Iran’s Nuclear Deal: Summary

1.   Preview

The Islamic Republic of Iran celebrated a momentous event on the 14^th of July with the signature of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that will lift the economic sanctions imposed on the country and reintegrate it back into the international community. The deal has been described as historic and unprecedented, ending a 12 year standoff between the West and Iran and opening a new page in relations. The agreement came after twenty months of intensive negotiations between the six world powers, the EU and Iran, and was heralded as an achievement for all parties. Nonetheless, the deal has alarmed and confused key players in the region, considering the political, economic and geopolitical repercussions of the concluded agreement.

Iran’s controversial nuclear programme has long drawn international condemnation, fueled by Israel’s warning of Iran’s nuclear capacities that would place a nuclear bomb in the hands of a radical state. These fears were further amplified by Tehran’s references to the annihilation of Israel and its ties with radical and destabilising forces in the region, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These preoccupations regarding a nuclear Iran were also shared by Gulf countries whose historic confrontation with Iran and whose fears regarding the latter’s ideological dominance over Shiite groups led to a regional recognition on the need to de-nuclearise and contain Iran. The USA, the prime ally of Israel and Saudi Arabia, has cushioned the fears of these nations and promised to protect them against the Iranian regime. Despite constant calls from the Israeli government and lobby to strike Iranian nuclear sites, Washington opted for a strategy based on negotiations and sanctions to entice Iran to limit its nuclear programme. The UNSC, for its part, had adopted a total of six resolutions and imposed gradual sanctions on Iran between 2006 and 2010 in an effort to curb its nuclear programme, after the International Atomic Energy Association found in September 2005 that Tehran was not compliant with its international obligations in respect to the nuclear programme. Measures included financial curbs, freezing assets of individuals and companies related to the enrichment programme, banning the supply of nuclear-related technology to the country, an expanded arms embargo and scrutiny of the dealings of Iranian banks. Meanwhile, and on the diplomatic track, the UNSC engaged with Iran in an effort to curb its nuclear programme and mandated a six nation group, known as the P5 + 1 (China, Russia, France, UK, USA and Germany) to negotiate a solution with Tehran.

Since the commencement of negotiations, Iran has been adamant about its prime condition for agreeing on any deal to halt its nuclear programme, which was lifting the sanctions imposed on the country. In 2013, a series of negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran took place over a six-month period which aimed at reaching a permanent resolution to the global impasse over Iran's nuclear programme. In November 2013, an interim agreement, known as the Joint Plan of Action, was reached in Geneva after a diplomatic marathon of three intensive rounds. This plan of action partially lifted the sanctions on Iran and paved the way for a comprehensive agreement. Deadlines for reaching a final agreement were not met and pushed back several times due to disagreements on the nature of the nuclear programme and the timeline for lifting sanctions. In March 2015, world leaders met in Lausanne, Switzerland, for further negotiations, and in April 2^nd Iran and world powers announced a framework deal to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. In June 2015, talks resumed between the P5+1 and Iran in Vienna ahead of a June 30^th deadline to sign a final agreement. The deadline was not met and the Vienna talks were extended amidst disagreements over the lifting of an arms embargo. Finally, on July 14^th 2015, and after 17 days of marathon talks between world powers and Iran, a historic nuclear deal was reached with the signature of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [1]. The UNSC unanimously adopted a resolution on July 20^th that endorsed the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers which will take effect within 90 days.

The deal sparked controversy across the globe in general and in the region in particular. Whilst the international community praised the breakthrough and found in it an excellent alternative to another war in the region, regional actors, primarily Israel and Saudi Arabia, voiced their concerns regarding the deal. They referred to the dangers posed by the Persian state whose nuclear ambitions, they claim, will not necessarily be deterred by the above-mentioned deal. Moreover, with the reincorporation of Iran politically and economically into the international community, Iran’s influence in the region will be bolstered, threating the current balance of power and the alliances forged between regional actors. In light of these developments, Jordan must reexamine its policies and strategies in dealing with Iran and the Gulf states. The probable change status quo and the shift in relations between traditional allies must be analyzed by policy makers to ensure that Jordanian interests are protected in this transitional phase. This paper intends to shed light on the changes in the geopolitical map of the region and the reactions of regimes to these developments, offering as well recommendations to the Jordanian polity on dealing with these changes strategically and pragmatically. Prior to that, a brief summary on the nuclear deal will be provided.

2.   Summary of JCPOA Technical Details as per a statement issued by the European External Action Service[2]:

·      Under JCPOA, Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances it will ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons, and will move forward with an exclusively peaceful, indigenous nuclear programme under the relevant articles Non-Proliferation Treaty.

·      Adoption day of the JCPOA is 90 days after its endorsement of the UNSC; an earlier date may be determined by mutual consent of the JCPOA participants.

·      A Joint Commission consisting of P5+1, the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (thereof EU +3) and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of this JCPOA. The IAEA will be requested to monitor and verify the voluntary nuclear-related measures and provide regular updates to the UNSC. The EU+3 and Iran will meet at the ministerial level every 2 years in order to review and assess progress and to adopt appropriate decisions by consensus.

