With Israel consumed by an intense judicial reform debate, Iran is expanding its nuclear weapons program. The Biden administration continues to promote unofficial understandings with Tehran based on keeping Iranian enrichment at 60% in exchange for the release of billions of dollars. The goal: Kick the Iranian nuclear issue down the road until after the 2024 elections. The proper name for such understandings, which in many ways are far worse than the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, should be "false quiet for money", and not "freeze for freeze".

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The idea behind these understandings is to freeze Iran's nuclear progress in enriching uranium to 60%, which is very close to what is required technically for Tehran to reach 93%, or weapons-grade enrichment. This gives the mullahs, for the first time, a win-win situation: a de facto green light to 60% enrichment together with massive sanctions relief. Presenting it as understandings rather than an agreement is an attempt by the Biden administration to avoid review by Congress, where it will face fierce opposition.

Video: Iranian activity in Gulf / Reuters

Israel is better off with an Iranian push to 90% without billions of dollars flowing to the regime and without the illusion that holding Tehran at 60% enrichment is meaningful. No real technical variance exists between 90% and 60% enrichment; the difference in breakout time to a bomb's worth of weapons-grade enrichment is a matter of days or a few weeks. The most dangerous technical threshold has already occurred when the Biden administration did not respond to Iran's enrichment to 20%, which is about 70% of the effort necessary to reach weapons-grade uranium.

For ten months after the US killed Qassem Soleimani, the regime stopped its nuclear expansion. Then it went all out after Biden's election and the end of maximum pressure. When the regime feels American steel, it backs down. When it feels American mush, it pushes forward.

It is still not clear where the Biden administration has set any red lines for action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Since President Biden won the election in November 2020 on a promise to abandon the maximum pressure campaign of his predecessor, Tehran massively expanded its nuclear program. Iranian nuclear scientists have used advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium to 20%, 60% and briefly to almost 84%; produced uranium metal for use in developing nuclear weapons; and repeatedly stonewalled UN weapons inspectors.

After almost three years of a failed Iran policy of maximum concessions, perhaps the Biden administration finally has communicated to Tehran that they will act forcefully at 90%. But "forcefully" must mean more than the snapback of UN sanctions, and the enforcement of US sanctions, which should have occurred at prior levels of Iranian nuclear expansion. It must involve the credible threat that President Biden will use American military power to stop the development of Iranian nuclear weapons.

Even if Iran doesn't believe that the Americans will use military force, Tehran is not likely to make the mistake of rushing to 90%. Instead, if past is prologue, Tehran will follow its decades-long strategy of forcing the West to accept increasing levels of nuclear weapons expansion. It will remain at the 60% line while building out its nuclear infrastructure and extracting maximum financial concessions. The most alarming is the work done at Natanz where Tehran is building out a hardened site that reportedly will go over 100 meters (328 ft.) underground and be ready in about two or three years to be used for future high levels of enrichment, protected from outside attack. According to the understandings, Tehran will continue the development and production of advanced centrifuges, ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and crucial capabilities related to nuclear weapons systems.

We are sleepwalking into the Iranian trap. With Iran remaining below the 90% line, and the Biden administration pursuing a false quiet at a high price, Tehran is left to pursue nuclear weapons on all fronts. Israel needs to fight this Iranian strategy while Congress must immediately review every step the Biden administration takes.

Brig. Gen. (res.) Prof. Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a professor at the Technion. He served as national security advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the acting head of the National Security Council.

Mark Dubowitz is the FDD's chief executive and an expert on Iran's nuclear program and sanctions. In 2019, he was sanctioned by Iran.

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

The post Why it would be better for Israel if Iran enriched to 90% now appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Returning to reality after the euphoria that existed during US President Joe Biden's visit to Israel and Saudi Arabia, the belligerent announcements by senior Iranian officials and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, and the convening of the Russia-Turkey-Iran conference in Tehran, require a sober assessment of the situation and the construction of a plan to preserve and increase deterrence vis-à-vis Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the continued communication with the USA to prevent any return to the dreadful nuclear agreement from 2015.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Prior to Biden's visit, Israel set a number of key goals, some of which were not reached and some of which were partially achieved. Despite this, Israel must continue its actions and efforts, in light of events in the region and events that are expected to occur in the near future.

