It is beyond comprehension as to why a nuclear framework agreement reached between six world powers and Iran is being treated as a major diplomatic triumph for US President Barack Obama. The statements issued by Iranian leaders indicate that the situation is still dicey and it would be too early for any celebration.

These negotiations led by the United States don’t enjoy the backing of the entire US Congress. More than two months are left before the final nuclear deal is reached, for which June 30 has been set as the deadline.

Iran appears to be heaving a sigh of relief over the possibility of lifting of sanctions. However, we cannot ignore the fact that sanctions will be lifted in phases. The sword of sanctions, however, will continue to hang on Iran if it does not abide by the agreement.

The obligations Iran is expected to meet are indicators that the six countries give little importance to the stance maintained by Iran regarding its nuclear policy. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is meant for only peaceful purposes and that it is entitled to enrichment of uranium for energy generation. Iran has apparently been compelled to change its diplomatic stand on its nuclear policy to convince the six powers. Had Iran diplomatically succeeded in actually convincing them, the nature of obligations placed on it would not have been as it is at present.

The obligations require Iran to reduce its installed centrifuges, used to enrich uranium, by two-thirds and also reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will monitor the centrifuges, which are no longer in use and will be kept in storage. The IAEA will regularly inspect all nuclear facilities of Iran. The heavy-water reactor in Arak will have to be redesigned by Iran so that it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium.

The nature of obligations clearly suggests that hard diplomacy against Iran has been exercised to compel it to backtrack on its nuclear stand and nuclear program. From the Iranian perspective, it is too early to view these negotiations as a diplomatic triumph.

Many in the world view these talks as signs of shifting of the balance of power in the region. This writer would beg to differ. After all, Iran has been forced to comply with the conditions set forth by the world powers. Had it been the other way round, we would have been justified in claiming that Iranian influence is growing on the world’s stage.

Given that these six include Russia and China, power-shift linked to Iran in the region appears to have totally different orientation than is being projected. Diplomatic apprehension of risks being involved in aligning too closely with an isolated Iran apparently compelled Russia and China to give greater importance to hard diplomacy being exercised by other four countries in hammering out nuclear negotiations with Iran. Perhaps, while deliberating on change of power equation in the region, greater importance needs to be given to probably a different power-play being likely to be indulged in by Russia and China.

Yes, there is some credibility in appreciation being expressed by some countries over diplomacy being given greater importance in sorting out issues linked with Iran’s nuclear program. However, what has been overlooked is that hard diplomacy has been at work. And in this diplomatic hard-talk too, Iran has not had any supporters. The hype being raised about it being a diplomatic triumph for Iran lacks substance. Till the deal is finalized and gets the approval of US Congress, it would be a little too early to hail it as a diplomatic success of Obama.

If Iran views this as its diplomatic success, it certainly signals that Tehran is blowing this trumpet to prevent opposition against nuclear negotiations at home.