The Iran Deal Is Iran's Nuclear Bomb
12 November 2015By Mohammed Alyahya
There is little disagreement among Middle East analysts that had it not been
for Hezbollah's intervention in Syria in 2012, Bashar al-Assad would have
been toppled, the ISIS phenomenon in its current form and strength would have
been avoided. With the recent Russian escalation in Syria, the stakes have
been raised to a whole new level, and prospects for a resolution that would
end the unabated bloodshed in Syria seem bleaker than ever before.
Since the announcement of the final Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in July, 2015,
Iran has reportedly stepped up its support for Shiite militias in Iraq,
increased its Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) presence in Syria, and
continued its support for the Houthi-Saleh militias in Yemen. In recent
months, Bahrain and Kuwait have announced the interception of Iranian arm
shipments and the uncovering of bomb making facilities on their soil. And,
recently, the Saudi-led Arab coalition fighting the Houthis in Yemen
announced the seizure of an Iranian arms shipment loaded on a vessel
masquerading as a fishing boat on its way to Yemen, some 150 km southeast of
Oman's Salalah coast.
Pipe dream
Iran deal was an advance payment to Iran for its goodwill that the IRGC was
too quick to dishonor. The argument that the nuclear deal would encourage
Iran to become a more responsible state invested in building peaceful
relations with its neighbors and the international community has now become a
pipe dream to be lamented in history books.
The nuclear deal paradoxically gives Iran the same protection that a nuclear
bomb would have given it
In a July interview with President Obama on the BBC, interviewer Jon Sopel
suggested that 'The net effect of lifting sanctions is that billions more
will go to groups like Hezbollah, the Assad regime, and that is going to
destabilize the region even more.'
The president's response was: 'If Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, then they
could cause all those same problems that you just listed with the protection
of a nuclear bomb. And create much greater strategic challenges for the
United States, for Israel, for our Gulf allies, for our European allies.'
Obama was in effect saying that it was acceptable for Iran to be causing all
these problems as long as that happened without the protection of a nuclear
bomb. This is now an evident and tested flaw in the deal as regional
neighbors witness an intensification in Iran's destabilizing activities only
with more money, confidence, and the protection of the nuclear deal itself.
Track record
The nuclear deal has arguably achieved its primary objective of eliminating
the threat of Iran as a nuclear threshold state – at least in the short to
medium term. Yet one must not forget why a nuclear Iran, unlike a nuclear
Pakistan or a nuclear India, is such a grave threat to the international and
regional community in the first place. It is precisely because Iran has a
track record of supporting and exporting terrorism and sowing instability and
discord in neighboring countries that the thought of a nuclear Iran is so
terrifying.
What the P5+1 have done, essentially, is traded every single bargaining chip
at their disposal, i.e. all the sanctions, for a bomb that Iran does not yet
have. The only ground for the return of any of the sanctions according to the
concluded deal, would have to be a violation related to Iran's nuclear
program. This deal is, in effect, normalizing Iran's destructive foreign
policy. Not only does it seem impossible that any sanction can be re-imposed
should Iran redouble its regional meddling and backing of terrorist
organizations and proxies, but even minor nuclear restrictions will unlikely
prompt any backtracking on the lifting of sanctions. The P5+1 and the West
have put themselves in the vulnerable position of constantly fearing that a
failure in the concluded deal might instigate a regional nuclear arms
race.
In a letter addressed to Rowhani last month, Khamenei wrote, ''throughout the
eight-year period, any imposition of sanctions at any level and under any
pretext (including repetitive and fabricated pretexts of terrorism and human
rights) on the part of any of the countries involved in the negotiations will
constitute a violation of the JCPOA and the [Iranian] government would be
obligated to take the necessary action as per Clause 3 of the Majlis bill and
stop its activities committed under the JCPOA.'' Khamenei was sending a clear
signal to the West that any attempts to pressure Iran to cease any
non-nuclear violations will be met with the return of Iran's nuclear program
in full force.
Khamenei made the obvious clear: Iran has carte blanche to meddle in the
region and support terrorism and no one has any leverage on Iran as a result
of this deal.
The geopolitical threat before the deal was a potential nuclear threshold
Iran sowing instability through a network of proxies and terrorist
organizations. The geopolitical reality after the nuclear deal is a
non-nuclear Iran (arguably for 10 years) with the same foreign policy albeit
with more money to spend and the comfort of knowing that the west has no
appetite nor any real leverage to pressure it to cease its destructive
activities. In its essence, the nuclear deal in its final configuration is a
self-defeating endeavor.
The main threat of a nuclear Iran is not that Iran would use a nuclear weapon
against any of its enemies. It is, as President Obama suggested in the
interview, that Iran will continue with its destructive and expansionist
foreign policy and meddling with the protection of a nuclear bomb. The
nuclear deal paradoxically gives Iran the same protection that a nuclear bomb
would have given it. The Iran deal is Iran's nuclear bomb.
Mohammed Alyahya is a London-based political analyst focusing on Gulf
politics and policy. His writing and analysis has appeared on Al-Monitor, the
Huffington Post, and U.S. News, the BBC, Al Jazeera, CCTV America and other
outlets. Among other affiliations, he is an Associate Fellow at the King
Faisal Center for research and Islamic Studies 2014-2015 and a member of the
advisory board at the Future Trends in the Gulf Region project at Chatham
House.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments