While Israeli observers have noted Israel and the US are not on the same page when it comes to how they believe the world should deal with Iran's nuclear program, Washington's struggle to meet Israeli requests to move up the delivery of defense procurements has nothing to do with divisions over Iran, a former defense official said.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Brig. Gen. (res.) Professor Jacob Nagel, acting National Security Advisor to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the former head of Israel's National Security Council, told JNS, "To the best of my understanding, Israel and the US are holding an open dialogue on many issues, including the Iranian issue. The dialogue is seeing many messages exchanged, and the gaps between the sides are open and on the table. Not everything can be agreed upon, and in the case of the Iranian issue, the gaps are very large."
Nagel, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a visiting professor at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Aerospace Faculty, said, "Israel has made its position clear and is safeguarding its freedom of action in all arenas, both during negotiations and afterwards, whether there will be a full or partial agreement. Israel has made it clear that the worst of all options is the intermediate agreement, involving 'freeze [of sanctions] for freeze situation [regarding Iran's nuclear program],' which would give the Iranians everything, and which would whitewash the regime's past sins. It would leave Iran with all of the profits from transgressions. This would give the Iranian regime billions of dollars for rebuilding its economy and continuing support for terrorism."
Professor Eytan Gilboa, an expert on US-Israel relations at Bar-Ilan University and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, said that unlike the leadup to the 2015 nuclear deal, the Israeli government has decided to avoid a public argument with its top ally this time around.
"This is a dramatic change from 2015," Gilboa said. "Also, the fact that in Israel there are those who say that former [US] President [Donald] Trump's exit from the nuclear deal in 2018 was a mistake is important in American eyes."
Despite the change in its public approach, Jerusalem is alarmed by Iran's foot-dragging in an effort to play for time as it moves ahead with its nuclear program, Gilboa said. The US has recently placed a time limit on negotiations, and American officials have said weeks remain for an agreement to be reached.
"The second issue is that of verification. Israel maintains that Iran lied and cheated throughout the years. The fact that Iran is enriching uranium to more than 60% proves that this is not a peaceful program, since that would only need 5%-enriched uranium. Hence, Israel is drawing attention to the need to place much better verification compared to what was in place in the 2015 deal," Gilboa said.
Meanwhile, as the US attempts to re-engage with Iran in Vienna, reports have surfaced of ongoing US refusals to move up deliveries of strategic defense procurements like modern midair refuelers for Israel.
Nagel criticized the reports that he said falsely attempted to link America's response to Israel's "legitimate requests to bring forward" defense procurements and a lack of agreement between Israel and the US on the Iranian issue.
"The truth is, according to my assessment and understanding, that requests to bring forward procurement has been in the dialogue for a long time, and not just the refuelers," he said. "To the best of my knowledge, had there been an approved Israeli state budget earlier, and had the Israeli Air Force's full procurement plan had been agreed upon and approved within the IDF vis-à-vis the political echelon, the order for the refuelers would have gone out three years ago already."
On Friday, the Defense Ministry announced it had signed a deal with the US to acquire two Boeing KC-46 refueling aircraft and 12 Lockheed Martin CH-53K helicopters.
Defense Minister Benny Gantz described the procurements as "significant milestones in the IDF's force buildup processes," adding, "We continue to strengthen our capabilities and to change and adapt our air force to face future challenges both near and far."
The agreement is estimated to be worth around $2 billion and will be with US military aid funds for Israel.
While the first helicopters are expected in Israel in 2026, there was no word on when the refuelers, which cost some $1.1 billion, would arrive.
Gilboa said the refuelers could keep F-35 jets in the air for 12 hours, and that Israel is interested in obtaining six such platforms.
While reaching a poor agreement with Iran would increase diplomatic tensions between Jerusalem and Washington, Gilboa said ensuring Israel has military capabilities to deal with Iran would act as a sufficient "compensation."
A memorandum of understanding for defense procurements that Nagel signed on behalf of Israel with the US went into effect in 2018. It pledged $3.8 billion of military assistance funds to Israel per year and was never subject to re-consideration since its signing – evidence, Nagel said, of the fact that the timeline for the deliveries is not linked to disputes over Iran.
"Washington's inability to meet requests for bringing refuelers early comes only from operational considerations and in major shortage in the US's force build-up capabilities," he said. "It's too bad this is being tied to the Iranian issue, because if it's not tied, there is a chance, like in the past, that the Americans will answer the call and bring forward deliveries from their own supplies."
According to American international broadcaster Voice of America, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said talks were"entering an in-depth phase" as representatives of signatories to the agreement reconvened in Vienna on Monday.
Gilboa and Nagel both said that in the event Iran and world powers fail to reach an agreement, America's recent posturing has made clear that military action is not on the table, but economic sanctions would be. Such a move would also have the support of European states.
They both noted that the team handling talks with Iran is the same team that conducted negotiations with Iran under former US President Barack Obama. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, US Special Envoy to Iran Robert Malley, and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman are prominent examples, according to Nagel and Gilboa.
"It's the same team, and it is today calling for a 'less for less' agreement. Israel is disturbed by this," Gilboa said.
Nagel said, "Biden's team does not think the Iranians need to be punished for their ongoing transgressions of the NPT [Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons] and lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It does not think there should be consequences for Iran for violating every agreement it signed, including the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action otherwise known as the 2015 deal]. The US wants to safeguard a fictitious picture of progress towards a diplomatic deal at any price," Nagel cautioned, adding that the resulting agreement, if signed, would likely be "very bad."
Without a credible military threat on the table, Iran is unlikely to budge, Gilboa said. He said this is why it was imperative for Israel to be able to provide such a threat.
Last week, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett alluded to this posture, telling Army Radio that Netanyahu's claim that Israel had promised the US there would be no surprises on Iran and that Jerusalem would not be able to act against Tehran a "total lie."
Israel won't be a partner to an agreement and "will always maintain its right to act and will defend itself by itself," Bennett vowed.
"We want a good deal," he said. "Is this expected to happen in the current parameters? No. Iran is in the talks with very weak cards, but unfortunately, the world is acting like Iran is in a position of power."
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
In an attempt to improve the deal wherever possible, Israel has been sharing intelligence with the US in an effort to achieve two objectives, according to Gilboa. The first is to fill in any blanks in America's intelligence map on Iran's nuclear program, he said. "The second, no less important, reason is due to the phenomenon in American intelligence in which it passes on information that it thinks the administration wants to hear. Israel is sharing intelligence so that the administration can't later say that it had different information."
Ultimately, Gilboa said, the Iranians' strategy is long-term and sophisticated and relies on creating the false impression they are willing to stop their nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.
"The Iranians could also be tempted to reach the threshold stage and enjoy all of the advantages of having nuclear weapons without actually taking the last step of assembling the bombs. They are pursuing a vague policy, and the West does not know what their intentions are. But for Iran, it is clear what the West is willing to do," said Gilboa. "This creates an asymmetry in the negotiations, placing the West in an inferior situation."
Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.
