When the agreement over the Iranian nuclear deal was announced in Vienna on July 14, I sent out a tweet: “#Iran deal was the best birthday present I could have asked for.”

For the last couple of years, I had been following the agonisingly slow negotiations closely; the final 18 days in Vienna were full of suspense as the nitty-gritty of the agreement was finally worked out. But as expected, the pushback from opponents has been swift in coming.

Israel’s prime minister has been shrill in his condemnation of the deal, denouncing it as a threat to world peace. No mention here about Israel’s own clandestine nuclear arsenal of over a hundred warheads. Or, indeed, of Mossad’s internal assessment that Iran was not engaged in bomb-making activities.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have been equally vociferous in their opposition to the deal, fearing a resurgent Iran, freed of the shackles of punitive economic sanctions. Another factor behind the Arab anger is the fact that once Iranian oil re-enters the market, prices will decline further, squeezing the income of other exporters. And a more self-confident and assertive Iran would exert greater influence in Shia-majority states like Iraq and Syria, apart from having the potential to foment trouble through Shia proxies.

US Republicans are vehemently opposed, as are American supporters of Israel. The former have accused John Kerry, the secretary of state, of being ‘fleeced’ by the Iranian negotiating team. The narrative in much of the American media is that Iran, pumped up by the billions of dollars frozen under sanctions and released under the deal, will use this cash to further finance terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Finally, according to these opponents, despite the deal, Iran remains an enemy of America.

This criticism misses the point that the agreement was not the result of bilateral negotiations between the USA and Iran, but came about after months of talks between the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, as well as the European Union. For once, this was not just about the United States. The other negotiating partners had their own agendas that included trading with Iran and buying its oil.

As President Obama pointed out soon after the agreement had been announced, it is not possible to get everything you want through negotiations. There has to be give and take if you want them to work. Thus, by surrendering 98pc of its enriched uranium and two-thirds of its centrifuges, Iran has retained a mere vestige of its nuclear infrastructure, but far more importantly, it has kept its pride. Any attempt to completely eliminate its nuclear facilities would have resulted in an irrevocable breakdown of the talks.

And this would have surely put the US on the path to war with Iran, an outcome deeply desired by Israel and Saudi Arabia. For years now, the two de facto allies have been secretly and openly calling for American air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. Israel even threatened to go it alone, and Saudi Arabia was more than willing to allow its air space to be used for these attacks. But Obama’s insistence on diplomacy put a lid on these hawkish manoeuvres.

If the US Congress approves the deal within 50 days from now, sanctions imposed by the UN, the EU and America will begin to be lifted. And even if the Republican-dominated Congress rejects it, Obama has promised to exercise his veto. Congress will then have to produce a two-third majority to override the presidential veto, something it is unlikely to muster. So unless the numbers somehow change drastically over the next few weeks, the deal is as good as done.

And if somehow its opponents do manage to derail it, the United States will find itself in the odd position of having led successful negotiations, but then being unable to ratify the resulting agreement. Meanwhile, it has already been approved by the UN and the EU. Who would trust a country that agrees to a deal it has negotiated, but then refuses to implement it? In the eyes of the world, the American presidency would be gravely weakened for a long time to come, and American diplomacy would become a devalued currency.

Assuming the deal is approved and its provisions put into effect, what would the outcome look like? Although the American government is going to great lengths to reassure Israel and Saudi Arabia that it will continue to protect them even if somehow Iran does manage to go nuclear, they are still traumatised over the fact that their voices went unheeded in the White House.

They had counted on an emasculated Iran in their strategic calculus, and an emboldened player in the neighbourhood is deeply unsettling. However, this is truer for the Saudis than it is for Israel: the Zionist state is more than powerful enough to defend itself against Iran for a long time to come. And after Rouhani’s election as president, and the toning down of anti-Semitic rhetoric from Tehran, it is hard to sell Iran as an urgent threat to Israel’s security.

Iran, too, is making attempts to calm Arab concerns and fears. It is soon attending a conference with Gulf states, and will no doubt remind them that it has not attacked any neighbour for centuries. For the Americans, Iranian cooperation will be crucial to fight the self-styled Islamic State, and to achieve a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan and Syria.

One reason Obama could resist Israeli and Saudi pressure is that he is now well into his second term, and has little to lose politically. Secondly, the greatly reduced reliance on imported oil and gas due to fracking has freed his hand to carry out this bold diplomatic coup in a region long frozen into a stagnant status quo dominated by Saudi Arabia.

Published in Dawn, July 27th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play