Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


New Iran Chatter Points to End of Diplomacy

Breakdown of talks, continued focus on immunity suggests military action

Print Email
The holy city of Qom, near Iran's Fordow facility.(Behrouz Mehri/AFP/GettyImages)

Granted I was bit too busy to be keeping up, but it’s seemed like over the past couple weeks, the Iran issue—which was on the frontburner throughout the spring, put there in large part by a series of deliberate leaks from Israeli officials eager to prompt further U.S. action and U.S. officials eager to question the basis for a military attack—had receded to a large extent. This actually felt spooky; last week in Tel Aviv, a close observer agreed with me that lots of Israeli talk probably indicated a lack of imminent Israeli action, whereas once Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak had decided to launch a strike (or been told one was forthcoming from the Americans), they would keep their mouths shut. But now David Ignatius, the top leak-receiver, has penned two consecutive columns about it, and Defense Minister Barak spoke about it to Washington’s policy elite (temporarily transposed to Aspen, Colorado, for an annual “ideas festival”), and now David Sanger (another top leak-receiver) is reporting on a beefed-up U.S. Navy presence in the Persian Gulf, so I guess we are talking about it again and an attack is still a long way off. Or not.

Over the weekend, Ignatius reported from Jerusalem that Israel’s top security decision-makers remain as serious as ever about the viability of attacking Iran (even as he revealed that he thinks an attack would be unwise). And today he observes the P5+1 talks and sees what anyone would: a dead-end, at best. In fact, having obtained the Iranians’ PowerPoint presentation, he sees more: Iranian insistence on keeping some uranium enriched to 20 percent (a dealbreaker for the Israelis), and a refusal even to discuss shutting down the Fordow enrichment facility (which raises the Israelis’ dudgeon more than anything else). And Iran’s more belligerent ways out, which it has already began to toy with—closing the Strait of Hormuz, withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty—will only make it easier for the United States to strike, which is what Israel really wants anyway.

At Aspen, Barak estimated Iran was “several years” away from nuclearization. But while Josh Rogin, reporting the remarks, noted, “The estimate appeared more distant than other recent statements by top Israeli leaders,” the point for Israel (and especially Barak) isn’t when Iran would actually go nuclear, it’s when it would pass the point (and enter the oft-spoken-of “zone of immunity”) that Israel could definitively halt its program. And here Barak was sounding the same old tune: “We cannot afford delegating the decision even into the hands of our most trusted allies, which are you.” Translation: I care—more.

Bombing or the Bomb? [WP]
A Breakdown in Iran Nuclear Talks Appears Likely [WP]
Israeli Defense Minister: Iran Will Go Nuclear ‘In Several Years’ [FP The Cable]
U.S. Adds Forces in Persian Gulf, a Signal to Iran [NYT]

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

michael perks says:

Despite this failure, (was there ever any doubt?) the only action that the Obama administration might take is. If it looks likely that Romney will win the election, Obama may launch an attack on Iranian neuclear facilities to bolster support. Either 2-3 weeks before the election. (No time for gas prices to spike.) Or, my favorite, during the Republican convention. Obama is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine. Thus, he can’t be trusted.

jmm64 says:

Definitely agree with Michael Perks. If Obama thinks that he’s in serious danger of losing in November, then he’ll order the entire airforce to begin bombing until his poll numbers exceed Romney’s poll numbers.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

New Iran Chatter Points to End of Diplomacy

Breakdown of talks, continued focus on immunity suggests military action

More on Tablet:

Why the World Should Test Netanyahu’s Newfound Commitment to Peace

By Yair Rosenberg — Bibi announces support for Arab Peace Initiative. It doesn’t matter if it’s real.