A US-Iran convergence

An agreement between the U.S., its Western partners and Iran surrounding the Islamic republic's nuclear program is, apparently, just a matter of time. Even if a few extra weeks are needed it seems clear that both sides are determined to finalize a deal, and will not allow anyone -- from home or abroad -- to stop them. After all, the Iranian regime and the Obama administration both have a vested interest, and where there is political will and determination, no one lets the tiny details get in the way.

Iran is approaching the final stretch of nuclear negotiations battered and exhausted by economic sanctions. For Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who was elected on a ticket of reform and change, the deal is a question of to be or not to be. Rouhani, better than anyone else in Iran, understands the importance of extricating his country from forced international isolation and is working to have the sanctions lifted. He knows the proposed deal meets Iran's needs, allows it to preserve its achievements on the nuclear front, and more importantly -- strengthen the standing of the ayatollah regime. Ultimately, Rouhani is an inseparable component of the regime. The objective of all his actions is to ensure the regime's survival, even if it means moderating and softening the tone of its message.

If Rouhani fails to strike a deal, his conservative detractors will descend on him and end his political life, claiming that his conciliatory approach toward the U.S. is unfeasible.

Rouhani, therefore, is interested in a deal, although it appears Obama is no less in need of one either. The president's gaze is fixed on November 2016, when his successor in the White House will be elected. His entire Middle East policy, and not only as it pertains to Iran but to matters like the Syrian civil war and the fight against Islamic State, is geared toward that target date. Obama wants to end his presidency unscathed, without going down in history as being responsible for the disintegration of order in the Middle East, or just as bad -- culpable for a nuclear Iran. After 2016, however, cometh the flood.

From this perspective, it is possible to see how a nuclear deal came into being, a deal that postpones the inevitable while bequeathing the problem to subsequent generations. Within the framework of the deal, the Iranians will have to denounce their intentions to develop nuclear weapons, and in exchange for this declaration of goodwill the Americans will let them keep the nuclear capabilities they have developed over the years. Here, too, we see the incomprehensible chasm between intentions and capabilities. "Intentions" is a vague, slippery term, subject to change -- much like the weather. "Capabilities," on the other hand, are tangible: centrifuges, enriched uranium, reactors, scientific knowledge and so on.

The Americans can take solace in an Iranian commitment not to become a nuclear state in the next decade, but the Iranians have no reason to press their luck and become one. Time is on their side and they happily welcome the immunity and legitimacy that such a deal will afford their nuclear program. Regardless, if the need or opportunity arises in the coming years, they can always shred the agreement to pieces, similar to what North Korea did, and laugh all the way to a nuclear bomb.

But, in the spirit of these times (with the Purim holiday almost upon us), perhaps another miracle will occur. Maybe America's weakness will tempt the Iranians to push their luck, thereby torpedoing negotiations. And perhaps the Americans will come to their senses and heed their allies in the region who are warning them against this particular deal. If not, as stated, it is simply a matter of time.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו