Here’s Why a U.S. Deal with Iran is Good for Israel…and the World
World Jewry regards the prospect of a nuclear Iran with considerable apprehension. The unsettling chant of “Death to Israel, Death to America” heard at official rallies across the Islamic Republic, combined with Iran’s support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, has shaken American Jews and Israelis alike. Add to this Iran’s blatant attempts to produce nuclear weapons, and it becomes clear that something has to be done.
The response of many Jews, most notably Senator Joe Lieberman and Knesset Member Shaul Mofaz, has been to call for military strikes against Iran. Defenders of such a move point to Israel’s successful 1981 strike against Osirak, an Iraqi nuclear reactor, as evidence that such an operation can thwart nuclear ambitions.
Iran, however, is different. The potential scope of a war with Iran makes such an attack an unconscionable risk. A wiser policy would be to recognize that despite all of the damning rhetoric, our problem with the Islamic Republic is not so much the fact that it has a fundamentalist Muslim government, but that it is an anti-American regime that is increasingly influential in the Middle East. Given that Iran has many of the same interests as the United States, we must find a way to work with Iran and turn its influence to our advantage.
Iran plays a role in all of the current major conflicts in the region, from the shores of the Mediterranean to the border of Pakistan. In Afghanistan, Iran holds sway over many of the most powerful warlords and has the capacity to arm and train them for attacks against coalition forces. In Iraq, the Shiite groups responsible for the devastating roadside bombs were pressured by Iran to lay down their arms in order to allow the Iraqi government to regain control of Sadr City and Basra. These groups remain organized and armed and could be easily reactivated, reversing America’s recent gains in Iraq. In Lebanon, Iran’s ally Hezbollah controls great swaths of the country, and has proven its ability to shut down the northern half of Israel with rockets. Even in gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Dubai, Iran has begun organizing local Shiite populations to threaten its Sunni enemies.
Although the Iranian regime is fundamentalist, it is no more so than that of Saudi Arabia, and is certainly not comparable to the likes of Al-Qaida. To the contrary, Iran has proven itself to be a shrewd, rational actor, whose influence can be an invaluable resource in stabilizing the region.
Take the work of Revolutionary Guard General Kassem Suleiman, who helped broker a deal between the Iraqi government and Muqtada al-Sadr that allowed the Iraqi army to retake Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad. Suleiman did so because the Iranians have the same goals in Iraq as the United States. The government the Americans have installed there is led by Shiite parties that fought on the side of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war: the Dawa party, which blew up the American and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which was created in 1982 in Iran to organize Iraqi Shiite resistance groups. So, Iran and the United States share an interest in the stability of the Iraqi government.
In Afghanistan, the picture is very similar. Historically, Iran and Pakistan have competed for influence in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s traditional ally in this struggle has been its proxy the Taliban, while Iran was supplying and training our allies the Northern Alliance. After September 11th, 2001, the United States threw its considerable weight behind the Northern Alliance, overthrowing the Taliban and installing Iran’s ally Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. Although it is not often discussed, Iran was instrumental in bringing the Karzai government to power by coercing many of Afghanistan’s most influential warlords into backing Karzai.
There is no reason why Iran and the United States cannot work together to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan and shore up their mutual allies in their respective battles against the Sunni extremists.
Though the thought of working with the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is distasteful to many, it should be noted that he is not the primary decision maker in Iran. This honor belongs to Grand Ayatollah Khamenei. Though Khamenei is a fundamentalist, he is also a pragmatist. In 2003, he offered to put all issues on the table (including support for terror, nuclear weapons, and opposition to Israel) in negotiations with the United States. His offer was ignored and Iran’s allies have since come to power in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza, making it unlikely that Iran will propose a similar deal any time soon. With oil prices dropping, however, and the Europeans, led by French president Nicolas Sarkozy, taking a hard-line on Iran’s nuclear program, America’s leverage is on the rise.
Broadly outlined, an agreement with Iran would be as follows. First, Iran wants its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan to be recognized. America has little choice here, for when American troops inevitably withdraw from those countries, Iran will take its place as the predominant influence, regardless of whether any deal is struck. Second, America would be asked to ensure the Khamenei regime’s survival, as it does the Saudi monarchy and Egyptian dictatorship. Third, trade relations would be normalized. In return, Iran would be required to support a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, push Hezbollah and Hamas into becoming political parties with no militias, and verifiably give up its nuclear weapons program.
And what of Israel? Although Ahmadinejad has gained a great deal of notoriety for proclaiming his desire to wipe Israel off the map, Iran has long maintained that it would acquiesce to any peace deal agreed to by the Palestinians. Establishing a working relationship with Iran will be a crucial element of such a deal, as only Iran has the ability to reign in Hezbollah and Hamas.
There is a general fear among Jews that someday America will reassess its strategic interests in the Middle East and betray Israel in order to appease the Arabs. The plan outlined above would require no sacrifice on the part of Israel that its leaders have not emphatically endorsed. In a recent interview with the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a former right-wing stalwart, characterized calls for Israel to bomb Iran as “megalomania.” Although in this age of preemptive strikes the military option can feel like a pragmatic solution to an intractable problem, in this case, Israel’s interest would be better served if the United States would pursue a peace deal with Iran, thereby placating Israel’s strongest foe and undermining the extremists in its backyard.
