It appears that Bibi’s criticism of the proposed nuclear deal with Iran may be well founded. The Times of Israel, not known for its blind adherence to the “Bibi is right” doctrine, has this:
Arab nations have joined Israel in expressing concern over the emerging details of a US-led international nuclear deal with Iran, indicating in private talks with US officials that they are worried about the apparent terms of the agreement, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.
Though Arab officials have been careful not to side with Israel in their stated positions, their worries over the possibility of a nuclear-armed Tehran are in fact similar to those of Jerusalem, and their attitudes towards the current state of nuclear talks between Tehran and Western powers are similarly pessimistic, according to the report.
Leaders of Sunni states such as Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia fear a bad deal with Tehran would allow it, with the removal of sanctions, to become a nuclear threshold state, the WSJ reported. They say it could also lead to a nuclear arms race in the region.
“At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal,” an official from an unnamed Arab nation told the paper.
Remarkably close to what what Bibi has been saying for a while.
Note the following, too:
The prime minister believes that the Iranians are negotiating in bad faith and that world powers are walking into a bad deal which would allow Tehran to come very close to a bomb while removing all sanctions on the regime…[snip]…“We know that Tehran knows the details of the talks. Now I tell you that Israel also knows the details of the proposed agreement,” Netanyahu said. “I think this is a bad agreement that is dangerous for the state of Israel, and not only for it.”
Bibi believes the Iranians are negotiating in bad faith, or Bibi knows they are negotiating in bad faith? How does Bibi know the details of the proposed agreement? Is that bluster? A bluff? Does it mean that Israel has a high level intelligence source in Iran? Or is it meant to suggest this, to keep the Iranians (if not the Americans) off balance?
The position was somewhat muddied by Kerry’s suggestion (see here) that the USA was ready to walk away from the talks with Iran if no progress made, as there are still “significant gaps” between the sides.
It’s too early to say, but I cannot help myself from fearing that this is another arena where too many miscalculations by Obama (not to say downright naivete) may have doomed the prospects of success, right from the start. I hope that fear is misplaced.
[And no, I’m still not voting for Bibi!]