Tuesday, March 20th | 4 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

November 25, 2013 5:55 pm

Mind the Gap on Iran: A Time to Reassure Allies and Rebuild Trust

avatar by David Harris

Email a copy of "Mind the Gap on Iran: A Time to Reassure Allies and Rebuild Trust" to a friend

U.S. President Barack Obama signs the guest book at the Prime Minister's Residence.

Israel appears to have come up with the short end of the stick in the just-announced Iran deal.

While President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are going to great lengths to say that Israel ought to feel safer, at least for the life of the six-month agreement, Israel’s top leaders clearly don’t agree.

In fact, official American and Israeli views couldn’t be further apart right now.

While President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are going to great lengths to say that Israel ought to feel safer, at least for the life of the six-month agreement, Israel’s top leaders clearly don’t agree.

In fact, official American and Israeli views couldn’t be further apart right now.

Washington believes that while the deal entails risks, it offers the first chance in years to move Iran in a more constructive and peaceful direction. The administration further challenges its critics to suggest an alternative path that would not lead inevitably to war.

Jerusalem, on the other hand, asserts this accord is an error of historic dimensions, likely to turn into a permanent arrangement that enshrines Iran’s right to enrich uranium and keeps intact the $100 billion-plus nuclear architecture that Tehran has been steadily constructing.

Obviously, only time will tell which side is closer to the truth.

Meanwhile, despite repeated American claims of unprecedented cooperation on the Iran issue between Washington and Jerusalem, it is evident there were limits.

Israel must now take into account that the U.S. held backchannel talks with the Iranians over many months, and barely, if at all, kept it in the loop as those talks proceeded.

It’s also not clear how much the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Emiratis and other American allies were in the know, or, for that matter, our closest European partners.

Moreover, Israel — and the Gulf nations — must grapple with the fact that their oft-expressed concerns about the direction of the Geneva-based negotiations went largely unheeded, despite their belief that the U.S. considered them vital partners whose perspective was worth taking into account.

Having effectively been told to keep quiet and trust Washington, they must now feel quite abandoned.

Former senior State Department official Nicholas Burns may have captured this realpolitik view best in the New York Times (Nov. 23), saying: “[I]t’s in the American national interest to try to make this negotiation work. If it’s not in the Israeli interest or Saudi interest, so be it.”

Yet, how can Israel — and the Gulf nations — roll over and play dead when what happens affects them far more than any of the P5+1 nations?

After all, it is Israel that has been the most frequent target of Iran’s anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic venom. It is Israel whose very existence has been questioned by Iran’s current leaders. It is Israel that has felt the long arm of Iran through Iranian-backed Hezbollah. And it is Israel that Iran seeks to wipe off the world map.

Yet those who wish the Israeli prime minister to stop speaking up conveniently distort his government’s position.

First, had it not been for Israel’s perseverance, there might not have been the global attention to Iran’s nuclear program we see today.

Second, if Iran was on the ropes because of crippling sanctions, this was in no small measure because Israel pressed for escalating measures, and called especially for targeting specific sectors of the Iranian economy. These efforts were, shall we say, not always universally popular in some P5+1 countries.

Third, Israel has not called for war against Iran. Those who suggest otherwise are reframing the Israeli position to serve their own interests.

Rather, Israel has consistently said that, precisely to stop Iran’s nuclear program without a military strike, two elements are essential — tough sanctions and a credible threat of the use of force. As it watches the sanctions being somewhat relaxed post-Geneva, that remains Israel’s position, while, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, the credible threat of force erodes.

Israel’s position recalls Winston Churchill’s decades earlier. The British leader wrote: “One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once, ‘The Unnecessary War.’ There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle.”

In other words, Churchill believed the Nazis only understood strength. Yet, in the years leading up to the outbreak of war in 1939, when he was out of power, they encountered eagerness, at times bordering on desperation, for a deal. Netanyahu doubtless views the Iranian regime similarly — it will only respond to a determinedly stiff spine, not a bout of bonhomie and acts of goodwill as advance payment from its adversaries.

Meanwhile, what lessons do the Saudis and other Gulf nations draw from the latest developments?

Their options seem quite stark.

They could band together in a secret alliance of convenience with Israel, and see where that gets them against their most despised enemy, Iran. Or they could use their wealth to go nuclear by turning to, say, Pakistan, triggering precisely the arms race that everyone fears in the Middle East. Or they could try to cut their own deal with Iran, improbable as that may seem. Or they could seek to diversify their foreign policy, relying less on the U.S. and more on others, including — gulp! — Russia and China. Or they could opt to place their full trust in Washington, but that seems increasingly difficult for them to do. After all, the U.S. handling of Egypt and Syria hasn’t exactly heightened the confidence of Gulf nations in America’s grasp of regional issues and policy direction.

So maybe we are at the proverbial fork in the road, and perhaps Ambassador Burns captured it best: America has its own national interest. If it doesn’t converge with nations we’ve called allies till now, even on issues of existential importance to them, so be it.

For many, though, it would be a tough pill to swallow. That’s why I hope Washington will use the coming days and weeks to reaffirm that Jerusalem and our Gulf friends, and the essential quality of American alliances, do continue to matter — and remain a fundamental tenet of America’s national interest.

This article was originally published by The Jerusalem Post.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Allen Donow

    The alternative to the “deal” would have been a different agreement. Now that Obama has committed to this agreement with Iran, he asks for an alternative. He should have made the challenge prior to signing. Thus it shows the lack of interest he had in any alternative. Iran and Obama wanted this agreement and they got what they wanted.

    “Time will tell” you write. War in the Middle East is daily business for the Muslims. They want Israel wiped out. Not only Iran, but the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians… If they cannot fight Israel, because of fear, they war with each other. That is the truth in the Middle East. So when Obama and Iran are jubilant over this “deal”, and Israel is not, we can obviously know which side of history Obama wants to be on.

    As far as Israel feeling safer for 6 months, even a fool knows, there is still the potential for a nuclear bomb being developed during the 6 months and beyond if nuclear production facilities and nuclear stockpiles are not destroyed. Iran has many mission critical tasks to complete that would provide Iran with a nuclear bomb that can be used as a weapon. Each of them are important to the success of the mission. It appears that Iran has succeeded in its knowledge and its actual facilities for generating the nuclear materials for the bomb. This may have been their priority up to now. Learning how to assemble such materials into a bomb and its delivery become just as critical now. Iran has now been given 6 months to work on these other tasks with total freedom without being required to dismantle their current centrifuges.

    Practically speaking they can develop a high tech production environment and staff in this time frame to facilitate its mission. This project is not an easy one nor inexpensive. Many, many tasks are involved. I am also thinking of underground bunkers, missile defense systems for protecting its facilities, etc. And this 6 month period allows Iran to consolidate and evaluate its progress, especially with the influx of new cash and the reduction of sanctions, that the “deal” provides. Safer? – Absolutely Not.

    Obama’s agreement with Iran does not mean it is in the U.S. national interest, but for sure it means it is in Obama’s interest. To equate Obama’s interest with the U.S. national interest is the first mistake. The second mistake is the “deal” and that should be canceled immediately. You say “so be it” if Iran and Obama see eye to eye, even on an existential matter for Israel. The result is that Israel may get destroyed because Obama views Iran in the national interest rather than Israel. You say “so be it”. It’s time for all of us to repent.

    You want Obama to reaffirm (and what give another speech) that he has Israel’s back. Words are cheap these days, he should cancel this agreement and restart the negotiations with Israel as his partner. Right now Obama is asking the world to trust Iran, and to trust him if Iran decides to break out. This is the ultimate abomination. Don’t do it.