Iran’s nuclear deal with the West

According to the agreement, Iran would scale back its nuclear enrichment programme to no more than five per cent in exchange for the easing of sanctions. It also provides for a window of opportunity of six months in which to take confidence-building measures to ensure that there is no breach in the agreement. Iran has […]

According to the agreement, Iran would scale back its nuclear enrichment programme to no more than five per cent in exchange for the easing of sanctions. It also provides for a window of opportunity of six months in which to take confidence-building measures to ensure that there is no breach in the agreement. Iran has hit the ground running by inviting the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear facilities.
Since the 1949 Islamic Revolution with the ousting of the Shah, the U.S.’s staunchest ally in the region, the rupture in relations between Washington and Tehran only intensified, vacillating from sworn enmity to uneasy accommodation.
Washington repeatedly used its foreign policy instruments in efforts to hobble Iran, designating it as a state sponsor of terrorism. President George W. Bush even named Iran as part his axis of evil that included Iraq and North Korea; Iran has long considered the U.S. as the Great Satan. Against this backdrop, the recent nuclear agreement is a remarkable turnaround.
The lightening rod for the thaw in relations between Washington and Tehran was the election of Hassan Rouhani as Iranian president, replacing Mahmood Ahmedinejad, who the West intensely distrusted.   Moreover, having been involved in failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington saw the need to give diplomacy a chance and not start another war whose outcome could not be guaranteed.
No sooner had the agreement been signed than the parties began giving it their own spin. It is understandable that both sides had to play to domestic audiences sceptical of the rapid turn of events. For the Iranian authorities, it was a matter of maintaining the country’s sovereign right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The U.S. on the other hand emphasized what White House officials characterise as the deal’s denial of Iran’s capacity to ever acquire the Bomb.
Understandably, and for different reasons, not everyone was happy with the deal. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states with axes to grind with Tehran are opposed. The sabre-rattling Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been sniping from the sidelines, saying that the agreement was a ‘’historic mistake’’ and arguing that as long as it allowed Iran to enrich uranium, it could weaponise it.
Netanyahu’s belligerent stance is nothing short of hypocritical. Israel, despite official denials, is known to possess nuclear weapons and is in no position to occupy the moral high ground. Moreover, the principal source of threat to peace in the Middle East has long been Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and its treatment of Israeli Arabs.
Supporters of Israel in the U.S. Congress have also warned the Obama administration not to trust the Iranians.  This is a warning that the President Obama must reject and be steadfast not to allow the naysayers to derail the agreement.
The Arab states for their part are opposed to any rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran, a country they accuse of using its Shia populations to destabilize their countries. Fearful of the Arab spring, which swept Tunisia, and later Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab state, the Saudis in particular, have been increasingly alarmed at Iran’s growing influence in the region.
A potential advantage of the nuclear agreement with Iran however could be in resolving seemingly intractable conflicts in the region. Tehran has been a key player in the conflicts in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. With the ensuing thaw in relations with the West, a peaceful resolution of such conflicts is more likely by bringing Tehran on board, given its influence over proxies such as the Lebanese Hezbollah group, currently fighting alongside the government forces in Syria.
Nuclear proliferation is not in the interest of any one; it negates the concept of world peace. An international framework is needed to build on the momentum created by the Iran-West deal and plan a broader and comprehensive policy that compels all countries to renounce nuclear armaments and commit to destroy existing stockpiles.