Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Post-agreement politics - Zalman Shoval



by Zalman Shoval

One of the Iranian leaders boasted recently that his country now controls four foreign capitals -- in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen -- so why not complete the job? Needless to say, Iran's repeated declarations that it wants to destroy Israel have been entirely absent from the discussion in Washington. The fact that Iran itself is the leading factor in initiating and executing global terrorism has also been conspicuously absent from the debate. 


A deal between Iran and the West has been reached. U.S. President Barack Obama views the nuclear agreement with Iran as his main diplomatic legacy, the first step toward the dream of integrating Iran into the regional geopolitical mechanism and gradually instating a new balance of power between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, the objective is to resolve the ever-growing conflict between the Shiite bloc (led by Tehran) and the Sunni bloc (led by Riyadh). In other words, the U.S. hopes to balance out its close relationships with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Egypt with an equally close relationship with Iran. The administration also hopes the agreement will bolster the moderate voices in Iran, though in all likelihood, the end result will be the exact opposite.

Washington is ignoring the fact that Iran's enhanced military, diplomatic and economic status will almost certainly advance its existing hegemonic and geopolitical goals. And though no one is admitting it explicitly, the U.S. also hopes that Iran will lead the fight against Islamic State -- a role that Iran is ready to assume anyway as it views the group as an obstacle to its own regional aspirations. 

One of the Iranian leaders boasted recently that his country now controls four foreign capitals -- in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen -- so why not complete the job? Needless to say, Iran's repeated declarations that it wants to destroy Israel have been entirely absent from the discussion in Washington. The fact that Iran itself is the leading factor in initiating and executing global terrorism has also been conspicuously absent from the debate. 

The Vienna agreement not only forces the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to make some tough decisions, it also presents the presidential candidates with the same tough choices. Particularly affected will be leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state during Obama's first term and oversaw the initial top-secret diplomatic contacts with Tehran. The Republican candidates, led by Jeb Bush, won't spare their criticism for this deal, but Clinton obviously doesn't want to risk having the president and his allies turn their backs on her ahead of the election, so she has opted to play it safe. On the one hand, she has voiced hope that a deal would be reached, but she also mentioned that a deal would not eradicate the serious problems with Iran. Though some may view this as election rhetoric, it should not be entirely dismissed -- even in the past there were always indications that Clinton's fundamental foreign policy inclinations differed from Obama's. 

Professor Michael Mandelbaum of Johns Hopkins University, a leading American expert on foreign policy, recently leveled harsh criticism over the concessions made to Iran. He concluded that the only way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons was to destroy the Iranian facilities where they could be manufactured. 

No one needs to convince Israel that the agreement is dangerous and bad. Until now, Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has fought a mostly successful battle to convince the world and the representatives of the American public that the Iranian nuclear threat was a significant one. But now a second battle must be waged to prevent the U.S. Congress from approving this agreement (or, if it does approve it, at least add some teeth to it). 

Israeli policy makers now face new considerations and choices that not only could affect the Iranian issue but also Israel's relationship with the U.S., both in general and specifically when it comes to the Palestinian issue. 

Whether the desired outcome is reached or not, meaning that whether Congress approves the deal or not, some negative responses are to be expected from the American administration. The question for Israel now is how to behave considering the possible diplomatic and security penalties that the U.S. could impose. These considerations will guide the prime minister as he makes the Iranian issue a top diplomatic priority. He understands, however, that even with an agreement in place, there will always be room, and a necessity, to maintain relations with the U.S. and Europe.


Zalman Shoval

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=13163

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

No comments:

Post a Comment