Continued Iran talks could work in Israel's favor

JERUSALEM - Last week's inconclusive meeting between Iran and the P5+1 group (the United States, China, Britain, France, Russia, and Germany) on Teheran's nuclear program, could paradoxically work in Israel's favor, analysts told Xinhua Monday.

Before the meeting, Yukiya Amano, head of the United Nations nuke watchdog group the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expressed hope that a deal would be reached.

However, the sides were not able to reach an agreement that would regulate Iran's enrichment of uranium, a process necessary before the uranium can be weaponized, or allow the IAEA to inspect Iran's nuclear infrastructure. The higher the percentage of enrichment, the more stable the uranium would be were it to be used in a bomb.

"The fact that they failed will prove to Israel and other countries that Iran isn't flexible and they want to continue their nuclear efforts, and for Israel this is an advantage," Dr. Ephraim Kam of Tel Aviv University said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long argued that a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel and that the international community must stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Prior to the talks, Netanyahu expressed skepticism that Iran would be willing to give up its nuclear program. Israel has in the past accused Iran of not taking the negotiations seriously, and instead has exploited them to buy time to continue advancing its nuclear program.

Prof. Ze'ev Maghen, of Bar-Ilan University, said that while Iran's action might prove that Israel is correct in its assessment, he doubted that it would make much difference in future negotiations.

"The international community hasn't woken up to the reality on what's going on here for over 15 years, so I have no reason to believe that it's going to happen over the next year or two," Maghen said.

The international community, he argued, "continue to believe that they can talk the Iranians down, or that they can bribe them down, or that they can threaten them down -- but they can't do any of those things; the Iranian have proved that time and again."

Next round

Kam, however, said that failure to reach an agreement should not been seen as a sign that the negotiations have failed completely -- they are set to continue. What remains important to Israel was how the American position develops as the talks go on, he said.

"Especially, what would be the American position? To what extent following a possible failure of the talks would the Americans emphasize the military option," Kam asked.

Washington has made it clear in recent days that they will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power, with US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warning over the weekend that a military option against Iran is ready -- should it be needed.

However, US official have stated that, first and foremost, a diplomatic solution is Washington's and the rest of the international community's chief goal.

While Israel prior to the start of the negotiations in Turkey's Istanbul in April took the "lone wolf" approach, and several remarks by officials hinted that a military strike was in the offing if the international community failed to act.

Israel's "impose-peaceful-measures-before-I-impose-military- ones" statements were credited with convincing the European Union to impose an import ban on Iranian oil, which is scheduled to begin on June 1.

However, after the talks began, such remarks became scarce, possibly due to a series of high level meetings between Israeli and American officials on Iran. So far, it appears that the United States has been able to convince Israel to -- for the moment, at least -- allow the diplomatic process to run its course, and that no further gains can be made by talking about a strike, especially due to a widely held assumption that Israel cannot carry out an effective attack alone.

So far, Netanyahu has made no official statement since Thursday's Baghdad session concluded.

Iranian intentions

Looking forward, Kam said that the talks would continue, adding that there still exist a possibility that the Iranians will change their mind and be ready to be more flexible on key issues.

Maghen, on the other hand, was more skeptical about Iran's intentions.

"Looking at the history of these negotiations that goes back to the 1990's and it has been one long laughingstock. Basically, the ones who are laughing are the Iranians," Maghen said.

He added that he was astonished by the international community's continued desire to continue negotiations with Iran.

Maghen pointed out that, prior to every meeting, Iran's representatives state that, while they will be happy to meet with the international representatives, they have no intention of ending the enrichment of uranium.

And despite this, the international community is still willing to negotiate.