(Published by the Manglam, A Peer Reviewed Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Allahabad India, August 2015)
Abstract:
The
Iranian Revolution of 1979 heralded an epochal shift in world politics due to
its far reaching implications from Hindukush Mountains to the Mediterranean
Sea. The Revolution did not put only the Tehran and the Washington on opposing
fronts but, also started a regional based rivalry between the Saudi Arabia and
the Iran. These bilateral rivalries gave birth to the different nuisances to
which the West Asian region and world at large is confronted with. The present
ISIL is one accentuate offspring of these rivalries. Now, the historical
nuclear agreement between the Iran and the P5+1 at Vienna may prove a second
epochal ship which would help to resolve all the geo-political issues in the
West Asian region and in its beyond.
Key
Words:
(Iran-US
Nuclear Deal, Epochal Shift, Iranian Revolution, Axis of Evil, Islamic
Republic, IAEA, West Asia)
There are two broad
ways to deconstruct the recent Iran-US nuclear agreement concluded at Vienna,
Austria. One from the realist point of view, the agreement is product of the
national interest of both the Tehran and the Washington, the main contestant of
the Iranian nuclear programme with other four permanent members of the UN
Security Council, Germany and the European Union. The Washington compromised on
its earlier stand on the premises that in the long run, the Tehran cooperation
would be indispensable in settling the geo-political issues from Hindhukush
Mountains to Mediterranean Sea and particularly the cooperation would be more
critical vis-à-vis ISIL threat in the region.[i]
One more calculation in the Washington is based on the fact that the agreement
would allow the international inspection of the Iranian nuclear installations,
thereby, would substantiate non-proliferation efforts and it would also
strengthen the Israeli’s security. 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, the Washington
found diplomacy more profitable than military strike.
On the other side the
Tehran would be very much pleased as the agreement would end the international
sanctions on its crippling economy. The
agreement would not only bring economic opportunities to eighty million Iranian
but it would also yield high economic dividends to some European powers and to
the US as well. The Germany would sell more cars in the Iranian market which
some estimates is tantamount to $10 billion. It would provide Iran oil deal
worth of $100 billion and the US based Apple company would also get huge
economic advantages.[ii] Moreover,
the Tehran would be more pleased as the agreement would recognize the Tehran’s persistent
argument that pursuing nuclear programme for peaceful purposes is his natural
right. Therefore, for Tehran the deal is very much sellable to its domestic
audiences.
The second way of
deconstruction to 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, Korean Peninsula and in
its beyond. The agreement may unveil a new era in world politics characterized
with “institutional-cum-diplomatic” based resolutions to the conflicts rather
than “preemptive strike” doctrine and “unilateralism” reinvented under the Bush
regimes.
1979
and birth of strangeness:
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 today’s world is living with. The other dominant factors 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.[iii]
The Iranian
revolution of 1979 brought the Tehran and the Washington on conflicting lines
on some tricky issues pertaining to the West Asian region and in its 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. 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.[iv]
The Washington-Tehran animosity has deep roots and the
events in the post Second World War brought two countries on opposite sides on
the international issues. The 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. Mr. Mossadegh had
earlier intended to nationalize the Iranian oil which was against western oil
interests in the Middle East.[v]
The bilateral relationship got further deteriorated after the US backed Iraq
invasion on Iran which casted about one million deaths. Iran has also been
accused for supporting some anti Israel elements in the region viz. Hezbollah,
Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood.
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 (evil) on earth’ made significant strains in the Iran-US bilateral
relations.[vi] The
main objective of US strategies in the region is to prevent Iran from expanding
its influence in the region for which Saudi’s alignment was necessary.
Russian
Angle:
The Russian
intelligence in the year 2008 had reports that Washington and Tell Evi are in
preparation for military strike over the Iran. After Iranian President
Ahmadinejad’s hard tone at the United Nations General Assembly over the Israel,
there was general feeling that the strike is inevitable. The Iranian President
in his speech said that “state of Israel is in terminal decline and that
eclipse of the American empire is on the horizon”.[vii]
The invasion of the
Russia over the Georgia in the year 2008 is also in this background. The
Russian envoy to the NATO in the September 2008 said that the Russia had
intelligence inputs about the probable US-Israel strike over the Iran and it
would be carried from the Georgian airfields. The strike from the Georgia would
have been easier, as they just have to cross the Caspian Sea to reach Iran. The
subsequent Russian moment over the Abkhazia and South Ossetia was to ensure
that the US would think before striking the Iran. This was not only reason
which stopped US from attacking Iran. The 2008 economic recession would have
been another roadblock.[viii]
Since the Iranian
revolution no American president tried to reach out to Iran’s state psychology,
which is based on civilizational pride and past glory. Iran was always willing
to get engage with the US leadership provided they take the Tehran with full
respect and recognize its regional role. The Iran had always talked about the
fact that the Washington should learn to deal with Iran on “principles of
equality and respect”. Besides this the Tehran had perception that for any
successful Iran-US cooperation would be impossible without an unambiguous US
policy on some sensitive concerns. The US has to recognize the fact that Israel-Arab
lobby against the Iran is not based on true perception and is partisan in
nature.[ix]
Therefore, the US has to liberate itself from these lobbies before coming for
dialogue with the Iran. Moreover, the Washington has to recognize significance
of the Iran in the West Asian on the lines of geo-strategic parameters.
