US-Iran Thaw: A New Geopolitics in the Middle-East

US-Iran Thaw: A New Geopolitics in the Middle-East

In the international politics there is no permanent friend or enemy, what is permanent is national interest. The same can be ascertained from the United States’ policies in the Middle East particularly vis-a-viz Iran. Washington has always wrongly meddled in the Tehran’s internal affairs and in its surroundings. But from last few months, particularly after rise of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) in Iraq, Tehran-Washington have found new identical grounds for mutual cooperation.

After the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, which changed the Washington nurtured status quo in the Persian Gulf, the baseline of US foreign policy in the oil rich Middle East has been evolved   around anti Iranian policies and amity with Saudi Arabia. The Washington-Tehran animosity has deep roots and the events in the post second world war viz. CIA with British intelligence move that toppled the nationalist government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and latter US reinstalled the Shah-Reza Pahlavi as Iranian head of state have laid basis of present animosity. Mr. Mossadegh had earlier intended to nationalize the Iranian oil which was against western oil interests in the Middle East. This made west to think about the toppling of his government in Tehran.

 Iraq which was backed by US invaded Iran in 1980 that casted about one million deaths. Iran has supported the militant muslim groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and has tacit understanding with the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East region. These militant groups are fundamentally anti Israel and anti US in the region. Iran’s support to these groups caused ex US president Bush to label Iran as ‘axis of evil’ in 2002. The former president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made certain rough policies against Israel and some severe statements against the Bush administration in Washington by calling Bush as ‘great satan on earth’ made significant strains in the Iran-US bilateral relations. The settlement of Arab-Israel conflict also largely depends on Iran, which has a supportive understanding with the anti Israel groups in the region. The main objective of US strategies in the region was to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in the region for which Saudi’s alignment was necessary. 

Nuclear issue is the latest irritant in Iran-US relations. Iran is signatory to NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) and as per the provisions of the treaty Iran has a right to pursue peaceful nuclear programme. That is what Tehran is adamant on its perusal of peaceful nuclear     programme which she is rightly to do as per the provisions of NPT treaty. But the western states headed by the US do not agree on what Iran says about its nuclear programme. The US blame Iran that Tehran is enriching its uranium production in order to convert it into nuclear bomb which Iran has denied since its inception. The US is apprehensive about the security in the Middle East and particularly about Israel security. They believe that if Iran gets bomb it will be an annihilating threat to Israel existence and it will destabilize the balance of power in the region. But there is counter argument by Kenneth Waltz, an eminent scholar of international relations, that if Iran gets bomb it will stabilize the middle east region than destabilize, he made this argument in his article ‘why Iran wants to get bomb’ published in foreign Affairs. There is a paradoxical situation in the region. Israel is not signatory to NPT and it is a nuclear weaponry state while as Iran is signatory to this treaty but it is being denied even to pursue peaceful nuclear programme.

The nuclear negotiation of P+5 (five permanent members of Security Council and Germany) with Iran on the nuclear issue is likely to get breakthrough by 20^th of this month at Vienna. The prospects of the breakthrough have recently been much visible as the problems in Iraq and Syria exacerbated. The annexation of Crimea by Russia have turned the US geopolitical policies in different direction in the Middle East and in its beyond. Iran can be very prospective alley in handling the ongoing crisis in the Afghanistan and Iraq-Syria region.

The crisis in the Iraq poses a critical challenge to the present geopolitical landscape of the Middle East region. The resurgence of ISIL is not only because of Noor-Al-Maliki’s sectarian policies in the Iraq but it is an intended exercise to change the modern structure of the region on pre Sykes-Picot agreement. The Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 divided the Arab world into French and British domain which was earlier the domain of Ottoman Empire and laid the basis of modern geopolitical landscape of the Middle East region.

The present Iraqi president Maliki has not been able to accommodate the Sunni sects in the Iraq after taking the charge of Iraqi government in Baghdad. But there is another side of the coin that the tribal groups in the region are not familiar and accommodative to the principles of the modern western democracy. The American project to democratize the region is backfiring as it is in principle against the basic code of Islam. It is not new to the region that ISIL is trying to bring caliphate in the region it has roots in the activism of Syed Qutub and Jalalu-Din-Afghani who were vehement critiques to the western liberal democracy in the early decades of twentieth century.

The Saudi-Iran competition in the region is one more reason of the present situation in the Middle East. The relation between Saudi and Iran has gone through many phases from strategic alliance in pre Iranian revolution to cold war in the post Iranian revolution. The Saudi represents Arab world while as Iran represents Persian and both accuse each other for nurturing their dominance in the region. Saudi which represents the sunni sect believe that Iran is trying to export its revolution in the other parts of the region which goes against its core interest as it may lead towards Shiite dominance in the region. The United States is using this sectarian and ethnic card to maneuver its interest in the oil rich region which the Arab and Persian world have failed to understand.

Now the reapproachment between Tehran and Washington is threatening Saudi as they have been very close to the latter for last many decades. The current ongoing negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme is likely to get breakthrough is not good for Riyadh as it may end the sanctions on the Iran and also boost the US-Iran bilateral relations whose signs are already emerging after great Britain has announced to reopen its embassy in the Tehran.

This new phase in the Iran-US relation may bring more destabilization in the region as Saudis may not be fit in the Iranian based geopolitical presentation. There is possibility of joint Iran-US action in Iraq against the ISIS and may deepen their cooperation beyond the Iraq border or US may use only Iran militarily to stop the resurgence of ISIL as President Obama in his recent address on foreign policy at West Point Military Academy did pointed out that US itself will not indulge in any unilateral military strike beyond its borders.

The US will now use Tehran to bring some kind of stability as Tehran is more relevant than Saudi in the present situation in the Middle East region and in its beyond. But the point which perhaps Riyadh and Tehran do not comprehend that US is doing things for the sake of its own national interest not for the sake of the region. Therefore, one should not expect that the current situation in the Middle east region will be normal after realignment of Iran and US but, the situation may get more worsened if US does not end its interference in the region and Tehran-Riyadh do not accommodate each other.