·      Iran's long term plan includes certain agreed limitations on all uranium enrichment and uranium enrichment-related activities including certain limitations on specific research and development activities for the first 8 years, to be followed by gradual evolution, to the next stage of its enrichment activities for exclusively peaceful purposes. Iran will begin phasing out its IR-1 centrifuges in 10 years. During this period, Iran will keep its enrichment capacity at Natanz at up to a total installed uranium enrichment capacity of 5060 IR-1 centrifuges. Excess centrifuges and enrichment related infrastructure at Natanz will be stored under IAEA continuous monitoring. Iran will continue to conduct enrichment research and development in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium. Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years.

·      Iran will not manufacture or assemble other centrifuges and will replace failed centrifuges with centrifuges of the same type. Iran will manufacture advanced centrifuge machines only for the purposes specified in this JCPOA. From the end of the eighth year Iran will start to manufacture agreed numbers of IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuge machines without rotors and will store all of the manufactured machines at Natanz, under IAEA continuous monitoring until they are needed under Iran's long-term enrichment and enrichment research and development plan.

·      For 15 years, Iran will carry out its uranium enrichment-related activities exclusively in the Natanz Enrichment facility, keep its level of uranium enrichment at up to 3.67%. It will refrain from any uranium enrichment at Fordow and will convert it into a nuclear, physics and technology centre.

·      During the 15 year period, Iran will keep its uranium stockpile under 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride. The excess quantities are to be sold and delivered to the international buyer in return for natural uranium delivered to Iran.

·      Iran will redesign and rebuild a modernised heavy water research reactor in Arak, using fuel enriched up to 3.67 %, in a form of an international partnership. The reactor will support peaceful nuclear research and radioisotope production for medical and industrial purposes. The redesigned and rebuilt Arak reactor will not produce 8 weapons grade plutonium.. All spent fuel from Arak will be shipped out of Iran for the lifetime of the reactor. Iran plans to keep pace with the trend of international technological advancement in relying on light water for its future power and research reactors with enhanced international cooperation, including assurance of supply of necessary fuel. There will be no additional heavy water reactors or accumulation of heavy water in Iran for 15 years. All excess heavy water will be made available for export to the international market. For 15 years Iran will not engage in any spent fuel reprocessing or construction of a facility capable of spent fuel reprocessing,

·      Iran will allow the IAEA to monitor the implementation of the voluntary measures for their respective durations, as well as to implement transparency measures, which include: a long-term IAEA presence in Iran; IAEA monitoring of uranium ore concentrate produced by Iran from all uranium ore concentrate plants for 25 years; containment and surveillance of centrifuge rotors and bellows for 20 years; use of IAEA approved and certified modern technologies including on-line enrichment measurement and electronic seals; and a mechanism to ensure speedy resolution of IAEA access concerns for 15 years.

·      Regarding sanctions, the UNSC resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UNSC resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue. The EU will terminate all provisions of the EU Regulation implementing all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions, as well as all provisions of the EU Regulation implementing all EU proliferation-related sanctions, 8 years after the Adoption Day of the JCPOA or when the IAEA has reached the broader conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities. The US will cease the application of the sanctions to take effect simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of the agreed nuclear related measures by Iran. Eight years after the adoption day or when the IAEA has reached the broader conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, the US will seek such legislative action to terminate the sanctions on the acquisition of nuclear-related commodities and services for nuclear activities contemplated in this JCPOA.

·      The EU will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions that it has terminated implementing under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. There will be no new nuclear related UNSC and no new EU nuclear-related sanctions or restrictive measures. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA and from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA.

·      Iran has stated that it will treat a re-introduction or re-imposition of sanctions or the imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments in whole or in part.

·      The EU and the US will refrain from any policy intended to affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran. The EU+3 and Iran will agree on steps to ensure Iran’s access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy. The EU will further explore possible areas for cooperation with Iran, and will consider using export credits to facilitate trade, project financing and investment in Iran.

·      On re-imposing the sanctions, JCPOA stipulates that if an issue was raised regarding Iran not meeting its commitments, the issue could be referred to the Joint Commission, Ministers of Foreign Affais, the Joint Commission and Advisory Board in order.  If the issue still has not been resolved the UNSC would be notified and will vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UNSC would be re-imposed.

3.      Regional Implications of the Nuclear Deal

The nuclear deal’s articles and stipulations go beyond the technical issues related to Iran’s nuclear programme. The recognition of Iran as player in the region was one important achievement that resulted from the deal, one that has many implications on the region and on the delicate balance of powers that has been protected by the west, primarily the USA. Iran will not only benefit financially, but politically and geopolitically as well where it can now use this opening to the international community as a means to build new alliances and strengthen those already established.

According to the analysis of Middle East expert Kenneth Pollack in a testimony before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the possible Regional implications of the nuclear agreement with Iran[3], Pollack indicated that contrary to popular opinion, Iran is unlikely to pursue a wider rapprochement with the US. According to him, Tehran will neither change its policy toward the region as a result of a nuclear agreement especially since Iran is content with current status quo, particularly in respect to Iraq and Syria. He explained that Iran’s most likely course after a nuclear agreement will be to continue to pursue the same regional strategy it has pursued over the past three years, but may interpret American behavior after a nuclear agreement as a sign of further disengagement from the Middle East. If that is the case, he added, it is highly likely that Iranian goals will become more expansive and its policy more aggressive. Other analysts however indicate that Iran indeed intends to shifts its policies in the region and move towards broader geopolitical collaboration, particularly in the area of cooperation in “the fight against extremism”, a hint at the prospects of Iran formally joining forces the US in fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Moreover, powerful voices Tehran are gradually abandoning the revolutionary-era resistance to domineering imperialistic plans[4]. According to views shared by political experts, analysis indicated that Iran will systematically move away from its hardline ideological discourse to a more pragmatic one. By singing the deal, according to these analysts, revealed Iran's true colors and its prioritisation of its own interests over any other regional issue, despite any employed rhetoric Tehran employed in the past. The Obama administration too has indicated that the nuclear deal could be the beginning of wider collaboration with Iran in respect to pursuing pursuing its geopolitical goals in the region. The fears shared by Israel and Sunni powers in the region regarding a politically and economically strengthened Iran and, by proxy, its allies in the region are not necessarily true according to some observers. According to a study published in Global Research, by moderating and neutralizing Iran, the USA would undermine the challenge to its policies posed by Tehran via the stick approach of re-imposing sanctions. It should be noted the Tehran gabled on this agreement and has put a lot of stake on the revival of the Iranian economy and the improvement of the living standards to contain the reactions of hardliners who were not necessarily thrilled to see Iran succumb to international will.

