ago, one that was backed up by practical plans for an attack: Israel wanted the world to see that its air force was drilling long-range flights and strikes, and wanted it to know that it was discussing the optimal timing for an attack. US intelligence – and that of other countries, obviously – did not miss the IDF's announcements of high alert ahead of a possible imminent attacks. 

All this did the job. The world was pressured by the possibility of an Israeli strike, and took action. The US launched secret talks with Iran, which led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. Iran stopped enriching uranium and got rid of the stocks of enriched uranium it already had. The possibility of an Israeli attack was taken off the table, followed by accusations back and forth between the political leadership (Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak) and the military leadership (Gabi Ashkenazi and Meir Dagan) at the time about what the correct course of action had been, and who torpedoed whom. 

While the Iran nuclear deal was in effect, Israel fell into a certain complacency. Assuming that as long as the deal was valid, there would be no military action against Iran's nuclear program, the plans for a strike were shelved, and never underwent the necessary updates and adjustments needed to keep them relevant in light of the changes of the past 10 years. 

Even after the US withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018, Israel was still asleep at the wheel. The assumption was that one of three scenarios would play out: The Tehran regime would collapse under the crippling sanctions the US applied after it pulled out of the deal; the Iranians would beg to sign a new deal, and it would be possible to make it a better, stronger, longer-term one; or Donald Trump would be reelected and order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. 

None of these came to pass. The Iranians proved impressively determined, and today – despite a terrible economic situation that includes 30 million people living below the poverty line, crumbling infrastructure, and the Iranian rial at an unprecedented low – they aren't blinking when it comes to their nuclear program. 

This hardline policy is being led by a brutal regime that has not been destabilized, and apparently won't while US President Joe Biden is in office (and most likely wouldn't have happened even if Trump had been reelected). 

The American withdrawal from the deal prompted the Iranians to hit the gas on their nuclear development. It didn't happen immediately, but in the past few years they have made impressive progress, not hesitating to skip over their commitments under the deal, especially in everything having to do with a ban on installing advanced centrifuges and enriching uranium to a high rate, in large quantities. Recently, they also started enrichment at an underground facility at Fordo, which is much better-defended against a possible attack. 

Israel is following this all closely, but took too long to respond. For example, to attack Iran, it will be necessary to refuel mid-air. Currently, the IDF depends on 50-year-old aircraft that need to be replaced immediately. At the end of 2018, then-Defense Minister and IDF Chief Avigdor Lieberman and Gadi Eizenkot approved a broad equipment acquisition plan that included the purchase of new fueling aircraft. But the new IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, wanted to delay the decision so it would fall in line with his multi-year plan. Then Israel found itself in a political maelstrom of repeated elections and no state budget. The result: a two-year delay to the decision (which was finally approved at the end of 2020 and inked in early 2021) and therefore to the acquisition of the equipment. 

The IDF was waiting for a budget from outside (a "box," as it is termed in the military) to start preparing again for the possibility of an attack on Iran. Kochavi preferred to channel funds to other things, like the multidisciplinary Tnufa unit he set up as part of his multi-year plan. When other high-ranking IDF officers, primarily Israeli Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin disputed his decision, Kochavi responded that that IDF would be given a "box" like it had previously to deal with the Iranian issue and other matters, like air defense and the construction of security barriers. 

When Biden was elected US president, the option of an American attack on Iran was dropped, and then the penny dropped for Israel. At the start of this year, Kochavi revived the military option in an aggressive speech at the Institute for National Security Studies. Once the new government was forced, he got the "box" he had been hoping for – special funding of over 5 billion shekels ($1.6 billion) for three years for preparations to attack Iran. 

As a result, for the past six months the IDF has been working feverishly to make the military option a relevant tool. The Israeli military currently has plans and capabilities, but the attention and resources allow it to improve them with every month that passes. This, incidentally, is why many senior Israeli officials support a return to the previous bad deal; it might not keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but it will keep it farther away from them, and will allow Israel time, after which – in another three to five years – it should have an effective battle plan against Iran, of which attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities are only one element. 

Still, Israel could find itself having to decide on a strike before that, for a number of reasons: the nuclear talks could collapse, leading to Iran continuing its nuclear program until it reaches the nuclear threshold; a temporary deal that Iran will constantly challenge; or a return to the original nuclear deal, which Iran would secretly violate. And there could be other reasons that have nothing to do with its nuclear program, like an Iranian attack on Israel using cruise missiles fired from Yemen or Iraq in response to some Israeli action or other. An attack of this type, especially if it results in wounded, could lead to an Israeli strike on Iranian turf. 

According to Sima Shine, former head of the Mossad's research division and now a senior researcher at the INSS, "No Israeli prime minister will allow Iran to become a nuclear power on his watch. The question we need to ask ourselves is what we want to achieve by an attack, and how capable we are of doing it." 

This question is not part of the public discourse in Israel, which is limited to whether there will or will not be an attack. For the Israeli public, an attack means that planes will suddenly appear in the Iranian sky, drop bombs that will send Iran's nuclear facilities up in flame, after which our heroic pilots will return home and be greeted with cries of joy, which is what happened after the strikes on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. 

"The Iranian project is farther away, better defended, and more compartmentalized than the projects attacked in the past," says Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin. 

"In Iraq and Syria, we had the advantage of surprise, and here, we don't. Israel has already proven that it can find creative ways of overcoming these obstacles, but it's a much more complicated event," Yadlin says. 

The dramatic change is not only in comparison to the destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian reactors, but also to the situation that existed in 2010, when the option of an attack was first raised. Then, the Americans controlled Iraq and there was a need to coordinate with them, and Iran's nuclear program was much newer and less protected. Since then, Iran has started using the Fordo facility, scattered sites related to its nuclear program throughout the country, and tripled its air defenses, adding dozens of batteries – including Russian S-300 systems as well as systems the Iranian military developed based on Russian and Chinese systems. Iran's air defenses are much more advanced than those of Syria, which the IAF is able to handle in the strikes it carried out there. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The planning stage for an airstrike on Iran is longer than you might think. A senior IDF official told me this week that "There won't be a situation in which someone makes a decision and 24 hours later there are planes in Tehran. We'll need a long time to get the system ready for war, because our working assumption needs to be that this won't be a strike, but a war." 

This definition, war, is part of how the IDF's thinking has evolved in the past few months. It is no longer looking at a localized strike on nuclear facilities, but preparing for war. This will be a different war from any we have known – no 7th Division or Golani or shared borders, but multiple different fronts in which battles are waged in multiple ways. One need only watch the maritime battles being waged between Israel and Iran in recent months to understand the potential, which extends far behind Iran's borders to the missile and rocket systems its satellites maintain in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. 

Attacks like these require models – mock training on identical targets at similar distances, to get the system used to what is expected of it on the way to Iran and back. In the past, the IDF would train relatively easily; the enemy was always behind technologically and unable to detect the preparations. Anyone who did, like the Americans – in the case of the strike on Syria's reactor – would have been in on the secret anyway. 

Today, the world is equipped with sensors everywhere that will not allow a large contingent of aircraft to take off without alerting the enemy. To obscure the preparation, the IAF will need to create an ongoing routine of drills, which comes at an immense expense – money, fuel, replacement parts, flight hours, and reservist days. 

At the same time, Israel will have to make sure all its systems are operating at full capacity. First and foremost, air defense, which will react to anything that looks like a response on any scale, and the Military Intelligence Directorate and the Mossad, which will have to make an unprecedented effort ahead of any strike, collecting not only information about the Iranian nuclear program but also tactical and operational intelligence that will allow it to strike effectively. 

While all this is happening, Israel's ground forces will have to be on the highest alert, ready for the possibility of a war in the north or with Gaza, or both, all without leaving any signs. They will have to up the preparedness of various units, step up drills, and supply missing equipment. It's not easy to do all this in secret. Leading up to the attack on Syria's reactor, the army was forced to adopt trickery in order to prepare for a possible Syrian response. Syria opted not to respond, but the Iranians might behave differently. 

It takes time to make all these preparations. The IDF is waiting for four Boeing KC-46 Pegasus aerial refueling aircraft, but it could take years for them to arrive, and the Americans are refusing to let Israel jump the line and deliver them sooner. It will also take months to refill the warehouses with Iron Dome interceptor missiles and other IAF precision equipment. 

A decade ago, the IDF would have needed a few years to get ready. Then, too, it was impossible to shift the military into a state of immediate readiness, and when it was put into attack mode – and that happened a few times – the directive was for it to be ready within 16 days of the moment the political leadership gave the green light. At the time, the IDF wanted to cut down the preparation time as much as possible, because it kept it from other activities and also because it came at a heavy cost to the economy. Ashkenazi would say that "In every round of preparations, El Al is half-grounded, because its pilots are on reserve duty with me." That was true for other systems, as well, some of which have been bolstered since then – namely, military intelligence and cyber. 

All the preparations will have to be done in secret. "The issue of information security is dramatic in an event like this," said a high-ranking reservist officer. "We've never handled a challenge like this, and it's not clear if it's even possible to keep a secret like this for long." 

Keeping things secret will be a problem not only for the IDF and the defense establishment (the Mossad is an integral part of this mission, as well as the Israel Atomic Energy Commission and parts of the Defense Ministry), but also – and mainly – the government. Such a dramatic decision would need to be approved by the cabinet and the Opposition leader would need to be informed. This is what Menachem Begin did prior to the attack in Iraq when he informed Opposition leader Shimon Peres of the plan. Ehud Olmert also informed Netanyahu ahead of the attack in Syria. 

In this case, the cabinet will be frequently updated about preparations, and give the IDF authority to prepare for the operation. Only when the attack is imminent will the cabinet be asked to approve it. A very small group will decide on the final timing – the prime minister, the defense and foreign ministers, and possibly another minister, Lieberman, as a nod to his seniority and his status as a former defense minister. 

Anyone let in on the secret at any stage will be asked to sign draconic confidentiality papers. All officials will be ordered to keep it secret and it will be made clear that anyone who lets it out will face severe punishment. 

Even before a final decision on an attack, Israel will have to decide on its red lines. It will have to define them not only for itself, but also for the world. It will have to build international legitimacy for action. Without that legitimacy, a strike could have negative results and put Israel in the position of the aggressor, while giving Iran legitimacy to return to its nuclear project. In this case, Iran will argue that because its "nuclear research project" was attacked by a nuclear nation, it has to develop nuclear weapons to defend itself from similar attacks in future. Israel would find it difficult to thwart that a second time. 

Former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor says, "Building legitimacy in the world is complicated, because it's hard to do without exposing the operations, which would put the attack at risk." 

"We need to explain to the world not only why it's vital to stop Iran, but also that an action like this could hold it back for years," he says. 

"It requires precise diplomatic preparatory work, which is also hard to do without giving anything away. The diplomats at the Foreign Ministry need to be in the loop, but none of them will know why, and certainly not when. The Mossad, the IDF, and the National Security Council will be responsible for delivering information. We can only work in full coordination with the Americans, both in terms of the military and diplomacy," Prosor adds. 

"With everyone else – the Russians, the Chinese, the Europeans, the Gulf States – we need to prepare the background. Take them step by step, explain why Iran is so complicated and warn them about what will happen if Iran becomes a nuclear threshold state, or heaven forbid, a nuclearized state." 

This process will have to work differently in every country. With the British and French, for example, Israel has intelligence agreements that allow a certain amount of material to be shared. It's likely that Israel will share some information with the Gulf states, as well, especially to enlist its new partners (and the ones that are still in the closet) to stand by its side on the day of the attack and during whatever follows. 

"Coordination with the Americans is strategic, it's at the core of our interest," says the senior IDF official. "They can give us lots of help in the attack itself – for example, intelligence or radar support, which are deployed in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and even search and rescue capabilities, and of course, in providing us military protection after the attack." 

As part of the new plans being drawn up now, the IDF is also preparing for the possibility to attack without coordinating with the Americans. 

"We don't need a green light from them, but it would be good if there were an understanding, an amber light, mostly so we don't surprise them," a former senior defense official says. "So this attack should come after the Americans despair of ever reaching a nuclear deal with the Iranians." 

