US President Barack Obama is on a diplomatic offensive on several fronts in the Middle East. The six-month interim agreement between the major world powers, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and the European Union, and Iran to restrain the latter's nuclear programme is being described as the most important development in US-Iranian relations since the Iranian revolution in 1979. The agreement has set off a rapprochement between Tehran and Washington, raising hopes that much more is to follow. The French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, has suggested that the European Union may lift some sanctions on Iran as early as December. A new round of peace talks on Syria has been announced for next January. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad says his government will attend, but the participation of several of the country's opposition groups is in doubt. In Afghanistan, a tribal grand assembly has recommended that President Hamid Karzai sign a security pact with the United States before the end of the year, as the Obama administration wants. However, Karzai insists on a firm American commitment to stop night raids on Afghan homes, a “correct and dignified” presidential election and stability, without which he will not sign the security pact. He says that he wants to leave the signing to his successor after the April 2014 elections. Then there are the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, slow and protracted as they have been for decades. Obama's diplomacy on so many fronts is a sign of incredible ambition, and it requires great energy and deftness. These matters, with their ramifications for the region, deserve careful assessment. Obama has embarked on a far-reaching enterprise hoping for great rewards, but there are high risks, too. Why should he want such a radical change of course? His game plan is worth examining. Years of economic sanctions have had dire consequences for the Iranian economy, but it would be wrong to claim that Washington has emerged unhurt. The United States also lost access to Iran, a major energy source and a large market for American corporations. Meanwhile, anarchy rules in Libya, and terror has been overflowing to other countries of the region, after the West's miscalculation in overthrowing the former Libyan regime led by Muammar Gaddafi. Libya's oil production has been disrupted, with the result that Iran has become more important as a source of energy. The loss of influence in Tehran made the United States overly dependent on Saudi Arabia and Israel. Both benefited greatly by consistently playing the Iran card in their dealings with successive US administrations after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. America's capacity to shape events diminished in Syria and Lebanon, where Iran's influence is considerable. Following the 2003 US-led invasion and the overthrow of president Saddam Hussein, Iraq moved close to Iran, and there is now a pro-Tehran government in Baghdad. The Shia uprising in Bahrain, where the US Fifth Fleet is based, has had to be controlled by the emirate's rulers from the Sunni minority with an iron fist. Iran's help to the Americans in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban regime's removal, and Karzai's installation in power, had all promised an era of hope for relations between Washington and Tehran. That hopeful era proved short-lived, however, when the administration of former US president George W Bush changed its tune. In particular, the Iranians felt betrayed by Bush's description, in January 2002, of their country as being a member of the “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea. Despite Iran's paying a very high price since the 1979 Revolution for its lost contacts with the United States, there has been a price paid by successive American administrations, too, including in terms of credibility. When the political environment is polarised sharply, the room for manoeuvre is also severely limited. Is Obama out to craft a new US grand design in the Middle East in the remainder of his second term? If so, it would require a radical realignment of American policy. Washington would have to build a new road to Tehran, linking Iran to Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan. The road to Israel and Saudi Arabia would have to take second place. It is this prospect that makes both Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the Israeli government's supporters in the US Congress, nervous. Has Obama got what it takes to overcome the hurdles on this path? Obama's opponents could thwart his Middle East plans, either individually or collectively. Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is the biggest obstacle. While all eyes were focussed on Syria, and on talks in Geneva with Iran, the Americans and the Iranians were holding secret negotiations without Netanyahu knowing. This was a remarkable event, and it has been one that has infuriated Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister looks isolated on the international stage, but his support in the American Congress could still wreck the deal with Iran, whose cooperation is going to be vital for stability in Afghanistan during and after most NATO troops are withdrawn by the end of 2014. There are two main reasons why Tehran's cooperation is necessary. First of all, it is going to fall upon Afghan government forces to deal with the Pashtun Taliban's resurgent activity in the south and east, so the north and west close to the border with Iran must be kept at peace. Furthermore, non-Pashtun minorities with close links to Iran are overrepresented in the Afghan armed forces. With only a few thousand American troops left in the country, it will be essential that the Afghan military remains together. The next six months are going to be decisive. At the end of this period, we will know whether Iran's agreement with the major world powers has a long-term future. We will also find out how far pro-Israel jingoists and war hawks such as New York senator Chuck Schumer will be able to succeed in turning their threats of sabotaging Obama's Middle East plan into reality. Speaking at a children's charity fundraiser recently, Schumer spoke of working in congress to impose more crippling sanctions against Iran and to “defeat” the Arab world and the Palestinians. The next few months will also tell whether President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, backed by the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, can prevail over conservative opponents in his own country. They will also reveal how events unfolding in Afghanistan will affect Obama's dispute with Karzai over the US-Afghan security pact. However, above all else the most important question will be whether Obama will be able to drive his project hard enough for it to have a long life, or whether it is destined to be just another big idea that eventually gets buried in the sands of the Middle East.
The writer is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
