Iran, The West And The Rest: Khamenei Regime Needed This Sanctions Relief To Calm Public Anger
23 December 2013
By Mshari Al-Zaydi
It seems that US President Barack Obama can only
conclude agreements that are measured in months. He
survived the political and economic crisis with the
congressional Republicans by making a deal that will
last only a few months, and this week he is boasting
of securing an interim agreement with Iran that will
end in six months. Commenting on the deal, US
Secretary of State John Kerry, the eternal negotiator,
said: "I believe that from this day—for the next six
months—Israel is in fact safer than it was yesterday."
In order to further complicate and confuse the scene,
in addition to boosting Israeli hopes, Kerry added
that further action is required on Iran's part to
reach a comprehensive deal, but did not clarify just
what concessions the West will ask of Tehran over the
next six months. During a televised interview with CNN
commenting on the Geneva nuclear deal, Kerry said that
if Iran wants to develop long-term relations with the
US, it must change its conduct.
So, this step brings with it both hope and pain.
According to what has been published about the
agreement, Iran appears to have made some economic and
political gains. This includes the unfreezing of
Iranian funds abroad, commitments not to impose new
sanctions on its oil exports, and other economic
gains. Khamenei regime needed this sanctions relief to
calm public anger at the difficult economic situation
in the country. In return for this, Iran offered
nuclear concessions. Tehran committed to a framework
that will make it very difficult for it to acquire
nuclear weapons, pledging to adhere to an
international nuclear inspections schedule according
to specific criteria. The Iranians are skeptical, and
never leave anything to chance.
What does this all mean?
Iran is being deliberate and delaying its military
nuclear moment. The West has responded by offering
funds and political recognition.
So this is a preamble to an agreement, not a full
agreement by any means. A full agreement requires that
each party examine the other until they can come to a
long-term accord.
The Obama administration and the rest of the West have
hailed the agreement as a political victory.
As for Iran, it also hailed the Geneva deal as a
victory for the course being chartered by its supreme
leader, with celebrations including some flexing of
muscles and spicy discourse about the "Great Satan"
intended for domestic consumption.
The Arabs are, by nature, sentimentalists, and so they
are taking these proclamations at face value.
Iran's regional supporters are also hailing the deal
as a victory. In fact, Iraqi State of Law coalition MP
Sami Al-Askari, a member of the Foreign Relations
Subcommittee, claimed that the agreement represented a
victory over Saudi Arabia! The Syrian Foreign Ministry
thinks it should try and copy Iran's Geneval deal in
its own negotiations.
So this is how the US and its allies view the deal,
and how Iran and its supporters view it. How do we
Arabs really feel about it?
Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran, and
educated in Tehran, London and Paris. He was Executive
Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran (1972-79).
In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for the Sunday
Times. In 1984-92, he served as member of the
Executive Board of the International Press Institute (IPI).
Between 1980 and 2004, he was a contributor to the
International Herald Tribune. He has written for the
Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the New York
Times, the London Times, the French magazine Politique
Internationale, and the German weekly Focus. Between
1989 and 2005, he was editorial writer for the German
daily Die Welt. Taheri has published 11 books, some of
which have been translated into 20 languages. He has
been a columnist for Asharq Alawsat since 1987.
Taheri's latest book "The Persian Night" is published
by Encounter Books in London and New York.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments