Raju Korti
Some of my friends who I suspect read my blogs more out of morbid curiosity than genuine interest, have been wondering why I chose to skip something as peppery as the fallout of Lodha panel verdict on the suspension of two influential IPL teams and dwell on an issue like the US-Iran nuclear deal. The answer is the script in the former has run along predictable lines while the US deal with Iran, waiving off sanctions in lieu of putting an end to its nuclear programme, promises to be a serial with exciting episodes. So here I go.
Despite all the optimism and bonhomie that obtains in the face of the accord between the two countries, I earnestly feel that Washington must hold back some of its overflowing enthusiasm on the deal as "victory of democracy" though one would understand that international maneuverings such as these have to be couched in officialspeak that the international community understands. Its a euphemism for compromise and does injustice to Iran's past record in treachery. Lest it should be misconstrued as cynicism, I feel the US is jumping the proverbial gun and should wait before Iran gets back to its old wicked ways. Only a few dissident groups in the middle eastern country were not so kicked up about the two nuclear facilities that had not been brought to the notice of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations, which by proxy is US' watchdog.
Conceded that the recent outcome has its roots in the back channels opened to Iran by the Obama administration a couple of years back. Also agreed that the current Iranian leader Hassan Rohani, elected around the same time and seen as a reformist was the country's chief interlocutor as far as the nuclear programme was concerned. Rohani had emerged as a glimmer of hope by promising that he would bring Iran out of its international isolation by engaging his government in a constructive dialogue ending years of sanctions imposed by the US. All through the years, Iran had been non-compliant on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), refusing to suspend its fissile-enrichment facilities. The US was driven to desperation watching Iran attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon. The damage was done before it could think of means -- diplomatic or otherwise -- of dismantling an infrastructure that Iran clandestinely set up.
After braving the crippling sanctions for years, Iran has finally wilted into a retreat which could be more tactical than well meant. No country can afford economic doom. There is some wisdom in the American move to wait and watch if Iran sticks to its "good faith" since the latter's record in human rights and instigating terrorism is far too well known to deserve any special mention.
My skepticism arises out of a flimsy but nevertheless a perceptible threat that still holds in the wake of all the positivism of the breakthrough. Iran is not completely stopping its nuclear programme but only reducing it to one-third of its existing facility. Even these many spinning should have the US wary. Besides, the entire deal hinges on the fact that Iran will fall in line and comply with all the terms and conditions before the sanctions ease off. Under the agreement the UN inspectors will have an access to all its nuclear facilities -- declared or otherwise. However, the success of this move will largely depend on how intrusive IAEA will be towards this end. The exact nature of inspection and verification is not very clear at this juncture and the possibility of Iran hoodwinking them cannot be ruled out given its past record in lying and cheating. Little wonder, the deal has more critics than applauders, the most notable being US' old ally Israel. The Jewish lobby, quite influential in US, is not going to be amused at this "diplomatic triumph". The Republicans are rabidly opposed to the idea of any understanding with Iran and sees it as sponsor of designated terrorist outfits like the Hezbollah in Lebanon. The deal has understandably met with stiff resistance from hardliners in Iran.
Perhaps, where the White House has a tactical edge is those opposing the deal have no worthwhile alternatives to suggest. On the ground, most Iranians are keen to see their economy back on rails while majority Americans do not stomach the idea of a war with Iran just because it is pursuing nuclear weapons. The plain truth as it emerges in its present form is the Obama government has only heeded to the call of his countrymen and disguised it as a diplomatic breakthrough.
There are some good auguries if the deal holds through. For one, it will make the region much safer and slow down the dangerous prospect of a arms race between Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. It will also make Iran a lesser irritant in the region's geopolitics. The sooner US realizes that the breakthrough is more of an arms control deal than a friendly hug, the better. The latter can happen if Iran's economy re-integrates with the world and a semblance of trust is established between the West and Tehran.
That still is a distant dream.
 |
| Now for the opposition in Congress |
Despite all the optimism and bonhomie that obtains in the face of the accord between the two countries, I earnestly feel that Washington must hold back some of its overflowing enthusiasm on the deal as "victory of democracy" though one would understand that international maneuverings such as these have to be couched in officialspeak that the international community understands. Its a euphemism for compromise and does injustice to Iran's past record in treachery. Lest it should be misconstrued as cynicism, I feel the US is jumping the proverbial gun and should wait before Iran gets back to its old wicked ways. Only a few dissident groups in the middle eastern country were not so kicked up about the two nuclear facilities that had not been brought to the notice of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations, which by proxy is US' watchdog.
Conceded that the recent outcome has its roots in the back channels opened to Iran by the Obama administration a couple of years back. Also agreed that the current Iranian leader Hassan Rohani, elected around the same time and seen as a reformist was the country's chief interlocutor as far as the nuclear programme was concerned. Rohani had emerged as a glimmer of hope by promising that he would bring Iran out of its international isolation by engaging his government in a constructive dialogue ending years of sanctions imposed by the US. All through the years, Iran had been non-compliant on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), refusing to suspend its fissile-enrichment facilities. The US was driven to desperation watching Iran attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon. The damage was done before it could think of means -- diplomatic or otherwise -- of dismantling an infrastructure that Iran clandestinely set up.
After braving the crippling sanctions for years, Iran has finally wilted into a retreat which could be more tactical than well meant. No country can afford economic doom. There is some wisdom in the American move to wait and watch if Iran sticks to its "good faith" since the latter's record in human rights and instigating terrorism is far too well known to deserve any special mention.
My skepticism arises out of a flimsy but nevertheless a perceptible threat that still holds in the wake of all the positivism of the breakthrough. Iran is not completely stopping its nuclear programme but only reducing it to one-third of its existing facility. Even these many spinning should have the US wary. Besides, the entire deal hinges on the fact that Iran will fall in line and comply with all the terms and conditions before the sanctions ease off. Under the agreement the UN inspectors will have an access to all its nuclear facilities -- declared or otherwise. However, the success of this move will largely depend on how intrusive IAEA will be towards this end. The exact nature of inspection and verification is not very clear at this juncture and the possibility of Iran hoodwinking them cannot be ruled out given its past record in lying and cheating. Little wonder, the deal has more critics than applauders, the most notable being US' old ally Israel. The Jewish lobby, quite influential in US, is not going to be amused at this "diplomatic triumph". The Republicans are rabidly opposed to the idea of any understanding with Iran and sees it as sponsor of designated terrorist outfits like the Hezbollah in Lebanon. The deal has understandably met with stiff resistance from hardliners in Iran.
Perhaps, where the White House has a tactical edge is those opposing the deal have no worthwhile alternatives to suggest. On the ground, most Iranians are keen to see their economy back on rails while majority Americans do not stomach the idea of a war with Iran just because it is pursuing nuclear weapons. The plain truth as it emerges in its present form is the Obama government has only heeded to the call of his countrymen and disguised it as a diplomatic breakthrough.
There are some good auguries if the deal holds through. For one, it will make the region much safer and slow down the dangerous prospect of a arms race between Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. It will also make Iran a lesser irritant in the region's geopolitics. The sooner US realizes that the breakthrough is more of an arms control deal than a friendly hug, the better. The latter can happen if Iran's economy re-integrates with the world and a semblance of trust is established between the West and Tehran.
That still is a distant dream.
