Obama may drop enrichment freeze precondition

An article by the NY Times Gaza war apologist, David E. Sanger, who refers to Israeli sources with secret intelligence.

The proposals, exchanged in confidential strategy sessions with European allies, would press Tehran to open up its nuclear program gradually to wide-ranging inspection. But the proposals would also allow Iran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks. That would be a sharp break from the approach taken by the Bush administration, which had demanded that Iran halt its enrichment activities, at least briefly to initiate negotiations.

NY Times’ Op-Ed Cohen on a roll

After a controversial but insightful series on Iran earlier this year, Roger Cohen of the NY Times has again produced another illuminating piece which deconstructs and rebutts Israeli regional thinking vis-a-vis Iran.

Cohen …
1. first accuses Israeli leaders of crying wolf by constantly warning of an Iranian nuke since the 1990s
2. describes the Iranian regime as repressive but debunks the messianic apocalyptic cult caricature
a. Israel was doing business with Iran in the 80-88 Iraq-Iran war
b. The regime has followed a realist approach centered around it survival ever since
3. rebutts the Israeli premier’s claims that the Iraq-Iran war did not sear a terrible wound … And explains this as driving factor for the younger generation wanting change through reform not upheaval.
4. argues that Arab states will not be led into viewing Iran as the primary enemy in the region but will continue to see Israel as the enemy
5. sums the Israeli interest is in maintaining the regional status-quo and opposing a re-ordering where Iran is bought in from the cold
6. thinks that Obama is not heeding Netanyahu’s call and gives as evidence the US participation in upcoming nuclear talks
7. believes that Obama is genuine about rapprochement with the Muslim world
8. concludes that Iranian regime reform is only possible through the negotiating table and that Iran’s nuclear progress is still a couple of years off producing highly enriched uranium
9. argues against Israeli hegemony in the region

The best line in the article …

Every scrap of evidence suggests that, on the contrary, self-interest and survival drive the mullahs.

V. refreshing article. How long will he last in his job!?  Cohen also cites TitraParsi’s Treacherous Alliance which reviews Israeli-Iranian relations.

A good comment …

It is indeed the realignment of the regional order which roils Israel’s leadership. If Iran does return into its “rightful place in the community of nations”, some think Israel’s ability to act in the region will be curtailed. On the other hand, a reconciled Iran will be less of a threat to Israel within a more stable regional security system. So perhaps it is in Israel’s own security interests to see the diplomatic overtures succeed? Though, in reality, is Iran truly a threat to Israel at the moment, or even with crude nuclear devices… hardly.

A point that Cohen alludes to, but which could be elaborated further, is that external threats play an important role in domestic politics in both Israel with “Mr. Iran” now the premier, and with Iran’s Ahmadinejad. The wind will be taken out of the sails of bellicose politicians in both countries if a détente succeeds and we will all be better off.