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