It is not as if Iran capitulated by merely signing an interim deal with the P5+1. The Iranian regime stands to win much by subordinating the nuclear program to the imperatives of averting an imminent economic collapse. Perhaps, it is handy to keep in mind that the interim deal — and here is the crux of the matter — was brought about by the impact of sanctions imposed by the western powers in particular.
Were it not for stinging sanctions, Tehran might not have come to the negotiating table in the first place, let alone agree to seal a deal that could potentially undercut its nuclear program. The fanfare that accompanied the announcement of the P5+1 deal with Iran should not conceal the fact that skeptics in the region still have deep-seated suspicion about Iran’s tactics and intentions. We don’t know yet if the agreement will be fully honored. Additionally, a deal on the nuclear program does not automatically qualify Iran to become a constructive player in the wider Middle Eastern issues.
That said, key regional players — except for Israel — welcomed the deal albeit cautiously. The running theme among Gulf countries is that if Iran lives up to its end of the deal, then this may usher in different yet positive dynamics in the region as a whole. Hence, the argument that the clock was ticking and that Iran was fast approaching the nuclear threshold has to take a backseat to a new deal and new dynamics provided that Tehran overcomes its proclivity to cheat. Obviously, the concerns of the Arab Sunni countries are not confined to Iran’s provocative nuclear program. The Iranians’ regional policy, its ongoing involvement in the Syrian bloody civil war, and its sectarian policy across the region have only added fuel to the fire thus feeding the mutual mistrust between Iran and the Arabs. By and large, Iran is seen as an opportunist country that is bent to exploit and indeed exacerbate the regional turmoil to realize its narrow national interests at the expense of the stability of the region and internal security for key Arab countries.
Skeptics will continue arguing that Iranian leaders are untrustworthy. They are adamant that Iran is only buying time to complete its plan of weaponization so that it can present the nuclear capability as a fait accompli. Worse, skeptics argue that President Obama’s obsession with the notion of diplomacy and the non-military intervention may push him to accept a bad deal whereby Iran will be left in a position to have breakout capability.
Except for Israel, other allies in the region are not happy with the deal yet they have no intention to set themselves against it. For the Arab Gulf countries, the paradox is not only about the nuclear program. There are fears that the emerging geopolitical reality in the wake of the deal may privilege Iran while the Americans are standing idly by.
But, one needs to be a bit cautious about the interim deal. Although the six-month agreement has brought parties closer, there are yet serious challenges with regard to the long-term matters particularly whether Iran will have the right to continue its enrichment program. The Iranian propaganda machine projects the deal as a “victory” and insisted that Iran will not give up on its right to enrich uranium. This assertion runs counter to what the American side has been saying since the agreement was reached. Whether the deal is good or bad for the region depends on the ability of the P5+1 and Iran to address and settle the long-term issues pertaining to the program. Hence, it remains to be seen, however, how the deal will play out in months to come and whether the two sides will find a compromise with regard to the sticking issues facing the sought after comprehensive deal.
All in all, the interim-six month agreement is not a breakthrough. While it could pave the way for cooperation, it is still far from certain that the two sides will succeed in hammering out a deal that could lead to regional realignment.
Email: [email protected]