Whether Iran indeed uses its bolstered influence in the region to further strengthen its relations with its traditional allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria or would use this breakthrough to shift alliances and prioritise its own interests, Jordan needs to draw possible scenarios and strategies to deal with the issue in a pragmatic way. 

4.      Reactions on the Nuclear Deal

International Reactions

The reaction from the international community in general on the nuclear deal has been one of commendation and optimism, with countries expressing relief that the stand-off has ended peacefully and fruitfully. The US administration in particular voiced its satisfaction with the deal, where President Obama heralded the Iranian nuclear deal and underlined that it would meet American national security needs and that of US allies.^[5] The American Ambassador to the UN explained that the terms of the deal will significantly delay Iran's nuclear development to the point of preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. She praised the deal for achieving objectives peacefully vis-a-vis the Middle East without resorting to war. Nonetheless, and in an effort to assuage regional concerns, the Ambassador also said that the US will continue to invest in the security of its regional allies.[6]

According to the analysis of political observers, the deal itself serves US interests in the region, as it reflects a growing recognition by the Obama administration that hostility towards Iran undermines other US priorities in the region, especially the fight against the ISIS. Containing Sunni terrorism and radicalism to protect western interests in the region may require an alliance with new and strong actors whose influence and power may serve long-term American interests. Washington appears to have agreed to shift its strategy in the region and openly deal with a “neutralised” Iran to solve or contain the conflicts in the Middle East. Moreover, by opening a new chapter in relations with Tehran, Washington would also win Iran away from getting too close to Russia and China[7]. It should be note that the deal was sent to Congress on July 19^th where it will be reviewed in the next 60 days. The Congress will then vote on whether to lift the sanctions imposed on Iran or not^[8] noting that Obama has promised to veto any attempt by Republican opponents to undermine the deal[9].

Russia on the other hand also praised the deal; the Russian ambassador to the UN spoke of the inalienable Iranian rights to develop a nuclear program. He underlined that the deal would prevent another Middle East arms race and would create a zone free of weapons of mass destruction[10]. The EU also welcomed the deal and expressed contentment that it would avoid another war in the region. Analysts also indicate that the EU is particularly interested in the economic aspect of the deal, where the lifting of trade restrictions on Iran would enable the EU to expand trade as much as 400 per cent, according to the president of the Eurasia Group risk consultancy[11]. Moreover, the deal could help the EU to substitute imports of oil and gas from Iran for those from Russia, thereby undermining Russia’s influence over Europe[12].

Regional Reactions: Israel, Saudi Arabia and GCC

Israel's positions on the deal have been voiced since the beginning of negotiations between P5+1 and Iran, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the imminent UNSC resolution "hypocritical" and criticized the UN agency for giving legitimacy to a country that “systematically violates the Council's resolutions and threatens to destroy Israel”. The Israeli leader lobbied repeatedly against a disadvantageous deal with Tehran and called for including of a clear and unambiguous recognition of Israel’s right to exist in any final agreement with Iran[13].

The nuclear agreement came as a blow to Israeli leadership, where the Israeli premier described it as a “historic mistake” that will only make it easier for Iran to build a nuclear bomb[14] . Israel’s failure to obstruct the deal and win a US veto on the concluded nuclear deal left Israel with the sole choice of pushing the US Congress to oppose lifting sanctions on Iran. Netanyahu sent a message to US lawmakers where he stressed that as long as the sanctions imposed by the US Congress are in effect, Iran would have to make concessions[15].

The inking of the deal was much criticized by Israel who reiterated its concerns that a deal with a radical country such as Iran forms a direct existential threat to Israel. The deal does not guarantee that Iran will forge it nuclear ambitions and might even fuel the Iranian war machine via the lifting of sanctions, bolstering and reviving with that the Iranian economy[16]. However, analysts indicate that circles within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment favor the nuclear deal as a way to contain Iran's nuclear threat, freeing resources to deal with other threats^[17] . Numerous Israeli analysts and former military and intelligence-service officials agree with this analysis, such as members of the IDF’s general staff; a former head of Mossad; a former head of Shin Bet and a former head of the IDF’s intelligence branch^[18].

Nonetheless, analysts indicate that the nuclear threat posed by Tehran is not the sole motor behind Israel's expressed condemnation of the deal, and that of Saudi Arabia, but rather the realisation that the Iranian rapprochement with the international community and the USA in particular will create a paradigm shift and alter the status quo that has long protected the Israeli interests, especially in light of the rise of Iranian influence in several Arab capitals[19]. Analysts argue that Israel considered the US support to the nuclear deal as an erosion to its deterrence to Iran and as an actual legitimisation of a nuclear-threshold Iran.

