ROGER COHEN'S DILEMMA - LETTER TI NY TIMES

[Maurice Ostroff]

The following letter was sent to the NY Times in response to an oped
by Roger Cohen titled "Israel's Iran Dilemma" copied in blue below.
Note his reference to "Israel's over the top nyet" and
"hyperventilating Israeli rhetoric". (The bold emphases are mine)
Regards
Maurice



To the Letters editor
NY Times
November 29, 2013

I'm sorry Mr. Cohen, Israel's over the top 'nyet' has been proved to
be justified and you have been proved to be out of touch with
reality. (Israel's Iran Dilemma NYT Nov. 25)

You claim this is the best deal that could be had. holding Iran's
low-grade uranium at current levels, eliminating or diluting
20-percent enriched uranium, stopping installation of new
centrifuges, and halting construction at the Arak heavy-water reactor.

Where were you on Nov. 24, (before publication of your article) when
the Iranian President and FM told the press that Iran's enrichment
will proceed as in the past, the process [of enrichment to 20%] will
continue based on existing plans and that the project [at Arak] will
continue along the same lines as in the current situation?

You owe your readers an explanation

Maurice Ostroff
Israel

----------
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/opinion/cohen-israels-iran-dilemma.html?WT.mc_id=AD-D-E-OTB-INTOP-1113&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_c=__CAMP_UID__&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1384750800000&bicmet=1386219600000&_r=0>Israel's
Iran Dilemma
By ROGER COHEN

The era of traumatized alienation is over. The United States and Iran
have embarked on a new phase in their relationship. It is marked by
bilateral negotiations, handshakes, smiles, side-by-side flags and
significant compromise, including United States acquiescence to a
"mutually defined enrichment program" for Iran in any long-term
agreement and an Iranian commitment that "under no circumstances"
will it "ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons."
But it fast-forwards American-Iranian relations and may thereby
redraw the strategic map of the Middle East.

This explains Israel's over-the-top "nyet," its insistence that a
deal heading off escalation makes the region more dangerous. Israel
is the status-quo Middle Eastern power par excellence because the
status quo cements its nuclear-armed domination. Any change is
suspect, including popular Arab uprisings against despotism. As
changes go, this U.S.-Iranian breakthrough is big, almost as big as
an Israeli-Palestinian peace would be.

Just as the United States has had to adapt to a world where its power
is unmatched but no longer determinant, Israel will have to do the
same. With enlightened leadership this adaptation could strengthen
the Jewish state, securing the nation through integration in its
region rather than domination of it. For now Israel is some way from
this mind-set. Its overriding prism is military. It was important
that President Obama set down a marker, as he has through this deal,
one that may spur new strategic reflection in Israel. (An Israel
already alarmed by isolation is not about to embark on a Samson-like
military strike against Iran.)

Let us be clear. This is the best deal that could be had. Nothing,
not even sustained Israeli bombardment, can reverse the nuclear
know-how Iran possesses. The objective must be to ring-fence the
acquired capability so its use can only be peaceful.

This aim has been advanced through holding Iran's low-grade uranium
at current levels, eliminating or diluting 20-percent enriched
uranium, stopping installation of new centrifuges, halting
construction at the Arak heavy-water reactor and intensifying
international inspection. In return, Iran gets sanctions relief worth
about $6 billion to $7 billion. It gets to inch back toward the
world, which is where the vast majority of its young population wants
it to be and where the West has an interest in seeing it, because
contact fosters moderation and isolation spurs extremism. As Obama
said, "Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution
to the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program."

The strategic divergence between the United States and Israel is not
merely tactical. The admirable John Kerry, whose commitment to this
diplomatic endeavor has been exemplary, was not altogether frank on this point.

The United States has acknowledged that any lasting accord must
concede a limited enrichment program to Iran. The agreement speaks,
under an eventual long-term agreement, of an Iranian nuclear program
that "will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear
weapon state party to the NPT" - so putatively placing Iran in the
same category as Japan or Germany, other signatories of the nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty with enrichment programs. Israel, to the
contrary, wants zero Iranian enrichment and Libyan-style nuclear dismantlement.

The United States is prepared to conceive of an Islamic Republic
fully reintegrated in the community of nations, with equal rights.
That state of affairs is a very long way off. Iran will not swiftly
shake off the suspicions its actions and (sometimes vile) words have
aroused. Nor should it be allowed to. But Obama and Kerry are ready
to entertain Iran's rehabilitation.

Not Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu, who wants to keep Iran down.
"Push us down, that is all I hear when I listen to Netanyahu," one
Stanford and Harvard-educated Iranian businessman told me. He has a
strong belief that drawing Iran closer to the world is essential, a
strong dislike of the Iranian regime, and a strong sense of outrage
at Israel's contempt for Iran's national aspirations.

Diplomacy involves compromise; risk is inherent to it. Iran is to be
tested. Nobody can know the outcome. Things may unravel but at least
there is hope. Perhaps this is what is most threatening to Netanyahu.
He has never been willing to test the Palestinians in a serious way -
test their good faith, test ending the humiliations of the
occupation, test from strength the power of justice and peace. He has
preferred domination, preferred the Palestinians down and under pressure.

Obama and Kerry have invited Netanyahu to think again - and not just
about Iran. Nothing, to judge by the hyperventilating Israeli
rhetoric, could be more disconcerting. Nothing is more needed. Cheap
allusions to 1938 are a poor template for Israel in the 21st century.