Geneva changes Middle East strategic map

As the consequences of the nuclear agreement with Iran emerge, regional powers are scrambling to adapt.

In the short period that has elapsed since the "Plan of Action" agreed upon by the six world powers and Iran, an amazing number of developments have taken place:

The White House issued a summary of the agreement, and was immediately contradicted by the Iranian government, which released the text of the agreement itself. The agreement indeed explicitly recognizes Iran's "right" to enrich uranium, contrary to several UN Security Council "binding" decisions.

It emerged that US and Iranian representatives had met in Oman on several occasions over the previous six months, so that the terms of the Geneva agreement had in fact been already agreed upon, but with no notification to any allied government.

The White House, which had originally stated that the softening of sanctions in the agreement would net Iran some seven billion dollars, admitted that the correct figure was more like twenty billion. India, China and myriad Western corporations are already lining up to restore previous levels of crude purchases and to do business with Iran in other ways. The US Treasury, however, continued to penalize financial sanctions violations, causing Iran to walk out of technical discussions in Vienna, following which Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif stated that despite such "unjustified" actions, Iran will continue to negotiate a final settlement.

The French foreign ministry disclosed that the six-month period during which a final agreement was to be negotiated does not start until January 15th for reasons unclear, so that in the interim Iran can go on doing anything it wishes to without violating the "Plan of Action".

Iran declared that it will continue construction at the heavy water facility in Arak and the testing of more efficient uranium enrichment technology, without any protest or contradiction from the other signatories.

Hamas, in the light of the Iranian success in Geneva, has decided that its break with Iran was a mistake and has meekly asked to be warmly embraced again by the Mullahs.

Perhaps most significant, however, are two other developments which have not been given the attention they deserve by the media:

Palestinian spokesmen declared that there should be another "Geneva" to apply sanctions to Israel if it does not agree to a complete withdrawal to 1967 "boundaries", thus ending even the most minimal possibility of an Israeli-Palestinian bilateral agreement. Despite this, the US government is going to present the (non-) negotiating partners with its own plan (I've lost count on which number this plan would be).

The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard criticized Foreign Minister Zarif, who had made a comment concerning Iranian vs. Western military capabilities, telling him to stick to diplomacy since he knows nothing about military matters. This is quite extraordinary, given Zarif's triumph in Geneva. It could not have happened without the approval of Supreme Leader Khamenei, and means that nothing of any significance will be signed six months from now, since Khamenei clearly would veto it. In any case, the "Plan of Action" provides that the period can be extended "by mutual agreement", which is the most likely result.

And on the diplomatic front, Zarif visited Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar, The Gulf states, which feel abandoned by the US, may well conclude that they must make whatever accommodation they can with Iran. Significantly, he did not go to Saudi Arabia. If there was, in fact, an informal agreement between the Saudis and Israel to jointly attack Iran militarily if the Geneva agreement was unsatisfactory, as widely reported, when Israel did not attack, Saudi Arabia needed to look for alternatives.

It may well trigger its contingent arrangement with Pakistan to purchase nuclear warheads. It is already embarking on huge military purchases in the US, including anti-tank missiles (perhaps for the Syrian rebels) and advanced fighter planes.

What is clear from all this is that Geneva has altered the strategic map of the Levant, empowering the Sh'ia northern arc at the expense of the Sunni (and Israeli) southern arc. The recent successes of the Syrian government against the rebels reinforces this development.

For Israel, the most significant implications are inability to depend on the US alliance in the immediate future, a now questionable southern arc strategy, the necessity to strengthen links with Jordan and Egypt, and the necessity to maintain its ability to threaten Iran with massive retaliation whether attacked by Iranian nuclear weapons, which is unlikely, or by Iran's terrorist proxies, which is much more likely.

Norman A. Bailey, Ph.D., is Adjunct Professor of Economic Statecraft at The Institute of World Politics, Washington, DC, and a researcher at the Center for National Security Studies, University of Haifa.

Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on December 18, 2013

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2013

Twitter Facebook Linkedin RSS Newsletters גלובס Israel Business Conference 2018