In a testimony before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Middle East expert Kenneth Pollack gave a briefing on July 9^th on the possible Regional implications of the nuclear agreement with Iran. He explained that although Israel is opposed to the deal, a military response seems far-fetched, Tel Aviv would manifest its discontent in three major area. First Israelis will ramp up their covert campaign against Iran and its nuclear program, with more Iranian scientists mysteriously assassinated and more sensitive Iranian facilities blow up. Second, Israel will also seek greatly expanded U.S. aid in response to the nuclear deal with Iran to improve its capability to strike Iranian targets and to defeat retaliatory attacks by Iran or its allies, as well as ask for other weapons and capabilities previously denied. Finally, a nuclear deal with Iran could push Israel to become more aggressive in its own neighborhood using the security pretext, and therefore will be less willing to take risks on other security matters in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon[20].

Saudi Arabia on the other hand has been silent on the nuclear deal and an official public statement has not yet been issued, but the country’s reaction was revealed by statements made by government-sanctioned journalists and analysts[21]. Similar to the Israeli position, Saudi Arabia fears that the deal will not ensure a nuclear-free Iran. A Saudi researcher explained that a nuclear deal with Tehran will not deter Iran's capability to create a nuclear weapon considering that the deal will only take effect for a relatively short period of 15 years and will not destroy Iran's technical capabilities to maintain a nuclear programme[22]. After the signature of the agreement, Saudi diplomat told the Washington Post that his country took the deal as a “green light” to pursue its own nuclear program, arguing that this is a necessary step to protect the Kingdom against a nuclear Iran[23]. Saudi concerns also have an economic dimension, according to some observers who noted that Iran's oil will find its way back on the international market and will cut directly into Saudi exports[24].

The GCC countries have also been silent on the issue, with the exception of Oman, where the secretary-general of Oman's ministry of foreign affairs welcomed the deal. The UAE also officially congratulated Iran on the deal[25]. It should be noted that despite the possible consequences on the GCC economy as a result of Iran’s oil export, the benefits of investments in Iran would spill over to the GCC. The UAE in particular stands to gain significant economic benefits from Iran’s reintegration into the global economy considering that it has been a financial artery for Iran and has long benefitted from formal-sector trade with Iran until the tightening of sanctions in 2012[26].

Observers note that there are mixed reactions in the Gulf towards the Iranian nuclear deal. Those who support it argue it would prevent the region from sliding into a destructive and depleting nuclear arms race that would deplete everybody.  Opponents on the other hand say the deal will have a number of negative consequences for the Gulf. Moreover, Saudi worries economic worries are shared by the other oil exporting states, who worry that the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil exports, estimated at between one and 1.5 million barrels a day, would further flood the oil market with cheap Iranian oil, bringing prices even further down, bringing  adverse economic consequences on the Gulf states[27].

In general, Sunni powers in the region, according to analysts, are fearing the consequences of the deal, not from a nuclear-bomb stand point but that of an international recognition and reincorporation of Iran which will now be able to assert itself more forcefully in the region once sanctions are lifted and its economy revived, foreseeing the drastic repercussions that would be felt on the Syrian, Iraqi and Yemeni files[28].

It is clear that a western recognition of Iranian regional influence would come at the expense of the Gulf States, given that they are the weakest link in the region’s chain of influence. In the post-deal reality, there would be three recognized and regional powers: Iran, Turkey and Israel, a reality that would affect the traditional alliances built between Arab nations and the USA. In light of these developments, an according to a report published by Al Jazeera in April[29], analysts indicate that Saudi Arabia is undertaking a process of realigning the geopolitical map of the Middle East and will seek new alliances, given the “decline of US influence and the unreliability” of American assurances. A number of analysts highlighted that Riyadh's sense of abandonment by Washington may compel it to forge stronger alliances with fellow Sunni states to counter a U.S.-backed Iranian hegemony, with a potential establishment of a Sunni Arab military alliance that  has been already demonstrated by the Saudi-led military campaign against the Houthi rebels in Yemen[30].

What remains to see now is how this deal will impact the regional map and the alliances, where many regimes seem be reexamining their friendships and shared goals. Perhaps it is also a wake up call that despite rhetoric, voiced agendas and positions, it is very easy to shift lanes to suit one’s own interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

·         Al Jazeera (2015) Why Saudi Arabia and Israel oppose Iran nuclear deal, article published in April 14^th 2015. HTML: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/saudi-arabia-israel-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-150401061906177.html

 

·         Al Shamahi, A. (2015) Gulf States keep quiet on Iran nuclear deal, article published on July 14^th 2015 in Al Araby. HTML http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/Politics/2015/7/14/Gulf-states-keep-quiet-on-Iran-nuclear-deal#sthash.UDJ5BJMq.dpuf

·         Dvorin, T. (2015) UN Security Council Endorses Iran Deal, article published in Israel national news on July 20^th 2015. HTML address: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198377#.VbnD5rWVHKQ

·         Elass, R. (2015) A Road Map for the Middle East After the Nuclear Deal, article published on July 14^th 2015 in the Guardian. HTML: http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2015/jul/14/arab-states-react-iran-nuclear-deal

·         Fallows, J. (2015) The Real Test of the Iran Deal, article published in the Atlantic on July 28^th 2015. HTML: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/

·         Hossein-Zadeh, I. (2015) Making Sense of the Iran Nuclear Deal: Geopolitical Implications, article published in Global Research on July 29^th 2015. HTML: http://www.globalresearch.ca/making-sense-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal-geopolitical-implications/5465427

·         Khan, T. (2015) Sheikh Khalifa congratulates Hassan Rouhani on Iran nuclear deal, article published on July 14^th 2015 in The National. HTML: http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/sheikh-khalifa-congratulates-hassan-rouhani-on-iran-nuclear-deal#full

·         Kutsch, T. (2015) Iran, world powers strike historic nuclear deal, article published on Al Jazeera on July 14^th 2015. HTML address: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/14/iran-world-powers-strike-historic-nuclear-deal.html

·         Lewis, P. (2015) Obama vows to veto any Republican attempt to derail Iran nuclear deal, article published in the Guardian in July 14^th 2015. HTML address: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/obama-veto-republican-iran-nuclear-deal

·         Lyons, K. (2015) Iran nuclear talks: timeline, article published in the Guardian on July 14th 2015. HTML: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iran-nuclear-talks-timeline

·         Pizzi, M. (2015) After nuclear deal, Israel and Saudi Arabia brace for resurgent Iran, article published in Al Jazeera on July 15^th 2015. HTML: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/15/israel-and-saudi-arabia-brace-for-resurgent-iran.html

·         Pollack, K. (2015) Regional implications of a nuclear agreement with Iran: testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, published in Brookings Institute on July 9^th 2015. HTML: http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2015/07/09-pollack-iran-nuclear-agreement

·         Ravid, B. (2015) UN Security Council endorses Iran nuke deal, partial lifting of sanctions, article published on Haaretz on July 20^th 2015. Website address: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.666925

·         Sasson-Gordis, A. (2015) Why the nuclear deal is good for Israel, article published in Molad on July 14^th 2015. HTML: http://www.molad.org/en/articles/Iran-Deal-Good-for-Israel

 

---

[1] Iran nuclear talks: timeline, article published on July 14^th 2015 in the Guardian.

[2] http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf

[3] Regional implications of a nuclear agreement with Iran,  testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, published in  Bookings Institute on July 9^th 2015

[4] Making Sense of the Iran Nuclear Deal: Geopolitical Implications, article published in Global Research on July 29^th 2015.

^[5] Iran, world powers strike historic nuclear deal, article published in Al Jazeera on July 14^th 2015

[6] UN Security Council Endorses Iran Deal, article published in Israel national news on July 20^th 2015

[7] Cit. 4

[8] UN Security Council endorses Iran nuke deal, partial lifting of sanctions, article published in Haaretz on July 20^th 2015

[9] Obama vows to veto any Republican attempt to derail Iran nuclear deal, article published in the Guardian  on July 14^th 2015

[10] Cit. 4

[11] Sheikh Khalifa congratulates Hassan Rouhani on Iran nuclear deal, article published on July 14^th 2015 in The National.

[12] Cit. 4

[13] Cit. 5

[14] After nuclear deal, Israel and Saudi Arabia brace for resurgent Iran, article published in Al Jazeera on July 15^th 2015.

[15] UN Security Council endorses Iran nuke deal, partial lifting of sanctions, article published in Haaretz on July 20^th 2015

[16] Cit.17

[17] Why the nuclear deal is good for Israel, article published in Molad on July 14^th 2015

[18] The Real Test of the Iran Deal, article published in the Atlantic on July 28^th 2015

[19] Cit. 9

[20] Regional implications of a nuclear agreement with Iran,  testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, published in  Bookings Institute on July 9^th 2015

[21] A Road Map for the Middle East After the Nuclear Deal, article published on July 14^th 2015 in the Guardian.

[22] Why Saudi Arabia and Israel oppose Iran nuclear deal, article published in April 14^th 2015

[23] Cit. 9

[24] Cit.9

[25] Gulf States keep quiet on Iran nuclear deal, article published on July 14^th 2015 in Al Araby.

[26] Cit, 18 and 14

[27] Cit 14

[28] Cit.9

[29] Cit 14

[30] Cit.9

Certainly Certain

An interesting read was a book[1] analysing modern tyrants and comparing them with tyrants from the past. It turns out, according to the authors, that tyrants used brutal power throughout history for different reasons. Tyrants in the pre-middle ages period used excessive power against their opponents because they simply knew no other way to maintain order. Their only known mechanism to settle disputes and rivalries that may form any threat to their rein was to wipe masses off the face of the earth in the name of preserving peace. Now middle age tyrants used excessive brutality to keep opponents in check, knowing that despite the barbarity of the act, those closest to the ruling sphere are in fact constantly and maliciously planning to over throw the rule of whoever is in power or create disturbances (economic and social) between the ruling elite and the peasants. Their act represented “preventative measures”, void of any compassion or humanity, but was necessary in their set of beliefs. Meanwhile, modern tyrants have exercised their tyrannies for multiple reasons, one that does stand out is based on the “ideology of certitude”. These tyrants are certain that their line of thought is the only correct reasoning, that their religion is the only true religion, and that their analysis of socio-political realities are facts written in stone. Hitler did believe that the Arian race was superior; his bespoke rationalism that was stripped of compassion and humanity justified his brutalities in the name of promoting the perfect race. Stalin was also convinced in a Communist society for all; there is no other way, and thus, the promotion of the ideology must come at any cost.

