Only two Arab states had previously recognized Israel — Egypt and Jordan. Both were far from Iran and motivated by the security of their own borders (as well as the good will of Washington).
The U.A.E., in contrast, is the only state among Iran’s Gulf neighbors to strike such an agreement, and the first to do primarily out of antagonism to Iran.
Iranian, Arab and Western analysts all predicted that other Gulf monarchies would soon follow suit, with Bahrain and Oman considered prime candidates. Oman, which has sometimes positioned itself as a relatively neutral intermediary between Iran and its Arab rivals, raised speculation two years ago by hosting a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
More immediately, Iranian analysts said they feared that greater access to the U.A.E.’s commercial center in Dubai could also provide special advantages to Israeli attempts to spy on Iran. The rulers of the U.A.E. are fierce critics of the rulers of Iran, but many Iranians do business or spend time in Dubai (which appears to receive a de facto exemption from American sanctions).
< >
< >
< >
< >
< >
The rulers of the U.A.E. are fierce critics of the rulers of Iran, but many Iranians do business or spend time in Dubai. Credit… Giuseppe Cacace/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
< >
< >
As a result, Dubai could now become the first place in decades where large numbers of Iranians and Israelis may be mixing.
< >
< >
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned the Emiratis not to let Israel “gain a foothold in the region.”
“Beware that then we would act and deal with them differently,” he said in a speech on Saturday.
Yet Iranian officials gave no indication that they were preparing to punish the U.A.E., or to risk cutting off trade or diplomatic ties. Given the longstanding Iranian economic ties to the U.A.E. and the weakness of the Iranian economy, analysts said Iran had little choice.
Several argued the full impact on Iran of the Emirati-Israeli agreement would become clear only over time.
“Is the U.A.E. going to be more publicly supportive of Israeli bombing of Iranian installations in Syria, or of Israeli efforts to thwart Hezbollah?,” asked Sanam Vakil, a scholar at Chatham House, in London. “Is Israel going to defend the U.A.E. in the face of Iranian aggression? All this seems really opaque right now.”
The threat of a regional reshuffling, though, can only complicate Iran’s efforts to shore up its influence through Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon, a country that Iranian officials often refer to as “our southern border” or “our border with Israel.”
“Lebanon’s security is our security,” Mr. Zarif told Lebanese journalists during his visit this week.
< >
< >
But if Hezbollah’s Iranian-supplied weaponry has sometimes provided Tehran with tacit leverage against Israel, the domestic crisis inside Lebanon has now fully consumed the movement’s energies and muted any such threat.
< >
< >
< >
A rally of Hezbollah supporters in 2018 in Baalbek, Lebanon. The domestic crisis within the country has now fully consumed the movement’s energies. Credit… Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times
< >
< >
“Iran and Hezbollah are very boxed in as a result of the explosion,” Ms. Vakil of Chatham House said. “There is no way Iran can count on Hezbollah to rain any of its missiles and rockets down on Israel right now. There will be absolutely no appetite and no support for any such adventurism.”
After a 2006 war in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel, Iran rushed to hand out donations to local Lebanese businesses and individual to pay for reconstruction, bolstering its influence.
But after the explosion last week, Iran’s patronage was more thrifty.
The Iranian Red Crescent announced that it had delivered 95 tons of food and medical aid, along with a 37-member medical team to open a field hospital. (A Hezbollah-linked municipal association said last week that it would send aid teams to help clean up a predominantly Christian neighborhood. But angry residents scuttled the plan.)
Mr. Zarif’s warning to other nations not to try to amp up their influence in Lebanon amid the turmoil there was a tacit jab at President Emmanuel Macron of France, the former colonial ruler of Lebanon. Mr. Macron had just flown into Beirut to lead international efforts to finance reconstruction, assuming a role Iran had previously sought as Lebanon’s benevolent patron.
< >
< >
< >
The Iranian Red Crescent announced that it had delivered 95 tons of food and medical aid after the explosion last week. Credit… Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times
Mr. Macron also urged the formation of a new, technocratic government, which could have the side effect of diminishing the influence of Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah.
