U.S. Middle East Talks: Iran Should Be The Priority

The Middle East has been a cauldron for geopolitical stability throughout the duration of the post-World War II era. That region has been gripped by international conflicts, the Cold War rivalry, ethnic and religious rivalries, and terrorism. At the same time, the region remains a vital interest for the United States and of crucial importance to the world at large given its petroleum resources.

Amidst that backdrop, the U.S. has restarted a peace initiative aimed at resolving the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Reuters reported:

The United States launched a fresh drive on Sunday to restart Middle East peace talks, sending senior officials to the region to deal with issues ranging from Jewish settlements to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The visits by Middle East envoy George Mitchell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser Jim Jones were a strong signal from U.S. President Barack Obama of his intention to keep Israeli-Arab peacemaking high on his agenda.

Without question, the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute has had significant ramifications for Middle East stability. However, a U.S. focus on that dispute might be taking away time and effort that could otherwise be applied toward addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions through the diplomatic process. It is that latter issue that, if unresolved, could have far-broader and much greater implications for the region and globe at large.

The date at which Iran could develop a nuclear weapons capability is drawing closer with each passing day so long as Iran maintains pursuit of its uranium enrichment activities. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically shift the balance of power in the Middle East. It would give Iran a potential capability to shut down Persian Gulf shipping, allowing Iran to place a chokehold on the world’s access to energy were Iran to exercise that capability. It would radically transform the power calculus between the Middle East’s Sunni and Shia Muslims. It would create a potential umbrella by which Iran could aid terrorist organizations ranging from Hezbollah to Hamas with little threat of military consequences for such assistance.

Considering these consequences, a nuclear-armed Iran could potentially mark the end of the existing nuclear non-proliferation framework. In the wake of such a development, the Middle East’s states would need to develop a robust and credible deterrent to Iran’s nuclear capability. Such a deterrent would almost certainly depend on a U.S. nuclear guarantee, as a number of the Persian Gulf states and Israel are geographically tiny. In addition, the need to develop a credible deterrent could give rise to a scramble by numerous states to develop their own nuclear weapons capability. In turn, the spread of nuclear weapons could increase the risk of an accident or miscalculation.

In terms of the historic Arab-Israeli dispute, including that between Israel and the Palestinians, a nuclear-armed Iran could make it “safe” for the more radical elements to exercise a de facto veto. Hence, a nuclear-armed Iran could make resolving the historic dispute, as difficult as it already is, even more challenging.

All in all, the profound consequences of a nuclear Iran, along with the finite time during which a diplomatic solution might be feasible, argues strongly that the priority for U.S. diplomatic efforts should be placed on addressing the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program. While it would be prudent for the U.S. to maintain some diplomatic activity on the Israeli-Palestinian front, the Middle East’s challenges require prioritization.

Based on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ rejection of Prime Minister Olmert’s peace proposal—an initiative that offered even more generous terms than President Clinton’s December 2000 bridging proposal—and unwillingness to cede the demand that Palestinian refugees and their descendents have a “right” to settle in Israel, prospects for a near-term solution on that front are bleak. Hence, the greatest thrust of U.S. diplomacy should be focused where the need is most urgent (the finite time during which Iran can become a nuclear-armed state makes that issue the more urgent matter) and the stakes are highest (no other issue has the broad implications Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would have). In the end, Middle East stability and the prospect for peace rests more on what happens with respect to Tehran than in Jerusalem and Ramallah.

&&