Yuval Steinitz - Minister of Intelligence, Israel HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk from Jerusalem. There is an unmistakable sense of

diplomatic apprehension in Israel right now, and at the heart of it, I

recognition that on a number of key issues, from Iran and its nuclear

programme to peace talks with the Palestinians, Israel is out of step

with its key ally the United States. My guest today is senior Israeli

Minister Yuval Steinitz. In strategic terms, can Israel afford

to go it alone? Yuval Steinitz, welcome to HARDtalk.

My pleasure. In this country, you have responsibility for what is

called the Iran file. Iran has a new president, and there is a new tone

coming from the politicians there, and America clearly wants to in

gauge with the new leadership. Wide as Israel not support that American

strategy? We hear a new tone from Hassan Rouhani, but we have to see

if there is new substance. Tone is important, but not sufficient.

Israel is not against diplomatic negotiation. This has been going on

and off for almost ten years, starting in 2003. We are not closing

the door to the diplomatic solution. On the contrary, if the United

States and the P five plus one will stick to a diplomatic solution, we

will endorse it. If tone is important, is it not time that

Israel changes its tone? You yourself said the other day that the

new Iranian president represents a charm and smiles attack that is a

danger to the whole world. Your Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu,

described Hassan Rouhani as a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think it was

important to emphasise that this is on the one hand, are more positive,

moderate tone. But you shouldn't be misled. You are getting reports from

your own military intelligence that something significant is happening

in Iran. A leaked report said that what it sees inside Iran is real

changes in the internal workings inside Iran that is significant and

strategic. This is true, and I really believe, hope, that Hassan

Rouhani is serious about making domestic reforms. Reducing the

pressure on young people in opposition, reducing persecution,

sometimes the execution of homosexuals. But is it a new

substance? So far we haven't seen any real willingness of the Iranians

to give up the military nuclear project. Let me be very clear. There

can be a very simple, logical solution. Let Iran have the

permission to produce nuclear electricity, and the only request is

that they will buy the fuel from Holland or France, like most

countries that produce nuclear electricity. Sweden, Alger,

Switzerland, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, many other countries

produce nuclear energy, but they buy their nuclear fuel elsewhere. But it

is not Israel's prerogative to tell Iran that it cannot under any

circumstances in which uranium. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran has a right under controlled circumstances

to enrich uranium, and the new government in terror and says they

are paired to talk about the scale, the level, the volume of an

enrichment programme, but they are not prepared to abandon their right

to enrichment. It is a right and duty especially in of such

measurement, do they have the right to wipe out these reforms? But they

need to be more specific. There is no automatic legitimate right to

enrich uranium. The UN Security Council already decided there were

five legitimate decisions that you cannot build centrifuge facilities

to enrich uranium. Why should Iran not comply with Security Council

resolutions? It is not Israel, it is the UN Security Council resolution.

It is very simple. If what the Iranians really want is civilian

nuclear energy, then what we in the West, in the world, in Britain,

Europe and the United States, we want to be completely confident that

they cannot produce a bomb. There is a simple solution. They simply have

to buy their nuclear fuel, like Sweden, like Indonesia, from Holland

or from Russia, and so it is a win-win situation. They will have

nuclear electricity and we will have the confidence that they cannot

produce the bomb. You are not on the same page as the Americans right now

when it comes to handling Iran. You yourself saw Vice President Jo Biden

recently in Washington, and they were claiming it had been cordial

conversation, but there were differences between the two of you.

What precisely is the difference between you Washington right now? I

concluded three days of talks is on the US -Israel strategic dialogue.

