FRANCE’S scuppering of the carefully negotiated interim nuclear deal between Iran and the world powers was reckless but not unexpected. A historic shift is under way in US strategy towards the Middle East. After decades of isolating or overthrowing regimes that profess independence, Washington has decided that its long-term interests are better served by stability than subversion.

The shift has been caused by several factors: the popular uprisings which led to the Arab spring and are still bringing unpredictable consequences; the incomplete revolt in Syria which has led to a multiplication of Al Qaeda and other jihadis rather than the fall of Bashar al-Assad; the chaos in Iraq which ought to be a warning to the Gulf of the dangers of letting Sunni versus Shia tensions rip; and finally Washington’s declining need for the region’s oil.

Confused and not forewarned by their American ally, France, Israel and Saudi Arabia are lashing out in wild and undiplomatic terms. Each of these new rejectionists has specific interests. Israeli hardliners have spent decades building up their claims of an Iranian military threat, which they fear, but which also has the effect of drawing attention away from what is still the biggest source of the area’s tension: Israel’s old rejection of an equitable deal with the Palestinians. The tactic has been successful, both in the US Congress and among a majority of the Israeli public which used to want peace with the Palestinians but now prefers to live in an armed camp and besiege them. Binyamin Netanyahu is desperate to block any deal with Tehran, at least in part for fear of losing his alibi for not making the necessary concessions on Palestine.

In Saudi Arabia the reactionary monarchy has long been worried that calls for liberalisation will radicalise the large Shia populations who live in its oil-producing areas. Against all evidence it claims an Iranian hand behind their demands for justice. Riyadh also stands to gain from continuing sanctions on Iran and the higher world oil prices they bring. Whether they are cynics or victims of their own propaganda, the Saudi rulers, like Israel, want no deal with Tehran.

France is a latecomer to this witches’ feast. It is true that relations with Iran went sour under Nicolas Sarkozy, when the foolish Mahmoud Ahmedinejad called him “young and inexperienced”, but Francois Hollande seemed to have bypassed that by meeting his new counterpart, the more emollient Hassan Rouhani, at the UN in September. But other considerations go deeper. The lure of arms sales is one impulse, in particular the hope that angry Saudis will switch from US and British suppliers to Dassault and Thales.

And old colonial urges have not stopped twitching. Paris has long seen itself as the protector of the Levant with primacy in Lebanon and Syria. Its jealousy over whose influence was greater in the region used to be focused against Washington; now the target is Tehran. Since 2011 France has supported the movement against Assad even more hawkishly than the British government, and now seems to have convinced itself that Assad has only survived diplomatically thanks to Russia and militarily thanks to Iran - not forgetting the powerful role of Tehran’s Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, in the government in Beirut.

Taken together, this troika of naysayers is made yet more menacing by the influence of Israel’s allies on Capitol Hill. If Netanyahu’s calls for sanctions not to be eased are heeded (the Senate is already considering the imposition of new ones), it would wreck any deal with Iran. Israeli hardliners’ attempts to influence US policy in this direction are an outrage. Their latest victim may yet be the best chance for decades of an end to the unnecessary US rift with Iran.

By arrangement with the Guardian