The Israeli case against the Iranian charm offensive

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is determined to temper optimism about US rapprochement with Iran, which Israel considers an existential threat.

Charles Dharapak/AP
US President Barack Obama, accompanied by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, makes a statement to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Monday, Sept. 30, 2013.

A daily summary of global reports on security issues

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come to the United States with a mission: to battle newly elected Iranian prime minister Hassan Rouhani's "onslaught of smiles" with "facts" and "the truth."

The United States and Israel are generally at least coordinated in their response to Iran's nuclear program and bellicose rhetoric. But Iran's recent charm offensive, consisting of letters, media interviews, and offers to potentially negotiate away the country's nuclear ambitions has driven a wedge in that alliance as US President Barack Obama has seized the opportunity to negotiate with one of the West's longstanding bugbears.

The Christian Science Monitor's Scott Peterson wrote about the diplomatic push last week:

President Hassan Rouhani defined a policy of “constructive engagement” in a “changed” world, and urged fellow leaders to “seize the opportunity presented by Iran’s recent election” in today's Washington Post. Days earlier, he vowed that Iran would “never” pursue nuclear weapons and called war “weakness” in an interview with NBC News.

But Mr. Netanyahu is urging the Obama administration not to be naive, and is unapologetic about being the party "spoiler," the Monitor's Jerusalem bureau chief, Christa Case Bryant, reports.

But some say Mr. Netanyahu, who meets with President Obama at the White House today, sees himself as playing a Churchillian role to alert the world to the dangers of appeasement, just as the formidable British leader did when faced by the Nazi regime. For one who sees the Iranian nuclear issue in existential terms, being perceived as a party pooper is a small price to pay.

"I will tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and the onslaught of smiles," he said yesterday before departing for the US. "One must talk facts and one must tell the truth. Telling the truth today is vital for the security and peace of the world and, of course, it is vital for the security of the State of Israel."

“Israel doesn’t trust anybody, not even the American president,” says Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. “A word doesn’t mean anything. Not even a signed paper. So it’s a big gap between how liberal Americans think about international relations and how Israelis and Arabs [see it].”

Talking to Obama Monday, Netanyahu made a case for maintaining, not slackening, global pressure on Iran. FOX News laid out Netanyahu's case:

Visiting the White House on Monday, Netanyahu said Iran's "conciliatory words" have not yet been met by "real action."

Saying that the threat of military action and the pressure of sanctions brought Iran to this point, Netanyahu said: "I also believe that if diplomacy is to work, those pressures must be kept in place. And I think they should not be lessened until there is verifiable success."

Israel punctuated its point by disclosing on Sunday that it had arrested an alleged Iranian spy posing as a businessman earlier in September. Ali Mansouri (or "Alex Mans," as his Belgian passport supposedly identified him), was born in Iran and held Belgian and Iranian citizenship. He reportedly set up a business in Israel as a cover for “intensive intelligence and terror activities," and photographed the United States Embassy building in Tel Aviv, The New York Times reports.

The timing of Israel's disclosure, the day before Netanyahu met with President Obama, may have been intended to prove Israel's point that Iran's promises should be treated with deep skepticism.

The European Union is taking a cautiously positive attitude toward the Iranian outreach effort, with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton saying that she was "struck by the energy and determination [Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif] expressed to me," according to The Wall Street Journal.

The stakes at this point are are high: estimates of the scope of the Iranian nuclear program vary, but generally suggest that the country has made real strides toward having the "breakout" capability to construct a nuclear weapon within a short period should it be seen as necessary. In a brief updated in January of 2013, The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation evaluates Iran's need for "highly enriched uranium, a device capable of initiating a nuclear explosion, and a delivery vehicle" and finds:

The IAEA has noted in successive reports since 2010 that Iran has succeeded in enriching uranium to about 20 percent, far above the 3-5 percent necessary to fuel a civilian reactor, but still below the 90 percent needed for a weapon. However, it is far easier to enrich from 20 percent up to 90 percent than from uranium’s natural state of less than 1 percent up to 20 percent.


If a state pursues uranium enrichment as a path to nuclear weapons, building the actual warhead is generally the easiest piece of the puzzle. However, the U.S. intelligence community believes Iran has not yet made the political decision to build a nuclear weapon.


Even if Iran decides to develop a nuclear weapon, most evidence suggests that it will not possess a missile capable of reaching all of Europe or the United States – to say nothing about its ability to arm the missile with a nuclear warhead – for years to come.

It's a very real possibility that Iran's charm offensive could be foiled from within. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ultimately pulls the levers, not Rouhani, and Iran's hardline elements are watching Rouhani's diplomatic moves warily. As Scott Peterson writes in the Monitor:

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly declared it a duty of every power center in Iran to back Mr. Rouhani’s government, this week invoking a 7th-century peace deal to say Iran was ready to show a "heroic flexibility."

Yet the Revolutionary Guard has carefully pushed back, saying "heroic flexibility" should not be interpreted as "retreat from fundamental rights."

“Our fundamental framework is permanent and it is inflexible and our ideal goals will never be reduced,” the deputy Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) chief Hossein Salami said in recent days on Iranian state TV. He included “the right to have peaceful nuclear energy” which “cannot be modified.

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

QR Code to The Israeli case against the Iranian charm offensive
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today