President Obama is laboring to defend not just the merits of a nuclear framework with Iran but how the finalization of such a pact would affect his ability to confront Tehran’s rapidly growing influence in the volatile Middle East.
Perhaps Obama’s greatest liability as his administration looks to push the Iran talks across the finish line is the concern that this arrangement would embolden Iran and that the lifting of sanctions might allow the Iranian regime to devote even more resources to anti-American interests.
Obama is willing to gamble that a nuclear deal he sees as central to his legacy will not send the Middle East spiraling further into chaos.
Regardless, history is likely to judge Obama’s Iran strategy on what it means for the broader trajectory of the region, not simply the amount of time it keeps the Iranians from building a bomb.
For Obama to meet his security pledges to nations most alarmed by the emerging blueprint for Iran’s nuclear program, he’ll find himself in a number of awkward spots with Tehran on issues ranging from growing tensions in Yemen to the chronic civil war in Syria.
And analysts said both Obama and Iranian negotiators had a mutual interest in asserting they could decouple nuclear talks from issues on which the divide between both camps remains vast.
“Both sides insist that they can divide the nuclear talks from other issues. That is as important for the Iranian leaders as it is for Obama — Tehran does not want to look like it is selling out to the U.S.,” said Richard Gowan, research director at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation.
“We may have to get used to American-Iranian relations swinging between confrontation and cooperation on a case-by-case basis. Obama will have to reassure Israel and his Arab allies that he is not ceding the Middle East to Tehran.”
That reality is central to the GOP argument that Obama is glossing over the long-term consequences of his concessions to the Iranian government.
“Iran’s support of Hezbollah, the Assad regime, Shia militias in Iraq, Houthi insurgents in Yemen — along with its ongoing nuclear ambitions — reveal an ongoing effort to both expand the Iranian sphere of influence throughout the greater Middle East and undermine America’s standing and presence in the region,” argued Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., vowing Monday that conservatives would counter Obama’s Iran power play with legislation of their own.
The freshest reminder of Obama’s predicament is the proxy war between Iran, which supports the rebel forces in Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, which is backing the Yemeni government. The U.S. is now providing logistical and intelligence support to Yemen, and a collection of Gulf nations are pressing for a heightened American response.
Iran views the current framework as a way to extend its influence in the region, perhaps delaying its nuclear ambitions, but doing so in exchange for becoming a bigger player in a number of other key areas.
Supporters of the president’s actions contend that curtailing Iran’s nuclear program is worth the risk of the Iranian regime not changing its behavior in other conflicts.
“When Nixon went to China, the Chinese were still killing Americans in Vietnam. They didn’t change their behavior right away,” argued Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under President Ronald Reagan. “You can’t solve all the problems right away. You take one thing at a time.”
But critics argue that Obama is effectively making those other problems more difficult to solve by throwing Tehran a lifeline right now. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists Obama is setting off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with neighboring nations scrambling to ensure they’re on equal footing with Iran.
Though the U.S. and Iran have a mutual interest in defeating the Islamic State, the Middle Eastern nation could emerge from a nuclear accord more emboldened to meddle in Syria, Yemen or even Gaza. Obama has yet to concretely outline to allies how he’d counter Iran expanding influence in those areas.
However, the president’s actions on Iran fit into the broader Obama doctrine, choosing engagement on isolated issues despite simmering tensions on most policies.
Obama forged ahead on the nuclear talks, relying on Russian cooperation, for example, despite the showdown with Moscow over the Eastern nation’s incursions in Ukraine. The president recently brokered a wide-ranging climate deal with China, setting aside concerns about the nation’s aggressive cyber warfare against the United States.
In recent days, Obama has repeatedly declared that he’s not ignoring critical differences with Iran.
“Of course, this deal alone, even if fully implemented, will not end the deep divisions and mistrust between our two countries,” Obama said in announcing the framework. “And our concerns will remain with respect to Iranian behavior so long as Iran continues its sponsorship of terrorism, its support for proxies who destabilize the Middle East, its threats against America’s friends and allies, like Israel. So make no mistake: We will remain vigilant in countering those actions and standing with our allies.”