The most difficult undertaking quest during the visit was to underscore the dangers in reinstating the nuclear agreement, despite the ambitions of the administration headed by Biden and his envoy Robert Malley. As expected, Israel failed. The administration continues with determination, supported by irresponsible voices in Israel, to make every possible mistake in order to reinstate the agreement. Despite the aggressive American rhetoric, the claim that there will be no more concessions and the announcement that the other side can "take it or leave it," is not really the case.

The visit's secondary goals, which focused on strengthening technological cooperation between Israel and the US and attempting to advance initial steps of normalization with Saudi Arabia, yielded partial success. Announcements that dealing with the Palestinian issue is not currently appropriate, probably fell on attentive ears, despite US and Saudi declarations.

"The last round of talks between Iran, the US, and the Europeans in Qatar ended in failure and with no progress. The Iranians made new demands and refused to accept the agreement that had been reached in previous rounds. However, the parties did not regard this stage as a failure and are currently initiating ties to coordinate another round between the US and Iran and between the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and their counterparts in Tehran, to once again try to "turn the square into a circle."

Even though the resulting agreement, entitled the "Putin Agreement", was not signed, the fact that the dissolute agreement was led by Putin and drafted by his envoy Ulyanov, has not changed. This is happening while Russia continues its aggressive attacks in Ukraine and Iran assists it in fighting and in the economic siege, with advice on how to circumvent sanctions. Despite this, and while Putin arranges a summit meeting with Erdoğan in Iran, the US continues to align with the Russian leadership in its negotiations with Iran.

The summit in Tehran underscored the absurdity of American behavior and posed complex challenges. This bizarre meeting, officially titled a discussion on Syria, probably included more disagreements than agreements, as each side sought a solution to its own interests, despite the public announcements.

Turkey sought a solution to its ambitions in northeastern Syria, the expulsion of the Kurds and the return of Syrian refugees. Iran sought support for returning to the agreement on its terms and circumventing US sanctions. Russia sought Iranian, and possibly Turkish, support with weapons to fight Ukraine, but mostly to "poke a finger in the American eye."

How can one explain such a meeting only days after Iran sent terrorists to Turkey to attack Israelis and violated its sovereignty? How does this encounter align with the Muslim Brotherhood's ideological struggle? And with the Shiite / Suni struggle? Apparently, the struggle for personal interests triumphed.

Reinstating the nuclear agreement is a serious mistake and the former and current officials who support it are harming Israel and leaking their opinions to the media. Those in official office have both a right and duty to present their position, but only behind closed doors. When the decision is made by those in charge, the chief of staff, the head of the Mossad and GSS, and the political echelon, they must stop their harmful activities, as is required in a democracy.

The emerging agreement, and the danger that it will worsen if the new Iranian demands are accepted, is based on the bad agreement of 2015, with further concessions. It does not take into account the time that has elapsed and the short time remaining until the expiration of the restrictions. It does not take into account the findings from the nuclear archive and the violations revealed by the IAEA's supervisory system.

The agreement will allow Iran to achieve a "nuclear threshold state" status and develop a bomb, leading to an extensive race for armament in our region. It does not include the tools and requirements that will force the Iranians to negotiate for a "longer and stronger" agreement, before the expiration date, as Biden promised and continues to do.

At the time of signing the agreement, the Iranians will receive hundreds of billions, enabling them to restore their economy, intensify the development and equipment of nuclear and conventional arms, and increase support for Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi movement and terrorism.

The "stopwatch" that the parties are activating is based on local interests. Iran has no answers to the open investigations and it is important for them to continue displaying a misrepresentation of talks until the convening of the IAEA Board. They might have no intentions of reaching an agreement until they become a threshold state and secure an agreement on the terms they dictate. Waiving the investigation of the open cases will weaken the status of the IAEA and make it irrelevant.

