The contours of the Grand Bargain between the United States and Russia are becoming clearer as the the two countries are reassuming equal seats in maturing the deal. It is now also clear and evident that the Islamic Republic of Iran has become a cornerstone of the Great Bargain stretching from Afghanistan to the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and to Central Europe as well. Russia regained the prominence and weight it had occupied in the Soviet era of the two Super Powers because of the determination of President Vladimir Putin, but also due to President Barack Obama's acquiescence to reviving ??the balance of the two giants, rather than singling out the United States unipolar superpower status.
The «no war» President Barrack Obama dealt out of the equation any military action in dealing with Iran's nuclear program having dealt it out of responding to the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian war. The American decision in the Obama era is to reach an understanding with Russia -and China as well - not only on oil, gas, and strategic interests, but also on how confront Sunni extremism extending from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan and the five Islamic Republics in Central Asia. It is a quantum leap in U.S. relations with the countries of the Middle East and the Gulf. A leap that requires the veterans allies to absorb the meaning of what occurred in the American-Iranian relationship; to study the evolving Merican-Iranian relations without panicking.
Perhaps in the folds of the recent historical developments in the American relationship - Iranian windows to the necessary reform of the traditional relations: the US - Arab relations as well as the American - Israeli. Certainly, there is an urgent need to revisit the old strategies of proxy wars whether they are launched for the purpose of regional competition or in the context of Sunni - Shiite confrontation.
The agreement between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, China, Russia, Britain, and France - plus Germany on the Iranian nuclear program tops the unequivocal priority of the six countries. These countries put all other matter in the second or third rank. The Syrian issue fell from the ladder of priorities. Syria's neighbors are no longer of interest to the six countries. Jordan is secured and guaranteed by the United States. Lebanon does finds only indifference. Iraq is practically a foregone conclusion in favor of Iran.
The most significant paradigm shift occurred in the American-Iranian relationship as well as in the U.S. strategy toward the Middle East be it towards Israel or towards the Arab oil states. The Iranian priorities have been met. One priority is establishing a direct bilateral relationship with the US based on an American legitimizing of the Mullahs revolution in Tehran (launched in 1979,) and a pledge not to support any opposition or any efforts to overthrow the Tehran-based theocracy of religious rule. President Barack Obama pledged he would deliver on this priority.
The nuclear negotiating process will be complex and volatile sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. But in the end, as during the negotiating process, the Islamic Republic of Iran will adhere to the negotiating table whatever happened. That table is now a dear through which sanctions imposed on Iran would be eased or lifted. This is exactly what forms the basis of the Iranian strategy. The table is the means to save the economy in Iran. The table is the carpet that Iranians know only too well how to make patiently. It is the at that table that the famous Iranian art of negotiation will take place. This is a new reality that will continue for a long time to come no matter what happens- whether this is a crack here or a retreat there.
Tehran is fully aware that the negotiating table is also the Western country's prison, especially the United States. Tehran will be sure to manipulate the table accordingly. The Obama Administration gave Iran and Russia their victory in the Middle East. It retreated from the stated goal of overthrowing the regime in Damascus. It pledged to withhold any support for regime change in Tehran. Absorbing the meaning of this radical shift in U.S. policy is not easy, but it is profoundly necessary.
The American President bowed practically to the ideology of imposing religion on the State, as did the mullahs in Tehran. The American President is also now party to the de facto alliance with Iran and Russia against Sunni extremism wherever it is. By doing so, the Obama administration has opened the door to the export of the ideology of the Iranian theocracy to the neighborhood. By doing so, the Obama Administration decided to adopt what was started by the administration of George W. Bush, which is to partner in with Iran in it's war on Al-Qaeda and its likes- but this time in reaching understandings with Russia and China as well.
Collaboration between the U.S., Russia, China and Iran to prevent the revival of Sunni extremism in Afghanistan or it's growth in Pakistan is an important part in the new emerging map. Saudi- Iranian competition for influence in those countries has now different parameters in light of the strengthened American - Iranian Detante. Iran is present in all the equations, including in the battle for influence in Central Europe between the United States and Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quick to declare in the wake of the nuclear deal with Iran that the agreement eliminates the need for the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) projects for ballistic missiles in Europe. He said that the logic invoked by the United States to establish a missile shield-that is facing the challenge of Iranian missiles- does not stand any more. He said that such a pretext lost its logic after the agreement with Iran. This is how Iran has become the gateway to address the dispute between the U.S. and the Russian Federation on the ballistic missile projects in Eastern Europe.
