Keeping friends close but enemies closer: US strategy in Middle East

Saudi Arabia has ended its three week-long military attack on Yemen to push the Iran-backed Shia Houti rebels that had taken over the Yemeni capital Sana in September last year forcing President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadito flee to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were able to cause major damages to the Houtis but failed to dislodge the Shia rebels. The Saudis ended their military campaign with a statement that said that the campaign had "successfully managed to thwart the threat on the security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia".
The situation in Yemen remains fluid but interesting. It is pregnant with a number of possibilities that could alter the dynamics of the Middle East for decades to come. And these possible changes are part of the vision that is being worked out in the drawing board in Washington under careful direction of President Obama at the White House. The new US vision for the Middle East centres on Iran-West rapprochement over the nuclear crisis and use that rapprochement to ease the tensions and concerns of the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) led by Saudi Arabia -- the main US allies in the region after Israel.
The framework agreement reached on April 02 between the Iran and the US led P5 plus one officially titled "Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Programme" to halt Iran's nuclear programme from producing nuclear weapons in exchange of lifting of the economic sanctions against it is the first step towards the vision. The parties concerned are now engaged in further negotiations to reach a comprehensive settlement by June 30 deadline so that Iran and the West led by the United States would be able to put their many decades-old confrontation behind where Iran had become a major de-stabling factor through its proxy roles in all the major flash points of current tension in the region in Yemen, Iraq, Syria.
The final agreement will not be easy in coming. This would come only when the P5 plus one countries are fully satisfied as regards the extent and limits to which Iran would be permitted to go with its future nuclear research. In its turn, Iran has stated categorically that it must be fully satisfied that the sanctions against it has been lifted fully to subject itself to the demands of the P5 plus one of the extent and limits of its future nuclear research. Added to these factors upon which the final agreement would depend, the White House has its own domestic problem over the final settlement. The Congress had earlier openly castigated President Obama for opting for diplomatic option. The Republican-dominated Congress had even invited Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in early February this year to address a Joint Session of the Congress to reject White House's diplomatic option and insist upon harsher economic sanctions to force Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.
The success of the framework agreement reached on April 02 that has been welcomed worldwide and also by a major section of the US population has to some extent blunted Congress' opposition against a diplomatic settlement. There are now positive hints that the White House would have its way on the diplomatic path to resolve Iran's nuclear crisis provided the parties concerned could finally cross the June 30 deadline hand in hand with the final agreement in their grasp. The final agreement when concluded would also be endorsed by the UN Security Council and once that would be accomplished, the ability of the US Congress to stop the agreement would diminish substantially.
The nuclear deal when finally achieved to the satisfaction of Iran and the P5 plus one would bring Iran out of the cold, and countries once sworn enemies would once again engage with one another. That would leave unresolved the position of US' major allies in the region, namely the GCC countries led by Saudi Arabia who were not in the negotiations between the P5 plus one and Iran. The White House's new vision for the Middle East, therefore,  also takes into serious account the interests and feelings of the GCC countries for whom Iran is the real enemy in their borders.
Thus its overtures towards Iran notwithstanding, the US cleared the Saudi-led attack on the Houti rebels in Yemen to please the GCC countries, albeit reluctantly. In an article in the Washington Post on April 22, 2015, columnist David Ignatius described this new US policy in the making, of overtures towards Iran and backing to Saudis to attack the Houtis in Yemen with an analogy from "The Godfather: Part II". The analogy is with Michael Corleone's successful dual policy of "keeping friends close but enemies closer." Therefore, while engaging with Iran, the US also supported Saudi Arabia in Yemen for an "eventual balance between a less-threatening Iran and a more confident, forward leaning Saudi Arabia."
The US is at present treading a tight line with its dual policy. It believes that Iran wants to draw Saudi Arabia in the mess in Yemen but also knows that asking Saudi Arabia not to attack would cause misunderstanding in Riyadh about which side USA really supports. It thus gave the green signal to Saudi Arabia to attack the Houtis, and now delighted that the Saudis have stopped military operations on their own that would allow it time to reach the nuclear deal with Iran. President Obama is scheduled to meet the GCC leaders in the White House on May 13 and the following day in Camp David where he is expected to explain the details of the dual policy where his effort would be to convince the GCC allies that "USA is truly committed to their security.'
US's dual policy of 'keeping friends close and enemies closer' would thus have Iran engaged proactively with the West that would happen once the final agreement is reached and all sanctions are withdrawn against Iran. That would put Iran in a situation where it would be encouraged for its own interests to withdraw from its proxy wars in the region or to pursue them less enthusiastically. In the evolving strategic environment, the US would be able also to pursue another major objective which is to convince the GCC countries and other allies in the region that their main security threat is not external but internal where they should cooperate with one another to deal with the growing threats from groups such as ISIS and other terrorist Islamist groups.
The final outcome of negotiations for a nuclear deal with Iran thus could have very far-reaching positive consequences for peace not just in the region but also beyond. If the Iranian nuclear threat  is positively resolved as envisaged in the objectives of President Obama's 'dual policy', the West, led by the United States, could then start talking with Israel and force it to acknowledge the positive developments and help resolve the 'mother of all conflicts', namely the Palestinian conflict.
    The writer is a former ambassador.
    [email protected]