America and the Middle East Puzzle; One Year After the JCPOA

What impact has the post-JCPOA situation had on the relationship between the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East? Is the U.S. turning away from the Middle East? And has the JCPOA caused Israel and Saudi Arabia to come closer together? Responses from Barbara Slavin to Radio Farda's questions: Barbara Slavin is the director of the "Future of Iran" project at the Atlantic Council and a journalist for the Al-Monitor website in Washington. She has covered various foreign policy issues as a senior diplomatic reporter for publications such as The Washington Times, USA Today, and The Economist, and has traveled to Iran nine times. When looking at the relationship between the U.S. and the Middle East, one year after Iran and six world powers reached the JCPOA, what impact do you think this agreement has had on this relationship? I think this agreement has removed one of the most significant crises. There are certainly multiple crises in this region, but if we go back a year, there was concern that Iran might have the capability to build a nuclear weapon, which could lead to military intervention by Israel or the U.S. and could also result in a rapid proliferation of weapons in the region, prompting the Saudis or Emiratis to pursue uranium enrichment and weapon construction. I think we often forget the crises that are resolved; the situation without a nuclear agreement could have been much more unstable than what we see today. It is clear that today we are witnessing the significant problem of Iranian-Saudi competition, which we see manifested in Yemen or in Syria where the war is ongoing, or in Bahrain where the human rights situation worsens daily. However, overall, I think it is good that the issue of Iran building nuclear weapons has been set aside for at least a decade, opening the way for dialogue on other issues. You mentioned the relationship between Iran and the Saudis. But from Washington's perspective, what impact has this agreement had on U.S.-Saudi relations? Do you see today's challenges in this relationship as solely related to the JCPOA, or is the problem elsewhere? I think the JCPOA is a factor in this regard, but the issue is broader than that. There has always been a difficult relationship between Barack Obama and the Saudis, especially with the arrival of the new king of Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has lost trusted and long-standing figures in Saudi Arabia such as King Abdullah and Prince Saud al-Faisal, and now it is King Salman and his young crown prince who seem to have control of the situation. They do not appear to have the same relationship with the U.S. as their predecessors. I was pleased that Mohammed bin Salman came to the U.S. for a few weeks, met with people on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, and came to Washington. I hope he has become somewhat familiar with Americans. As far as I know, he did not study in the U.S. and had not left Saudi Arabia for a long time, so rebuilding these relationships will take time. On the other hand, I also blame President Obama for raising certain issues, especially in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, particularly where he spoke of Iran and Saudi Arabia being partners in the region. I think that was very wrong wording. The Saudis are already paranoid enough with their long-standing internal and social problems and falling oil prices. Now, I don't know how it helps to talk about dividing the region with Iran. But the truth is that America's approach to the region has changed, and Obama and Hillary Clinton have talked about a pivot to Asia, which has made the Saudis doubt how much they can rely on the U.S. Of course, not everyone agrees that the U.S. is turning away from the Middle East, and they say that the U.S. is more involved in this region than ever before. Yes, but for example, this is not comparable to our presence during the effort to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Or the issue that the Saudis were very unhappy about, which was the presence of a hundred thousand American troops inside Iraq to overthrow Saddam and then the presence in that country for several years. Although the U.S. is currently involved in issues like Iraq and Syria, the level of military force engaged in combat is much less. It is clear that Obama did not want military engagement in Syria, and the overthrow of the Assad regime has not become a priority. As a result, our interests and goals at this point are different from those of the Saudis. Obama has made this increasing effort to form a relationship with Iran, which makes the Saudis anxious, although I think this could lead to greater stability in the region. Ms. Slavin, how do you assess the impact of the nuclear agreement on U.S. relations with its other long-standing ally in the region, Israel? I think those relations have calmed somewhat. Netanyahu did everything he could to prevent the agreement and failed. He now knows that there are other issues he needs to address, including efforts to delegitimize Israel or a potential UN resolution regarding the country—although I think with the current situation of Britain exiting the EU, the likelihood of that has decreased, and France is naturally more involved in that issue. However, Netanyahu is also very eager to finalize a weapons agreement with the U.S., and the ten-year agreement in this regard has not yet been finalized, and the Obama administration has somewhat shown its dissatisfaction with Netanyahu by delaying this agreement, and the Israelis want this agreement finalized before a change of government in the U.S. Therefore, I think it is interesting that the nuclear agreement is not a priority in these relations, and very few people talk about it; discussions are more about other Iranian actions in the region, but when we look at today's threats to international peace and stability, the primary issue is perhaps now Britain's exit from the EU and then the issue of the so-called Islamic Caliphate and the threat of terrorism, not Iran. You mentioned that the Israeli government prefers this agreement on weapons to be finalized during Barack Obama's term. What is your assessment of Israel's approach toward the future U.S. administration? Well, the Israelis certainly know Hillary Clinton very well, and I think they are comfortable with the idea of another President Clinton. Hillary Clinton, although she criticizes Israel, is somewhat softer than Obama in this regard and will try not to embarrass them in public forums. And if Trump becomes president, no one knows how he will behave; he has said he wants to promote peace, but he also wants to show excessive humility in front of Netanyahu. We have discussed both the Saudis and Israelis as two U.S. allies. How do you assess the recent developments regarding the rapprochement of these two U.S. allies, especially against Iran? I think these two are closer to each other than ever in some respects. And this is a good time for Israel to take advantage of this opportunity and revive efforts to achieve peace with the Palestinians, as they have the full support of the Saudis and others. The confidential dialogues between the parties are very extensive, and I am sure they share their analyses regarding Syria and Iran. I think the pressure has somewhat been lifted from the Israelis; they are not facing a fundamental threat from outside the country, and the main internal threat is how to deal with the Palestinians and their Arab minority, and that is what Israel needs to address.