With the rise and influence of Iran in the relationship with the West in general and in the context of the American - Russian relationship, the traditional balance of power underwent a shock; the traditional Middle East allies of the US were shaken. The qualitative leap in the relationship between the U.S. and Iran, after a long official interruption for more than thirty years, caused tremors that followed the astounding shock. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acted in hysteria- seen by some as artificial and others as justified Netanyahu has described the nuclear agreement with Iran as not one of a historic achievement but rather a «historic mistake». Saudi Arabia's public response welcomed the nuclear deal with caution. The Gulf Cooperation Council issued a statement expressing satisfaction» with the agreement and called on Iran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And well done. Well done also that the GCC wished success for the Geneva 2 conference on Syria- to be held next January 22 to end the conflict in Syria through a transitional body with full authority.
This reaction by the Gulf States was quiet rather than hysterical. It gave the impression that the response by the Gulf States towards the new American policies graduated into becoming reasonable rather than one of arbitrary anger and withdrawal.What's important in the reaction in the GCC response is in its sending the message of presence and participation to replace the abstinence message and absenteeism that preceded it. There is not only a quantum leap in the relationship between the US and Iran, but today there is a convergence between Iran and Turkey. Any Arab absence or abstention hurts only the Arab interests.
Some in the U.S. administration is keen to reassure Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that the United States did not abandon them; that it is just a widening the circle of its alliances in the Middle East. The broad headlines of the public message is that Arab oil and Israel are no longer the exclusive cornerstones of American alliances and American interests in the Middle East. At its heart, the American message to all concerned is that America will not be fighting on behalf of anyone. Everyone must find it's own war with his own soldiers and his forces- not by U.S. forces. The message is that the importation of security is no longer valid and that the time has come for local readiness rather than importing a ready-made security. And this could be indeed useful. It could be usefulin pushing Arab countries to mature its graduating from dependence on the United States. In terms of the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the American message is that the organic relationship remains if it comes to Israel's security, but the relationship of L'enfant Terrible- the «spoiled child»- should end. This is a qualitatively new.
What President Obama is betting it is the silent support of the American public opinion of his messages to Gulf capitals as to Israel, He is the "no war" president because the American wishes are such. He ventured on an engagement with Iran well aware that the American people do not want war with anyone, on behalf of anyone. The American people do not care about what is happening in the Middle East particularly that it is ready for oil independence. Americans do not care who pays the cost of the fight against terrorism and extremism as long as it is far from American lands.
The Syrian war is of no interest to the American public, even if Hezbollah is a direct party in the conflict in Syria on behalf of Iran in support of the regime and the survival of President Bashar al-Assad in power. The Syrian war will drag on to accompany the negotiating «process» that's supposed to begin at the Geneva 2 Conference and which may be a gateway to talk about Iran's regional role and Tehran's ambitions in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
But betting on the Geneva 2 is betting on aborting it's success. Russia wants to de-legitimize the Syrian opposition by holding it responsible for the failure of Geneva 2. Moscow had recovered for the Damascus regime a good measure of legitimacy through reaching the agreement to destroy Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. The United States wants to continue with a political "process" having completely abolished the military option.
Iran is not interested in Geneva 2. Iranians want to avoid talking about their role in Syria and Iran's support for the Hezbollah. They would rather preoccupy the West exclusively with the nuclear negotiations to overlook what Iran is actually doing in Syria. There is talk regarding Hezbolla's future in that Grand Bargain- when it matures more later. Iran will not give up Hezbollah, nor will it abandon Bashar al-Assad. What it might want - later, after the military balance turns fully in favor of Syria's regime - is to convince the American president to recognize Hezbollah as a regional power and a political player rather than keep it classified in the category of terrorism.
This is how Iranian policy is planned for the long term- with patient, and perseverance that leads to winning. This is exactly what happened with the nuclear deal with the major world powers and their submission to the legitimacy of the regime in Tehran thirty years later. Arab dealing with this penetration and breakthrough requires somber reflection on the options available with realism and rationality. The Middle East region has entered the sphere of the great settlement. This requires an Arab vision unlike whatever preceded it; it requires tools other than the ones used in the past and cost Arab interests dearly. RaghidaDergham.Com