An epochal shift in world politics

published by risingkashmir

There are two ways to deconstruct the Iran-US nuclear agreement. One from the realist point of view; the agreement is product of the national interest of both Tehran and Washington, the main contestant of the Iranian nuclear programme with the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany and the European Union. Washington compromised on its earlier stand on the premise that the Tehran cooperation would be indispensable in settling the West Asian chaos from Syria to Yemen and particularly the cooperation would be more critical vis-à-vis ISIL threat in the region. Therefore, not listening to the neoconservative sections of the Israel-US lobby in the Washington, who were looking for military solution to the Iranian nuclear programme, Washington found diplomacy more profitable than military strike.

Meanwhile, Tehran would be very much pleased as the agreement would end the international sanctions that had crippled its economy. Moreover, Tehran would be more pleased as the agreement would recognize Tehran’s persistent argument that pursuing nuclear programme for peaceful purposes is her natural right. Therefore, for Tehran the deal is very much sellable to its domestic audiences.

The second way of deconstructing the agreement would be based on the liberal perspective argument that diplomacy and the institutional based resolution of the conflicts are still viable ways in dealing with the inter-state conflicts. The diplomatic triumph at the Vienna over the Iranian nuclear issue may set an exemplary precedence for other conflicts in the West Asia region and beyond.    

The 1979 Iranian revolution was one of the attributes of the ‘epochal shift’ in the world power as outlined by the Christian Caryl in the “Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the 21st Century”. The author argued that the Islamic revolution became one of the factors which ushered a new era in the world history and shaped its discourses to which the present day world is living with. The other dominant factors that appeared to the author were Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and emergence of four leaders’ viz. Ayatollah Khomeini, Deng Xiaoping, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 brought Tehran and Washington on conflicting lines on some tricky issues pertaining to the West Asian region and beyond. The Tehran-Washington conflict is premised on several narratives. To some scholars the bottom-line of the conflict is rooted in the Persian civilization which West considers a threat to its values and their model of liberal democracy. Another narrative to the incongruence of Iran-US policies in the Middle-East region is based on the Iran-Saudi rivalry which too incepted in the aftermath of the Islamic revolution.

The Iran and the Saudi Arabia have been historically on odd sides’ vis-à-vis any geo-political and geo-economical discourses in the region. Riyadh considered Iranian Islamic revolution threat not only to its undemocratic regime but also from the point of view that Iran would try to substantiate Shiite based proxies to dominate the region. Over the years there is a sense of understanding in the Riyadh that Tehran is supporting groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood in order to substantiate its hold over the West Asia region.         

Over the years a cold-war like situation has emerged between Riyadh and Tehran. Both the countries are playing proxies against each other that over the years have substantiated the crisis to which the whole region is presently engulfed in. Some are interpreting Riyadh-Tehran rivalry as product of US-hatched conspiracy in the region. There is one narrative that the ISIL is CIA proxy which has also a tacit understanding with the Israeli agencies. Therefore, the present crisis in the West Asia region from Syria, Yemen to the ISIL threat have some roots in the Iranian 1979 revolution and the asymmetrical policies thereafter pursued by Washington.

The nuclear agreement may unveil a new era of cooperation between the US and Iran which may help resolve the regional crisis amicably and diplomatically. The agreement may also be exemplary to other such conflicts such as North Korean nuclear issue, and it would prove productive in making the West Asia a free nuclear weapons zone. But, at the same time some analyst argue that the nuclear deal between the Iran and the P5+1 would infuriate the Iran’s regional rival, Saudi Arabia, which may consequently bring Riyadh and Israel on same side to make the region more volatile. Instead of this pessimistic analysis the fact cannot be denied that the deal is per se an ‘epochal shift’ in the West Asian politics and in the world politics as well.