Americans are probably comfortable with continuing the negotiations, at least until the elections in November.

Those who claim that reinstating the agreement is very bad, but at least this is the better of two evils, in order to buy time that will allow them to better prepare for future action, are wrong and misleading. Without being obligated to answer the operational question, which should not be discussed in public, if Israel needs additional time to prepare, the time that Israel will ostensibly "gain" will come at a high price. Under this agreement, Iran will move closer and reach a situation where the capabilities that will be built will become irrelevant. According to an agreement, even if Iran advances considerably, Israel will incur great difficulties in exercising skills that it allegedly built while "in the gaining stage."

Without an agreement, Iran will be in a position of weakness and without any legitimate status. Even if they try to dodge this situation, Israel and the US will be legitimately able to painfully damage the program.

Statements made by Iranian officials about their nuclear capabilities emanate weakness and panic. The statements intend mainly to pressure the US to return to the agreement. Iran is at least 18 to 24 months away from having the technological ability to turn a highly-enriched fissile, which it is close to obtaining, into a bomb. This should not cause Israel to sway, in any way possible, in its attempt to stop Iran from developing both a fissile and a weapons system.

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

Recent threats by Nasrallah and Hamas also indicate weakness and panic. However, Israel cannot ignore Hezbollah provocations and the launch of UAVs toward Israel three times recently, and six times in the last year. In order to maintain a level of deterrence against Lebanon and Iran, Israel must respond and Nasrallah has given it the tools to change the rules of the game in Lebanon and deal, in response to antagonism, with precise arms that were recently developed and manufactured on Lebanese soil, contrary to unwritten understandings.

Facing Hamas in Gaza, Israel's response to all provocations and launches must be disproportionate, taking advantage of "opportunities" to address strengthening and leaders.

While this can lead to escalation and decline, as the opponents are deterred and do not want to get into a confrontation, one must take a risk, otherwise, deterrence will be irrevocably marred.

In addition, Iranian leaders must be made to understand that the era of impervious immunity is over and only the operational arm will suffer. Prime Minister Netanyahu introduced this important change in 2018 regarding the perception of security and we must continue to implement it.

Israel must prepare for a strategic media campaign that will emphasize (not "explain", as it is mistakenly called) Iranian behavior and the dangers anticipated from a nuclear Iran, and build legitimacy for increasing the "military campaign between wars."

Brig. Gen. (Res.) Professor Jacob Nagel, formerly the national security adviser to the prime minister, is a Senior Fellow at FDD and a visiting professor at the Faculty of Aeronautics and Space at the Technion. Mark Dubowitz is the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The post Will new nuclear deal render Israel's capabilities hollow?   appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Vienna is once again bustling with another round of diplomacy focused on the Iranian nuclear program, but unlike the direct talks that led to the flawed 2015 agreement, this time the Americans and Iranians are not engaging with each other directly.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

No matter the format, it is impossible to escape the result that leads to a very bad deal. The fact that the US is about to again crumple seems obvious and it is based on the familiar, but very erroneous, approach American diplomats take on the negotiations.

This foreseeable buckling is not hard to understand. The Biden administration has been imploring the Iranians to return to the negotiating table to ensure they will abide by the nuclear deal, all while the Iranian negotiating team has been playing hard to get.

The absurd is that the talks focus mostly on what the West has to pay the world's top state-sponsor of terrorism for it to agree to re-enter a flawed nuclear deal that in 2015 already gave Tehran everything it wanted – including clearing its path to develop nuclear weapons – in exchange for massive economic relief in the form of lifting the sanctions while receiving almost nothing in return.

There is nothing wrong with focusing on nuclear diplomacy but this move has to be leveraged by the US. The Americans have considerable leverage points to wield but they "insist" on shelving them.

Economically speaking, Iran's cash reserves have dropped from more than $120 billion in 2018 to $4 billion. To make matters worse, it was reported that the Natanz uranium enrichment facility will be unable to operate for the next nine months or so following a mysterious explosion. The regime's ambitions to develop nuclear weapons have taken a hit following the Nov. 27, 2020 assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the head of Iran's military nuclear program, and lastly, the regime has been struggling to regain ground from a regional standpoint following the Jan. 3, 2020 elimination pf Quds Force commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani by the Trump administration.