As noted, the Americans controlled Iraq in 2010, and Israel needed to coordinate with them down to the smallest details in order to carry out a strike in Iran. This is no longer the case, but the Americans still have a significant presence in the region that could help Israel. It's unlikely that they will offer Israel use of their air bases in Qatar or their naval base in Bahrain, and there's no chance that any Arab state would agree to openly cooperate with Israel, exposing itself to a retaliatory attack by Iran. But localized, secret cooperation is a possibility, from helicopters to search and rescue services, to setting up various detection and interception systems. 

Because of the Arab boycott, until the start of this year Israel fell under the US European Command (EUCOM), even though it operated in the Central Command's territory, which necessitated complex coordination. After the Abraham Accords, Israel was moved to CENTCOM, which makes things simpler and creates a space for cooperation – starting with ongoing updates about strikes in Syria, to joint military drills. 

Preparations for an attack will require Israel to carry out frequent war games. It will have to practice every possible scenario on every front, and make sure that the political leadership is present. Our leaders don't like this, as they would prefer to leave themselves as much room to maneuver as possible and not show ahead of time what they will do in any given scenario. So the drills used various "former" officials to play the role of prime minister. When it comes to Iran, our political leaders would do well to show up in person and prepare for the day they will have to give the order and the ramifications of them saying "Go." 

The stage of the attack itself requires, first of all, a decision about what the targets are. The range of possibilities is almost endless – localized strikes on uranium enrichment facilities, strikes on any facility linked to the nuclear program, or an all-out attack that would also target missile launchers and Shahab missile manufacturing sites, cruise missile launching sites, facilities of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and more. 

"The backbone of the [Iranian] nuclear program is the enrichment facilities at Qom [Fordo] and Natanz," says the senior IDF officer. 

Aside from these sites, Israel can also attack factories around Tehran that manufacture centrifuges, the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan, the heavy water reactor at Arak, and the experimental site at Parchin. It will also be necessary to destroy the air defenses around all of these sites. 

Most experts think that the operation will have to focus only on the core of the nuclear program and its enrichment sites: "Make it clear to them that this is what we insist on, and that we have no interest in a full-scale war," the former defense official says. "But if they respond – we'll take the rest, too." 

Israel would prefer to carry out a strike like this in a single shot, which is why it would prefer that the Americans do it. They could attack, assess the damage, and go back the next day and the day after if necessary. Israel, however, is extremely limited because of the distance, its number of planes, and its need to defend itself against a response from multiple fronts the moment it attacks. 

Some officials think that Israel should take advantage of the opportunity of an attack to eradicate as many of Iran's capabilities as possible – and especially try to destabilize the regime through an attack on the IRGC. But that scenario is unlikely. Conversations with many defense officials past and present leads one to conclude that Israel would prefer a more focused action. 

In the future, Israel should have additional capabilities, but in the near future, it will depend on its abilities to carry out an airstrike on Iran. It would be a complex strike involving hundreds of aircraft. Presumably, the first planes to arrive in Iran would be the F35 stealth fighters, which would destroy Iran's air defenses. Then F15s and F16s would arrive, with the various weaponry they can carry and fire. 

The main factor is what each aircraft can carry for the requisite distance: the more fuel the plane is holding, the less weapons it can carry, and vice versa. So there will be a need for mid-air refueling, as well as decisions about what plane to send in to leave enough to defend Israel's own skies. There will also need to be precise plans about the kinds of ammunition to be used, the angles of attack, and the strikes on targets, especially underground ones. Of course, the selection of the combat pilots to fly the mission will be especially careful. 

"Everyone dreams of taking part in a mission like this. There will be a war between the pilots about who gets to be there," a veteran pilot says. 

We can assume that the airstrike will be accompanied by search and rescue forces in helicopters and on the ground, who will have been flown in secretly ahead of time or moved in on ships. Naval forces will also be moved toward the Gulf. Other aircraft will have to provide air coverage over a distance of 1,300 km. (807 miles) or more. 

There is no expectation that this attack will go smoothly, like the ones in Iraq or Syria. It's not only that Iran is much better defended, but also that an operation like this will inevitably face problems because of the enormous number of aircraft taking part in it. Planes could go down because they are hit or malfunction, and pilots could have to abandon their planes over enemy territory and be taken prisoner. 

Pilots will have to undergo complicated mental preparation, far beyond the usual, as will those who send them on the operation. The political leadership will probably ask the IDF for a probable casualty count, as well as the projected number of wounded in Israel as a result of an Iranian response. But even if the numbers are high, it's unlikely that they would cause any leader in Israel to ignore Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. 

It will be complicated to reach Iran by air. You don't need to be an expert to analyze the flight routes and possibilities: supposedly, all of Iran's neighbors – including Turkey – have an interest in working with Israel, given their common concerns about Iran. But it's doubtful they will want to be exposed as having allowed Israel to use their airspace to attack Iran. This is particularly true of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states, and to a lesser degree Azerbaijan, which also shares a border with Iran. The IAF will know how to overcome this difficulty from an operational perspective and fly unseen (certainly on the way out), but this is another reason why extensive diplomatic preparations are necessary to create legitimacy and understanding so Israel can use a certain country's airspace en route to attack without having problems with it later. 

An airstrike will probably not be able to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities. It's possible that some will require ground forces, which would go in secretly and plant materials that would make it possible to target the sites in the strike. This element significantly adds to the planning and problems of execution. There are a number of ways into Iran, but it's a huge country, difficult to get around, certainly when one has to do so covertly. The Americans will testify to this – they learned in 1980 when they landed for their failed attempt to free the hostages being held in Tehran. 

The former defense official notes that "If we attack and delay Iran's nuclear program by a year or two, it's as if we did nothing. We need to be sure that significant damage is done and we'll put them off [nuclear weapons] for many years." 

There are many officials in Israel who think that given the state of Iran's nuclear program, the mission is too much for Israel, and only the Americans (or the Americans with Israel) can pull it off. Others think that Israel can carry out an effective localized strike that will deal a blow to one aspect of Iran's nuclear program, but won't destroy it entirely. In making the decision, Israel will have to weigh not only the results, but also the ramifications: "the day after." Here, too, the range of possibilities is nearly endless, from the Iranians ignoring it to an all-out war in the Middle East. 

In 2010, the US warned that an Israeli attack on Iran would lead to a world war. The Americans were mostly bothered by the price they would pay, which they claimed would entail a US ground incursion into Iran to stop it. 

