Iran nuclear deal a diplomatic landmark

Following protracted negotiations lasting for weeks Iran and the US-led western countries signed the historic nuclear agreement on July 16. The agreement is the revised and comprehensive version of the framework agreed in April. Iran will reduce its number of uranium centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,000, its stockpiles of enriched uranium will be reduced from 10,000 kilograms to 300. The Fordow enrichment site will be converted into a research centre and the heavy water reactor at Arak will be redesigned to produce only one kilogram of plutonium per annum. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have greater access to nuclear sites including, if necessary, military installations. Iran would not enrich uranium over 3.67 per cent needed for nuclear power plant for 15 years. All nuclear-related sanctions would be suspended following verifications that Iran is in compliance of its commitments. The agreement was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council on July 20. Sanctions would be lifted once IAEA certifies Iran's compliance. The agreement has outlined how the sanctions would be eased and Iran would regain access to its frozen assets in the US and Europe. Experts maintain that Iran, which was close to a few weeks in making the bomb, has now been pushed to a year in order to make a bomb.
The most virulent criticism of the agreement came from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He termed the deal as a historic mistake and said Iran is going to receive a sure path to nuclear weapons. Netanyahu resolved to work with the Republican members of the US Congress to stall the approval process. His Education Minister condemned the agreement and said, "Today a terrorist nuclear superpower is born and it will go down as one of the darkest days in world history." Republican law makers denounced the agreement but their tunes were less dissonant than before.
President Obama strongly defended the agreement and said, "This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change." He added that it would ensure that Iran has no possibility to achieve a rapid nuclear "weapons breakout" for at least the next decade. In a press conference, Obama expressed dismay over the criticisms and said the critics have failed to propose any alternative. He added, "Either the issue of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or through force, through war." If the critics preferred war they should have the courage to openly advocate for it. US Secretary of State John Kerry defended the deal he and his team had negotiated and said, "The real fear of that region should be that you don't have the deal." He warned that if the Congress rejects the agreement the international community will abandon the US and echoed Obama's concern that "you will have a war". Kerry added that "it is better to push back against an Iran that doesn't have a nuclear weapon rather than one that does."
US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter felt Israel should have no fear for a nuclear Iran as the agreement has stripped off the later possibility of making nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia made a cautious reaction and said if sanctions are lifted Iran will try harder to redesign the region. A Saudi diplomat said, "May be we will look for other partners like China if American gives everything to Iran." Turkey has indicated it would increase import of Iranian oil. Iran has expressed hope that the agreement will enable Tehran and Washington to work together to fight the Islamic State, which holds territories in Iraq and Syria.
Leaving aside the political rhetoric, the crux of the matter is the agreement has marked the closure of an era characterised by hostility, intrigue and suspicion lasting for about 37 years. It has been an honest and courageous attempt by both President Obama and President Rouhani to bury the past and move forward. The hardest challenge emanates not from outside but by the hawks actively operating in Iran and in the US.
Tehran was a close ally of Washington for a long period though that period bears the witness of US interferences in the internal politics of Iran. The Nuclear programme in Iran was initiated with the support of the US during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi. Notwithstanding the public animosity between Washington and Tehran a large number of Iranians fervently aspire for a friendly relation with the US. This agreement would provide a window to transform those wishes into practice.
The lifting of sanction would allow Tehran to retrieve US$ 150 billion frozen in the US and Europe. The American oil companies are looking forward to invest in the upgrading of oil infrastructure in Iran. But this will require mutual trust and honest implementation of the agreement. The decades-long hostility and suspicion cannot be expected to be removed overnight.
It is undeniable that behaviour of Tehran leadership in the past has not been conducive to peace in the region. The irresponsible and uncalled-for utterances of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denying the holocaust and threatening to wipe out Israel from world map prompted many to rally around Israel. On the other hand, the belligerent attitude of Israel to destroy nuclear installations inside Iran and its staunch opposition against any rapprochement with Iran suggest Israel believes in maintaining nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. Tehran accused Tele Aviv of complicity on the assassination of five nuclear scientists in Iran in recent months. Israel, having a stockpile of over 120 nuclear arsenals, not only opposed reconciliation with Iran it also wanted US partnership in launching military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel vehemently campaigned against working out any deal with Iran by the US-led international community. Obama's preference for diplomatic overture over armed intervention caused irritation in Israeli leadership.
The nuclear deal with the US, EU, UK, China, Germany and Russia has brought Tehran a recognition that it does have a role to play in the settlement of crisis in the region. But this has caused consternation in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Gulf States. This concern is not totally unfounded. Washington's efforts to assure its allies would not allay the fear completely. The onus will be on Tehran to reformulate its external policy and win the confidence of its neighbours in the Gulf. Iran should also engage with Amman, Cairo, Riyadh and Ankara in order to promote friendly relation. Trimming the Revolutionary Guards, establishing independent judiciary and promoting human rights at home will go a long way in Tehran's acceptance in the international community. Restoring stability in Iraq and working out a just solution in Syria will be a litmus test for the leadership in Iran.

The writer is a former official of the United Nations.
darahman.chowdhury@hotmail.com