News Analysis: Israel on the move to influence final Iran nuclear deal

Earlier this month, Iran and the world powers reached a historic agreement on Tehran's nuclear program in Switzerland, paving the way for a comprehensive deal several months from now.

The agreement imposes limits to Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for a lifting of economic sanctions against the Islamic republic.

Despite widespread praise of the accord, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stayed a strong critic of the agreement. He charges the deal threatens Israel's very survival and poses a grave danger to the whole Middle East region, without really curbing Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu has immediately gone on the offensive in an effort to influence the final version of a possible nuclear deal.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev told Xinhua that the deal should demand Iran stop its support for terrorist groups worldwide and pose tougher limits to Iran's nuclear program.

"Israel would like to see a different deal, a better deal. A deal that really does roll back Iran's nuclear infrastructure, roll back their ability to produce nuclear weapons," he said.

However, in the last few days, the Israeli government's stance seems to have softened. In a document outlining its demands, Israel has dropped the request that Iran recognizes Israel's right to exist and to destroy Iran's ballistic missiles.

Gershon Baskin, an Israeli analyst of Middle East politics, told Xinhua that this reflects a change in strategy, but not in Israel's core demands.

"I think that they're taking a more intelligent tactic of doing what Israel always did, which is take these issues and concerns behind the scenes, behind the headlines and not in the front pages of the news and the television screens," Baskin said.

Netanyahu's efforts are concentrated on lobbying the U.S. Congress to help him stop a final deal, an approach that promises to bear fruits, Baskin believed.

"The U.S. Congress, the Senate, doesn't need to approve the deal, but the Senate needs to approve the removing of sanctions, so the Senate has a strong arm against the president on a deal that they think is not appropriate or good not only for Israel but for the United States," he explained.

As for Israel's impact on the final negotiations, Baskin believes that Netanyu's pressure will very likely have an influence on the talks.

"I think that the writing, the drafting of the final agreement that will be done by the end of June - if it would be done - would consider some of the points that Israel's raised because they are valid," he said.

If all else fail, there is still the military option of Israel launching an attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructures, a very risky venture, Baskin warned.

"I don't think it's a question of the results because an Israeli strike would do damage. The question is the aftermath of an Israeli strike: what kind of damage would Israel absorb then with thousands, perhaps 100,000 or 200,000 rockets pointed at us from Southern Lebanon, from Iran itself and the possibility of Hamas joining in an attack?" he said.

But beyond Israel's concerns lie other considerations: for the United States and Iran the interim deal promises to end an almost 35-year diplomatic freeze between the two countries.

At stake is U.S. President Barak Obama's legacy and the chance to strike a landmark deal with the U.S.'s arch-enemy Iran.

A final agreement with Iran would also put a seal of approval on the Obama presidency's approach to international relations, Baskin noted.

"Obama came into the White House, came into politics with a worldview which is very different than the worldview of George W. Bush before him, who thought that matters could be settled through the use of force. And Obama has very much believed, in his entire view of his life and this world, that diplomacy is the new tool of managing conflicts," he said.

Iran's nuclear talks have pitched Netanyahu face to face against Obama. Netanyahu's speech on Iran delivered to the U.S. Congress last March brought relations between the two leaders to a new low.

Still, the risk of further straining this relationship won't stop Israel from continuing to press its case, Regev stressed.

"Israel and the United States have a very firm and solid alliance, and that's not going to change. What we have today is a difference of opinion, a difference of opinion among friends and allies... We'll continue to make our case because the Iranian nuclear program doesn't just threaten us, it threatens the peace and security of the world." Enditem