Iran's diplomatic offensive puts Israel in awkward spot

On Thursday 26 September, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met in New York. It was part of a wider meeting between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany (the so-called “five plus one” group). The aim was to explore the reopening of negotiations on the Middle Eastern country’s nuclear programme, which has been a point of contention for decades.

The meeting was particularly significant as it was the first time in 30 years that high level officials from the US and Iran have sat down together to talk face to face. Both diplomats said the discussion was “constructive” and sounded cautiously optimistic about the prospect of continued discussions. Zarif said that “we hope to be able to make progress” by “respecting the rights of the Iranian people to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment. And, at the same time, making sure that there is no concern at the international level that Iran’s nuclear programme is anything but peaceful”. For his part, Kerry said he was “pleased” that Zarif had made a presentation to the group, and that it was “very different in tone and very different in the vision that he held out with respect to the possibilities of the future.”

This latest development has come hot on the heels of a notable softening of rhetoric from the newly elected Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, and from US president Barack Obama. Last week, Rouhani told a US news network that “the problem [over nuclear discussions] won’t be from our side”, while Obama said “there is an opportunity here for diplomacy”. The two leaders have exchanged letters, fuelling hopes for dialogue.

Both sides remain cautious, speaking of the possible difficulties ahead. Obama said that “the roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested.” His commitment to at least attempting to find a bilateral, diplomatic solution is demonstrated by the fact that he has assigned Kerry – his highest level diplomat – to the discussion. Negotiations have previously been held at a lower level.

All of this is a significant shift from a few months ago, in the last days of the previous Iranian government, when the US and Israel were making veiled – and not so veiled – threats of military action if the nuclear programme was not dropped.

This shift in tone leaves Israel, and its prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in an awkward spot. As the New York Times puts it: “Israel finds itself in a bind: eager to unmask what it sees as an empty charm offensive, yet at risk of being seen as a spoiler unwilling to consider the possibility of change in Tehran’s nuclear policy”.

Netanyahu ordered Israel’s delegation to boycott Rouhani’s appearance at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, with the prime minister’s office citing Iran’s Holocaust denial and calls for Israel’s destruction. In the early hours of the following day, Netanyahu released a statement dismissing the address as “a cynical speech that was full of hypocrisy”, and saying that Iran’s strategy was “to talk and play for time in order to advance its ability to achieve nuclear weapons”. Obama had earlier said that Iran’s words would have to be “matched by action that is transparent and viable”. Netanyahu supported this statement, adding that so far, Iran had offered only “cosmetic concessions”. He said that “the world should not be fooled” by “half measures that merely provide a smoke screen for Iran’s continual pursuit of nuclear weapons”.

But is this hard line approach counter-productive? A growing contingent of Israeli analysts believes so. Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, told the New York Times that it is “a very dangerous and very awkward situation for Netanyahu to be perceived as the only naysayer and warmonger.” He said that Netanyahu, while being cautious, should “be seen to give it a chance”. Long time Israeli minister Dan Meridor said that it would be a better strategy for Netanyahu to “speak positively” about the new Iranian leadership.

Israel is not the only country with continued concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme; Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states share this anxiety. However, these states have remained silent during Rouhani’s recent charm offensive. While the US and its allies invest time in testing Iran’s “seriousness” and the viability of a diplomatic solution, Israel risks looking internationally isolated by refusing to even give its adversary a hearing.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.