Israel on North Korea's Nuclear Test: It's All About Iran

It took less than a day after Pyongyang’s second nuclear test on 25 May for Israel to identify the real significance: Iran.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that the international community had to do everything to prevent Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. He told Army Radio: "To our regret we see a mad arms race.....Everything must be done in order thwart their attempts to reach a nuclear capability." Lieberman added:

Up until today there were neither sanctions against Iran nor against North Korea. They need to be completely closed in terms of financial activities; the two states need to understand they are dependent on the supply of petrol because they have no refineries.

This, however, was far from Israel's most ambitious attempt to put Iran at the centre of a global anti-Israel nuclear conspiracy. For that, we have to go to Latin America.

According to Ha'aretz, a secret Israeli government report states that Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program. For those who might have forgotten, Venezuela expelled the Israeli ambassador and Bolivia cut its relations with Israel after the latter’s offensive in Gaza. Thus they join the list of ‘dangerous’ countries whose activities should prompt more hawkish US policies.

The ultimate warning from the North Korean developments had already come from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "If Israel did not take out the Iranian threat, no one would." Of course, for this outcome, he constructed the ‘unique’ situation of Israel in the face of its ‘existential threat.’ The never-ending "existential threat" was outlined to his fellow Likud Party members:

Israel is not like other countries. We are faced with security challenges that no other country faces, and our need to provide a response to these is critical, and we are answering the call....These are not regular times. The danger is hurtling toward us.

Of course, the view from the other side is very different. Responding to Israeli charges that Bolivia and Venezuela were supplying uranium to Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted:

There is no cooperation between us. We are opposed to the nuclear proliferation; we are opposed to storing nukes. We have announced this repeatedly.

So the North Korean test becomes just one more rationale in the ongoing process of "securitization". While Israel tries to erect an internationally-supported justification for hard-line policies against Tehran, putting other countries like Bolivia and Venezuela beyond the acceptable, Iran uses those Israeli declarations to set up its own "reasonable" global system, which just happens to include bigger and better --- if non-nuclear --- missiles.

Monday's Israel-US Showdown: Iran First or Palestine First?

Related Post: Iran - Following Up the Roxana Saberi Case

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit on Monday to Washington is shaping up as a critical early moment --- even amidst the torture controversy, Afghanistan-Pakistan, and a minor thing called the global economy --- in the Obama Presidency.

The Israelis are sticking to the line that something has to be done about the Tehran menace before they will address other regional issues, in particular negotiations with Palestine. That "something" is unlikely to be military action; instead, Netanyahu will ask Washington to step up economic sanctions. At the very least, the demand will be that the US break off its "engagement" with the Iranian Government. (An editorial by Efraim Halevy, the former head of Israel's intelligence service Mossad, in Thursday's Financial Times of London is a must-read: "The 'sequence' must be clear: Iran first.)

Leading Obama officials, notably Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have already countered that the issue of Israeli-Palestinian talks must be the priority. Iran's nuclear programme should not be the excuse (the Americans have stopped short of the word "blackmail") to stall on a two-state solution, which Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, still oppose.

How serious is the debate? Consider this story, which just emerged: two weeks ago CIA Director Leon Panetta visited Israel to warn Netanyahu against an airstrike on Iran. Consider, however, that Israeli officials framed this as a warning against a "surprise attack", leaving open the possibility that Tel Aviv could attack if the US was notified in advance.

And consider also this "information", first published in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz but then circulated in The Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration and its European allies are setting a target of early October to determine whether engagement with Iran is making progress or should lead to sanctions.

They also are developing specific benchmarks to gauge Iranian behavior. Those include whether Tehran is willing to let United Nations monitors make snap inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities that are now off-limits, and whether it will agree to a "freeze for freeze" -- halting uranium enrichment in return for holding off on new economic sanctions -- as a precursor to formal negotiations.

What adds a bit of spice to the claim, implying that Iran has less than five months to meet US conditions, is The Journal citation of "senior Administration officials" as sources. The indication is that there is still a battle among Obama's advisors over whether to treat "engagement" as an ongoing negotiation or whether to combine it with guaranteed sanctions if Tehran does not make the required moves within a quick (in diplomatic terms) period of time.

That possibility, while intriguing, is still secondary to what happens on Monday. What President Obama needs now is not an Iranian concession but an Israeli one. If Netanyahu holds fast and does not open up the possibility of "genuine" talks with the Palestinian Authority, including discussions of political status as well as economic development and security, then Obama's message --- launched on Inauguration Day --- of a new day in the Middle East is looking shaky.

Of course, the two leaders may fudge the outcome, claiming success in an ongoing discussion without making any specific commitments on the next step in the Israeli-Palestinian process. And Washington is guarding against disappointment: that is why it left eight days between the visit of Netanyahu and that of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on 26 May and another two days before Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas comes to the White House to see what's happening.

That, however, would not be enough. Obama has tied himself to an address to the "Islamic world" on 4 June from Cairo. His rhetorical approaches so far --- the Inaugural Address, the interview on Al Arabiya television in January, the speech from Turkey last month --- have been warmly received. This time, however, he has to bring something of substance to the table. Otherwise, it will be a speech too far.

Forget that "first 100 days" media fluff. Monday will be a true example of when the initial stages of a Presidency transform into defining moments.