It is not in the interests of either the United States or Iran to disrupt the nuclear negotiations. The diplomatic option is the only option, columnist George Semaan observed in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, with US president Barack Obama being careful not to resort to force and Iran not about to draw its adversaries into a military confrontation.
“In truth, war was never a real option. And the present favourable circumstances for an agreement between the Islamic Republic and the G5+1 might not be available in the future,” the writer added.
“This is common knowledge to Iranian leaders and to the US administration officials.”
But a final agreement is not guaranteed by November 24, and in that eventuality, the negotiators are expected to come up with a framework agreement that leaves the door open for further talks.
Presidents Obama and Hassan Rouhani will not take the risk of missing out on this unrepeatable opportunity – at least for the time being. With the Republican Party taking control of US Congress and amid reports that the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s control over the Iranian political arena would restrain Mr Rouhani’s government’s freedom to make decisions, there is an urgency to keep the communication channels open between Tehran and Washington.
The negotiations between the US and Iran – and their potential outcomes – extend beyond the nuclear issue to encompass the events taking the whole Middle East region by storm.
“Developments in the region, namely in Iraq and Syria, are an obvious precursor to what would be expected once the agreement is sealed,” the writer said.
“Since efforts were launched last November to find a solution to the nuclear issue, new dynamics on a number of inflammatory issues and arenas came into play.”
Surely, Iran’s price in exchange for concessions on its nuclear programme will be hefty: additional control over regional countries and more clout on regional issues. This can already be witnessed in parts of the Middle East.
Dr Radwan Al Sayyed, writing in Abu Dhabi’s daily Al Ittihad, the sister newspaper of The National, said “talk of Iran’s hijacking of essential parts of the Arab region is no longer the premise of popular hearsay and exaggeration”.
Earlier this week, Lebanese prime minister Tammam Salam said that an Iranian-US agreement would lead to a detente, which would make it possible to elect a president for the Lebanese Republic.
Similarly, in Oman, the state minister for foreign affairs, Tussuf bin Alawi, said that positive developments in US-Iranian relations would be beneficial to the Gulf and other Arab countries.
“The overriding impression in the last three years was that the deal between the US and Iran would lead to exchanges and concessions unfavourable to Arabs,” he noted.
“In exchange for Iran’s concessions regarding its nuclear project, the US would give it free rein in the Arab region.”
But this is a simplistic analysis of the issue. In reality, Iran has been indeed enjoying free rein in the Arab region at least since 2010, when US forces withdrew from Iraq and left the country under Iran’s control. As for Syria, it has always been under their control – and so was Lebanon.
“What happened in fact between 2010 and 2014 is that every country that Iran found its way into fell prey to destruction and chaos at Iranian hands, whether directly or indirectly,” the writer observed.
Turmoil has become synonymous with Iranian control with its systematic attacks in peoples and state institutions. Meanwhile, Tehran’s strategy of sectarian incitement in the areas under its influence is at its most advanced stages, as it aims to act as a superior power.
Translated by Racha Makarem
RMakarem@thenational.ae
