Iran v. Israel

1. Iran v. Israel

2. Presidents involved • Israel: • Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu •  joined the Israeli Defense Forces during the 1967 Six-Day War • He fought on the front lines in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 • Iran: • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: President since 2005 • He was re-elected after the disputed 2009 Iranian presidential election. • United States: • Barack Obama was elected in 2008.

3. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad • Benjamin Netanyahu

4. Ahmadinejad’s View On October 26, 2005, Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), filed a story on Ahmadinejad's speech to the "World Without Zionism“ conference in Tehran, entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map. The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying:

5. “Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world”

6. Israel, like the West, believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb. • Enriched uranium is a key ingredient in an atomic weapon • although it can also be used in energy production and for medical isotopes. • Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

7. The sanction proponents in the West can be divided into three groups; • those who actually believe the sanctions can be effective (as in changing Iranian position on the nuclear program); • those who see it as a way of avoiding war while still doing "something;" • those who think it's a box that needs to be checked before moving to the real goal of war.

8. In this regard the Obama administration seems to be somewhat more flexible than the Netanyahu government.  While the Israelis insist on zero enrichment, the U.S. position seems to allow for some enrichment facilities remaining in Iran. It is highly unlikely that Tehran would give up its enrichment program altogether, and to insist on its total dismantling is both unrealistic

9. Pressures from all sides  In the U.S. there seems to be a belief that the formula "pressure on Iran equals concessions at the negotiation table" is open ended, i.e the more the better with no end in sight. The Israelis in turn try and top this by constantly reminding everyone that if Iran does not give in (totally if one is to believe the Israeli red line of zero enrichment) war is always a viable option. The Iranians in turn think their way to a strong negotiation position is to tell everyone how dangerous they are and thus in no mood or need for making concessions.

10. Israel on May 9, 2012 accused Iran of stalling in negotiations over its nuclear program with the international community, and said an upcoming round of talks can succeed only if the Iranians agree to halt all uranium enrichment.