If President Obama’s promise that verification, not trust, will be the cornerstone of the deal the United States — and its western allies — struck with Iran over its nuclear program, then Arab countries have no choice but to see whether western nations are capable of monitoring the program.
There is much at stake here for Arab countries that have been on the receiving end of Iran’s rather sharp stick. And it has been no more apparent than now just how far apart are the interests of Arab leaders and the United States. Obama had been promising since he ran for office in 2008 that he valued diplomacy and that he would seek peaceful resolutions with America’s enemies after years of warfare. For better or worse, this will be Obama’s legacy long after he leaves office.
He has certainly accomplished much of his promises by renewing diplomatic relations with Cuba and now brokering an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program. But Obama is gambling with the safety and security of Iran’s neighbors. He is gambling that Iran, with its long history of subterfuge, can be trusted to act above board and with transparency when all the evidence is to the contrary.
Part of the nuclear deal is that Iran must meet specific conditions in order to have economic sanctions eased. But once those sanctions are lifted it will strengthen Iran’s economy and help further build its military.
There appears to be little appreciation in the West for Iran’s destructive policies in the region. Iran has been a stalwart supporter of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime with no signs of abating. By extension, Iran has helped prolong the civil war, create a climate for the creation of Daesh that cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people. It has also supported the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Gulf leaders are suddenly expected to accept Iran’s good intentions when it has been an agent of war and terrorism for decades. Perhaps most interesting aspect of the deal are its motives. In an interview with the New York Times recently, Ahmad Moussalli, a political science professor at the American University of Beirut, alleged that the US is “outsourcing” its fight against terrorism to Iran. Essentially giving up on the idea of sending military troops to Syria or Iraq to fight Daesh, the US is leaving the fight to Iran.
Iran in the past year has cast itself as the only nation capable of fighting extremists. By endorsing their position, the US has strengthened Iran’s role in the region, which will actually lengthen the fight against Daesh in Syria and Iraq and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
In theory, the Iran nuclear deal can be a good thing. It curb’s Iran’s nuclear program by allowing scientists from the international community work alongside their Iranian counterparts and give access to its underground facility, which is virtually protected from military strikes. It also calls for Iran to give up most of its advanced centrifuges and use its older models. The deal also restricts Iran to enrich uranium to less than four percent, which is only enough for civilian purposes. This means Iran must reduce its uranium stockpile by 96 percent.
If Iran does not comply with the restrictions, economic sanctions cannot only return but also be more punishing. On paper this looks wonderful. But the reality of Iran’s behavior over the past 35 years suggests that the international community is dealing with a partner that prefers aggression to diplomacy and rhetoric over sustained negotiations. Iran has long argued that what is best for the West is not necessarily best for Iran. So now, has it changed its tune? The Arab world waits for Iran to reveal itself with deep skepticism.
