The agreement with Iran has perhaps forced the White House into a position that it has to repair aspects of the relationship with Israel, according to Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Iran is perceivably much stronger with the prospective removal of sanctions. Russia’s gambit to reinstate a long-dead deal to sell Iran advanced S-300 missiles also proves that point. Miller says that in the wake of the deal itself, the developments with Russia notwithstanding, the United States will need to ‘reassure’ its allies in the Middle East of their strategic backing.
“There will be a lot of reassurance as well as there should. Iran has violated and cheated on these nuclear arrangements before,” states Miller, who emphasizes that Iran’s support for terrorism and incarceration of several Americans on dubious charges of espionage are issues Washington still needs to deal with.
“The deal won’t end Iran's desire to be a nuclear threshold state and won't change their behavior unless there is some fundamental change in the neighborhood.”
If Hillary Clinton continues the Democratic reign over the presidency, she will be entering into a somewhat precarious position on Iran. “It will not be something she can just walk away from,” states Miller, referring to Clinton’s instrumental role in shaping the nuclear negotiations during her own tenure as Secretary of State, although she is not directly influential on the agreement taking shape now.
Writing in an editorial earlier this week, Miller states, “Frankly given her political interests, it would be easier for her candidacy if the agreement fell apart and she could campaign on a tough anti-Iranian message, hammering the mullahs' repressive policies at home and their mischief-making in the region.”
But the Clintons’ stronger relationship with Israel could help get her as she tries “to walk a narrow line between a negotiating process with Iran that Clinton launched and its fruits, which are seen by many Israelis and American Jews right now as too generous to the mullahs.”
Miller emphasizes that Clinton will “not be interested in an unproductive fight over settlements. The Middle East is melting down and we need agreements – we need them in the Arab world and with the Israelis, however imperfect and no matter how much we may disagree.”
Iran: Status Quo Power or Revolutionary?
There might be a hint though to an anti-Iranian strategy hidden in the nuclear deal. Opening up for Iran means also opening up for its people, who will have a taste of something different in engagement with the world that might spell domestic political problems for the ruling theocratic regime in Tehran.
“The mullahs didn’t do this to undermine themselves, but the more the Iranian public gets invested in it, the harder it will be to break out of it.”
Much still needs to be evaluated about Iran’s own plans for the region. They are still an unpredictable power according to Miller’s assessment. That adds further impetus to actually work more closely with Israel in confronting Iran in the long term.
“Is Iran a status quo power or a revolutionary power? I don't think they've answered that for themselves. Being pragmatic doesn't answer that question. They want to have control, a nuclear edge and not succumb to some Pax Americana.”
There will be the major changes in the region’s strategic outlook based on whatever the outcome is of the final nuclear negotiations with Iran.
“If there's an agreement on Iran that is finalized and it is actually implemented with a sense of reliability where monitoring provisions are credible and intrusive, the next President will inherit certain parameters that they might have to respect.”
Perhaps hinting that the nuclear issue specifically may fade from the public agenda as Iran becomes more aggressive in the region, Miller says his personal concerns relate to what might happen a decade into the future – at the tail end of a possible two-term presidency – in terms of Iran’s behavior in the greater Middle East rather than their attempting to find a way to circumvent the nuclear accord.
Ultimately, the US will continue to deal with Israel also in respect to its power. Paralleling the words of Professor Eytan Gilboa (who says Israel, Turkey and Iran are the Middle East’s main powers), Miller says that Israel is paramount to stabilizing the Middle East and serving American interests.
“These three countries are functional countries. They have very competent militaries and intelligence, and they are stable countries. They’re not just going to disappear. These countries actually work.”
The United States, therefore, will have to work well with Israel in the aftermath of an agreement.
“I think Israel and Turkey are more productive, but Iran is not to be underestimated.”