WHY THE IRANIAN DEAL ?

The predictable has occurred. There has been deal on limiting Iran’s nuclear capability between the Security Council five, lead by Obama’s US and Germany and the Islamic Republic. It will take days to sort out the details and those will need to be analyzed. However, those that were against the deal in the first place, are already in the forefront of slamming it. All along the bargaining process was not really understandable as there was little doubt that Iran was at the table because they are in a state of economic collapse so it appeared inexplicable that they were calling the shots.  

Jay H. Ell has blogged that on its face Obama’s policy on the Middle East is incoherent. (Blog: The New Middle East - Obama’s Failure To Create a Coherent Policy). Till this exercise is explained in the whole context of Middle East Policy it is difficult to judge it in a vacuum however “good” or “bad” it might be. 

Jay H. Ell has further, mainly, in a flurry of blogs maintained the following:

IRAN AND THE MIDDLE EAST

• That Iran has throughout the period of nuclear negotiations not toned down its vitriolic rhetoric towards Israel and the United States of America nor backed down on its terrorist sponsored activities.
• That Iran entered negotiations because the sanctions had devastated their economy.
• That a new dynamic has entered the Islamic world with a three way battle for supremacy - the Sunni zealots ISIS and Al Qaeda, versus the fundamentalist Gulf State Sunnis and the radical Shiites lead by Iran. 
• ISIS has made great gains in Syria and Iraq and have shocked the world by their naked brutality and savagery. Furthermore they appeared to be gaining recruits from all over the planet. There are either copycat terrorist atrocities or ISIS has indeed a world wide organization.
• That this new dynamic, the threat of ISIS and the battle for supremacy in the Islamic world has lead to new alliances in the Middle East with the Gulf States and Jordan and Egypt allying with Israel. The only stumbling block to this becoming public is that these traditional Israeli enemies cannot go public till the Palestinian impasse resolves.
• That if anything the Palestinian Israeli confrontation has hardened. There is a chasm between Abbas and Hamas. The former regarded as the negotiator by the world is becoming less and less representative of the Palestinians. Hamas on the other hand publicly is belligerent but realistically wants a period of consolidation. In short the two state plan for the moment is dead and Hamas in all probability want a one state solution so that they can claim that they have no rights in it. They punctuating that political ploy with rocket firing and the like.
• The Iranian sponsored terrorist entities Hamas and Hezbollah are at odds with ISIS. The latter in fact are at war with ISIS as they defend Assad against ISIS while Hamas have been castigated by ISIS as Iranian vassels. 

ISRAEL, US AND THE WORLD

• There is a sharp tension between USA and Israel as reflected through Netanyahu and Obama. It has always been difficult to really know what this meant because of the open contempt these two leaders have for one another. However whatever the truth the perception of Israel’s supporters is, that in spite of reports of cooperation between the two regimes at every level, that Obama is in the process of selling out Israel in the Iranian talks.
• All this is taking place in a world of growing anti semitism, boycotts, disinvestment, sanctions and attempts to isolate Israel regarding it as the aggressor in the Palestinian conflict.
• Objectively it is very difficult to equate the callous behavior of Hamas with the Israeli response. This notwithstanding the provocative behavior of Netanyahu such as continuing to establish settlements. Yet the world has used a double standard to attack Israel on this issue. Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who is known for his balance, has stated that these attacks are the new form of anti semitism.
• Israel is a very important in American politics for a number of reasons. This is not as popularly believed because the Jewish sector control America politically and economically. They only represent 1.4% of the USA population and other than a few constituencies they are irrelevant. While there is little doubt that members of that tiny minority have disproportionate clout that cannot be the only basis of the US Israeli axis.
• The reasons for the American public’s close affinity to Israel are multifactorial. The Americans believe that Israel is a democracy in the Middle East and its only ally against terrorism and bigotry. The Israeli democratic system is believed to be comparable to the American one. A large section of the fundamentalist conservative population of America, the base of the Republican Party, support Israelis to the hilt. The return to the holy land as prophesied in the Old Testament has happened and without Israel there will be no Messiah. The Democrats have traditionally been Israel’s strongest supporters but at the moment are suspect because of Obama’s apparent abandonment. 
• However the most important factor in all of this is the fact that they the top priority in American politics is security and Israel is in the forefront in the battle against those who wish to harm and destabilize the homeland. This is the bottom line and the red line in the sand. To hell with the niceties - security is where it is at. We stand in long lines at the airport and take off our shoes and belts in every government building we enter. 9/11 was a turning point in history. The new warfare had started and who is in the front line fighting it - Israel!
• This makes Israel very important in American local politics and Obama is weakening the Democrats by the Iranian negotiations where he appears to be inexplicably selling out Israel.
• Jay H. Ell has opined that the US should get out of the Middle East. Israel has never asked the US for troops. Why on earth is Obama mixing in? Why is he apparently giving Iran concessions for fighting ISIS? The latter are a far bigger existential threat to Iran than they are to the USA. Let Iran take on ISIS on their own. Also a nuclear Iran could attack the USA as it has promised and ISIS hasn’t got one plane let alone a nuclear infrastructure to hobble the USA. 