The incumbent US
president Obama was first American president in recent years who reached to the
Iranian people and state in substantive terms. After becoming the US president
in 2009, he while addressing the Iran referred it as the “Islamic Republic” and
he recognized the legitimacy of the Iranian Islamic revolution of 1979. The
Obama regime in the Washington started to reconcile with the Iranian
counterparts by way of throwing away the “regime change” policy of
neoconservatives during the Bush era.[x]
The Obama noted that “my administration is now committed to diplomacy that
addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties
among the US-Iran and the international community. This process will not be
advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in
mutual respect”.[xi] This
was a accentuated shift from “axis of evil” to “Islamic republic” in the US
policy vis-à-vis Iran.
Over the last few
years the Iran-US cooperation becomes more critical over the issue of regional
tensions from Iraq to Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza. It is well recognized
fact that the Iran wields high influence over the Syrian regime under Busher-al
Assad and Syria is its strategic alley and both are being cooperating in the
region over many years now. Earlier the Syria had been facilitating Tehran’s
clandestine support to Hezbollah into Bekka Valley across the border in
Lebanon. The Iranian influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah is well established
and it has been supporting the Hamas for many years against the Israel
occupation in Palestine. Therefore, the nuclear agreement between the US and
the Iran would have “strategic consequences” as it would help in reconciliation
and resolution to a turbulent region stretching from ‘Hindukush Mountains to
the Mediterranean Sea’.[xii]
Nuclear
Issue:
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.
But the western powers headed by the US do not agree to the Iranian point. The
US blames 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.[xiii]
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 has been denied even to pursue peaceful nuclear programme.
The dispute between the US and the Iran over
the nuclear issue accelerated after the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) in September 2005 declared that the Iran is in “breach of its safeguard
obligations”. The IAEA latter in February 2006 further noticed about the Iran’s
clandestine nuclear programme. The issue got exacerbated after Tehran disclosed
to the IAEA about its unsolicited document received from the A. Q. Khan network
in 1987 about the casting of uranium in hemispherical shape and the US intelligence
report about Iran’s research on a nuclear capable missile and on uranium
conversion.[xiv]
The Israel lobby and
the neoconservative Bush regime in the Washington took no time to put harsh
unilateral sanctions over the Iran. The US congress also maneuvered the Iran
counterproliferation act to target the countries especially Russia for
cooperating with Tehran in nuclear field. From 2005 onwards the Bush regime
consolidated the economic sanctions over Iran which crippled its economy over
the years.
Iran-SA
Cold War:
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 are
concerned. The Riyadh considered Iranian Islamic revolution threat not only to
its undemocratic regime but also from the point of view that the 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.[xv]
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.[xvi]
Over the years a
cold-war like situation has emerged between the Riyadh and the 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.[xvii]
Some are interpreting Riyadh-Tehran rivalry is 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 the Washington and the Tehran
one side and the Iran-Riyadh another side.
The Washington based
Israel lobby always derailed any thaw between the Iran and the US. The Arab oil
lobby also hampered any reconciliation between the two countries on the ground
that such reconciliation would legitimate Tehran as strong “contender for
preeminence in the hierarchy of the Arab-Islamic world”. These lobbies would
continue to sabotage any closer cooperation between the Iran and the US.[xviii]
One of the Republican
candidates for 2016 presidential election Gov. Walker has recently remarked
that “we need to terminate the deal with Iran on the very first day in office”.[xix]
Just after the deal the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini noted that
the Tehran would not change its policy both at international and regional
level. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while reacting on the deal
said that the “deal is not only threat to the Israel but to the whole world”
and it is “stunning historical mistake”.[xx]
Some scholars believe that the nuclear agreement may bring
more destabilization in the region as Saudis may not be fit in the Iranian
based geopolitical presentation. The
deal may infuriate consequently bring Riyadh and Israel on same side to make
the region more volatile. On the other side 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 last 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.