Yadlin says, "I thought then, and I think now, that there won't be a world war, or even a regional war. Even if there is an Iranian response against Israel, it will be moderate, and even if it causes damage, it won't be the end of the world. We certainly won't see another sack of Jerusalem here." 

Supposedly, the Iranians have three possibilities: a full-out response, a partial response, or no response. Middle East scholar Professor Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University thinks that there will be a response from Iran. 

"If they don't respond, it will send Israel a message that it can keep attacking them without interference, like it does in Syria. The attacks on oil tankers in the past two years proved that the Iranians aren't sitting quietly. They respond. Otherwise, why have they been making threats all these years and building their forces? They can attack us, or our allies, or both," Zisser says. 

The Iranian decision will to a large extent be dictated by the extent to which the Americans back the attack. 

"Iran can't risk a war with the US," the IDF official explains. "Even after Qasem Soleimani was killed, they made due with a symbolic firing of 16 rockets at the American base in Dir a-Zur, and that was only after they made certain that no soldier would be killed." 

Shine also thinks that the Iranians will respond, "but if the US is behind us, it will be completely different. This isn't the Syrian nuclear reactor, which was built secretly and no one knew about. Everyone knows about Iran, and it won't go unnoticed. Iran will have to decide whether or not to respond from its own territory, on its own, or through its satellites." 

Thus far, Iran has avoided launching open attacks from within its borders. It's not that it doesn't – the massive strike on Saudi Arabia's Aramco oil facility in September 2019 was secretly launched from Iran. Recently, Defense Minister Benny Gantz revealed cruise missile bases that the Iranians maintain at Kashan, north of Isfahan. That facility and others are operated by the IRGC Aerospace Force under the command of Ali Hajizadeh, whom Israel has already marked as the most problematic official in Iran after Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike two years ago. 

Iran can act on its own, even fire Shahab missiles at Israel. It has hundreds of them, and some might even have been fitted out with chemical warheads. It can also take action via its satellites: the Houthis in Yemen have precision capabilities, including long-range attack drones, as do some of the militias in Iraq, which have already used drones against US military bases. 

Israel's main concern will be how Hezbollah will respond. Will it launch a war, be satisfied with a symbolic response, or sit on the fence? This is a critical issue, and experts don't agree about it. 

"Hezbollah was built up and prepared precisely for this, and we can assume that it will use everything it has against us," Shine says. Zisser, on the other hand, thinks that Hezbollah will want to avoid a full-scale war. 

"[Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah will try to stay out of it. He might respond here or there, but it will depend on how much pressure the Iranians put on him. He might be satisfied with a symbolic response, to do his duty, and nothing more," Zisser says. 

The other side isn't the only one that will face tough decisions. Israel, for example, will have to decide whether or not, after an attack on Iran it will want to carry out preemptive strikes against Hezbollah's various sites, especially those linked to the group's precision missile program. The advantage of strikes like these is that they can take out specific capabilities that threaten Israel. The disadvantage: it will surely start a war with Hezbollah, and turn the strike on Iran into a war in the north. 

Most experts think Israel will avoid doing that. It will send Hezbollah clear warnings that the attack was directed at Iran's nuclear program, and if Hezbollah keeps quiet, that will remain its only goal. 

"If we do otherwise, if we take massive action in Lebanon, Hezbollah will respond significantly," Zisser says. "But if we act wisely, even its responses will be moderate, because they have no interest in the IDF taking a few divisions and invading Lebanon." 

The senior IDF official also thinks that Hezbollah won't rush to demolish Lebanon for Tehran's sake. "Nasrallah is a Lebanese patriot. He'll respond, but moderately. Assuming that the main target of the whole event is Iran's nuclear program, Israel should even accept some 'stings' from him, even a few casualties, and ignore it, to avoid a widespread conflict in the north." 

Yadlin also thinks that Hezbollah will keep itself in check, "But if it chooses to respond, it would be better for us to take action now, before it's defended by Iranian nuclear weapons." 

A war in the north, on any scale, will require Israel to call up massive forces, which will hinder its ability to wage an ongoing battle against Iran. It will certainly need to equip itself ahead of time with tens of thousands of Iron Dome and David's Sling interceptor missiles, only a small part of which have been agreed on and are due to arrive bit by bit in the next few years. This is in addition to the need for Arrow missiles to intercept long-range missiles. All this will cost billions, and only part of it is in place (and that was thanks to special US aid). For years, the IDF has been screaming that the country's air defenses fall far short of what is necessary, given the threats, and need massive restocking. 

It's likely that Iran will also prod Gaza to respond. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad already cooperates with it, and so does Hamas, to some extent. It could also try to attack Israel's weaker allies, like the Gulf states, or Israeli interests there. It will certainly try to attack Israelis, and Israeli and Jewish interests all over the world.

At the same time, Iran will take diplomatic action. "It will turn to its allies, especially Russia and China, and argue that Israel is the aggressor and ask for protection," Zisser says. "It might also use [the attack] as an excuse to try and return to its nuclear project, this time in the position of the one who needs protection against Israeli aggression." 

Therefore, Israel has to do everything so that the attack is as effective as possible, and if the first wave doesn't succeed – attack again, despite all the complications this would entail. This comes as a possible cost of an open war with Iran in which the two countries trade blows every so often. The IDF is also preparing for this possibility as part of its new plans. When they are in place, Israel should be ready for an all-out war with Iran, and not only isolated strikes on its nuclear project. 

None of this is expected to happen in the next few days or weeks, and probably not even the next few months. As long as the Iran nuclear talks are underway, and the US is reaching out to Iran diplomatically, an attack would be out of bounds because Israel would be accused of torpedoing the talks and its allies would turn on it, including Washington, which has already made it clear that it expects "zero surprises" at this time. Israel has no commitment to this, but won't act without coordinating with the Americans. That's what it did a decade ago, to avoid a conflict with the US that could have ramifications much broader than the Iranian issue. 

This "down time" is good for Israel. It can use it to try and influence the American (and European) moves and the nascent deal, while at the same time stepping up its military preparations, completing its plans, building models and equipping itself in order to reach a higher level of operational readiness. 

And when all this is done, if it turns out tomorrow that Iran lied to the world and is closer to a nuclear bomb than we thought, the decision-makers will have to decide whether or not to attack immediately. As always, it would be better if the Americans – who promised that Iran would never have nuclear capabilities – did it. But if the IDF takes charge, it will take several long weeks of preparation before an operation like this can get off the ground, less than optimally ready and with less certainty of success. 

The post What the public doesn't know about an attack on Iran appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"An intensification of Israeli military threats against Iran seems to suggest that the Zionist regime has forgotten that Iran is more than capable of hitting them from anywhere," began an article published Tuesday in the Tehran Times, a newspaper identified with the Iranian regime.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The article ran under the headline "Just One Wrong Move!" and featured a "map of Israeli targets," which showed nearly every populated community in the country labeled with a red dot.

The article discussed recent reports in Israeli media that strikes against Syria's chemical weapons facilities in March 2020 and June 2021 had been "a direct message" to the Islamic Republic, as well as reports that IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi wanted to increase the number of Israeli Air Force permanent bases.

Regime-controlled Tehran times has illustrated a map of #Israel with pinned areas as rocket targets (like red alert map), apparently they're not just threatening Israelis, check the pinpointed areas & find out that they are threatening Gaza and Palestinian cities as well!! #Iran pic.twitter.com/RvII09wZDg

— Aleph א (@no_itsmyturn) December 14, 2021

The article quotes head of the Iranian military, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Bagheri, who said that Iran "never underestimates" threats from an enemy.

"Despite our confidence in the deterrence situation …. We are prepared for the smallest of threats in the strategic field," Bagheri said.

Bagheri also told the Tehran Times that while Iran "does not intend to strike anyone," it was prepared at the "operational and tactical level" for a "decisive response and quick and tough offensive."

The article also discussed an announcement by the IDF on Dec. 8 that it would hold a large-scale drill over the Mediterranean. The paper described the planned drill as an exercise in preparation for an attack on Iran.

The article also discussed the nuclear negotiations under way in Vienna, which it described as an attempt to find ways of removing "illegal sanctions" on Iran, and noted with new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who spoke with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett by telephone on Tuesday, has shown a "tougher stance" against Iran than his predecessor, Angela Merkel.

The article ended with the words "Keep your hands off!"

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Iranian paper publishes 'map of Israeli targets' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

With the Vienna talks on a new Iran nuclear deal at an impasse, the Islamic Republic is making preparations to fire a ballistic missile into space.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The likely blast off at Iran's Imam Khomeini Spaceport comes as Iranian state media has offered a list of upcoming planned satellite launches in the works for the Islamic Republic's civilian space program, which has been beset by a series of failed launches. Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard runs its own parallel program that successfully put a satellite into orbit last year.

But all this fits into a renewed focus on space by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, said Jeffrey Lewis, an expert at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies who studies Tehran's program. With Iran's former President Hassan Rouhani who shepherded the nuclear deal out of office, concerns about alienating the talks with launches that the US asserts aids Tehran's ballistic missile program likely have faded.

"They're not walking on eggshells," Lewis said. "I think Raisi's people have a new balance in mind."

Iranian state media did not acknowledge the activity at the spaceport and Iran's mission to the United Nations did not respond to a request for comment. The US military, which tracks space launches, did not respond to requests for comment.

Satellite images taken Saturday by Planet Labs Inc. obtained by The Associated Press show activity at the spaceport in the desert plains of Iran's rural Semnan province, some 240 kilometers (150 miles) southeast of Tehran.

A support vehicle stood parked alongside a massive white gantry that typically houses a rocket on the launch pad. That support vehicle has appeared in other satellite photos at the site just ahead of a launch. Also visible is a hydraulic crane with a railed platform, also seen before previous launches and likely used to service the rocket.

Other satellite images in recent days at the spaceport have shown an increase in the number of cars at the facility, another sign of heightened activity that typically precedes a launch. A building also believed to be the "checkout" facility for a rocket has seen increased activity as well, Lewis said.

Meanwhile, Iran said on Sunday that European countries had failed to offer constructive proposals to help to revive a 2015 nuclear deal, after Britain said there was still time for Tehran to save it but that this was the last chance.

Talks have resumed in Vienna to try to revive the nuclear pact, with both sides trying to gauge the prospects of success after the latest exchanges in the stop-start negotiations.

British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said earlier on Sunday: "This is the last chance for Iran to come to the negotiating table with a serious resolution to this issue, which has to be agreeing the terms of the JCPOA [nuclear accord]."

Conducting a missile launch amid the Vienna talks fits the hard-line posture struck by Tehran's negotiators, who already described six previous rounds of diplomacy as a "draft," exasperating Western nations. Germany's new foreign minister has gone as far as to warn that "time is running out for us at this point."

However, on Sunday, Iran's chief negotiator, Ali Bakri Kani, reported progress on an agenda for talks with global powers over its nuclear program, as Britain said the Vienna negotiations were Tehran's "last chance."

"The two parties are at the point of agreeing on the matters which should be on the agenda," Tehran's chief negotiator Bakri Kani told the official IRNA news agency.

"It's a positive and important evolution since, at the start, they weren't even in agreement on the issues to negotiate," he said.

i24NEWS and Reuters contributed to this report. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Report: Iran preparing to launch ballistic missile into space   appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Something is changing in Israel's military brass' assessment of the Iranian nuclear threat. Evidence is growing that members of the IDF General Staff and the Mossad are beginning to realize that the US doesn't share Israel's goal of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Last week, for instance, Michael Makovsky, head of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, (JINSA) a Washington-based group that cultivates ties between Israeli and US generals, published an article in the New York Post in which he described their rude awakening.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Makovsky wrote, "Recent meetings with senior defense officials from our closest Middle East ally, Israel, were the most pessimistic I can recall. They perceive America as checked out, adrift, pusillanimous, unfeared and desperate to avoid military confrontation, and Iran as emboldened and nearing the nuclear weapons threshold."

Makovsky said that all his interlocutors had raised the same three points: The US withdrawal from Afghanistan showed that the Biden administration is comfortable betraying US allies. The administration's decision not to respond to the Oct. 20 Iranian attack on its airbase in Tanf, Syria, showed the US is willing to allow Iran to attack it with impunity. And the administration's willingness to be humiliated by the Iranians at the nuclear talks in Vienna shows that the only thing the administration wants is to reach a deal – any deal – with Iran.

By Makovsky's telling, the Israelis are divided on what the Iranians want and they still haven't completely given up hope that the Americans will come through, somehow. He ended his article by arguing that the US should provide Israel with the equipment and weapons platforms it requires to successfully strike Iran's nuclear installations without the US. But it was clear from his description of the Israeli security brass' disposition that their faith the US will actually follow through on its pledge to block Iran from becoming a nuclear power has waned significantly. It is beginning to dawn on them that in the fight against Iran, Israel is alone.

While Israel's security establishment's frustration with the Biden administration, and their apparent, grudging acceptance of reality are understandable, there is something deeply unsettling about both.

Where have the generals been for the past 13 years?

Since former President Barack Obama entered office in January 2009, the US has had two policies for contending with Iran's nuclear program. The first is the Obama-Biden policy. The second is the Donald Trump policy.

The Obama-Biden policy is to engage in diplomacy with Iran that will enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, with the backing of the UN Security Council. And then to call the outcome "peace."

Obama's 2015 nuclear deal with Iran – the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – which  Biden now seeks desperately to reinstate in some fashion, guaranteed that Iran would be a nuclear threshold state by 2030 at the latest. As Makovsky's general friends indicated, from Biden's diplomatic machinations it's clear that as far as Biden and his team are concerned, any deal is fine with them – even one that gives Iran international approval of its nuclear weapons program and lifts all sanctions on Iran immediately.

Trump's policy towards Iran's nuclear program was a welcome respite from the Obama-Biden policy. Trump's policy did not involve abandoning America's Middle East allies. It involved empowering them. Trump's policy was to create the diplomatic, economic and military conditions that would enable Israel to successfully attack Iran's nuclear installations.

For all the differences between them, the Obama-Biden policy on the one hand and the Trump policy on the other shared a common denominator: Both ruled out a US military strike on Iran's nuclear installations.

This common reality was never hard to see. Anyone willing to really listen to what the Americans were saying and watch what they were doing could have figured out that the US had no intention of attacking Iran's nuclear installations. The only party that could possibly be expected to attack Iran's nuclear sites – if it were to be done at all – was Israel.

Those who were unwilling to look reality in the face have clung to certain popular, but incorrect narratives. The most popular one, which several of Makovsky's friends shared with him, is the utterly false claim that Obama's 2015 deal slowed down Iran's nuclear progress, and therefore was a positive development. Today, leading Israeli military leaders in the dominant America-centric clique and their colleagues on the political left argue that the 2015 deal served to slow Iran's nuclear advance and that Biden's plan to reinstate the deal will do the same. This is a good thing they say, because it buys Israel time to develop the military means to attack Iran's nuclear sites.

Unfortunately, this position is based on ignoring, rather than accepting reality. As US strategic expert Dr. David Wurmser explained recently to Israel Hayom, the Iranians did not slow their uranium enrichment because they agreed to the JCPOA. Wurmser, who served in both the Bush and Trump national security councils, explained that the Iranians timed the agreement to align with their nuclear schedule. In 2014-2015, the Iranians began work on advanced centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to military levels of purity. In the course of the negotiations on the nuclear deal, the Iranians insisted that they be permitted under the deal to continue their nuclear research and development on the advanced centrifuges. Obama and his team accepted their demand. In 2016 and 2017, reports emerged that Iran had successfully acquired the capacity to use advanced centrifuges.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

As Wurmser explains, Iran began using their advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium to 60% purity as soon as they were ready. The popular claim that Trump's decision to abandon the JCPOA in 2018 precipitated Iran's actions is nothing more than a delusion. Iran would have done so regardless of Trump's actions. The real leap in Iran's uranium enrichment came after Biden's inauguration. His arrival gave the Iranians confidence that they would face no opposition from Washington as they sprinted to the nuclear finish line.

The one person who understood and acted on the basis of reality from the outset of the Obama administration was then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu saw that Iran was galloping ahead as quickly as it could with its nuclear program and that the US had no intention of using force to block its advance. When the chorus began chanting in unison that the JCPOA slowed Iran's nuclear progress, Netanyahu rightly rejected their contention as absurd.

Recognizing that the Americans would not attack Iran's nuclear installations, Netanyahu worked to develop, expand and use Israel's diplomatic, military, intelligence, cyber and sabotage capabilities to harm Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu was willing for Israel to go it alone and eagerly sought out and cooperated with anyone who was willing to work with Israel to oppose Iran.

Among other things, Netanyahu pushed economic sanctions on Iran to prevent the ayatollahs from having the economic means to fund their nuclear program. Sanctions also worked to destabilize their regime and delegitimize its nuclear program in the eyes of the impoverished Iranian people.

To undermine Obama and Biden's ability to sell their pro-Iranian policy to Congress as non-proliferation, or peace, Netanyahu worked in the diplomatic arena to highlight the danger Iran's nuclear program poses to Israel, the Middle East, global security and US security.

Netanyahu's most powerful and trenchant opponents at home were Israel's national security brass. Led by IDF chiefs of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, and Mossad directors Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo, Israel's security leadership embraced a policy based not on reality, but on faith. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the generals insisted the US would come through in the end and attack Iran's nuclear installations.

True, they acknowledged, Israel is the only country that Iran threatens to annihilate. But they insisted that since Iran's nuclear program threatens the entire region as well as Europe and the US, taking out Iran's nuclear installations is America's responsibility, not Israel's. And even as Obama acknowledged that at the end of the JCPOA in 2030, Iran's breakout time to independent nuclear capabilities would be "zero," the generals insisted that America could be trusted when it promised that it would not permit Iran to become a nuclear power.

Given their aspirational, rather than reality-based, policy assessment of US intentions, Israel's security leaders argued that Israel's job was to cooperate with the Americans and under no circumstance should it publicly dispute anything the Americans said. Israel's security leaders said that through proper coordination, when the day arrived to strike Iran, they would be able to convince Washington to do the right thing.

Operating on this assessment, the heads of Israel's national security establishment opposed Netanyahu's diplomatic campaign against the nuclear deal and harshly criticized him for his actions in this arena. They supported Obama against Netanyahu and praised the deal.

In 2010, Ashkenazi and Dagan refused Netanyahu's direct order to prepare Israel's forces to attack Iran's nuclear installations. If that weren't bad enough, Dagan divulged Netanyahu's order to his US counterpart, then-CIA chief Leon Panetta.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has expressed no clear policy on Iran, although his refusal to meet Robert Malley, Biden's envoy to the negotiations, when he travelled to Israel two weeks ago indicated that Bennett is aligned with Netanyahu's position. At any rate, with paltry support in the public and in in his own government, Bennett is not the primary decision-maker on Iran. That power today rests with Defense Minister Benny Gantz. Gantz is the most prominent and powerful member of the America-dependent camp. And even as the Biden administration remains fixated on reaching a deal – any deal – with the mullahs – Gantz flew to Washington this week to coordinate. To neutralize growing concern in Israel's security establishment, the administration decided to put pull out a few stoppers.

Ahead of Gantz's arrival in Washington, a senior administration official told Reuters that Gantz would speak with his counterpart Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin about holding a joint US-Israel training exercise to practice attacking Iran's nuclear installations. While comforting, it is hard to credence the statement for several reasons. First, if the US was really planning to attack Iran's nuclear installations with Israel, senior officials wouldn't call Reuters to divulge this highly classified state of affairs.

Second, while the unnamed official was revealing ostensibly top-secret operational plans to Reuters, Malley was in the Persian Gulf telling America's allies that the US is dead set on cutting a deal.

Finally, Malley's boss, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, pointedly refuses to even pay lip service to the notion of attacking Iran's nuclear installations militarily.

Obviously, Israel's credulous generals would rather believe Reuters than Malley. But reality isn't really concerned with their preferences. If Iran is to be prevented from becoming a nuclear-armed state, the generals' belated awakening must proceed at top speed. Not only must they recognize that Netanyahu was right all along. They must adopt his policy of working across the board to weaken Iran's regime and block its path to the bomb.

The post The generals' belated awakening appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Iran is building up its forces in the western part of its territory to launch attacks on Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, Defense Minister Benny Gantz told defense officials in Washington on Friday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In a briefing he gave US officials and researchers, Gantz pointed to the spread of Iranian aggression and detailed the deployment of Iranian-allied militias in the Middle East, as well as the weapons in their possession.

Gantz told members of a Washington-based research institute that in the past few months, "disturbing numbers" had come to light about Iran's regional aggression. Gantz referred to the exposure of a base in Kashan, where Iranian satellites train to operate suicide drones; and the discovery that Iran was carrying out drone attacks from within its own borders.

The defense minister said that Iran's goal was to gain control over the region and spread its ideology throughout the world.

As negotiations between Iran and the signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal restarted talks on a new deal in Vienna on Thursday, Gantz met with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ahead of a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

In his meeting with Austin, Gantz thanked the US defense chief for helping strengthen ties between Israel and the US, and for being a true friend to Israel.

At the start of the meeting, Austin said that Iran had failed to offer constructive diplomatic engagement in talks that US President Joe Biden had hoped would revive a 2015 nuclear deal abandoned by his predecessor, former President Donald Trump.

Video: Defense Ministry

Austin said Biden was "prepared to turn to other options" if the current American policy on Iran fails.

"We are completely aligned in our commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is a national security interest of the United States and Israel and the world," Austin said.

Gantz described Iran, Israel's arch foe, as "the biggest threat to the global and regional peace and stability."

Gantz said that Israel and the US would broaden discussion about cooperation on the Iranian issue, including preparedness for a joint military action to stop "Iranian aggressions."

Ties between the US and Israel are based on "shared valued" and "shared strategic interests," Gantz told Austin.

The defense minister told his US counterpart that Israel's defense superiority, which he said the US helped anchor, protected not only the security of the citizens of Israel but also helped Israel "strengthen positive trends in the region, extend its hand to its neighbors, and work to expand the Abraham Accords."

Meanwhile, Iran's top negotiator said on Thursday he was sticking to positions Tehran set out when nuclear talks broke off last week, while European Union and Russian envoys called for more urgency as world powers resumed negotiations in Vienna.

However, last week's discussions broke off with European and US officials voicing dismay at sweeping demands by Iran's new, hardline government under anti-Western President Ebrahim Raisi, whose June election caused a five-month hiatus in the talks.

Western officials have said Iran has abandoned many compromises it had made in the previous six rounds of talks, pocketed those made by others, and demanded more last week.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Gantz: Iran building forces in western region to launch attacks appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The United States on Tuesday imposed sanctions on more than a dozen people and entities in Iran, Syria and Uganda, accusing them of being connected to serious human rights abuses and repressive acts.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In Iran, the United States designated the Special Units of Iran's Law Enforcement Forces and Counter-Terror Special Forces, as well as several of their officials, and Gholamreza Soleimani, who commands Iran's hardline Basij militia. Two prisons and a prison director were also blacklisted over events that reportedly took place in them.

Iran criticized the United States for imposing new sanctions days before talks are set to resume in Vienna on rescuing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

"Even amid #ViennaTalks, US cannot stop imposing sanctions against Iran," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said on Twitter. "Doubling down on sanctions won't create leverage – and is anything but seriousness & goodwill."

Even amid #ViennaTalks, US cannot stop imposing sanctions against Iran.

Washington fails to understand that 'maximum failure' & a diplomatic breakthrough are mutually exclusive.

Doubling down on sanctions won't create leverage—and is anything but seriousness & goodwill.

— Saeed Khatibzadeh | سعید خطیب‌زاده (@SKhatibzadeh) December 7, 2021

The talks broke off on Friday as European officials voiced dismay at sweeping demands by Iran's new, hardline government.

The seventh round of talks in Vienna is the first with delegates sent by Iran's anti-Western President Ebrahim Raisi on how to resuscitate the agreement under which Iran limited its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions.

The US Treasury Department said in a statement it was targeting repression and the undermining of democracy, designating individuals and entities tied to the violent suppression of peaceful protesters in Iran and deadly chemical weapons attacks against civilians in Syria, among others.

"Treasury will continue to defend against authoritarianism, promoting accountability for violent repression of people seeking to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms," Andrea Gacki, director of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, said in the statement.

The action freezes any US assets of those blacklisted and generally bars Americans from dealing with them.

Washington blacklisted two senior Syrian Air Force officers it accused of being responsible for chemical weapon attacks on civilians and three senior officers in Syria's security and intelligence apparatus, according to the statement.

Uganda's chief of military intelligence, Major General Abel Kandiho, was also hit with sanctions over alleged human rights abuses committed under his watch. The Ugandan military said earlier on Tuesday that it was disappointed by the decision, which it said had been made without due process.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post 'Even during Vienna talks, US cannot stop imposing sanctions on Iran' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Germany, France, and Britain voiced "grave concern" over a further move by Iran that they say is a serious violation of its commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, warning that it threatens the outcome of talks aimed at bringing the United States back into the agreement.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The three European powers' foreign ministers issued a joint statement Tuesday over a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, according to which Iran intends to produce enriched uranium metal.

Since then-President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the agreement in 2018, Iran has been gradually violating its restrictions to pressure the remaining parties – the three European nations, Russia and China – to come up with economic incentives to offset crippling American sanctions.

Among other things, Tehran has started enriching uranium to well above the purity allowed under the agreement. It has also been spinning advanced centrifuges, producing uranium metal, and stockpiling more uranium than allowed.

Uranium metal can also be used for a nuclear bomb, and research on its production is specifically prohibited under the nuclear deal. The IAEA said in February its inspectors had confirmed Iran has begun to produce uranium metal.

IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi informed the agency's board of governors that Iran now intends to use uranium enriched up to 20% in making fuel for its Tehran Research Reactor and that "in doing so, as part of a multi-stage process," it will also produce uranium metal enriched up to 20%.

Iran on Tuesday told the agency the enriched uranium would be shipped to the research and development lab at its Isfahan fuel fabrication plant, where it will be converted to uranium tetra fluoride and then to enriched uranium metal before being used to manufacture fuel, the IAEA said.

Of Tehran's latest step, the European foreign ministers said: "Iran has no credible civilian need for uranium metal [research and development] and production, which are a key step in the development of a nuclear weapon."

They said it was "all the more concerning" given that no date has been set for the resumption of negotiations in Vienna aimed at bringing the US back into the nuclear deal and Iran back into full compliance, and that Iran has "significantly curtailed" IAEA access.

"We have repeatedly stressed that time is on no one's side," the statement said. "With its latest steps, Iran is threatening a successful outcome to the Vienna talks despite the progress achieved in six rounds of negotiations to date."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post 'Iran's plans to produce enriched uranium metal endanger Vienna talks' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Biden administration is signaling that Iran shouldn't expect major new concessions from the United States as a new round of indirect nuclear talks is set to resume.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

A senior administration official told reporters Thursday that the US has laid out the concessions it's prepared to make in order to rejoin the landmark 2015 nuclear deal that former US President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018. The official said success or failure now depends on Iran making the political decision to accept those concessions and to return to compliance with the accord.

The official spoke to reporters in a State Department-organized conference call on the eve of the negotiations' resumption in Vienna. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the US position going into the fourth round of closed-door talks at which the remaining participants in the nuclear deal are passing messages between the American and Iranian delegations.

The comments came after Secretary of State Antony Blinken complained of Iranian intransigence in the talks during a visit to Ukraine.

"What we don't know is whether Iran is actually prepared to make the decisions necessary to return to full compliance with the nuclear agreement," Blinken said in an interview with NBC News in Kyiv. "They unfortunately have been continuing to take steps that are restarting dangerous parts of their program that the nuclear agreement stopped. And the jury is out on whether they're prepared to do what's necessary."

Iran has thus far given no indication it will settle for anything less than a full lifting of all the Trump sanctions and has balked at suggestions it would have to reverse all of the steps it has taken that violate the deal. Iranian officials have in recent weeks said the US has offered significant, but not sufficient sanctions relief, but they have not outlined exactly what they would do in return.

The administration official said the United States is ready to return to the explicit terms of the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA, as they were negotiated by the Obama administration, but only if Iran will do the same. The official said the United States will not accept doing more than required by the JCPOA to bring Iran back into compliance.

The deal gave Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. Much of that relief evaporated after Trump pulled out and re-imposed and expanded US sanctions. Iran responded by breaking though the deal's limits on uranium enrichment, the use of advanced centrifuges and other activities such as heavy water production.

After previous rounds of talks in Vienna, the administration had said there was flexibility in what it might offer to Iran, including going beyond the letter of the deal to ease non-nuclear sanctions from the Trump era that nonetheless affected the relief the Iranians were entitled to for agreeing to the accord.

That is still the case, although the official's comments on Thursday suggested that the limits of that flexibility had been reached. The official would not describe the concessions the US is prepared to make but said any that it finds to be "inconsistent" with the nuclear deal would be stricken.

The official declined to predict whether the fourth round would produce a breakthrough but said it remains possible to reach an agreement quickly and before Iran's June presidential elections that some believe are a complicating factor in the talks. The official said the outlines of what both sides need to do is clear. "We think it's doable," the official said. "This isn't rocket science;"

But, the official said success depends on Iran not demanding more than it is entitled to under the terms of the original deal and by verifiably reversing the steps it has taken that violate it.

The Biden administration has been coy about what specific sanctions it is willing to lift, although officials have acknowledged that some non-nuclear sanctions, such as those Trump imposed for terrorism, ballistic missile activity and human rights abuses, may have to be eased for Iran to get the relied it is entitled to. That's because the some entities that were removed from sanctions under the nuclear deal are now penalized under other authorities.

The official did say that the administration no longer believed that the Trump administration had improperly or illegitimately imposed some of the those non-nuclear sanctions with the sole purpose of trying to frustrate a potential return to the deal.

The official said the administration does not question the "evidentiary basis" of those sanctions. However, the official said the administration is looking to see if they are "consistent with a return" to the deal, which it has already determined to be in the U.S. national security interest if Iran comes back into compliance.

"If we think it is inconsistent with a return to the JCPOA to maintain a particular designation, then we are prepared to lift it," the official said.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post US says fate of nuclear pact 'up to Iran' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.