3
THE contrast last week could hardly have been sharper: indignation, rage and firebombs on the avenues of Athens; barely restrained joy on the streets of Tehran.
The citizens of Greece and Iran were responding to two very different deals struck within days of each other in two European capitals. Given the nature of the agreements reached, in dramatic circumstances, in Brussels and Vienna, the reactions were entirely predictable.
The doom and gloom in the land that pioneered not just democracy but also tragic drama is based on the prospect of indefinite austerity. Citizens of the Islamic Republic, meanwhile, find themselves on the threshold of increased prosperity, provided the lifting of sanctions goes according to plan.
In return, Iran is obliged to abandon, at least for the time being, something it claims not to possess: a programme to manufacture nuclear weapons. If that claim is true, it has little to lose — and much to gain from the likelihood of increased engagement with the wider world in economic, political and cultural terms.
The ayatollahs may not see it that way, and in what is still very much a theocratic state it is yet to be conclusively demonstrated that enough of the powerful clergy wholeheartedly backs the undertakings given by Iran in its drawn-out negotiations with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1).
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appears to have at least tentatively endorsed the agreement, though, and it’s probably safe to assume that overwhelming clerical opposition to dealings with the ‘Great Satan’ — for it was ultimately the US that was calling the shots on the other side of the negotiating table — would have thwarted the initiatives of President Hassan Rouhani and his indefatigable foreign minister, Javad Zarif, long ago.
Iranians are on the threshold of increased prosperity.
Much could still go wrong, of course, but it is just as likely to do so on the other side of the equation. Zarif’s American counterpart, John Kerry, also strove diligently to tackle various bones of contention, and it would not be surprising if their efforts were to be rewarded by a certain committee in Oslo.
Of course, the deal will have to hold. And before much else happens, Barack Obama will have to steer the pact through a hostile Congress within 60 days before sanctions against Iran can be lifted. Most, if not all, Republican legislators — who effectively constitute an informal Benjamin Netanyahu fan club — and at least a few Democrats are expected to vote against approval.
President Obama has already indicated he will veto any such action. It would take a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress to override that veto. Such an outcome is unlikely, no matter how hard the Israel lobby strives for it.
What is amazing is that most congressional opponents of the deal cannot coherently argue against it: when queried, they recite Netanyahu’s arguments more or less verbatim. Which is to say, the agreement effectively opens the way for Iran to proceed with its nuclear weapons plans, if not immediately then in due course; that Tehran cannot be trusted; and that the added wealth from the lifting of sanctions will substantially be devoted to bolstering allies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and Bashar al-Assad. And then there’s the argument-clincher: the existential threat to Israel from a nuclear-armed Iran.
Substitute Saudi Arabia for Israel, and that’s pretty much the argument from Riyadh as well — although the kingdom is more reticent about articulating it. Apart from the common ground the two countries share in this respect, they have also been among America’s closest allies in the region for decades. That relationship has been fraying of late — which may well have spurred Iran’s determination to make the necessary concessions, as Tel Aviv and Riyadh’s discomfiture is a bonus for Tehran.
Many Israelis, including within the ruling establishment, recognise that even a nuclear-armed Iran would barely pose a threat to their country, given Israel’s own (unmentionable) nuclear arsenal and the widely acknowledged fact that Tehran is neither irrational in terms of realpolitik, nor suicidal.
One aspect of the story that those who roundly criticised Obama for restricting himself to rhetoric when Iran’s so-called Green Movement was hobbled in 2009 have chosen to ignore is that many of the people celebrating last week were the same youngsters who took to the streets back then to demonstrate their enthusiasm for change.
It remains to be seen whether this time around their aspirations — which go well beyond the specifics of sanctions — will be rewarded with greater leeway or further repression. But the extent to which the diplomatic success in Vienna increases the possibility of a more open and pluralistic Iran deserves to be welcomed.
More broadly, amid the region’s enduring uncertainties, all that can safely be said is that the likely consequences would have been worse without the Vienna accord.
Published in Dawn, July 22nd, 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
