Concluding the nuclear deal with Iran has intensified political arguments, not only in Washington, but also within the pro-Israel community. Many groups are devoting significant time and resources to opposing the agreement and attempting to prevent its approval by Congress in the belief that it will leave both the United States and Israel less safe.
In view of the political reality, however, the energy being spent to fight it is misplaced. Instead, we must prepare for the day after the agreement goes into effect to ensure that the United States and Israel are in the best possible position to confront the new realities that this deal will create in the Middle East
Halting Iran’s nuclear program was the core purpose of the negotiations that led to the agreement. The Barack Obama administration believes the accord represents the best means for achieving a highly effective nuclear arms control agreement for the next decade and a half. But there are reasons to be wary.
Despite the regional instability that the agreement could intensify, the campaign to scuttle it is a Sisyphean one. Even if a majority of senators and congressmen have strong misgivings, it will be extremely difficult for the deal’s opponents to siphon off enough Democratic votes to make its rejection veto-proof. In addition, most polling confirms that a majority of Americans, including Jews, support it.
Thus, the vital task at hand is to ensure that, in the post-deal world, American and Israeli shared interests are protected. This undertaking should address three primary issues.
First, the U.S.-Israel relationship cannot afford to sustain any more damage as a result of the discord about Iran. Washington and Jerusalem must now repair ties while continuing to co-ordinate, in the closest possible manner, regional defence, security and intelligence matters.
Israel’s security is harmed when its support is seen as partisan, and the recent period of rancour between American and Israeli leaders must be set aside as an aberration rather than a new baseline. This will involve an American effort toward increasing Israel’s clear qualitative military edge and providing an explicit plan to deal with Iranian violations of the nuclear accord, and an Israeli resolve not to sabotage core American diplomatic initiatives.
Second, the forest of the two-state solution cannot be lost for the trees in the Iran deal. There is no better way of guaranteeing Israel’s future than preserving the ability to negotiate a separation from the Palestinians when conditions allow. In no way should efforts to counter Iranian regional mischief be conditioned on Israeli movement toward a Palestinian state, but by the same token a strong Israel is more important than ever, and the two-state solution cannot remain on the back burner.
The Iran agreement also provides an opportunity for co-operation between Israel and Arab states, and to use such co-operation as a stepping stone toward normalized relations. But tangible and public co-operation will only be possible if Israel demonstrates its willingness to make progress on the Palestinian front.
Finally, the squabbling over the Iran deal has opened up large fissures in the American Jewish community, and the wounds will not easily heal should they be allowed to fester. Principled policy differences and heated debate should not derail the universally shared goals of a strong U.S.-Israel alliance and a commitment to Israel’s security. While there are strongly held differences of opinion on how to achieve these goals, surely everyone can agree that an American Jewish community that has policy debates in a vigorous yet respectful manner makes them more achievable.
We must deal with the world we have. Let us now work together to shape a post-deal environment that advances important U.S. national interests, especially the security of Israel and our other regional allies.
Peter A. Joseph is chair of Israel Policy Forum. Charles R. Bronfman is chair of the organization’s advisory committee. Susie Gelman is a member of the board.