All these factors afford Washington substantial leverage that can improve even further by resorting to deterrence and formulating a credible military threat.

Biden's team claims its goal is to reach a "longer, stronger, broader" deal. This goal is impossible unless the White House sets a new policy on Iran, one that is not held hostage by the nuclear deal. A quick return to the old agreement, or worse, gradually crawling back to it, will result in relinquishing the existing leverage, thus allowing Iran to leverage the talks.

Such an approach would lead to zero motivation for the Iranians to negotiate another deal, let alone one that the West would define as better. Returning to the 2015 nuclear agreement will spell the end with respect to the ability to reach another agreement until it expires.

On the other hand, the Iranian strategy is clear: to use the threat of nuclear escalation to accumulate leverage and extort concessions in the form of easing sanctions and returning to the agreement, which would allow Tehran to move forward with nuclear negotiations. A return to the agreement will allow the regime to legally install the advanced centrifuges it has built and tested, improve and build its enrichment capabilities, and wait for the restrictions to expire as scheduled, by the end of the decade.

After 2030, Iran will be free of any restriction on its industrial-level uranium enrichment capabilities and it would be able to reach the threshold from which it would be able to enrich uranium to the level and quantity required for the construction of nuclear weapons quickly – with the world's superpowers helpless to stop it.

The Iranians can already produce advanced centrifuges in large numbers, and their scientists have mastered the feature of the cascade system of centrifuges. In short, the regime can enrich uranium three-to-10 times faster.

This is a lost cause – unless the Biden administration comes to its senses and pushes for a new agreement. Tehran must be held accountable for its past actions, which we know about thanks to the nuclear archives that the Mossad intelligence agency smuggled out of Iran in 2018. The Iranian violations of the deal are even more egregious given the latest findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It is very clear that the IAEA's decision of 2015 – pushed for by then-US Secretary of State John Kerry – to close the investigation into the potential military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program was a grave mistake.

The documents found in the Iranian archives and the IAEA's reports have proven that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than we thought. The IAEA's failure to make its findings public illustrates one of the nuclear deal's main flaws.

Revising the old nuclear deal by addressing the problems of the past fails to address the real issues of the present: the development of weapons system; mapping and understanding Tehran is past activities and current violations; continued uranium enrichment in underground facilities and the continued research and development of advanced centrifuges.

Despite recent disruptions, Iran continues its efforts to develop weapons systems and advanced centrifuges that enable a "sneak out" strategy instead of a "mad dash" one. It will need fewer advanced centrifuges to get what it needs to develop a bomb, and this activity would be easier to hide and harder to detect.

Gone are the days when the objective was to keep Iran "one year" from producing a sufficient quantity of weapon-grade uranium to produce its first bomb. Returning to the 2015 nuclear deal will allow Iran to continue building enrichment facilities in clandestine sites and secretly amass the enriched uranium it needs for a bomb.

There are also new concerns. The Iranian regime is also making critical progress in developing weapons systems, such as metal uranium processing, hot cells, and irradiation of 20%-enriched materials – all of which can help Iran build a nuclear weapon.

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

A "longer, stronger" deal must also prevent Iran from becoming a "nuclear threshold" state. The regime cannot argue it only has a "civilian nuclear program" while keeping it underground. Any new deal must therefore address the nuclear program's three components: fissile materials, weaponized systems, and the means of delivery. It may be time for broader agreements that address the regime's support for terrorism and its missile program, but the nuclear problem must be resolved first.

The US can permanently cut off any path Iran may have to nuclear weapons or again buckle at the negotiating table. It is time for the Biden administration to opt for a tough approach in the negotiations.

Brig. Gen. (Res.) Professor Jacob Nagel is a former national security adviser to the prime minister. Mark Dubowitz is the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The post US faces hard choices on Iran appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.