I wonder now if this ideology of certitude is present amongst ISIS militants. First, a brief summary on the Islamic State’s history: the Al-Qaeda affiliated Musab Al Zarqawi founded the “Islamic States of Iraq” concept back in 2006, when he insisted that Sunni Iraqis deserve to have a State of their own that is not subject to the rule of the western affiliated infidel Shias. Islam, and Sunna in particular, is the only accepted religion and line of belief. Shias and everyone else are not only wrong to hold to different views, but have a set of beliefs that are a direct threat to Sunni Muslims. His (Zarqawi) ideals were passed on to both Baghdadi and the ISIS gang, and the Sunni versus everyone else ideology has been gaining popularity by the day. These ISIS militants are certain that their Sunni religious interpretation is the only right one, that Islam is the only true way to heaven, that the death of innocent people will be tolerated as they (innocent dead people) will be considered martyrs and will go to heaven, that their twisted interpretation of jihad is the only solution to the crisis in the Arab and Muslim world, and that they are doing many a favour by spreading the word of God, even if using the sword.

Certitude is indeed dangerous, especially when certainty about something implies negation and utter refusal of anything that contradicts it. If it is white, then it is not black nor orange nor yellow, it is white. If it is an apple, it is not an orange nor a pear nor a chair. Certainty leads to closed-mindedness and jealousy over objects and concepts that have acquired their “certain status”.  The danger becomes even more perilous when the ideology of certitude is mixed with political discourse, where politics and religion become two faces of the same coin. ISIS did not decide to fight off infidels in Lebanon or Israel or Singapore, it did not launch a war against Jews, Christians or atheists, it did not move towards Mecca to liberate from its non-Hashemite rulers or Jerusalem to drive away the Israelis and agnostic Palestinians. The Islamic State chose the Shiites, Iraqi Shiite (and of course their American patrons) as the number one target. It did not move towards any Sunni populated areas to liberate them, but those filled with natural resources, oil and sympathetic Sunni citizens. It did not prioritise fighting the Assad regime in Syria, but chose rival Islamic militant groups in Syria as its target. Calculated, politicised and radicalised is the ISIS certainty about everything.

Not intentionally provoking anyone with the quote I chose to sign off with, as I am sure there are many Muslim scholars and clerics who have uttered similar beautiful words of wisdom, but in the spirit of coexistence and existence, here goes:

If one has the answers to all the questions - that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.

Pope Francis

---

[1] Axelrod, A., Phillips, C. (1994) Dictators & Tyrants: Absolute Rulers and Would-Be Rulers in World History,

 

Melodrama

Podemos, a famous word in the Spanish streets that has been ringing in every TV show, newspaper article, manifesto and demonstration throughout the past year or so. This leftist quasi-revolutionary party has swept the nation and stole the heart and minds of many disenchanted Spaniards. Promising equality, free services to all, absolute intolerance to corruption, national sovereignty over all national matters and a dignified living standards to all citizens, it is no wonder surveys on upcoming national elections indicate that the new party will come third after the scandal-ridden PP and PSOE.

The euphoria and honey moon phase seems to have lasted quite long, and what might have been considered as a mere reaction to countless cases of corruption and inefficiency in the political arena seems to be a self-proclaimed key political player. There is no questioning of the efforts exerted by the party leader and members in galvanizing public support and in working out a political platform that appeals to the masses. The party has been active in universities, streets, institutions, media and the local governments, trying to find a way out of the political mess that has characterized Spanish politics for some time now. This will not be put to doubt, but perhaps it will also be interesting to relate the jubilant and ambitious political discourse of the party with what has been labelled “Left Melodrama**’”. The writer explains quite interestingly that

“Political-theoretical analysis in left melodrama unfolds within a heightened drama that employs categorizations of villainy and victimhood, cycles of pathos and action, and a moral economy of good and evil to organize its critical inquiry. Left melodrama's appeal derives from the moral clarity it confers on difficult situations, the virtuous power it bestows upon subjugation and the assurance it offers that heroic emancipation can conquer the villainous source of oppression. Although left melodrama intends to galvanize its audience for social change, its conventions limit its capacity to depict the distinct challenges and unintended effects of political life.”

Perhaps one should be aware of the melancholic tendencies of leftist slogans and moral stand points. Easy it is to paint a picture of heroism, self-sacrifice and self-righteousness, but reality always always proved otherwise. If politics is indeed but a work of art, a scene in a never-ending play, the audience needs to keep an eye on blazing sentiments of melodramatic actors, as appealing as they may be, as they often end up offering nothing but a good show.

** 

Left melodrama

Elisabeth Anker

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/cpt/journal/v11/n2/full/cpt201110a.html

Amorphous

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, the European Union has expanded its sanctions on Syria. The new sanctions target seven Syrian businessmen, one of whom is being accused of acting as an intermediary between the Assad Regime and the infamous ISIS in their oil purchase dealings. The Hayat daily reported that George Hiswany is the middleman for the oil contracts, being close to the Assad clan and quite savvy in the black and blood tainted oil market. This comes as Mr. Assad spilled his heart out to North Korea’s Deputy Foreigner Minister in ameeting on Sunday on how both Syria and North Korea are targets for western powers due to the fact that they both enjoy true independence and face, hand-in-hand, a common enemy who has it as a mission to change the identity of the two people.

