- By Uri Friedman
Uri Friedman is deputy managing editor at Foreign Policy. Before joining FP, he reported for the Christian Science Monitor, worked on corporate strategy for Atlantic Media, helped launch the Atlantic Wire, and covered international affairs for the site. A proud native of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he studied European history at the University of Pennsylvania and has lived in Barcelona, Spain and Geneva, Switzerland.
There are times when the United States and Israel seem miles apart on the question of how to confront Iran over its nuclear program. As in when President Obama talked about wielding “crippling sanctions” and diplomacy when meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this month, while Netanyahu never mentioned sanctions and instead emphasized that Israel must remain the “master of its fate.”
But over the weekend, the New York Times reported that Israeli and American intelligence officials may agree on more than we think:
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes, but American intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency have picked up evidence in recent years that some Iranian research activities that may be weapons-related have continued since 2003, officials said. That information has not been significant enough for the spy agencies to alter their view that the weapons program has not been restarted.
Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, agrees with the American intelligence assessments, even while Israeli political leaders have been pushing for quick, aggressive action to block Iran from becoming what they describe as an existential threat to the Jewish state.
The Associated Press has a similar report:
Despite saber rattling from Jerusalem, Israeli officials now agree with the U.S. assessment that Tehran has not yet decided on the actual construction of a nuclear bomb, according to senior Israeli government and defense figures.
Iran meter: If Israel shares America’s view that Iran hasn’t yet decided to built nuclear nuclear weapons, does that decrease the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Not necessarily.
In Israel, the debate over a strike is less about whether Iran has decided to build nuclear weapons and more about whether it is on the verge of having the technological capability to do so, or reaching a point where an Israeli attack couldn’t meaningfully disrupt the country’s (increasingly fortified and underground) nuclear program.
Just today, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that Iran’s nuclear program “is steadily approaching maturation and is verging on a ‘zone of immunity’ — a position from which the Iranian regime could complete its program without effective disruption, at its convenience.”
In an article for the New York Times in January, Ronen Bergman highlighted where Israel and the United States diverge on this issue:
Israel estimates that Iran’s nuclear program is about nine months away from being able to withstand an Israeli attack; America, with its superior firepower, has a time frame of 15 months….
The Israelis suspect that the Obama administration has abandoned any aggressive strategy that would ensure the prevention of a nuclear Iran and is merely playing a game of words to appease them. The Israelis find evidence of this in the shift in language used by the administration, from “threshold prevention” — meaning American resolve to stop Iran from having a nuclear-energy program that could allow for the ability to create weapons — to “weapons prevention,” which means the conditions can exist, but there is an American commitment to stop Iran from assembling an actual bomb.
Today’s news, in other words, does little to muffle the drumbeats of war. But other developments large and small on Monday — Israeli President Shimon Peres and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wishing Iranians a happy Persian new year, Iranians and Israelis engaging in an improbable love fest on Facebook, the New York Times reporting on a U.S. war game that highlighted the geopolitical dangers of an Israeli strike on Iran — offer us some reassurance that, at least for today, we have Natanz to Worry About.
Blake Hounshell is managing editor at Foreign Policy, having formerly been Web editor. Hounshell oversees ForeignPolicy.com and has commissioned and edited numerous cover stories for the print magazine, including National Magazine Award finalist "Why Do They Hate Us?" by Mona Eltahawy. He also edits The Cable, FP's first foray into daily original reporting, and was editor of Colum Lynch's Turtle Bay, which in 2011 won a National Magazine award for best reporting in a digital format.
Blake joined Foreign Policy in 2006 after living in Cairo, where he studied Arabic, missed his Steelers finally win one for the thumb, and worked for the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies. Blake was a 2011 finalist for the Livingston Awards prize for young journalists for his reporting on the Arab uprisings, and his Twitter feed was named one of Time magazine's "140 Best Twitter Feeds of 2011." Under his leadership, in 2008, Passport, FP's flagship blog, won Media Industry Newsletter's "Best of the Web" award in the blog category. Along with Elizabeth Dickinson, he edited Southern Tiger: Chile's Fight for a Democratic and Prosperous Future, the memoirs of former Chilean president Ricardo Lagos, published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2012.
A graduate of Yale University, Blake speaks mangled Arabic and French, is an avid runner, and lives in Washington with his wife, musician Sandy Choi, and their toddler, David. Follow him on Twitter @blakehounshell.| Passport |