There are a number of reasons to be skeptical of the chances for a realignment following the Iran nuclear deal.
As the September 17 deadline for Congress to act on the Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA) approaches, the media has been flooded with editorials, op-ed pieces and blogs making the case for or against the agreement. Those in favor of the agreement have made the case that, while an imperfect agreement, the deal was the best that could be achieved and, through intrusive inspections, will ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will remain peaceful and will not achieve a nuclear weapon. Those opposed have made arguments such as “It’s Iran, we can’t deal with them, we just like sanctions”, “Iran shouldn’t have any nuclear capability”, “Iran is Israel’s enemy”, and “the agreement only lasts 15 years”. Both sides of the debate seem to agree that this agreement will drastically change the geopolitics of the Middle East. But is this really true?
The underlying assumption of those critical of a change in the geopolitical alignment is that the current alignment has been successful in maintaining peace and stability and promoting economic growth, a dubious proposition at best. Those in favor of a geopolitical realignment see a new world in which Iran becomes an important player in bringing stability and order out of the current chaos. While this new world would certainly be an improvement over the current situation, there are a number of reasons to be skeptical of the chances for realignment.
First, and probably most important, is that one of the founding principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran was resistance to U.S. domination of the region. The U.S. and Iran are fundamentally at odds over the geopolitics of the Middle East. While the administration of President Hassan Rouhani is more open to engagement with the west, any thought that Iran will give up its independent foreign policy and follow the American lead is unrealistic. Iran and the U.S. may cooperate on issues where their interests align (Afghanistan, ISIS, drug trafficking, etc.), but Iran will continue to lead the so-called “axis of resistance”, and that will not sit well with U.S. policymakers.
Second, the much discussed idea that Israel will react to the nuclear deal by allying itself with Saudi Arabia and Hamas in opposition to Iran is also unrealistic. Despite all the rumors of high level meetings, it is hard to see how Saudi Arabia, whose radically conservative, Wahhabi version of Islam, provides the ideological underpinning for the Islamic State (ISIS), can ever align itself with Israel. With respect to Hamas, the ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Hamas government in Gaza is getting long in the tooth. Israel has not implemented much of what it agreed to, and thus the same conditions of poverty, deprivation, and lack of hope that led to the last two wars still exist in Gaza. The next war may not be far away.
Third, despite the best efforts of Russia, Iran, and the U.S., the situation in Syria will remain a festering sore and a source of instability and chaos. It is hard to see a solution. With major regional players such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, seeing the region through a sectarian lens, committed to the overthrow of the government of Syrian President Assad and, at best, ambivalent about ISIS, a coalition of western and regional powers to stabilize Syria is very unlikely. As long as ISIS remains in place, a solution to Iraq’s collapse as a contiguous and sovereign state is impossible and the Kurdish problem will remain unresolved.
Fourth, the window of opportunity to realign the Middle East will soon close. Whatever the outcome of the upcoming U.S. elections, and given the influence of the Israel lobby on U.S. Middle East policy, the next administration is likely to be less open to growing Iranian influence in the region. Israel will certainly not elect a more accommodating government. Whatever rapprochement is achieved by the Obama administration in its last year in office will be short lived. Iran, seeing its hopes of greater integration with the west dashed and strengthened by the removal of sanctions, will be forced to look east to Russia and China for allies.
In 2006, the Secretary of State, following the U.S. invasion and destruction of Iraq and Israel’s destruction of Gaza, famously declared the destruction of Lebanon by Israel as the “birth pangs of the new Middle East” and confirmed the U.S. policy of “creative chaos” in which the old order is destroyed and in its place a new order arises which will serve the goals of U.S. policy. The U.S., having created the “new Middle East,” will have to live with the consequences for some time.
Good read. So much theater in mainstream media about this issue, as most ignore the above facts.
Imperialism isnt going to be stopped with a deal for Iran. A deal based on the lies of existent, or future Iranian nuclear weapons, juxtaposed against the criminality and the hypocrisy, of israeli nuclear weapons,
Iran, Russia and China are geo-politically in the cross hairs, and the ruling elite seems not to care if some of us know it . Because it seems that Kennedy was right.
“No matter how big the lie; repeat it often
enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.”
― John F.
Kennedy—
The last time Iran instigated war, was when America was still a British colony.
The US encouraged Iraq to attack Iran, the whole of the M.E. knows this.
Iran, like Iraq (before the US led attack in 2003, looking for WMD!) has made perfectly reasonable objection to the West`s creation, and US maintenance, of an artificial Zionist State in the M.E
The US has since 1947 ridden roughshod over M.E. objections to continual expansions of Israels borders which now include all of Palestine, part of Syria and Lebanon.
5 million UN registered Palestinian refugees are all denied the right of return to their homeland, a fact well known in the M.E. but ignored by the US.
However, nothing stays the same forever, in 1947, the peoples Republic of China did not exist, today China is a firm friend of Iran, a country holding the worlds third larges known oil reserves.
You can bet your bottom dollar that China will not allow the US to threaten Iran in any way, and it`s not just China, Russia has strong links with Iran and Britains support for US sponsored sanctions were always half-hearted, British trade with China and Iran has tempered automatic support of US attitudes.
It matters little to Iran/China/Russia/Britain/etc. if the US re-imposed US sanctions, the United Nations has removed those sanctions!
The US is facing world pragmatism with regard to Iran, a country that has announced it will buy 400 passenger aircraft, Airbus will be praying the US continues to threaten to impose sanctions, and Boeing will be (probably) gnashing their teeth.
As for Israels position in all this, well the ex Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad summed up the M.E. perspective when he said “The Holocaust did not happen in Palestine, why then are the Palestinians punished for the crimes that were committed in Europe?”.
US unconditional support for Israel is running out of time, the US should oblige Israel to seek accommodation with the people of the M.E. instead us using military superiority to subjugate the intrinsic population. It would be better for Israel and much better for the US.