The villanization of the western media, politicians and social activists of the above-mentioned regimes is no secret to anyone. Both countries indeed top the black list in American books in particular, and their regimes, policies, regional ambitions and ideological discourse are much much opposed by the West in general. The rhetoric being employed by Al Assad on Arab nationalism, on unity to face the Zionist project, on strength to face imperial powers robbing the middle east of its wealth, on how the USA is behind these uprisings in the Arab world that brought nothing but demise and how dangerous the situation is after militant Islamists have taken weapons, is now in danger. This rhetoric may be attacked after Al Assad is yet exposed another time. Or is it? Will the fact that Assad is buying ISIS oil be something rejected by Syrians? Or will Syrians  discard these allegations as ludicrous and conspiratorial? The dearth of evidence perhaps can clear the name of the regime? Or is it OK to deal with ISIS to stand up to the West and help thy people?

The problem is, given the situation in the Middle East and the enormous amount of ugliness and viciousness and hatred surrounding us, coupled with despair, broken-hearts and dreams and complete desperateness, everything is open to personal interpretation and justification in these grey political and moral fora. Perhaps a desperate Syrian may think - on the ISIS oil dealing issue - that: how is buying oil from ISIS any more evil than buying it from Iran that discreetly funds and trains militias in the region, or Saudi Arabia that has broken many codes of human rights, or Iraq that is run by mafias, or the USA that is the head of all evil and the source of the chaos to start with? Why would Ms. X from Aleppo not be cynical about the EU sanctions imposed on a man who simply is making her life and that of her family easier between by supplying the country with resources, even if the contractor is Satan himself? And why would it not be credible for another person to believe that the sanctions have only economic interests of “legal oil traders and businessmen” in mind, and has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Assad, Baghdadi, or our friend Hiswany.

As a child I was also told to take a position, make up my mind, stand next to those who have been done harm and as far away from those who inflicted bad on others. Concepts, in my innocent head, took shapes, and had a three dimensional presence even if in pure abstract and theory. Left or right, centre at times, but always somewhere. Perhaps with age and time things lose their shape and place and sort of float around. They take no place in any moral and right and wrong barometers, they can easily sway according to who is defending the issue at hand. So the EU sanctions may have had an impact on some audience who stood right next to the decision, appalled by the barbarity of the dealing. Yet some, or many, are carelessly and cynically gliding through as they listen to Assad eloquently speaking to fellow Korean victims.

Your Passport Please Mr.Morals

The Jordanian pilot, ISIS, vengeance, conspiracy theories and the western blue print of all of it have been on the news and social media networks in the past month or so. Regardless of the in-depth analysis, a Jordanian soldier died and the news spread. Every Jordanian was appalled to see Muaz Al Kasabe, a fighter jet pilot, burnt to death by the Islamic State’s militants. When the political leadership decided to retaliate, people expressed boisterous support to the retrieval of social dignity. The Jordanian flag hanging on the picture of the deceased pilot became the profile picture of many...the calls for vengeance for the crime committed against beloved Jordan escalated and national pride only was bolstered.

The idea of a welfare state is that which protects its citizens and provides them with all necessary services and goods to guarantee a dignified life. This promise must be met in the good and bad times. Just as the water authority is committed to supplying non-interrupted high quality water services to its citizens across the Kingdom, the army is committed to acting in utmost bravery and sacrifice to protect the nation against any attack. Sweet national social contract.

But then again, what if a neighbouring country went through a period of draught…will the neigh boring country simply ignore the pleas and suffering of the adjacent nation? And what if that same nation were under attack by a ruthless barbaric force (that posed exclusive danger to that nation and not to neighbouring countries); will people stand looking? Will the excuse of “These barbaric thugs pose no immediate danger and so we must stay still and wait” do? Will the social contract signed exclusively between the sovereign/government and the people living within a restricted geographic boundary hinder the facilitation of services to people outside the contract? To what extent are legality and morality mutually exclusive?

The death of the Jordanian pilot was tragic, but it was no more tragic than the death of thousands of children and civilians in Syria and Iraq at the hands of ISIS. The pilot was courageously performing his duties that involved a possible death…the children in ISIS’s captured lands did nor. Outraged should the society have been with the massacre and enslavement of the neighbouring nation, with equal if not surpassing indignation.

For a nation that had prided itself upon following religious codes of conducts (Muslim and Christian) and has enjoyed a long history of nationalist movements that have fought since the Great Arab Revolution for the dignity, rights and equality of Arabs, the reaction of the Jordanian street is very very disappointing. When an opinion poll reveals that many Jordanians are against the coalition forces fighting ISIS, on the premises that there are other priorities facing national security, it is no surprise to be perplexed and embarrassed. When the same poll was conducted after the slaughter of the pilot, the number of supporters to military action soared. So that means that now that a Jordanian is involved in these vicious acts, we must retaliate.

The argument that many employ against intervention is that what the ISIS is doing is no less barbaric than what the Israeli Defence Forces have been doing to Palestinians for years, or what the Americans are doing/have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, or what dictators in Arab states are doing to their very people. Other arguments are based on the claims that the USA, Israel and Gulf States are funding this bogyman to create chaos and facilitate military intervention. Clearly these arguments are neither invalid nor moral. Despite the factors leading to the birth of ISIS, the people behind it, the symmetry between their barbaric actions and those of other powerful nations, the very bottom line of the issue is wrong is wrong. By not fighting the Islamic State militants on the basis that “we are being tricked into a war orchestrated by the devil himself” is not valid. People are dying, children are being orphaned, and women are being enslaved; this IS happening, and stopping it is a moral necessity, even if injustice is not being fought elsewhere.

