How US has scored big with Iran nuclear deal

The nuclear deal with Iran represents a triumph of US diplomacy. President Obama is right in saying that it meets all US bottom lines and that every pathway to an Iranian nuclear weapon has been closed. The US has made no real concession while Iran has yielded across the board. This begs the question why Iran did not compromise much earlier and avoided the imposition of throttling US sanctions that seem to have ultimately compelled it to do so.

Opposition

It is surprising that the deal has attracted such virulent opposition in powerful political circles in the US. That they should oppose a highly successful result obtained diplomatically shows how dysfunctional the US political system is becoming in some respects because of deepening partisanship.

This is problematic for the rest of the world because the play of domestic politics in the US, the influence that certain lobbies exert, the belief that the US has the power to do as it pleases internationally has led it to commit serious mistakes abroad. The alternative option to deal with Iran was the military one. To believe that an armed attack on Iran would have yielded a better result is ignoring realities.

The international community is already paying for the folly of military action against Iraq and Libya and the intervention in Syria. Besides causing widespread human misery this has spawned the unspeakable Islamic State. With this terrible experience before us, the use of armed force to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran would have hugely compounded the problems we already face. That powerful elements in the US Congress are unable to appreciate this obvious reality is surprising.

The US diplomatic success is all the more striking because it has treated Iran shabbily in many ways. It has vilified it beyond measure, treated it as the embodiment of a terrorist state, held it primarily responsible for all the turmoil in West Asia, frightened the international community with threats of military action against it and imposed draconian sanctions on it unilaterally and obliged others to adhere to them because of the enormous American clout in the functioning of the international financial system. Countries like India with legitimate interests in Iran could not conduct a normal relationship with it. Even the US legislation on the nuclear deal with India had Iran-related clauses in it.

Treatment

This treatment of Iran, from India's point of view, contrasted with the consideration shown to Pakistan even when Osama bin Laden was found hiding on its soil, Pakistani agencies were supporting Afghan jihadi groups inflicting casualties on US troops in Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan's involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks in which US nationals were also killed.

The US has also overlooked the rapid expansion of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, including the introduction of tactical nuclear weapons in its armoury. Not only Pakistan has not been sanctioned, it has actually been rewarded with generous economic and military aid. No doubt Iran's rhetoric against Israel has been most provocative, feeding into Israeli insecurities, exacerbating its anxieties about its vulnerability to terrorist acts and alienating powerful sections of the US political and public opinion. Iran certainly did not help its case by its hostile statements against Israel.

It speaks of US power within the international system that despite its unilateral actions against Iran, the rapid deterioration of its ties with Russia, the demonisation of President Putin and undermining of Russian interests in Ukraine as well as in West Asia, Russia has continued to cooperate with the US within the P-5 plus 1 format. So has China despite the building of US-China tensions in the western Pacific and Chinese concerns about US seeking to contain China's power in Asia. That the US was able to hold the P-5 plus 1 group together and through it impose a shackling nuclear agreement on Iran reflects a major diplomatic success. By this the US has been able to project the nuclear issue with Iran as one between it and the international community and not merely a bilateral US-Iran one. This has given the deal that much greater international legitimacy.

Integration

Anti-Iranian lobbies in the US argue that the deal has not eliminated Iran's nuclear capability, that after 15-20 years it can revive its programme and go nuclear and that Iran cannot be trusted. If Iran had such devious calculations in mind it would not make sense for it to accept such humiliating constraints on its nuclear programme, the highly intrusive international monitoring, the provision of "snap-back" sanctions without Russia and China being able to veto this and so on.

Once over the years ahead it gets more integrated into the international system, obtains the investments it needs to rehabilitate its oil and gas industry, improves the lives of its people with greater economic prosperity, why should it make choices 20 years later that could roll back all these gains? Against the nuclear sacrifice it has agreed to, the Mullah regime has ensured its survival and opened the doors for recognition of Iran's regional role, and that in the teeth of opposition of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

India now can look forward to the prospect of expanding its ties with Iran and giving substance to the strategic partnership declared between the two countries years ago.