Skip to main content

UN$C

New rounds of talks took place between Iran and the United Nations Security Council’s Permanent five members (USA, Russia, France, UK and China) and Germany in Oman in November. The meeting set a November 24th deadline to reach an agreement with Iran and its nuclear program, where in exchange of lifting economic sanctions, Iran must draw back on its nuclear activities. The deadline was not met, and no one cared really. Before going into that, a brief historic review of Iran and nuclear aspirations will be presented first.

Iran, under the Shah regime, was a western ally. Israel and Iran in fact were buddies. The nuclear program (for civilian purposes) started back then in the fifties and sixties and Israel even offered to help Iran out – an offer snubbed for some reason by Tehran. International cooperation was also offered to Iran, and things went smoothly and peacefully. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 changed everything however, and Iran was no longer the region’s watchdog. The cleric regime shifted the balance of regional power and alliances, and imposed a new set of ideals and national aspirations and orientations. This new ideology affected all aspects of Iranian life, including the scientific sphere, where the nuclear programme was at first disparaged and rejected by the Ayatollahs as being anti-Islamic, considering that any plan to create a weapon that would annihilate people indiscriminately is against the tenants of a benevolent religion (those were the days). Yet, politics trumped ethics, and Khomeini changed his stance on the nuclear issue, viewing the design of a nuclear bomb as a necessity to maintain security and protect the Islamic state. The program was back on again, and nuclear scientists went back to their labs to resuscitate the project. Despite international efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear programme (in particular Israel’s meddling with plans and manuals and later on introducing software defects) the programme was not halted. Assassinations of scientists, imposition of sanctions and embargoes, and supporting the green revolution were all futile efforts, and the programme is still ongoing.

Against this determination and defiance, Israel threatened on numerous occasions to level the nuclear enrichment sites in Iran, but since the boy cried wolf many a time, no one is taking Israeli threats seriously. The USA has also shied away from military confrontation or supporting Israel in any military operation, while peaceful Europe has been measuring its options. The wisdom of the USA and the EU bore fruit in November 2013 when an agreement was inked between the UNSC and Iran on its nuclear program, each side giving and committing to concessions. This year was to see actual progress on the understanding reached last year, where Iran would further halt nuclear enrichment, and the November talks were held for that purpose.

Now the whole humouring Iran and its leadership is not based on fear of Iran’s backlash against an attack (although it is a factor), nor its ability to close off a major strait in the Persian/Arab gulf against international commerce (also a factor), nor polite diplomacy (definitely not a factor); the reason is economics. This interest is shared by both governments and businessmen. Western investors received the news of talks and the possibility of concluding a final deal with much enthusiasm, visiting Iran shortly afterwards in search of investment and business opportunities. As the Chief US nuclear negotiator with Iran Wendy Sherman said: “as soon as sanctions are suspended, the world will flood into Iran”.

The western world’s indulgence of Iran and its programme and its conditions efforts to curb its programme peacefully whilst offering it an economic break is understandable for two reasons. First, Iran proved not to be an illogical, irrational and fanatical regime, as despite the rhetoric applied now and again, the country did not engage in any acts of aggression and in fact collaborated with its sworn enemy in controlling the Iraqi scene. Second, Iran is a gold mine, both for resources (both material and human) and location, and investors do need to dig into Iran’s business scene. Now Iran’s patience with the West and its intentional prolongation of talks is not based merely on its plans to win time (talking and enriching at the same time), but also on a geo-strategic and political card it is wittingly holding. Iran realizes a few important things: Israel will not attack, the US will not help Israel should it attack, Iran is key in maintaining security in Iraq, the US needs Iran to keep Shiite forces in the region in check, the Syrian regime listens to very few – and Iran is one of the privileged few, and the West is interested in Iran’s economic opportunities and oil (especially in light of what is happening in Russia and the possible consequences of oil supply as a retaliation to any sanctions imposed on the patient bear). Iran, as much as it wants the sanctions eased, is faring well and is no hurry to obey orders in return for rolling back sanctions. The revolution did not work, the economy is struggling but still hanging on, and the people learned how to live under constant economic pressures. It can wait.


Politics is not a product of good will but pure interest, economic interest in particular. Swallowing one’s pride and scaling back on the freedom and democracy rhetoric is a strategy that worked in the past and will work now. Meeting the November deadline was worrying the West more than Iran, as the former has got more to lose. So basically what the West is telling Iran: do what we say, and in return, we will let you let us benefit from your much needed resources. Human rights, democracy, anti-Semitism and the like are not important now. Tehran realized the position it has put the West in and decided to stall….just as a wise Iranian proverb goes: A drowning man is not troubled by rain.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.  

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate before including themselves under th

Wishing You a New MENA

Journalist and author of A nd Then All Hell Broke Loose: Two Decades in the Middle East   said that “Everything changed with the First World War. The Middle East was reorganized, redefined, and the seeds were planted for a century of bloodshed.” He was not entirely right. Bloodshed lasted more than a century actually. Here we are in 2019, and the Middle East and North Africa region – the infamous MENA – is still a boisterous, rowdy zone of political recrimination, military coups, conspiracy theories, historic reminiscence, oil squabbles, and religiously-infused rhetoric. Blood shed of course as well. Well, here we are.  Algeria is set to head to the polls in April. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika will likely secure a fifth mandate. If not, Algeria’s powerbrokers, mainly the military and powerful business elites will enter into an expensive bargain of security versus social and economic stability. Having vested the long-enjoyed tranquillity on a political figure, rather than a