Ambassador Ron Dermer's speech at the AIPAC National Summit in Napa, California, October 15, 2013
This is my first public speech since becoming Israel's Ambassador to the United States.
And so I want to use this opportunity to ask all of you to join me in thanking my predecessor, Michael Oren, for the outstanding job he did as Ambassador.
Michael has left me some very big shoes to fill.
Size 13.5 to be exact -- as Michael proudly noted the other day at a farewell party for him in Congress.
Well, I may not be able to fill those shoes.
But my size 11s can certainly fit into those shoes.
And fitting into those shoes means continuing the incredible work that Michael did during these past four years.
Of course, now that I'm Ambassador, people can expect to see a few changes.
Michael was born and raised in New Jersey.
I was born and raised in Florida.
So the Jets and Sopranos are out. The Dolphins and CSI Miami are in.
Michael lamented that he often had to spend more time defending New Jersey than he did defending Israel.
So let me say right up front that I'm not going to tolerate jokes about our world famous rodent in Orlando or about hanging chads in Palm Beach.
All kidding aside, what Michael and I share as two sons of America is a profound love for this great country and a profound appreciation for its unique relationship with Israel.
And that is why I am proud to be here today with people who are dedicated to ensuring that this unique relationship gets stronger and deeper year after year.
The relationship between Israel and America has changed dramatically over the past six and half decades.
In the first two decades, it was morally deep but strategically shallow.
Israel fought with Czech rifles in 1948 and with French planes in 1967.
Following the Six Day War, our relationship changed.
Overnight, a vulnerable Jewish state was transformed into a powerful piece on America's side in the global chess match with the Soviet Union.
Since the end of the Cold War - and particularly since 9/11 - Israel has gone from being a strategic asset to a strategic partner of the United States.
That's right, a partner. Not merely a friend. Not merely an ally . A partner.
Friends share common values. Allies share common interests.
Partners share both. And partners work together to protect and promote those interests and values.
During the past four years in the Prime Minister's Office, I have seen just how broad and deep the partnership between American and Israel is - in security, in intelligence, in diplomacy, economy, trade, and a host of other areas that are too many to mention.
And as turbulence continues to rock the Middle East, our partnership will become even more critical to defending our common security and advancing the common cause of peace.
Nothing threatens our common security more than a nuclear-armed Iran.
A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel and a grave threat to the peace and security of the world.
Not surprisingly, it was the main topic on the agenda when President Obama met Prime Minister Netanyahu two weeks ago in Washington.
That meeting could not have come at a better time.
It gave both leaders a chance to listen to one another.
It gave them both an opportunity to try to forge a common policy as a new round of negotiations with Iran gets underway.
I want to make Israel's position as clear as possible.
Israel would welcome a diplomatic solution that truly dismantles Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevents Iran from achieving breakout nuclear capability in the future.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Iran is interested in such a solution.
Iran is entering these negotiations with one clear goal:
To remove the sanctions that threaten to cripple the Iranian economy and which have put enormous pressure on the Iranian regime.
The strategy Iran is using to achieve that goal is also clear.
Offer cosmetic concessions to the international community that leaves Iran's nuclear weapons program essentially intact.
In exchange, get sanctions relief that will reverse the tide of economic pressure against Iran.
Secretary Kerry rightly said that no deal is better than a bad deal.
The question is, ladies and gentlemen, what is a bad deal?
And the answer that Prime Minister Netanyahu has given is that a bad deal is a partial deal - a partial deal in which Iran makes concessions that can be reversed in weeks in exchange for the easing of a sanctions regime that took years to put in place.
A partial deal is a bad deal because the minor sanctions relief that Iran is demanding may prove more far-reaching than people believe.
You see, when the momentum of increasing sanctions is reversed, the international scaffolding propping up the sanctions regime will begin to collapse. The economic pressures inside Iran will decline rapidly.
And a partial deal is a bad deal because confidence building proposals that were put forward by the international community in the past inspire very little confidence today.
A year ago, when Iran had many fewer - and less advanced - centrifuges, those proposals would have set Iran’s nuclear program back a year or two.
Today, when Iran has 19,000 centrifuges, including 1,000 advanced centrifuges, it would set that program back only a month or two.
Here’s another way to think about it.
Six months ago, the international community offered Iran a certain price for a car. Iran rejected that price.
Now, after driving the car about 100,000 miles, Iran wants the international community to pay the same price.
That's not a good deal.
And that's why Prime Minister Netanyahu has implored world leaders to reject partial deals, hold firm and increase sanctions.
He has said that only a full deal will work – a full deal in which Iran gets full sanctions relief only after its nuclear weapons program and breakout nuclear capability have been fully dismantled.
At the UN, the Prime Minister outlined the 4 steps Iran must take to implement such a deal.
First, cease all enrichment inside Iran.
Second, remove all the stockpiles of enriched uranium from Iran.
Third, dismantle the infrastructure for a nuclear breakout capability, including the underground nuclear facility near Qom and the advanced centrifuges in Natanz.
And fourth, stop all work on the heavy water reactor in Arak aimed at producing plutonium.
I know this list may sound a bit complicated, but it really isn't.
You see, there are two paths to building nuclear weapons - a uranium path and a plutonium path.
What Prime Minister Netanyahu has put forward is a simple proposal that ensures that these two Iranian paths to the bomb are completely blocked off.
Iran's plutonium path to a bomb requires a heavy water reactor. No heavy water reactor. No bomb. Simple enough.
The uranium path to a nuclear bomb requires the capability to enrich uranium at a high level. No enrichment. No bomb. Also simple enough.
Now some people say that you don't have to stop all uranium enrichment inside Iran.
You can stop the high enrichment, they say, and let Iran continue low enrichment.
Here's the problem with that idea.
A country that has mastered the capability to enrich uranium to a low level has also mastered the capability to enrich uranium to a high level.
That's not my insight. It's the insight of Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani.
In his book, published only two years ago, he said that a country that can enrich uranium to 3.5% can enrich it to 90% - that's military grade uranium - and that a country that has mastered the nuclear fuel cycle can essentially produce nuclear weapons.
That's precisely right.
And that's precisely why the Prime Minister has insisted that Iran not retain any residual enrichment capability.
Some people believe that this demand is unreasonable.
After all, they argue, Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear program.
Why a country awash in oil and gas would feel the need to have nuclear power should make even the least skeptical among us question Iran's motives.
But leaving this obvious point aside, it's simply not true that Iran needs to have domestic enrichment capability to have peaceful nuclear energy.
Seventeen countries, including Canada, Mexico, Spain,and Sweden, have nuclear reactors that generate nuclear power but do not have domestic enrichment capability.
These countries have nuclear power at home, but get their nuclear fuel from abroad.
You know why those countries don't insist on having a domestic enrichment capability?
Because they don't want nuclear weapons.
And you know why Iran is insisting on having a domestic enrichment capability?
Because Iran does want nuclear weapons.
And as for Iran's so called right to enrich. It doesn't exist.
Next thing you know, Rouhani will be quoting Jefferson about the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of plutonium.
Ladies and gentlemen, in demanding a domestic enrichment capability, what Iran is saying to the international community is trust us.
Trust Iran?
Iran openly calls for Israel annihilation.
It is the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism.
It is aiding and abetting Assad in the murder of over 100,000 Syrians.
It destabilizes regimes across the Middle East.
And it has deceived the international community about its nuclear program time and again.
This is a regime that we're going to trust with a domestic uranium enrichment capability?
As the Prime Minister made clear at the UN, the approach of the international community toward Iran should not be Trust and Verify.
It should be Distrust, Dismantle and Verify - again and again and again.
The international community must reject any solution that leaves Iran with a domestic enrichment capability.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Iran is heading to negotiations tomorrow with the P5+1 hoping to con all of us with a classic shell game.
With deftness and charm, Iran will be moving all sorts of things around the negotiating table -- 3.5% enrichment, 20% enrichment, heavy water reactors, underground nuclear facilities, inspections regimes and many many other things.
It will be hard to keep track of what's hapenning.
But let's keep our eye on the ball.
That means rejecting partial deals and asking one simple question:
Can Iran enrich uranium on its soil or not?
If it can, it's a bad deal.
If it can’t, then a real diplomatic solution is possible.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
One of the interesting things that has happened is that the fear of a nuclear Iran has brought Israel and the Arab world closer together.
We hope that our common fears and common interests will eventually blossom into a common search for peace.
Israel seeks peace with the wider Arab world, as well as with our Palestinian neighbors.
Israel appreciates Secretary Kerry's efforts to relaunch peace talks and the commitment that both he and President Obama have to securing a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Prime Minister Netanyahu remains fully committed to a solution of two states for two peoples, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel.
The Prime Minister laid out his vision for peace in a speech at Bar-Ilan University four years ago, and he expanded on that vision in speeches two years ago to the Knesset and again to the American Congress.
Only a few hours ago at the opening of the new Knesset session, Prime Minister again expressed his determination to end our conflict with the Palestinians once and for all.
And over these past four years, Prime Minister Netanyahu has matched his words with actions.
He has taken many steps to advance peace with the Palestinians - from removing hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints to enacting a settlement freeze to most recently, releasing terrorists from Israeli prisons.
As someone who has worked closely with the Prime Minister for over 13 years, I have no doubt that he is prepared to make painful concessions as part of a mutual and historic compromise with the Palestinians.
And Israel hopes that we have a Palestinian partner who is also prepared to make an historic compromise.
But we know that hope is not a policy.
We know that Israel cannot afford to simply walk out of territory hoping for the best.
We tried that in Lebanon and in Gaza.
Rather than bring peace, these withdrawals placed two Iranian terror bases on our borders and brought down thousands of rockets onto our cities.
Israel will not repeat the same mistake a third time.
My fellow Israelis don't know that much about baseball.
But somehow the concept of three strikes and you're out isn't lost in translation.
So Israel is conducting negotiations hopeful that a solution can be found, but mindful about the dangers ahead.
We hope that the Palestinian leadership will finally be prepared to recognize the Jewish state and finally be prepared to accept a solution that fully addresses Israel's security needs.
When a Palestinian leader can finally admit that the Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in their own ancestral homeland, then the door to peace will swing wide open.
And when a Palestinian leader can finally take seriously the security concerns of the most threatened nation on earth, Israelis and Palestinians will walk through that door together.
Prime Minister Netanyahu hopes President Abbas will be that leader.
Time will tell if President Abbas is prepared to be that leader.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me end today where I began.
By thanking my predecessor, Michael Oren, for the outstanding job he did.
With your help these past four years, he has left me a US-Israel relationship that is stronger than ever.
And I know the enormous responsibility that I have, as Israel’s ambassador, to safeguard and strengthen what is the single most important relationship that Israel has in the world.
I am the son of an American father born in the Bronx and a Sabra mother born in Gedera.
You could say that the strong bond between our two countries is hardwired in my DNA.
And with your help, I will work every day to ensure that that bond is deeper and more powerful than ever.