Iran nuclear program: Obama makes case for diplomacy ahead of trip to Israel

But on Israeli TV, President Obama also pledged that the US will take no options off the table for stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israel has argued the threat is more urgent.

|
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP/File
President Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, March 2012. Obama's assertion to Israeli television that Iran would need 'over a year or so' to build a nuclear bomb was meant as a signal for diplomacy ahead of trip to Israel.

President Obama’s assertion to Israeli television that Iran is at least a year away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon was meant as a signal: that this should be a year of diplomacy to try to halt Iran’s nuclear progress, not the year of military confrontation.

Coming less than a week before Mr. Obama departs for his first trip as president to Israel, the comments Thursday set the stage for an airing of the two timelines for any eventual military action against Iran’s nuclear installations that separate the White House from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Obama told Israel’s Channel 2 TV that Iran would need “over a year or so” to build a nuclear bomb. At the same time, he pledged as he has in the past that the United States will take no options off the table for stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

That time frame contrasts markedly with that of Mr. Netanyahu's. The Israeli leader captured the world’s attention last September when he stood before the United Nations General Assembly, drew a thick red line across a drawing of a bomb, and warned that Israel believed Iran was on course to cross that nuclear line this spring or early summer.

The presentation fired up speculation that Israel would not wait much beyond mid-2013 to launch military strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites.

Obama’s new comments are aimed at convincing two audiences – one being Netanyahu and other hawkish Israeli officials, the other being the Israeli public – that 2013 can safely be a year of constraining Iran through ever-tougher sanctions and diplomacy to try to resolve the nuclear crisis peacefully, some regional experts say.

“2013 is not going to be the year of [military] confrontation with Iran,” says Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert who has served under numerous Democratic and Republican administrations. Obama will use his trip to make clear to Netanyahu that “he needs time and space on Iran,” Mr. Miller says, even as he presents the view to Israelis that there is still time to go the diplomatic route.

Obama will skip the traditional address to the Israeli Knesset and instead plans to give one of his hallmark public speeches at the Jerusalem convention center. Obama has asked that the audience include a wide spectrum of the Israeli population and that young Israelis in particular be well represented.

Obama and Netanyahu, other experts say, are unlikely to get their clocks for military action against Iran in sync – even in what are scheduled to be more than five hours of talks – because the two leaders set their clocks with two very different specifications for a military-action trigger.

Obama continues to vow that the US will not allow Iran to obtain a “nuclear weapon,” even as Netanyahu speaks of stopping Iran before it obtains a “nuclear weapons capability,” says Haim Malka, deputy director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

Setting the red line at a “nuclear weapon” is very different from vowing to stop Iran from reaching a “nuclear weapons capability,” Mr. Malka says.

Netanyahu’s bomb chart at the UN aimed to show that Iran was nearing the point – through its stockpiling of uranium enriched to 20 percent purity – where it could quickly further purify that stockpile into the highly enriched uranium needed to fuel a nuclear weapon.

But Obama’s estimate of "a year or so” to get a bomb refers to the time it would take Iran, upon deciding to build a bomb, to put all the components together and deliver a weapon. Obama has been careful never to speak of stopping Iran short of a "nuclear weapons capability,” although some Republican members of Congress have adopted Netanyahu’s terminology for defining the “red line” with Iran.

Obama’s insistence that diplomacy has more time reflects the estimate of US intelligence that Iran, despite stockpiling the worrisome 20 percent uranium, has not decided to build a nuclear weapon. But in his Channel 2 interview, the president suggested that Iran has also not decided to cooperate with the international community on a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear standoff.

“There is ... not an infinite period of time, but a window of time where we can resolve this diplomatically,” Obama said, adding that the Iranians “are not yet at the point, I think, where they have made a fundamental decision to get right with the international community.”

Obama will have a very tough time convincing Netanyahu that efforts can focus on diplomacy, says Malka of CSIS.

But Mr. Miller, who is vice president for new initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, says it is also important to keep an eye on the new Israeli government Netanyahu has labored to put together after what for him were disappointing elections in January. Miller sees a coalition focused on domestic economic and social issues and not on such external concerns as making peace with the Palestinians or launching a war with Iran.

“This is not a warmaking coalition,” he says, “and it is not a peacemaking coalition.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Iran nuclear program: Obama makes case for diplomacy ahead of trip to Israel
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2013/0315/Iran-nuclear-program-Obama-makes-case-for-diplomacy-ahead-of-trip-to-Israel
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe