Defense minister: Iran deal raises likelihood of war

World powers should pursue a better agreement with Tehran over its controversial nuclear program, one that will put an end to Iranian aggression in the region, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece Wednesday.

Ya’alon, a former IDF chief of staff, also blamed intelligence failures for leaving two key Iranian nuclear facilities undetected, and hit back at critics who have said that Israel’s position on the agreement amounts to warmongering.

“The choice is not between this bad deal and war,” Ya’alon said.

“The alternative is a better deal that significantly rolls back Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and links the lifting of restrictions on its nuclear program to an end of Iran’s aggression in the region, its terrorism across the globe and its threats to annihilate Israel,” he said.

“This alternative requires neither war nor putting our faith in tools that have already failed us,” he added.

In an interview Monday with NPR, President Barack Obama appeared to let slip that the Islamic Republic would be capable of breaking out to an atomic weapon almost immediately within 13 years — even by following the deal to the letter in its current form. State Department officials attempted to walk back the comments on Tuesday.

Ya’alon echoed Obama’s ostensible concerns, and noted that future penalties on Iran would become ineffective once economic sanctions were lifted.

“Israel has made clear its grave concerns about the framework’s fundamental elements and omissions. The vast nuclear infrastructure to be left in Iran will give it an unacceptably short breakout time to building a bomb,” he wrote.

“[The sanctions on Tehran] took years to put in place and even longer to become effective. Once lifted, they cannot be snapped back after future Iranian violations,” he said. “It is fantasy to think the sanctions can be restored and become effective in the exceedingly short breakout time provided by the terms of the framework.”

Ya’alon also dismissed claims that a hardened stance vis-a-vis Iran could encourage further belligerence or even goad the United States or Israel into war.

“The claim that the only alternative to the framework is war is false,” Ya’alon said.

“It both obscures the failure to attain better terms from Iran and stifles honest and open debate by suggesting that if you don’t agree, you must be a warmonger. It also feeds and reflects the calumny that Israel in particular is agitating for war,” he said.

The six world powers — known as the P5+1 — have until June 30 to hammer out the terms of a final agreement with Iran.