New York Times calls Israel ‘unrealistic’ on Iran

The New York Times on Wednesday said Israel was “unrealistic” in its demands for the terms of a nuclear deal between world powers and Iran, saying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s protestations offered no reasonable alternatives.

In an editorial titled “Israel’s Unworkable Demands on Iran” the paper asserted that Netanyahu, who has insisted on the dismantling of key aspects of Iran’s nuclear program as well as Tehran ending hostilities toward Israel, is chasing a deal to which the the Iranians would never agree.

“The new demands are unrealistic and, if pursued, would not mean a better deal but no deal at all,” the newspaper said, criticizing Netanyahu’s insistence that world powers could achieve a better result than the one announced after a year and a half of negotiations.

“Mr. Netanyahu is acting as if he alone can dictate the terms of an agreement that took 18 months and involved not just Iran and the United States but Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.”

Furthermore, despite the Israeli leader’s rejection of the framework deal — announced after a week of marathon talks last week — “he offers no workable options.”

Speaking to CNN as part of a US media blitz over the weekend, Netanyahu said the deal wouldn’t roll back Iran’s nuclear program.

“Thousands of centrifuges will keep spinning, enriching uranium, that’s a very bad deal,” Netanyahu said, challenging US President Barack Obama’s earlier assertion that the Israeli leader does not want a “peaceful” resolution to the Iran stand-off.

“The alternatives are not either this bad deal or [going to] war,” Netanyahu said. “I think there’s a third alternative and that is standing firm, ratcheting up the pressure until we get a better deal. And a better deal would roll back Iran’s vast nuclear infrastructure and require Iran to stop its aggression in the region, its terrorism worldwide and its calls and actions to annihilate the state of Israel. That’s a better deal, it’s achievable.”

Netanyahu demanded  that any final deal contain Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist — a demand rejected by the US State Department.

The NY Times piece came amid reports that Obama administration officials have held briefings with a number of groups to discuss the contours of the deal in recent days, seemingly to rally support for the agreement in the face of opposition in Congress, Israel, and the US public.

Without the proposed deal, which is set to be signed and take effect in June, Iran would just continue its nuclear program, the editorial said. It advised Washington against giving in to Israeli pressure for tighter restrictions on Iran.

“Israel’s demands, however, must not become an excuse to scuttle what seems to be a very serious and potentially groundbreaking deal,” it wrote.

The paper’s editors said that since any negotiation requires compromise, it was clear from the start that Iran’s nuclear program — which, world powers fear, aims to produce an atomic bomb — was never going to be brought to a complete halt. Allowing Iran to keep some of its uranium-enrichment centrifuges spinning was a compromise world powers had to make, the paper wrote.

The centrifuges, which are used to produce fissile material for a reactor or a bomb, were a key element of the negotiations. Iran has repeatedly said in the past it will introduce new, advanced centrifuges, while the framework agreement stipulates that it only research the technology but not operate the machinery.

Under the terms of the deal, Iran would keep “a small number of centrifuges spinning,” roughly half of the 10,000 currently operating at the secretive Fordo facility, The New York Times wrote.

As for Iran’s declared intention to wipe Israel off the map, the paper said that it was an issue that should be dealt with outside of the nuclear talks.

“Iran’s hostility and threats toward Israel and its involvement in terrorist activities are heinous and unacceptable,” it added. “But those issues should be dealt with separately; resolving them should not be made conditions of the nuclear agreement.”

The editorial came the day after Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief told members of parliament that the country will begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal with the world powers goes into effect, according to a report from Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency.

If accurate, the report makes a mockery of the world powers’ much-hailed framework agreement with Iran, since such a move clearly breaches the US-published terms of the deal, and would dramatically accelerate Iran’s potential progress to the bomb.

The framework agreement reached last Thursday by US-led negotiators with Iran aims to cut significantly into Tehran’s bomb-making technology, while giving Iran relief from international sanctions. The commitments, if implemented, would substantially pare down Iranian nuclear assets for a decade and restrict others for an additional five years. Iran would also be subject to intrusive international inspections.

At the time, Netanyahu lamented the terms of the deal and said they would threaten the existence of the state of Israel.

AP and Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.