Iran Negotiations: America’s Inherent Disadvantage

Israel’s leaders in Jerusalem are “not rushing toward an Obama-like public spat with the Biden administration over Iran policy,” writes Brig. Gen. Michael Herzog of the Washington Institute. Jerusalem “is preparing for dialogue.”

“Wars begin when aggressive powers believe that their targets are weaker, or give the false impression that they are weaker, or at least stay inert in the face of provocation,” warns Victor Davis Hanson of the Center for American Greatness and Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

The Iran issue is back on the table. The Biden administration is looking for a way to return to the nuclear agreement. Iran is looking for a way to return to it on its own terms and with no additional conditions attached. Israel is seeking to either disrupt the return to the old deal or verify that a new deal, much stricter, is implemented. Saudi Arabia is looking for a way to work alongside Israel without being dragged into a public spat with someone else.

The implied conclusion of what we know is this: Not all parties will get what they want. To make it even more complicated, some players are seeking a compromise solution on a topic that, for some players, there can be no compromise.

America is stepping into this field with an inherent deficiency: In tough negotiations, the party with higher stakes has a natural advantage. Nuclear Iran is much more important for Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia than it is for Biden and his team.

This prioritization makes the Americans more likely to accept compromise and makes Iran and Israel less likely to do so. Is dialogue itself a show of weakness? No, not always. But in this case, all parties can easily identify an American weakness. The United States cares about Iran — but not as much as Iran or Israel do.

The United States cares about Iran — but not as much AS Iran or Israel do.

Under such circumstances, America must compensate, in some fashion, for its weakness. Of course, it has the means to do such a thing because it is a superpower, unlike Iran and Israel. If countries in the Middle East suspected that the United States is fully invested in getting a workable agreement, they’d have no other choice but to pay close attention to its priorities. Almost two decades ago, Libya’s leader Muammar Gaddafi agreed to eliminate his country’s weapons of mass destruction. He agreed because, at the time, America seemed fully committed to the elimination of such means in the region.

Today, we do not yet see a similar commitment. Not even close. For obvious reasons (many of which are easy to sympathize with), America seems more committed to restoring the agreement than to achieving the ultimate goal of making sure that Iran does not become a nuclear weaponized aggressive regime. This makes Iran more emboldened and makes Israel more nervous. Herzog writes, “the option of taking military action against Iran’s nuclear program… is not mere posturing.” So Jerusalem is preparing for a quiet dialogue, alongside preparations for other things.