Why Ebrahim Raisi could be ‘good for the Jews’

Two weeks have passed since Ebrahim Raisi’s presidential victory in Iran, and it’s important to analyze the possible impact his election could have on Tehran’s policy and determine, subjectively, whether this would be “good for the Jews” or not. The overall impact of his election includes macro-changes to Iran’s policies and operative changes that have immediate influence, with an emphasis on the talks taking place in Vienna over restoring the original, flawed nuclear deal, and Iran’s commitment to allowing IAEA inspectors to visit its nuclear facilities.

Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, published a damning report last month and said that Iran had not answered his agency’s questions and has failed to explain the discovery of uranium particles found at three sites. Following that IAEA report and Raisi’s election, Grossi demanded the extension of oversight at Iran’s nuclear facilities in accordance with an interim monitoring agreement that expired on June 25.

The IAEA reports come at a critical juncture, with nuclear talks in their advanced stages and the Americans hastening its renewal at any price, despite Grossi’s assertion that the original 2015 deal is no longer relevant.

Raisi’s victory is frustrating to the Americans. Thus far, the negotiations have been completely dominated by the Iranians, with the Americans handing out “carrots” with no sticks and no reciprocity from the Iranians, who are demanding more concessions and receiving almost everything they request. Based on the information leaked from Vienna, it appears, for example, that the Americans sought to add a complementary agreement to limit Iran’s development of ballistic missiles potentially capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani agreed to discuss the matter, but Raisi has rejected it outright.

This is good news for those who believe that restoring the old nuclear deal is a terrible mistake, and is the first reason Raisi’s election could ultimately prove “good for the Jews.”

The second reason is predicated on Raisi’s character, his bloody history and his opinions regarding “big Satan and little Satan” – the United States and Israel. Similar to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his day, there are no fake smiles to the West and no illusions when it comes to Raisi. He openly states his very clear views, and it will be hard to argue, as a result, that Iran needs to be treated sympathetically.

The third reason isn’t assured. Many of those involved in the efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program believe the only way this can be accomplished is through regime change. With Raisi as president, the reforms put in motion by Rouhani will be curbed, the situation for regular Iranians will deteriorate, and maybe, just maybe, if the people come to their senses, they will rebel and replace the regime. On the other hand, the brutality Raisi has historically employed to suppress dissent makes this a very slim possibility, yet it does exist nonetheless.

The idea of negotiating for a long-term, more durable nuclear deal is an illusion and a fantasy. Israel must avoid becoming tied to the process of renewing the old deal, and only if the Iranians somehow agree to discuss a new one – which isn’t likely under Raisi – will there be room for Israel to explain what such an agreement should look like, including Iranian explanations regarding past violations.