Israel is now at a strategic crossroads in light of the negotiations between Iran and the great powers, and the need to halt Iranian progress in the nuclear project. In this context, strategic coordination with the United States is a critical element to influence the formulation of the future agreement. Concentration and active effort against the Iranian threat requires Israel to carefully manage its steps in the Palestinian and northern arena, and to maintain relative calm in them in order to prevent harm to the actual and interest in the nuclear issue.
Nuclear talks one step forward, two steps back
The round of talks that ended in Vienna following the Iranian team's decision to return to consultations with Tehran drew public criticism from European delegates and US officials, who stressed that time was running out to reach a deal in light of Iran's rapid progress on its nuclear program. The negotiations showed some progress, with the two parties agreeing to the agenda and issues of discussion in the negotiations, as well as Iran's initial willingness to replace the IAEA's cameras in a factory inside the city of Karaj, where it produces elements for centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Iran removed the cameras from the site last June after sabotage was attributed to Israel. However, one of the cameras' storage facility has disappeared, and the agency is not allowed to confirm that the factory will resume operations from June.
The gaps between the two sides remained deep and large, and the Iranian leadership continued its demands to lift all sanctions and return to the original agreement in 2015 while receiving guarantees from Washington not to exit from the agreement again. The United States and Europe interpret the Iranian approach as an expression of lack of seriousness and procrastination in light of the refusal to recognize the progress achieved in the previous round of talks. So far, there is an appreciation for the resumption of talks by the end of the year (December 27), but there is an understanding that the ability to bridge the two sides' positions is low in light of the fundamental and principled differences.
The United States is putting pressure on Iran to return to the nuclear agreement, and indicates that there are options other than the diplomatic path. In this context, senior officials from the US State Department leaked that President Biden asked, about two months ago, National Security Adviser Jack Saliban to review the Pentagon's plans for military action in the event of the failure of the diplomatic effort. Within the framework of the visit of the Israeli Defense Minister to Washington with his American counterpart (December 2021), it was reported that they had discussed joint attack plans on Iranian nuclear sites in case the diplomatic effort failed.
Senior officials added that Washington was examining how sanctions against Iran could be tightened. Concretely, an American delegation headed by officials from the US Treasury has arrived in the UAE to check whether the local banks are not violating the sanctions on Iran. The US Treasury has made it clear that it will not hesitate to impose sanctions on banks in the UAE if they are found to be violating the sanctions. These steps are aimed at sending a message of determination to Iran that time is running out, and that it must show a real willingness to move forward in negotiations in light of the potential costs - economic and military.
The Israeli position opposes the diplomatic channel, which it considers Iranian "nuclear blackmail", and calls on Washington to tighten sanctions and prepare to exercise the military option. Moreover, Israel fears a transitional agreement that will be achieved in Vienna, in which it will freeze parts of the nuclear program in return for freezing part of the sanctions. Although US officials denied this proposal, there is an Israeli fear of returning the proposal to the negotiating table. Israeli officials repeat the message that Israel is preparing for an independent military operation when needed, and that Israel will not accept an Iranian nuclear reality.
The United States has reiterated its commitment to the security of the State of Israel, but its approach to the Iranian nuclear project is fundamentally different from that of Israel. US National Security Adviser Jack Saliban indicated that Washington is concerned about Iran's rapid progress in the nuclear project. Indeed, a US official expressed the administration's fear of a relatively quick start for Iran towards nuclear weapons. Does what the Americans publish about “other options” aimed at pleasing Israel and getting Iran to accept compromise solutions in the negotiations, but does not express an American willingness to exercise military force for fear of being drawn into another battle in the Middle East?
American strategy in the Middle East
Global attention is focused on the Ukraine crisis, which examines the determination and deterrence of the United States and NATO in the face of aggressive steps by Russia. The Ukraine crisis has implications for the world order, and for the transmission of the American superpower in the Middle East. The success of the Russian strategy in Ukraine will affect the behavior of players in the Middle East, including Iran.
The policy of the US administration in the Middle East is to set modest, achievable goals, while using diplomatic tools and refraining from military tools that might drag Washington into another battle in the Middle East. This policy weakens US deterrence and influence, raises questions in the Arab world about the strength of the strategic bond in light of the Iranian challenge, and leads some Sunni players to strengthen bilateral relations with Tehran.
In addition, the absence of a comprehensive US regional strategy, and the policy of forbearance towards direct Iranian actions against US interests and goals, weaken the position of the United States and require the countries of the region to re-design their regional policy towards Iran. And the Iranian militia’s attack on the American base in Al-Tanf (October 2021), along with the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister of Iraq (November 2021), embodies Iran’s willingness to take risks in light of the understanding that the United States does not seek to be drawn into a regional escalation.
The Palestinian Question: Escalating Friction with Washington?
The Palestinian issue has topped the Israeli agenda in recent weeks, due to the increase in “individual terrorism,” the discovery of a Hamas terror network in the West Bank, in addition to the progress in the settlement in the Gaza Strip.
In this context, there is a fear of a broad escalation following the escalating trend of “personnel” operations in the recent period inside Jerusalem and the West Bank, and because of the weakness of the Palestinian Authority in imposing order and governance. Hamas' repeated attempts to ignite the West Bank have not succeeded so far, despite the movement's broad support from the Palestinian public, but the organization's strength-building contexts in the arena continue, and this was demonstrated by the revelation of the large terrorist network funded and managed by Saleh al-Arouri last November.
Parallel and paradoxically, the settlement efforts between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip are progressing in light of Israel’s extensive policy of facilitation, which expresses itself by bringing goods into the Strip through the Kerem Shalom crossing, increasing the number of workers to 10,000, and transferring financial grants from Qatar. Including arranging the issue of employee salaries in a circular deal with Egypt and others. Despite the policy of strengthening the Palestinian Authority announced by the Minister of Defense, Israel's steps practically only strengthen Hamas's position in the Gaza Strip, give it the opportunity to rebuild itself, and even increase its military strength in preparation for the next battle.
The visit of Deputy Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, to Israel and to the Palestinian Authority exemplified the gaps that exist between the US administration and the Government of Israel on the Palestinian issue. Nuland stressed that the United States is determined to open the US Consulate to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, and that the matter is a top priority for the administration in light of a desire to return to the traditional status quo policy. In the meeting she held with Abu Mazen and in a series of press interviews, she stressed the administration's desire to resume relations with the Palestinian Authority regarding the issue of settlements and support for the two-state solution.
The incompatibility between the two leaderships on the Palestinian issue may lead to a crisis in relations, in light of the administration's original commitment, and the Israeli government's policy, which is inconsistent with Washington's policy. In addition, Noland's arrival in the region and her statements indicate that Washington has ended the period of caution and waiting that characterized it until the approval of the budget in Israel, and that it will from now on show a more rigid approach to the Palestinian issue, especially with regard to the continuation of construction in the West Bank. As for the issue of the US Consulate, which Nuland made clear that the administration is committed to reopening, it would also become a stumbling block between Israel and Washington, in the short time period.
Recommendations:
Strategic coordination with the United States must be strengthened to consolidate Israeli influence on the negotiations in Vienna, affirm Washington's commitment to building Israeli power, and develop a comprehensive (military and economic) response to tighten pressure on Iran in a scenario in which the diplomatic effort fails.
Israel should refrain from publishing the differences that appear in the ongoing strategic dialogue with senior officials of the American administration, and reduce the public discourse on the issue of the battle against the Iranian nuclear program on the part of officials in Israel; Because the leaks undermine American confidence and affect the Israeli position and its ability to influence the context of decision-making in Washington.
Israel must seek to sign a new and effective nuclear agreement that provides an answer to all aspects related to halting nuclear progress and extending the time for penetration. This agreement will give an answer to Israel's security needs and the needs of the regional and international arena, in light of the dangerous and far-reaching effects of a nuclear Iran on the region and the world.
In parallel, Israel should invest in building an accelerated force to develop a credible military answer to the challenge of the Iranian nuclear project. Strengthening capacity and operational readiness will enhance Israeli deterrence, and prove an independent, long-term capability to the day.
“Eyes on the Bullet” - The Palestinian issue requires a comprehensive strategy, taking into account the American position and refraining from excessive friction in light of the need to focus efforts on Iran. Any crisis in relations may develop because of the Palestinian issue, affecting strategic coordination and relations of trust between the two countries, and this also has implications for negotiations with Iran.
Written by: Institute experts headed by Major General (Reserve) Amos Gilad
Institute for Policy and Strategy December 27, 2021