Heralding New Era
The nuclear agreement
may unveil a new era of cooperation between the US and Iran which may help to
resolve the regional crisis amicably and diplomatically. The agreement may also
be an 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. 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.
The
deal may help more to the European powers than the US and the Iran. The two
countries are still living in historical mistrust and old nurtured suspicion
over each other and it cannot be removed overnight. Majority of the Americans
still don’t trust the Iranians and the Iran is not far away from the “regime
change” perception. The European powers like Germany would be benefited two
ways. One the deal would allow the European powers to do business with the Iran
and earn avail economic opportunities available in the Iranian market. From the
other side the European states would assert independent foreign policy from the
American counterpart.[xxi]
The
Israeli apprehension on the nuclear agreement, which per se is based on two
propositions. One, that the agreement would allow Iran to substantiate its
nuclear programme which resultantly, can give atomic bomb to Iran. Another
apprehension of the Israel is about the fact that end of economic sanction over
Iran would yield economic advantages which could be diverted for Iran proxies
in the region. Majority of the experts disagree with both of the Israeli
arguments rather there is consensus that the deal would substantiate Israeli
security as the Iranian nuclear programme would now come under IAEA scrutiny
which earlier was not available and Israel would concentrate on other security
issues and threats in the region.[xxii]
Idealistically, the
new shift may change the geopolitical landscape of not only the West Asian
region but of whole world. If the United States succeeded in persuading the two
vehement critics of US-Iran nuclear agreement- Israel and Saudi Arabia, on the
premises that the deal would not compromise their national interest and would
not jeopardize the regional security, rather it would help in overcoming the
present chaos, then there is likelihood of real “epochal ship” in world
politics which would be very benign. This idealistic deconstruction is unlikely
keeping in view the geo-political dynamism of the West Asian region and the
rival power bargaining between the big powers and the regional ones. But, the
fact of the matter is that the deal per se is a “epochal shift”.
[i] Aneja Atul, “Towards Defusing Tension in West Asia”, The Hindu, 2
June, 2009.
[ii] Geranmayel Ellie, “Europe’s Edge: By Engaging With Iran, Europe can
assert its Power ”, Foreign Affairs, Online Edition, Accessed on 19 July, 2015.
[iii] Caryl Christian, Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the Twenty
First Century (New York: Basic Books, 2014).
[iv] Bhaderkumar M., “Obama Breaks Middle Eastern Taboos”, The Hindu, 26
May, 2009.
[v] Bhadrakumar M., “Beijing Cautions US over Iran”, The Hindu, 22
June, 2009.
[vi] “Obama Offers New Start with Iran”, The Hindu, Online Edition,
accessed on 21 March, 2009.
[vii] Aneja Atul, “Why a War against Iran is not Inevitable”, The Hindu,
13 October, 2008.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Aneja Atul, “Iran Lukewarm but Ready for Talks with US”, The Hindu,
13 March, 2009.
[x] Aneja Atul, “Iran Consolidates Position in West Asia”, The Hindu,
25 July, 2008.
[xi] Aneja Atul, “Obama Breaks Fresh Ground in Iran”, The Hindu, 11
April, 2009.
[xii] “The Nuclear Deal with Iran s Better Than the Alternatives-War or
No Deal at All”, The Economist, Online Edition, Accessed on 18 July, 2015.
[xiii] Clinton Hillary, “America’s Pacific Century”, Foreign Policy,
Online Edition, accessed in November 2011.
[xiv] Veradarajan Siddharth, “On Iran no News is Good News”, The Hindu,
17 November, 2007.
[xv] Johny Stanly, “The Hot Saudi-Iran Cold War”, The Hindu, 15 June,
2015.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] “The Morning after the Nuclear Deal”, Editorial, New York Times,
Online Edition, Accessed on 18 July, 2015.
[xviii] Aneja Anul, “Israel Feels Pain as Obama Engages Iran”, 15 May,
2009.
[xix] Abrams Elliott, “Unraveling the Iran Nuclear Deal on Day One”,
Council on Foreign Relations, Online Edition, Accessed on 17 July, 2015.
[xx] Sasley Brent, “How Israel can Live with the Iranian Nuclear
Agreement”, Foreign Affairs, Online Edition, Accessed on 17 July, 2015.
[xxi] Geranmayel Ellie, “Europe’s Edge: By Engaging With Iran, Europe can
assert its Power ”, Foreign Affairs, Online Edition, Accessed on 19 July, 2015.
[xxii] Freilich Chuck, “A Good Deal for Israel”, New York Times, Global
Online Edition, Accessed on 19 July 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment