Israel makes pressures on the US for a revision of the Iranian nuclear agreement

Iran's nuclear problem returns to be central in the international scenario. The issue, which was resolved by the long diplomatic talks, was raised again by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who during the meeting with US President Trump urged the United States to substantially amend the agreement or even revoked. Certainly Trump's predisposition to these solutions is very high, given that he was already openly opposed to the agreement in the electoral campaign and during his presidency the aversion to Iran was clearly demonstrated by the country's rapprochement US forces to the monarchies of the Persian Gulf and, in general, to the bloc of Sunni nations, traditionally opponents of the major Shiite country. Trump's executive affirms that the deal has failed, but it is unclear whether this failure is due to its practical consequences, which have allowed the Iranian country a good economic growth, thanks to the effects of the withdrawal of sanctions or whether the fear Tehran can become a military power even military. One of the issues the White House finds most dangerous is the possibility, for now not established, that Iran has provided nuclear technology to North Korea and has also made significant progress towards miniaturization of the nuclear bomb. Surely if these suspicions were to be verified, the Iranian position would worsen a lot, but for now these conjectures are just suspicions, which are not even used against Tehran. What is attributed to the ayatollah regime is, above all, the attitude held in Syria in support of Assad and Hezbollah. Implicitly, the proximity between Iran and Russia is also not considered as positive, increased with the support of the allied allied Assad and developed with consistent trade agreements. In this context, the Israeli pressure on the US to restore the existing situation before the Iranian nuclear agreement has a strategic motivation to aim to undermine the atomic danger coming from Tehran, which has always been considered a concrete threat to Tel Aviv and 'Iranian activism at Israeli borders active through the constant threat of Hezbollah. The Israeli government has moved autonomously in the Middle East, by storming unofficial but in great collaboration with Jordan, Egypt and, above all, with Saudi Arabia and other gulf monarchies, essentially the Sunni bloc, to create an alliance capable of containing the advancement of Iranian influence. But this diplomatic work is not considered sufficient without substantial support from the United States, which can only be achieved through a revision, even one-sided, of the Iranian nuclear treaty. Netanyahu's task is, however, far from easy: meanwhile within the United States the voices favorable to maintaining the agreement are few and are very influential also within the State Department. In calculating costs and benefits, the former are judged too high; the price to be paid in political terms would be too high and already the first retaliation warnings had begun in Tehran when the covenant was no longer respected by Washington. Moreover, the United States was not the only signatories to the agreement, and the defeat of it would also have diplomatic consequences with other countries that have signed the agreement. What would be a drastic reduction would be the US credibility, unable to honor an international agreement only for the change of presidency. However, the absolute closeness between Trump and Netanyahu can be a dangerous and concrete possibility of an alteration of the agreement, also welcomed by the Sunni people. The Trump administration, unlike Obama's, is far from being equidistant to Shiites and Sunni, and seems to be more inclined towards the latter. Netanyahu's activism thus fits into this business that seems favorable to Tel Aviv's policy and objectives, but is likely to become a new factor in the global scenario, with the Iranian country again in the West-West and also a brake on greater democracy in Iran.