WHY IS THE USA NOT TELLING IRAN TO GO TO HELL IN A HAND BASKET? 

Part of the answer was provided to Jay H. Ell by a highly talented personable Congressman, Robert Dold, a long time friend of Israel, who is fighting to retain his seat in the US Congress where the Jewish vote may well make a difference. Jay H. Ell put the following question to him:

“Why is Obama apparently making concessions to Iran so that they would support him in the fight against ISIS? Why do we not tell Iran that ISIS is more their problem than ours so we are not going to make any concessions?”

Dold did not answer this question directly. He countered that ISIS was a major threat to America’s security. He maintained that what kept him awake at night was the fear that a container ship, for example, may contain the means for a major terrorist attack. To paraphrase, his response was ISIS was the top security priority.  

Taken in the context that in diplomacy there are activities that aren’t public, such as the new Arab Israeli axis there is another mushroom diplomacy in effect. Evidence for this, implicitly, is the fact that the US and the West are not going after Syria’s Assad. If anything it could be argued that they are supporting him. Who is Assad’s biggest problem at the moment? - ISIS. 

Explicitly the answer is provided by the United Kingdom’s former Ambassador to the US, Christopher Meyer. He argued in a piece published in the British Daily Telegraph that in view of the chaos in the Middle East the West should completely halt their activities in the Middle East and abandon their traditional ally Saudi Arabia and join Iran in their fight against ISIS. Now Meyer is no fringe player, the UK ambassador to the USA is a cabinet level position. However, by being the “former” Ambassador the UK can have it both ways - this statement does not officially involve the Government but it still sends a message.

This coalition of poler opposites is not exactly a novel position. In World War 11, the Allies included Stalin’s Soviet Union. As the statesman who coined the term “Iron Curtain”, Churchill referred to the self same Russians who had backed Hitler, as “Our Noble Allies”. The nascent threat of the USSR was always obvious and if Patton had had his way he would have marched onto Moscow after conquering the Nazis. Also Stalin wasn’t our chosen ally. He had originally signed a non aggression pact with Hitler which the latter reneged on and invaded Russia. (Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy). So arguing the USSR parallel in supporting Iran while claiming ISIS is the real enemy is comparing apples to oranges.

But it seems that there is a consensus that ISIS is the number one threat to the Western world at the moment. But where does that take us?

WHAT NOW?

While the West may believe that ISIS is their number one priority their assessment is not shared by their allies in the Middle East - Israel and the Gulf States. The latter in fact, believe it is Iran. As far as Jay H. Ell is concerned there is  very little difference between the two of them. A lesson should have been learned from World War 11. Leaving the USSR intact and giving them half of Europe left them in a position to take on the civilized world for half a century nearly resulting in a nuclear holocaust. Iran and ISIS  are both evil and should be fought at the same time. Iran cannot be trusted just because we have a common enemy. They too are purveyors of terrorism. Like Stalin, who had already killed 20 million of his own, and who by an accident of history become an ally, Ali Khameini is no better. 

Any nuclear deal with Iran is fraught with danger as it does not, for example take into account America’s traditional Middle East allies and what they might do. It ignores Iranian terrorist activity and their arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles. In short it is one helluva risk.