America’s readiness to negotiate a deal with the Islamic Republic on its nuclear program is a source of deep concern among our traditional friends in the Middle East. For the Arabs, the fear is that the deal with come at their expense, with the United States increasingly seeing Iran as a partner. For the Israelis, the worry is that we will conclude a deal that leaves the Iranians as a threshold nuclear state—capable of breaking out to nuclear weapons at a time when we might be distracted by another international crisis.

…

To be sure, if there is to be a deal, the Supreme Leader must see the very high costs to the Islamic Republic of diplomacy failing. He must be convinced that such failure will mean enduring, severe economic pain for Iran as well as the high probability that force will be used to destroy the huge investment the Islamic Republic has made in its nuclear facilities. Ironically, that posture—which may make a deal more likely—would also be useful for assuaging the deep concerns our regional friends have about any possible P5+1 nuclear accord with the Iranians.

Both the Israelis and our key Arab friends believe that we are anxious for a nuclear deal, and they are not taking seriously the administration’s declarations that no deal would be better than a bad deal. They see active Iranian efforts to change the balance of power in the region and, fairly or not, little sign that we are prepared to compete with the Iranians as they do so. That has led to a perception among our regional friends that we attach such importance to a deal on the Iranian nuclear program that we turn a blind eye to Iranian behavior in the region.

…

For the Israelis, their priority is the Iranian nuclear program. That constitutes an existential threat. Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah constitute a threat, but, in Israeli eyes, that is manageable. Iran possessing nuclear weapons is not manageable or containable. For the Saudis, Iran already represents an existential threat even without nuclear weapons. The Saudis, Emiratis, and others see an aggressive Iranian pursuit of regional hegemony. From a Saudi standpoint, the Iranians are encircling them—seeking to gain dominance in, and the ability to threaten them overtly and covertly from, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The Iranian nuclear program would add to the threat—perhaps making the Iranians less risk averse—but it is not the source of the problem they see.

…

For the Saudis, an Iran with nuclear weapons requires a countervailing response; such weapons would certainly add to the dangers. But in the near term, the Saudis may fear even more an Iran that is no longer being damaged by severe economic sanctions, no longer isolated internationally, increasingly able to develop economically, and with more means for troublemaking. As such, the Saudis in particular may fear that a deal on the nuclear program will not only signal a new American openness to Iran, but, even more, give the Iranians license to be more aggressive in the region, and with the economic wherewithal to do so. Words alone will not reassure the Saudis in the aftermath of a deal. They will look for signs that a nuclear deal is not going to transform our relationship with Iran—and that we will be vigilant in countering Iran’s threats in the area

Unlike the Saudis, the measure for the Israelis is what kind of deal is reached. The Saudis will be suspicious of any nuclear deal; for the Israelis, it depends on the deal. A deal that precludes the Iranians from being able to turn a civil nuclear program into a nuclear weapons capability would be welcomed. Such a deal would remove an existential threat to Israel. The problem for the Israelis is that the deal that would make them most comfortable is probably not attainable in the P5+1 negotiations; Israelis feel that Iran must be denied an ongoing enrichment capability. While that would be for the best from a strictly nonproliferation standpoint, it is probably not attainable—at least that is the consensus of those members of the P5+1 negotiating with the Iranians. The question for the Israelis becomes whether they can be reassured enough about the scope of the roll-back of the Iranian program, the transparency measures designed to prevent cheating on the roll-back, and the credible consequences that would be imposed on the Iranians if they cheated anyway.

...