What is the difference between you and the United States on Iran right

now? We disagree about the final goal. The final goal is not just to

prevent Iran from producing the weapon, but to prevent Iran from the

capacity to produce the weapon, which is something more important,

different, crucial. The difference is not about the final goal, to

prevent the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in Iran, but how to

get there, about the tactic to get to the final goal, and about the

minimal conditions that we can ensure the world that Iran cannot

produce a bomb. Yes, because the American administration is asking

the Congress, the Senate in particular, to suspend deliberations

on a new round of sanctions on Iran. There is also talk in the

administration offering some financial carrot to Iran if it is

cooperative and gives concessions. There is talk of the financial

freezing of assets. As Israel think that is a mistake? We think it would

be unwise to ease the pressure on Iran. They are now coming to the

table. We have seen willingness only because of the severe economic

pressure. So don't lose your tool, don't ease the pressure, before you

get your final goal. An inclusive, satisfactory agreement. Do you

understand why some indifferent quarters of the world listen to your

admonishments about Iran and its global nuclear threat, and they

sense a hypocrisy, a hypocrisy based upon the fact that Israel has

hundreds of nuclear devices, refuses to acknowledge it has them, refuses

to sign the NPT, but still expects the world to listen to its message

when it comes to Iran and its nuclear programme?

I am not going to acknowledge or refer to anything, but... That, if I

may say so, is the point. Israel refuses any element of transparency

about it own military nuclear... I am going to answer the question. The

very comparison is not only out raging me. It is very clear that

Israel is not Iran. You can compare to other countries. Israel is a

tiny, vibrant democracy that is trying to survive in a dangerous

neighbourhood. Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. There is no

comparison here. My point is this: That you say it is absolutely

inconceivable for the safety of the world that Iran should be allowed to

acquire the nuclear weapons. Many nations have nuclear weapons. If

Iran were to acquire it, the world would have to contain Iran, and it

seems to me, given how the world works, it is reasonable to assume

that containment of Iran would also work, would it not? First, I want to

remind us, what is Iran? It is not just a brutal regime. It is number

one in the world, number one in the world in sponsoring terrorism by

money, munitions and training. Iran is the only country in the world

that supports Bashar al-Assad brutalCivil War. It is number one in

the world in executions per capita. Even though Hassan Rouhani has

changed the tone, it is still a very problematic regime. I understand the

depth of Israel's feeling about Iran, but it seems to me that

something important has changed in the last few months, and that is the

power of Israel's message that, if the rest of the world won't tackle

the Iranians nuclear problem, and you personally continue to insist

that Iran could acquire weapons capability within months, your

message is that if the rest of the world won't do it, Israel will. But

I put it to you that in the new circumstances with Hassan Rouhani

nPower, the international community engaging in a new diplomatic

initiative with Iran, the notion that Israel in those circumstances

would go it alone and militarily strike at Teheran is becoming

inconceivable. Would you agree? I don't want to elaborate about what

Israel would do. We reserve the right to defend ourselves against

any threat. But I don't want to elaborate upon it, because we do

hope that the diplomatic process will succeed. If it will be so,

If necessary, we will defend ourselves. You will go it alone

against the wishes of the United States? I don't want to elaborate.

We did destroy a nuclear reactor in 1981, and according to some rumours,

we did it, or somebody did it in secret. In Syria. But we do hope

that there will be a satisfactory diplomatic solution. And let me be

very specific. We want to compare it to the successful Libyan model, and

not to the North Korean model. Are you aware that the former head of

the Mossad who spoke to us just over a year ago said a military strike by

Israel against Iran would be counter-productive because Israel

could not achieve the elimination on their own of the technology.

Secondly, it would simply give the hardliners in Iran a green light to

finally make that decision to go for the bomb. He was my friend and an

excellent head of Mossad. But I would disagree. Anyhow, I am not

going to elaborate about what Israel should do militarily about Iran and

I am not going to do that. I understand that and I have heard it

before. Let me ask you about your relationship with Washington. The

former vice president said the other day that America's allies do not

have a lot of confidence in the current administration. He said they

are fearful of the Iranian city ocean is going to go the same way as

the recent Syrian situation. He said, bold talk from the

administration, but nothing effective done. Is that the way you

feel? We have always looked to the final result. The fact that Syria

was forced and signed on an agreement to totally dismantle its

chemical weapons stockpile and to dismantle its capacity of such

weapons in the future is very good. They gave up the capacity to produce

chemical weapons in the future. Now we have the wait and see if it is

successfully implemented, but I think the agreement brokered by both

Russia and the United States with Syria is a very good example of how

international pressure, including very strong American pressure, can

produce sufficient agreement, sufficient results. Therefore I am

not totally pessimistic about Iran. If Syria gave up its weapons, Iran

might give up its military, nuclear programme. I want to go through a

couple of other issues. One issue is Egypt. There has been disquiet in

Israel about America's decision to cut a substantial amount of its

assistance to Egypt. Benjamin Netanyahu says if America withdraws

much of that age, it poses a challenge to the sustainability of

the camp David peace accord. Do you think they have made a big mistake?

I think it is very important now for the government of Egypt to stabilise

the system politically and economically. It is a very important

country. They are fighting terrorism and preventing smuggling of arms and

missiles into the Gaza Strip. Those missiles are being used against us.

You are happy with the generals in charge and you want the Americans to

go on funding the Egyptian government, even though the generals

are running the country? I always hope to see true Western-style

democracy in the middle east. I hope this will be the final result of

what has been called in the past the Arab spring and the world should

help the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people in this difficult

time. A final point is the peace talks with the Palestinians which

after a mammoth effort by the Secretary of State John Kerry are

back on after a long hiatus. Benjamin Netanyahu says he is

prepared to contemplate a two state solution, a land for peace deal. Use

it in his cabinet as a senior member. In 2008 you are quoted as

saying, the idea of a two state solution should be dead. A

Palestinian state into gear and the West Bank would bring about

Israel's demise. What has changed? First, you are right. We highly

appreciate these efforts. Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government

made enormous efforts to resume the peace talks with the Palestinians,

including the very problematic release of 100 convicted terrorists,

murderers, including some steps to enhance the Palestinian economy. We

do not beat now with our Palestinian neighbours with the hope to reach a

final status of two states for two peoples. You were adamant, you are a

hawk in 2000 who said, forget about a Palestine state, it would be the

death of Israel. Am I to take seriously that you now believe in a

two state solution roughly along the lines of the pre-1967 border? We are

ready to make difficult concessions for peace. But what we get in return

will be genuine peace and recognition of Israel's right as a

Jewish state. Despite the resumption of those peace talks, the

Palestinian incitement by the Palestinian government in the

official media against Israel's very existence and the Jews is

horrifying. The main message is that sooner or later Israel should be

destroyed and the Jews should be expelled from here. Said that has to

change? It produced a big obstacle for peace. Are we going to get

genuine peace or just a piece of paper? That has to change, but would

you accept also what has to change is Israel's determination to build

more Jewish settlements in occupied land. The number of settlements and

houses constructed in the last six months, compared to six months last

year, has gone up 70%. New settlement plans are in the

pipeline. Would you accept that has to change if you were to be taken

seriously? Not at all. I tell you why. The issue of the settlements

was left as a final status solution in the accord. You are changing the

status of the West Bank every single day by building more and more Jewish

settlements. We think it is important to keep agreement to

achieve future agreements. If this was left as a final status

negotiations, all the complaints are unjust. I was sitting in the room

when John Kerry negotiated the final resumption of the talks a few months

ago and he made it very clear to both sides he was on the line with

Benjamin Netanyahu and on the other line with Mahmoud Abbas, the

Israelis agreed to release 100 prisoners, but there will be no

freeze on building settlements. The fact the Palestinians are

complaining, but they agreed just four months ago. This is odd and

strange. Anyhow, once we will be able to reach a final status, the

end of the conflict, the peace agreement, which will be genuine

peace and security for Israel, I am confident we will be able to resolve

all other problems. If the Israelis know what they get in return is

genuine peace and security, 70 or 80% of the Israelis will support it.

We have to end there. Yuval Steinitz, thank you very much.