What If Iran Offers To Trade Nukes For End of Israeli Occupation?
Akiva Eldar, the distinguished journalist for Ha'aretz, Israel's most influential newspaper, wonders what the world would do if Iran offers to give up its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for Israel ending the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. (Israeli troops left Gaza but still control all its borders, air space and sea lanes).
Eldar writes: "Let us assume that tomorrow Iran informs its American interlocutors that it will cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, abide by all United Nations resolutions relating to nuclear weapons, and recognize Israel - but on two conditions: first, that Iran will receive assurances from the international community that it will immediately act to implement UN resolutions calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state in territories conquered in 1967, and a commitment to expedite the end of Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights; secondly, that Israel be forced to open its reactor in Dimona to IAEA inspectors, to ensure that the country has developed nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes rather than for producing dozens of atomic bombs, which foreign press reports say do, in fact, exist."
Eldar's scenario is not that far-fetched. He cites Flynt Leverett, the senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council during President George W. Bush's first term in office, who stated "that on at least two occasions, Washington ignored conciliatory gestures from Tehran." Eldar continued:
In a lecture he gave in June 2006 before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Leverett recalled that in the spring of 2003 - a short time after the U.S. invasion of Iraq - the Swiss ambassador to Tehran relayed to the White House an Iranian offer which included three elements: an agreement to launch negotiations with the U.S. administration over the nuclear issue, to adopt the Arab League initiative {i.e, the exchange of the occupied territories for full peace with the entire Arab world], and to cease support of Palestinian terrorist organizations based outside of the territories. The Bush administration ignored the message.
According to an article written by Leverett at the time, this was not the first time that an Iranian offer was met with a cold shoulder. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, he noted, Iran offered the Bush administration assistance in stopping the terrorism sowed by Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Bush preferred to adopt the 'Axis of Evil' strategy. In a New York Times op-ed piece which he co-authored with his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, Leverett warned U.S. President Barack Obama not to repeat the same mistakes as his predecessor vis-à-vis Iran.
It is possible that Iran will push for this kind of linkage again. Why not? For Americans and Israelis, United Nations resolutions on Israel and the Palestinians are mere suggestions while resolutions relating to Iran are demands that must be respected.
It should be no surprise that the rest of the world - and certainly not the Iranians - do not share that view.
It is unlikely that the United States would acquiesce to all the elements to which Leverett refers. But we might want to consider the possibility that Iran will offer this kind of trade. One way to avert being put on that particular hot seat is by promoting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process now. We can start by insisting that Israel completely freeze settlements - as the President has demanded - ease the blockade of Gaza and begin immediate negotiations toward the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
After all, those three demands already constitute US policy. We just don't try very hard to see them implemented. We should - not only to further our negotiations with Iran, not just for the Palestinians, but also for our ally, Israel, which can only look ahead to a bleak future until the occupation ends.