According to Larry Nucci, a psychologist at the University of Illinois, there are three areas that encompass social behaviour: the personal domain, the domain of social conventions, and the moral domain. In the last domain, social attitudes and conducts are intrinsically right or wrong… not socially conditioned or constructed. If we go back to morals, if we think about the essence of moral behaviour, any other considerations must be stripped off the argument. The justifications of “we are not in direct danger”, “other priorities”, “shortage of supplies”, “economic constraints”, “the western manipulation” etc. should not be any way relevant. What the ISIS is doing to these people is wrong, and our intervention is right. Loving thy nation does not mean forgetting about other nations, our humanity, or our morality. Perhaps the moral compass is broken in that segment of the society that opposed reaching out a helping hand, or perhaps our understanding of what morals are is flawed. And if it were a matter of social convention – not to interfere unless it is absolutely self-threatening -  and if morals are affected and blinded by national pride, then perhaps revisiting one’s senses of national identification and belonging needs to be done.

To conclude, and in the spirit of such a flaring moral discourse and hypocritical calls for self –sacrifice (writing this article whilst sitting safe and warm at home) I post a video of a song written and performed by a Spanish band (Mundo Chillón**). The artist relays the story of a man selling nations with a thank-you –for- buying gift…a catalogue of nations that you can choose from. Well, perhaps I too should consider disowning my national sense of belonging in the sole case of nationalist romanticism and pride possibly hazing my moral judgement. Ah self-sacrifice and moral-enslavement…thinking about Middle East suffering while recalling a night spent listening to the magical tunes of a Spanish guitar and chirpy songs in a coastal peaceful Spanish city.

** Permission has not been requested to post the video. Please don´t sue me. 

The Politics of Vengeance

A Jordanian pilot fighting the ISIS was captured in December 2014 by the Islamic State’s militants. The Jordanian government was on alert ever since, trying to develop a strategy to rescue the pilot whose life is in great peril. The IS threatened to slaughter the pilots well as the Japanese hostage if the notorious Al Qaeda terrorist detained in Jordan is not released. So what can the Jordanian government do? Re-open a channel of diplomatic communication with the terrorist state to negotiate a deal? Agree on a prisoner-swap based on “good faith”? Forget about the pilot and consider him a martyr on the job? Perhaps plan a covert attack and rescue Mr. Moaz Al Kassasbe?

A report recently being circulated in the media claims that Amman is indeed considering a deal to swap prisoners. However, should the IS decide to kill the pilot, the Jordanian government will sentence all prisoners accused of plotting terrorist attacks, having links to terrorist groups and related in any shape or form to the IS to death. Iraqi terrorist, Sajida Al Rishawi, who tried to kill hundreds of innocent people in a failed suicide bomb attack in Amman in 2005 tops the list. The news articles claim that the government sent a clear message to IS militants that it can easily and legally end the life of these prisoners, unless the pilot is returned.

I am not sure if these reports are valid, but for the sake of this article’s argument, we will assume that the plan is authentic. At first glance, one would be appalled to learn that a government that abides to the rule of law and is a signatory to all international charters on human rights and justice protocols would actually use people as a pawn. Should the detained individuals be actually guilty of terrorist crimes, then they should be fairly and legally tried before an impartial court and sentenced to serve sentence assigned by law according to the crime at hand. Sajida Al Rishawi for instance should not be used as a trade-off item. If the court found it just and legal to sentence her to death, the sentence should have been executed back then (or when scheduled) irrespective of external factors or any other considerations. Should the justice system become a player in the politics of international affairs and diplomacy, then its partiality, transparency and respect to justice will be forsaken for ever. The intelligence agency, a fourth pillar of power in Jordan, must no interfere in the justice system, as its role must be limited to transferring cases to courts that must rule fairly and justly.

Not quite partial myself on this nonetheless. Let’s see. A state that is dedicated to killing masses, enslaving women and children, terrorizing nations, expelling thousands of people from their lands and committing atrocities on a daily basis is not a state that responds to reason. Employing diplomatic measures and ethical codes in dealing with it is gullible and useless. Doing the right thing is always right, but sometimes right is not enough. Sinking to the level to IS is ludicrous and insulting, but necessary at the same time. If Jordan ever wants its pilot back, it has to use the same tactics used by IS thugs. When Sajida was detained in 2005 for failing to execute the terrorist attack, I was surprised she was not executed on the spot. I thought she was ready to kill herself along with hundreds of people; grant her the wish. Incarcerating her will serve nothing; she will not “repent” nor “adjust her conduct” nor work on reintegrating into the society as a sane, normal human being. Holding he prisoner in my innocent opinion back then was just cruel and pricey. One less crazy person in this world would have been a better scenario.

Recent events proved otherwise. The famed terrorist will be used in this “prisoner swap deal” or “vengeance act” depending on the IS decision. The tactic being employed (supposedly) is unethical; it reflects vengeance and deals with terrorists whilst abiding to no rule of justice or human rights. Nonetheless, it is necessary and crucial and effective, while no other “legal” and “respectable” strategy is. Vengeance, indeed, is a loud and impacting message that is internationally understood. And so is trade off. You kill my guys, I kill your guys. You free my guys, I free yours or (spare their lives).

It is true that “One should never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it”; but sometimes you need to get filthy and bloody even if the pig likes it.