A gelling Mideast military alliance could become President Biden’s crowning foreign policy success — unless he undermines it by re-entering a nuclear deal that would fill Tehran’s dwindling coffers. 

While Iran’s neighbors are mostly concerned about the Islamic Republic’s aggression, Westerners worried about rising oil prices are eager to renew the 2015 nuclear deal. Was a news leak — that an American-led secret meeting in March with Mideast allies would bolster their defenses against Iran — meant to allay concerns about a planned Tehran appeasement? 

“We are building our wide partnership with additional countries in the region to ensure a secure, stable, and prosperous Middle East,” Israel’s defense minister, Benny Gantz, told members of his Blue and White party today. 

He confirmed a Wall Street Journal report this weekend that top American and Mideast military officials in March secretly met at Sharm al Shaikh, Egypt, where they discussed a plan to connect all participants to a single air defense system to protect against Iranian missiles, drones, and other aerial menace. 

In addition to the leader of America’s Central Command, General Frank McKenzie, the participants included the Israeli Defense Force chief of staff, Lieutenant General Aviv Kochavi, and, remarkably, his Saudi counterpart, General Fayyadh bin Hamed Al Ruwaili. 

Egypt and Jordan, which also participated, have long maintained relations with Israel. Other invitees, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, joined the Trump-era Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia, in contrast, has no formal ties with Israel. Nor does Qatar, which also participated. 

When this reporter visited Doha a few years ago, Qatari officials highlighted their secret cooperation with Israel but demanded not to be quoted. Jordan, where two thirds of the population are Palestinian Arabs, also insists on discretion about military ties with Israel. 

Asked recently on CNBC about the possibility of a NATO-like alliance, the Hashemite king, Abdullah, said, “I would be one of the first people that would endorse a Middle East NATO, but the … mission statement has to be very clear.” What unites the Sharm al Shaikh participants is a realization that Iran’s regional expansionism endangers all of them.

The Saudis have long been targeted by missiles shot by Iran’s Houthi allies that target their oil installations. The lopsided gap between the relatively low cost of shooting a Houthi missile and the expensive Patriot defenses the Saudis employ incentivizes Iran’s allies to attack.

Although the Yemen war is now in a lull, it could be renewed at any time. An Israeli laser-based missile-defense system, currently under development, could help even out the relative costs, making attacks on the Saudis less attractive. Further, uniting the region’s air defense systems under one roof, as was discussed at Sharm, could make them more effective and also could cut costs. 

Yet, such calculations would change if the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps received a windfall of cash, as would happen were sanctions removed. Over the weekend the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, and Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amirabdollahian, announced the renewal of talks that were suspended in Vienna in March. New negotiations will resume soon at Doha, Qatar. 

Arguing that “our landmark agreement is more important than ever,” Mr. Borrell highlighted Ukraine war-related “tectonic changes” in oil markets. Europe and America seem more eager to resume the Iranian oil flow than to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. By contrast, Mideast countries fear that enriching Tehran would encourage further violent aggression. 

“Regional cooperation works in a world where we have a nuclear deal, and in a world where we don’t have one,” the policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, Jason Brodsky, says in praise of America’s Mideast initiative. Yet, he adds, if at the same time the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is renewed, “the money flow to Iran is a problem.”

As in the lead-up to the 2015 deal, Washington is highlighting an internal Israeli debate, where former security officials and current low-level aides express support for the JCPOA renewal.

Yet, in an email to Mr. Borrell, Israel’s soon-to-be acting prime minister, Yair Lapid, wrote over the weekend that renewal of the talks was done in “worrying disregard for the welfare of our people.”

On the eve of an Israeli election, it would be difficult for the leading candidates to favor the JCPOA renewal. The leak to the Journal of news about the March secret meeting on the same weekend that renewal of the Iran talks was announced may well have been meant to allay concerns among Mideast leaders, and to indicate that America still has their backs.  

America “should continue if not step-up its role as facilitator” in integrating the region’s defenses, an Iran watcher at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Behnam Ben Taleblu, says. Yet, he adds, “it would be an absolute shame if talks pertaining to this framework are merely a shelf to make JCPOA re-entry more palatable” to the regional allies.