Arguably, Iran’s nuclear program changed the balance of power in the Middle East region more drastically than anything else. And when the balance changes, the order changes as well. The change in the balance led to an order which was once dominated by America to an order and a balance that is now in flux. America can no longer secure its own position in the Middle East, let alone Israel’s position. America’s ejection from Afghanistan, Iran’s alteration of the balance and order in the Middle East, Iraq demanding that Americans leave their country, Iranian proxies now on offense, stiff competition from Russia and China, and a general political awakening among Middle Easterners all come together as factors behind the alteration of the general order in the Middle East.
But of course, Iran and its nuclear program garners the most attention, given that for a nuclear program, you need a kind of military and industrial capacity that most other countries do not possess. In a way, Iran is also expected to be short-changed, in the sense that Iran is expected to give up its nuclear program for something which is unclear and uncertain. Western domination and interference are at the heart of the West’s relations with Iran historically. And the whole point for Iran has been to resist this domination and interference by any means necessary. To borrow from one scholar:
“Through the 1800s to the early half of the 1900s, Russia and Britain were the main foreign interventionist forces and therefore became the focus of the public’s vitriol. As the 20th century evolved, the United States began playing a larger role in Iran, due primarily to Cold War dynamics. As American policy in Iran came to resemble the earlier Russian and British imperial policies, anger towards the United States grew. That resentment boiled over and was a key factor in the 1979 revolution.”
American domination and interference “lies at the very foundation of the current government’s anti-Americanism.” And coincidentally, opposition to American domination and interference runs deep throughout the Middle East and also Afghanistan. Israel’s role in the U.S.-Iran relationship is also quite complex, and in turn hampers America’s position vis-à-vis Iran. To borrow from one scholar:
“The Israelis had been worried about rapprochement between Iran and the United States. Israel considered Iran a threat not because it was militarily dangerous, but because economically it provided a bigger potential market for U.S. goods and businesses than Israel. The Israelis worried that U.S.-Iran détente would mean Israel would lose its special relationship with the U.S.”
Israel is therefore the biggest burden on the United States, not an ally. Israel also hampers America’s flexibility and position in the Middle East a great deal. We cannot underestimate the level by which Israel hampers America’s position in the Middle East. As the scholar wrote: “Leaving the Iranians out of the regional security apparatus also meant that Iran was free to be the spoiler. Tehran did just that, embarking on a policy to make the U.S. decision to isolate Iran as costly as possible. Many of the problems in the region today stem from the Bush White House’s decision to isolate Iran.”
Israel seeks a “containment” policy vis-à-vis Iran, and as a result prevents the United States from engaging with Iran. At the beginning of the 21st century, Israel sought a “dual containment” policy towards both Iran and Iraq. But the policy ended up benefitting Iran, given that the removal of Saddam Hussein turned Iraq into an Iranian proxy. In turn, Israel’s efforts to contain and isolate Iran turned Iranian rhetoric into “action” which ended up “jeopardizing U.S.-Iranian détente.” But Iran gained a lot from the American policy of domination and interference towards the Middle East and Afghanistan. For one, the policy “neutered America’s ability to build a consensus around Iran.” The Europeans and Americans are also split when it comes to how Iran should be approached. Also, Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal led to “a long road of increased instability and conflict in an already tumultuous region.” All of which puts Israel on the backpedal and Iran on the offensive. The past is prologue.
Adam A. Azim 