< >
< >
Outraged Iranian commentators berated Mr. Macron for dominating the scene, accusing him of forgetting Lebanon’s independence from France. But Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, bucking the Iranian view, sent representatives to meet with Mr. Macron and publicly welcomed the help.
Sadegh Zibakalam, a political analyst in Tehran who is an outspoken critic of government policies, saw parallels among Mr. Macron’s visit to Lebanon, Iran’s inability to stop Israeli airstrikes against its positions in Syria, and the recent selection of an American-backed prime minister in neighboring Iraq.
Tehran had poured resources into allied militias and parties in all three countries, he noted, as part of what Iranian officials call “resistance” to the United States and Israel.
Now the setbacks in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, he argued, were demonstrating “the results of investing billions of dollars in the strategy of resistance.”
< >
< >
Michael Barbaro
From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”
Today: For the first time in nearly 30 years, an Arab country has established full diplomatic relations with the state of Israel. Mark Landler on what it says about the changing dynamics of the Middle East.
It’s Tuesday, August 18.
Mark, tell me about this dinner.
Mark Landler
Well, so it was March of 2018. My recollection was it was kind of a rainy night. And it was a dinner at a restaurant called Cafe Milano, which is in Georgetown. And this is one of these classic Washington watering holes. The Trumps go there. The Obama administration, top officials used to go. It’s an Italian restaurant, you know, full of power brokers. And one of the most faithful and well-heeled customers of this restaurant is a diplomat whose name is Yousef Otaiba. And Otaiba is the United Arab Emirates ambassador to Washington. So he’s not necessarily a diplomat from one of the world’s biggest countries. But he has transformed himself into one of the most well-connected and influential ambassadors in Washington. And one of the ways he has done this over the years is by developing this network of contacts among administration officials, both Democratic and Republican people on Capitol Hill and members of the media, which is how yours truly got to find himself at Cafe Milano that night in March.
Otaiba had put together a dinner with a senior Trump administration official, who oversaw the administration’s policy toward Iran, as well as a number of other senior journalists and one other guest, who was the ambassador to the United States from Bahrain — which is another Persian Gulf kingdom. So we sat down for what was kind of a classic Yousef Otaiba evening.
But early in the evening, we realized, or we were told by the owner of the restaurant, that there was another important person dining there that night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.
Michael Barbaro
Huh.
Mark Landler
Who is in town in Washington that week for the annual meeting of AIPAC, which is a big pro-Israel lobbying group. And he was dining there that night with his wife Sara. So in this private room where we were gathered with Otaiba, a group of us began to say, well, wouldn’t it be interesting slash fun to invite Netanyahu to come say hi to the group.
Michael Barbaro
Now why would that be interesting and fun?
Mark Landler
Well, interesting because the idea of the prime minister of Israel coming in to meet with two diplomats from Gulf Arab countries would really be actually sort of a small landmark. These are countries, after all, that don’t recognize Israel, that have spent years denouncing Israel, the very notion of a Zionist state, that are huge champions of the Palestinians. And so the idea that Netanyahu would come in and greet and make small talk would be kind of a big deal.
So with Otaiba’s agreement, one of the guests at the table slipped out and made his way across the restaurant, introduced himself to the prime minister, and said, you know, gee, when you’re finished with dinner, why don’t you and your wife come over and say hi to Yousef Otaiba and his guests? And Netanyahu said he would.
Michael Barbaro
What happens next?
Mark Landler
Well, so toward the end of the evening, as promised, the door opens. And Prime Minister Netanyahu and his wife Sara walk in. And it’s initially a somewhat stilted affair. People stand up. No one is quite sure what to do. He’s not really going to sit down and join us for dessert. But it’s really clear right away that Netanyahu wants to use this moment to drive home a point. And the point he wants to drive home is that Israel and the United Arab Emirates have reasons to be friendlier with one another. And the way he does it is by showcasing their shared enemy, which is Iran.
