Nuke deal lays basis for upturn in US-Iran ties

April 8, 2015, 8:48 pm

US Secretary of State John Kerry (2L) and US Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman (2R) listen as US President Barack Obama address the US people about the status of Iran nuclear program talks at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne after Iran nuclear program talks finished with extended sessions April 2, 2015 in Lausanne. AFP

For the West, the nuclear power accord with Iran gives the West substantial relief from its nuclear power related worries. If seriously implemented, some progress could be registered in taking forward the global Nuclear Non-proliferation regime and in keeping the Middle East free of the possibility of nuclear warfare. Needless to say, the Middle East is proving one of the world’s most volatile conflict zones and it goes without saying that a nuclear-powered Iran would have led to many more major powers in the Middle East acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

US President Barrack Obama could claim two very significant foreign policy victories for his administration, following swiftly on the heels of each other over the past couple of weeks, which could be considered historic.. One is the drastic improvement in US ties with Cuba and the other, the breakthrough nuclear power deal with Iran.

In both cases, the respective processes of rapprochement open the possibility of decades of mutually-hostile bilateral relations being finally laid to rest. Looked at positively, these breakthroughs in ties are ‘win-win’ situations which the states concerned would do well to build on and consolidate.

With its process of ‘détente’ with the US, Cuba could be said to be giving its foreign policy a more marked pragmatic orientation and this could be seen as an inevitable consequence of its efforts to liberalize its economy. It’s a typical instance of ‘Economics driving politics.’

On the US-Iran relations front too it could be said that economics has emerged as a prime shaping factor because the deal concerned gives Iran the opportunity of containing some of the adverse material consequences that flowed from the years-long West-initiated economic sanctions regime which was imposed on it.

On the face of it, benefits could accrue to Iran as a result of the nuclear power deal with the West and these pluses need to be attributed to the substantial foreign policy changes which the Hassan Rouhani administration has initiated in Iran. Here too a spirit of pragmatism prevails. Rather than blindly follow his predecessors’ anti-West line in foreign policy, Rouhani has chosen to improve Iran’s ties with the West and it is this breaking of new ground in foreign relations which has paved the way for the nuclear power agreement. An immediate positive fallout from the nuclear accord is the lifting of economic sanctions which brought Iran considerable material hardships over the years.

More particularly, a scaling down of Iran’s nuclear programme, as envisaged in the accord, would have the effect of easing Western fears over Israel’s security. But, right now, the Netanyahu administration in Israel is not buying into Western assurances on this score and it will require considerable Western exertions to convince Israel that no nuclear threat could emanate from Iran from now on.

However, by easing its tensions with Iran, the US has come some distance in eliminating a decades -long legacy of mutual distrust and hostility between the countries. To be sure, the current relaxation of tensions between the countries would not lead to a 'cosy' relationship on the lines of ties which were conducted by the US with Iran decades ago, when the Shah of Iran was considered by the West as its 'policeman' in the Gulf region. But the 'detente' process may help ease some of the West's security concerns in the Middle East.. For instance, it will enable the West to conduct its military campaign against the terroristic IS in a more focused manner, considering that the latter is a 'Sunni Muslim' outfit and Iran is reportedly more aligned with Shiite Islamic groups.

But reassuring Israel would prove a tough nut to crack for the US. Going by reports, the Netanyahu government wants the US nuclear accord with Iran to be tied to the condition that Iran fully recognizes the state of Israel. In other words, Israel wants Iran to subscribe to the 'two state' formula in resolving the Middle East tangle.

The US has taken exception to these Israeli conditions by pointing out that resolving the nuke issue with Iran does not bear any relation to the question of Iran recognizing Israel. Apparently, the US would need to exercise the deftest diplomacy to take Israel along with it on the nuclear issue. In the weeks and months ahead the US would need to prove to Israel that there is no basis to its fears that Iran poses a nuclear threat to it. Besides, the US should ensure that Jewish settlements on contested territories in the Middle East should cease.

More broadly, the international community, inclusive of the biggest powers of the West, would need to work towards undermining the perceived legitimacy of violent religious fundamantalism, for the purpose of seeing some stability and peace in the Middle East. Currently, it is hard line attitudes across the numerous divides in the Middle East which are getting in the way of a negotiated settlement being worked out to the Middle East imbroglio. Accordingly, generally speaking, moderate opinion should be fostered in the region, which would favour accommodation and tolerance across the divides of the Middle East.

To be sure, these are no easy tasks. But the endemic turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East, ought to drive home to all sections concerned that armed force and militancy cannot enable the region to clinch longstanding peace and stability. From this point of view, the West's show of force against groups such as the IS, is unlikely prove fruitful in the medium and long terms. Soft power and not hard power seems to be the answer to the Middle East's recurring agony.