News analysis: New American administration's Iran policy and its impact on Israel

Ahead of the inauguration of incoming U.S. President Donald Trump, there is speculation in Israel on whether there will be a change in American policy towards Iran.

Speaking at the beginning of December to the Saban Forum on the Middle East in Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was looking forward to talking to the new President about "what to do about this bad deal."

Throughout years of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 countries, Netanyahu was vocal on his objection to any concessions towards Iran.

In 2015, when the deal was reached, under the auspices of now outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama, the Israeli government made its dissatisfaction clear.

Now, as Obama leaves office, it remains to be seen whether Trump will act on his campaign statements against the deal.

Dr. Emily B. Landau is the Head of the Arms Control Program at the Institute for National Security Studies at the Tel Aviv University. She estimates chances of the deal being scrapped are "pretty low."

She believes the situation now is "not good" and the Americans have lost any clout they may have had prior to the agreement.

She believes that even the deal is discarded, it will be replaced by a new deal.

"The U.S. is not going to get a better deal with no leverage," said Landau.

Dr. Ali Vaez, a senior Iran analyst for the International Crisis Group, believes the current Iran deal is facing its gradual end.

"The likeliest scenario is that the incoming administration will neither keep nor kill the deal. Instead it appears inclined to kill it softly by gradually reintroducing non-nuclear related sanctions that would allow restoration of leverage," says Vaez.

For Netanyahu, this may be the golden hour. A chance to make a dent in American policy towards Iran. His strained relationship with Obama throughout the past eight years did not provide fertile ground for a good dialogue on the issue.

Israel was highly critical of the nature of the deal that lifted sanctions against Iran from the get-go without having the country deliver on its promises to curb its nuclear aspirations.

Iranian leaders, who have often used threatening language towards the Jewish state, have yet to earn the trust of the Israelis with regard to the implementation of their side of the deal.

Trump's rhetoric during the presidential campaign was tough towards Iran. Based on that, he is expected to be less tolerant to Iranian violations of the agreement. Iranian provocations may be met with a harsh American response.

In an interview to CBS' 60 Minutes program a few weeks ago, Netanyahu said he could think of various ways to renege on the deal and he planned to discuss these with Trump.

"I don't think anyone knows what the Israeli Prime Minister's options for rolling back on the deal are, but the reality is that the agreement remains fragile and there are 1000 ways it could be sabotaged," said Vaez.

During the years 2010-2012, there was widespread media speculation that Israel was planning a pre-emptive strike against Iran.

Such an attack would be difficult for Israel to undertake -- it would not only need all sorts of assistance from its allies in carrying out such an attack, but its ramifications have the potential of spiraling the region into an all-out war.

Landau does not believe the option was really on the table but that was only "preparations and talks." In the past, she believes, when Israel did attack against Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007," there was no talk beforehand."

So even if the agreement were to be shelved, it seems unlikely Israel will attempt to strike Iran, but rather use various methods to undermine its nuclear program.

The lack of an agreement may increase uncertainty in the arena.

"The specter of war will once again appear, forcing Iran to double down on its support for anti-Israeli proxies to deter the U.S. and Israel from attacking it," Vaez assesses.

Iran, which supports the militant Hezbollah on Israel's northern border with Lebanon, may be motivated to provoke Israel through its proxy.

Israel and Hezbollah have fought bloody wars in the past. It is widely thought that Hezbollah has greatly improved the quality and scope of its missiles, making any future conflict with Israel bloodier than ever. At the moment, Hezbollah lacks the motivation to attack Israel. A collapse of the nuclear agreement might very well change this.

The agreement with Iran was a cause of a major rift between Netanyahu and Obama.

A year after the deal, Obama and other officials in the American administration quoted anonymous Israeli security officials saying even they were new converts -- Israel has now realized the deal was a good one.

Landaus said unequivocally that these quotes are "not true."

In an article published by her in the Times of Israel website, she wrote that comments made by Israeli officials were not meant for audiences outside of Israel and could therefore "be easily misconstrued."

Now, as the U.S. administration is about to be replaced, it seems Netanyahu is entering his comfort zone with Trump and might be more inclined to be even less diplomatic in his disdain for the pact with Iran.

The question remains whether the Iranian issue will be at the forefront of Trump's agenda. If it's not first on his to-do list, a change is farther away than Netanyahu wishes for. Endit