Has diplomacy reached the end in the Middle East?

In 1981, a increasingly powerful Baathist nationalist regime in Iraq with developing nuclear capabilities prompted Israel to undertake preemptive air strikes on its nuclear facilities. Now the question is whether an ever-weary Israeli government could, or for that matter should, deliver another preemptive strike, this time on Iranian nuclear facilities and “neutralise” the source, as the new Israeli government seems to have hinted.

With the accession of US president Barack Obama to power, it was hoped that the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians would receive a much-needed jumpstart.

However, growing mutterings from the new Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened the peace process. The general consensus in Israel is that it would be impossible to resolve any problem in the region, without also finding a resolution to the Iranian nuclear headache.

However, for Iran where defiance against international objections has become a symbol of nationalism, giving up its nuclear program is most unlikely. It remains to be seen where this leaves the standoff, especially with many Western powers keen on a “grand bargain” with Iran over it nuclear program.

Has diplomacy reached an end?

While the former US administration under George W. Bush continuously emphasised that “all options were on the table” regarding Iran, at least for now, military strikes appear unviable as they could further stoke Iranian sentiments and also undermine regional support.

The new Obama administration emphasised that diplomacy was possible with Iran if it could “unclench its fist”. However, such unclenching of the fist would almost certainly involve concessions that are unlikely to be tolerated by Iran, such as the suspension of their much heralded uranium enrichment program.

While Israel has played down talks of imminent strikes against Iran, rumours of grand military drills and alleged Israeli capability to undertake multiple strikes within days of been given the go ahead, clearly signals that all options remain possible.

While the diplomatic channels may not have been exhausted, with Iran signaling its openness to negotiate with the US on its nuclear program, something will clearly have to give sooner rather than later. Though the Obama administration has sounded many positive overtures in luring the Iranian regime, it has been equally keen to note that it is also ready to respond to the issue harshly by acting as a catalyst for major economic sanctions, or possibly worse, military strikes.

A persistent thorn in the US side

Nuclear issues aside, the real problem is the Islamist regime in Iran where US-Iranian ties have never recovered since the US embassy hostage crisis which propelled relations to the current lows and led to the severance of diplomatic ties.

After much sacrifice in Iraq, the US slowly and painfully realised that the intertwined web that is the Middle East needed to be approached in a much more holistic manner.

The last several years in the Middle East has highlighted that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in resolving the issues. As such, the US acknowledges that however controversial the Tehran regime may be, it clearly needs Iranian support if to achieve these goals.

As part of Obama’s strategy of reinvigorating a tarnished US foreign policy in the region, and in reaching out to the greater Muslim world, it has deployed a more cautious card in dealing with Iran. While Israelis have linked the peace process with the Palestinians to resolving the Iranian nuclear standoff, the US has emphasised that to generate the needed political support, both issues must go hand-in-hand.