And so Netanyahu, as he has done publicly and privately scores of times, goes into a fairly familiar diatribe about Iranian misbehavior, Iranian misdeeds, and how Israel and the Gulf countries need to ally themselves against this threat from Iran. Otaiba nods throughout this. He’s in agreement with everything that Netanyahu is saying. And so on the surface, it feels like a rather innocuous conversation.
But the interesting moment comes a little bit later when Sara Netanyahu, who has a big personality, suddenly interjects to the ambassador, we would love to welcome you to Jerusalem. And Otaiba’s reaction is very polite and very charming. And he nods. But he’s somewhat noncommittal. He doesn’t say, oh, yes, sure, I’ll be there.
Michael Barbaro
Right.
Mark Landler
He just sort of suggests that it would be lovely if that happened. And on that kind of note, this meeting breaks up. And Netanyahu and his wife take their leave. The door closes. And then we all sit back down to digest what just happened.
Michael Barbaro
My sense is that this kind of exchange is quite taboo and they would not have wanted that interaction reported, for example.
Mark Landler
Well, indeed. And after Prime Minister Netanyahu left, the ambassador looked around the table and said, you realize that if you guys report this, I’m going to be in a lot of trouble back home. Now the ground rules for this dinner were that it was off the record. This is the way that Otaiba’s dinners are always run. So none of us went into that dinner with the expectation that we were going to be reporting things out of it. But it must be said that Washington is a leaky town. And there were 10 reporters sitting around a table. So the fact of this dinner and the encounter between Otaiba and Netanyahu did leak out. And it was reported on by the A.P. in the Israeli press, in the Arab press.
So it sort of falls into the category of an open secret, which in an odd way is a metaphor for the closer ties between the Gulf states and Israel. Everyone knows it’s happening. You just don’t really see it out in the open.
Michael Barbaro
Right. But just to be clear, it was not reported by Mark Landler, upstanding journalist who honors off-the-record agreements.
Mark Landler
It was not. And I should say at this moment, that I contacted Ambassador Otaiba and asked him, in light of this week’s news, whether he would be fine with me sharing this anecdote publicly. And he said he would, which is why I am able to tell it to you today.
Michael Barbaro
So Mark, it’s now very clear that whatever you observed at that dinner has continued on and led up to this week.
Mark Landler
Yeah, that’s right. And it’s actually led us to a really remarkable outcome in the annals of Middle East diplomacy. The United Arab Emirates announced it would normalize relations with the state of Israel, thus joining a very small number of Arab states to have recognized Israel. And it was in no small part a deal brokered by the Trump administration.
Michael Barbaro
Mhm. Just a few moments ago, I hosted a very special call with two friends, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates, where they agreed to finalize a historical peace agreement.
Mark Landler
And they agreed —
Mark Landler
So you have this prime minister who is somewhat cornered politically in a way where he really, really needs to appeal to his right flank, the right wing in Israel. And the way that he set out to do that was to take this very aggressive position on annexation. That’s very popular with the right. It’s very popular with the settler movement. And he had decided that this was going to be his course. This was going to buy him a political lifeline.
What he discovered, however, was that the Europeans were opposed to this, the Arab states were opposed to this, including his potential future allies in the Gulf. And actually, interestingly enough, the Trump administration wasn’t thrilled with it either. In part because the U.A.E. and others were telling the United States, this is a red line for us. We can’t support your peace efforts if Israel takes this step.
So quietly, Jared Kushner basically told Netanyahu, cool it. Hold off on this. Don’t do this right now. The reason that was kind of the precipitating moment is, for the U.A.E. and the other Gulf Arab states, this was an unacceptable step. They simply could not countenance the idea of Israel doing this. But the fact of Netanyahu’s being so provocative in saying he was going to do this actually presented the U.A.E. with an opening. It gave them an opening to make Israel an offer. And in fact, Yousef Otaiba, our character from the dinner at Cafe Milano, is the guy who delivers the message.
In June, he writes a letter that’s published by a leading Hebrew language newspaper in Israel, in which he basically tells the Israeli government that their choice is annexation or normalization. He basically says, and I quote, “Israel’s decision on annexation will be an unmistakable signal. Annexation is a misguided provocation of another order.” So he’s sort of laying down a red line. If you guys do this, forget about ever having normalized relations with the U.A.E. And that is a really important moment in this story. Because it clarifies the choice for the Israeli government. It also clarifies the choice and the opportunity for the Trump administration.
Because the next thing that happens is that the Trump administration gets involved in trying to broker precisely this quid pro quo, this deal, this trade off. And without the letter, it’s unlikely this ever would have happened, at least not now.
Michael Barbaro
It sounds like you’re saying that somewhat counterintuitively because, at least publicly, Netanyahu is pushing for the annexation of the West Bank — that maybe secretly he was grateful to have an opportunity to stop doing it.
Mark Landler
That’s right. It was almost an escape hatch, if you think about it. He gets out of a situation that increasingly looked like it had no reasonable escape. And in so doing, he actually gives himself a very different kind of legacy. Netanyahu was on his way to being remembered as a long-serving leader who presided over a period of frustration and lack of progress in peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Instead, he will now be remembered as the Israeli prime minister who actually won normalization of relations with a key Gulf Arab country, a very different outcome than one would have predicted for him even a week ago.
[Music]
Michael Barbaro
We’ll be right back.
So Mark, what does this deal mean for the Palestinians? Not annexing the West Bank would seem to represent a kind of achievement for the Palestinians. But it really just brings the situation back to where it was before Netanyahu announced that aggressive move, that annexation of the West Bank.
Mark Landler
Well, it’s a very mixed bag for the Palestinians. Because you’re right. They are avoiding what would be a disastrous outcome, which is losing up to 30 percent of the territory that would have one day been part of a Palestinian state.
On the other hand, what the symbolism of this deal is is really very bad for the Palestinians. Because what it shows is that the U.A.E. is willing to normalize relations with Israel in the absence of a deal that would give the Palestinians statehood. That had always been the prerequisite for recognition of Israel by many of these Arab states, that it had to have made a deal with the Palestinians. It had to have embraced the two-state solution. It has not embraced the two-state state solution. Indeed, the two state solution looks further away than ever. And yet, the U.A.E. has gone ahead and done this deal.
So what it says, in very blunt terms, is that the Arab states have other priorities on their agenda that are bigger than defending the interests of the Palestinians. And so from the Palestinians’ point of view, it is a betrayal. It’s a loss of leverage. This was after all the great point of leverage that the Palestinians had with Israel. If Israel ever wanted to be recognized by its neighbors, it needed to work out a deal with the Palestinians. Now it’s clear it doesn’t have to do that anymore. And it makes their situation, if possible, more hopeless than ever.
Michael Barbaro
So finally, Mark, what is the motivation of the Trump administration, which as you said, has nudged this along during the past 18 months or so since that dinner. Why have they wanted this?
Mark Landler
Well, I’d say there’s a number of reasons. Start with the fact that their Middle East peace efforts, which are led by the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, have stalled. So this was a way to jump start a process that had really become paralyzed.
Secondly, the Trump administration has spent three years cultivating these Gulf Arab countries — not just the United Arab Emirates, but of course the Saudis. They do this, in part, for financial reasons. It’s a chance to sell a great deal of very expensive advanced weaponry. It would allow the U.A.E. to purchase higher grade, more sophisticated weapons from the United States because many of those weapons are restricted to countries that recognize Israel. So it actually creates yet another market for high end American weapons. So that’s one more reason.
And a third reason, frankly, is perhaps the simplest of all. President Trump is lagging in the polls. He’s facing the voters in two months. He needs a couple of big wins. And this is a big win. Presidents like to make history in the Middle East. And this gave the president a chance to do that at a time when not much else seems to be going well for him. So it’s a complicated series of factors — economic, political, and strategic.
Michael Barbaro
So Mark, as someone who has been covering diplomacy for a really long time and has seen these other big symbolic events along the way when it comes to Israel and its former enemies —
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.