I’ve been saying for a while that President Obama simply doesn’t agree with most of the bipartisan American foreign policy establishment that Syria represents the central battlefield in a regional struggle between Sunnis and Shiites or, especially, a proxy battle between the United States and Russia, or Iran. The president doesn’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon because he opposes the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but that is about as far as he sees America’s interests coinciding with Israel and Saudi Arabia’s obsession with Iran.

I don’t want to minimize the danger of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, but we need to understand that Iran’s nuclear program has been used by Israel and Saudi Arabia to isolate and weaken Iran for reasons that go far beyond the fear of a nuclear-armed Iran. If you don’t believe me, just look at two quotes in tonight’s New York Times, one from an Israeli and one from a Saudi:

“The most critical problem with Iran is its aim of achieving nuclear weapons, but the problem with Iran is wider,” added Mr. [Yuval] Steinitz, who led Israel’s delegation in a boycott of Mr. Rouhani’s speech last week at the United Nations. “Iran is not a peace-seeking country or regime — on the contrary. Iran is maybe the most aggressive country in the world, and it’s not just against Israel.”

“There is a lot of suspicion and even paranoia about some secret deal between Iran and America,” said Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi journalist who is close to the royal family. “My concern is that the Americans will accept Iran as it is — so that the Iranians can continue their old policies of expansionism and aggression.”

Mr. Khashoggi is honest enough to admit that his main worry is that the United States accepts Iran “as it is.” He means “as it is,” just with the nuclear threat greatly diminished. In other words, he wants the U.S. and Iran to be adversaries for reasons that go beyond nuclear weapons. Mr. Steinitz says basically the same thing. Regardless of nuclear weapons, Iran is very aggressive.

Now, I don’t want to dismiss concerns about Iran’s aggression, but it seems to come in two main types. They advocate on behalf of Shiites in countries like Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon, and they wage proxy wars mainly against Israel, but also in Syria and Lebanon. This may demonstrate a degree of aggression, but it’s not the kind of aggression that involves outright invading and trying to subjugate their neighbors.

If I had to identify Iran’s most negative impact on the world and the region, it has been their promotion of a form of political Islam that has had wide appeal among Sunnis and has encouraged the growth of Islamist groups in Arab countries, some of whom have turned to terrorism. But I’d have to admit that Saudi Arabia is even more culpable in this regard.

Overall, the period of official U.S.-Iranian antagonism that has existed since the Shah fled in 1979 has been one of increasing radicalism and dysfunction, and it doesn’t seem to have served anyone well.

Everyone has become accustomed to their assigned roles and no one seems to be able to think creatively in a way that might stop this tailspin. But the president is willing to think differently. He’s willing to reject what everyone else seems to think is obvious. For this, he gets called naive. The best evidence that the president is on the right path is that he is being insulted by the people who are invested in pursuing a sectarian war or who think that we are in a proxy battle on the side of the Sunnis against Russia and Iran.

We could be in such a battle, but we aren’t for one simple reason. The president decided that we aren’t.