US-Israel Relations After Iran's Nuclear Agreement

The relationship between the United States and Israel, two long-standing allies, faced difficulties on the verge of reaching an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Now that this agreement has been achieved and implemented, what is the outlook for these relations? At the same time, do Israel's concerns and those of Arab countries in the region regarding the JCPOA create a potential alliance among them? In this context, we have posed questions to Yossi Mekelberg, a researcher at Chatham House in London and a lecturer in international relations at Regent's College. A year after the JCPOA was reached, what is your assessment of the mechanism of US relations with the Middle East? I believe that US power in the region is declining, and it no longer has the influence it had before the Iraq war, and this will not change soon. Nevertheless, the US is still considered an important force in the region, and I think the agreement with Iran has somewhat altered its position, advancing a diplomatic effort that has succeeded. However, we are currently witnessing a Middle East with a very complex situation, including the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, events in Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State group, and relations with Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries in general; all of these are part of the US relationship with the region. The nuclear agreement has provided the US with a mechanism that can create change through negotiation and diplomacy instead of military force, and a year later, although this agreement is not ideal, it remains stable. This agreement has also created a kind of activity within Iran, leading to a conflict between pragmatists and their opponents. Overall, the agreement presents a positive image. If we look back at the past year of US-Israel relations, which are traditional allies, do you think the nuclear agreement has impacted it, or were the differences between the two governments more fundamental? This depends on the level at which we examine the issue. There is a deep rift between the Obama administration and Netanyahu's government. I believe Obama has decided to withdraw from the peace process (between Palestinians and Israelis) and does not think anything constructive can be done in this area until January when his term ends. That mutual understanding between the two sides, similar to the era of [Bill] Clinton, did not exist. It should also not be forgotten that Netanyahu is currently leading a more right-wing government than before. However, at other levels, I see a very deep relationship between the US and Israel. For example, we recently witnessed the unveiling of the F-35 fighter jet in Texas, one of the most advanced fighter jets in the world, which is set to be given to Israel. At military, economic, and even diplomatic and political levels, I do not see fundamental changes. However, to see changes at the leadership levels, we must wait for the next elections. No one knows, but if Hillary Clinton becomes president, we can expect a renewed friendship, and perhaps Ms. Clinton will propose an initiative in the peace process and not accept the current deadlock. You mentioned the US presidential elections. Many analysts say that Ms. Clinton's election, especially from the perspective of the personal relationship of leaders, could help improve US-Israel relations. You seem to agree with this group. Although the outcome of this election is still uncertain, if we assume that Hillary Clinton becomes president, it still depends on what combination she chooses for the State Department and what her foreign policy agenda will be, and what approach she will take regarding the Palestinians and Israelis. Will she continue to support Israel, act through the UN, continue aid, or move towards further isolation and preventing the impact of Israeli-Palestinian tensions on other US interests in the region? I hope the next president of the US will act more actively in this area, but every president who goes to the White House today thinks about whether they are stepping into a path of failure and whether there is any chance of resolving this tension. However, based on past experience, it is not impossible to find a solution. This region is changing. Just look at the renewed relations between Turkey and Israel. New alliances are forming, and the centers of gravity are rapidly changing. Regarding new alliances, what do you think about the impact of the nuclear agreement on the formation of such alliances, for example, between Arabs and Israel? Could this lead to a relationship? Yes, I think so. This is debatable, but I believe the divide between Sunni and Shia is very serious today. Israel not only has a competitive approach towards Iran, but some strategists in Israel view this country as a real threat against Israel, an approach that is seen in Riyadh and some other Gulf countries. This atmosphere creates a level of understanding that Saudi Arabia, other Sunni countries, and even Turkey may move towards greater cooperation with Israel to prevent Iran's expansion. Israel currently sees Iran everywhere; from the border with Syria, Hezbollah at the border with Lebanon, and support for Hamas. Such conditions are viewed by Avigdor Lieberman, the new Defense Minister, or Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, as a serious threat that inclines them towards Sunni countries led by Saudi Arabia, which could potentially be allies for Israel. Given the historical relations between the two sides, could such a potential alliance be deep? I believe Israel is somewhat deceiving itself if it wants to have a close relationship with Saudi Arabia without returning to the Arab peace proposal of 2002, as that proposal was originally from the Saudis. However, with a real peace process that addresses all fundamental issues including refugees, Jerusalem, and the determination of the fate of the lands, Israel's reward would be to be accepted in the larger Middle East, and we would witness a diplomatic, economic, and cultural relationship with Saudi Arabia and some other Sunni countries in the region.