Post-Deal reservations

TEHRAN, Jul. 16 (MNA) – With an Iran Deal finally clinched after nearly two years of negotiations, doubts are cast upon US commitment to it.

And finally, on the 18th day, the deal came. People are generally excited. The reporters in Vienna - and I know because I was amongst them for ten days - should be extremely relieved that they can finally go back home, with good news of a final and long awaited deal. Members of related interest groups are excited as well; the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) issued a statement on the deal, writing that it means Iran and America can cooperate in the future. And there are also analysts suggesting this year’s Nobel Peace Prize go to John Kerry and Javad Zarif. But the reality is that one should not be overtaken by this joyous hype, because what determines whether dialogue and peace has really overcome fear mongering and intimidation is the actual behavior of the negotiating parties. I’d love to remain optimistic and hopeful, but a brief look at the facts, and at history, redirects me to a more cautious position. Whilst American rhetoric - pre and post-deal - aims to frame Iran as the potential “cheater” and “backslider” (not very polite language when you’re negotiating with someone based on “mutual respect and mutual interests”), America’s own history is full of instances of breaking promises and deals. Just take a look at the many treaties they signed and violated with the Native Americans.

One other important fact that is often lost amongst the loud voice of Western rhetoric on Iran’s nuclear program is that this whole crisis, which Obama today boasts of peacefully resolving, is an artificial one; totally made up. The Americans and the Israelis know better than anyone else that Iran’s nuclear program has never been anything but peaceful. No evidence has ever been found to prove its military dimensions, and everything is based on allegations. So the Americans are congratulating themselves on peacefully ending a crisis that they themselves have manufactured, and I hope that they really have come to the decision (although I doubt it) to let go of such an unjust excuse for pressuring the Iranian people and government.

Perhaps what the Americans had in mind for Iran was something similar to the fate of Iraq, where the Ba’athist regime was brought to its knees after years of sanctions - based on the accusation of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction - that made a hell out of everyday lives of civilians, and finally destabilized the state. When the political and military establishment was weakened, they attacked, killed, conquered, and ultimately found no WMDs. But the important difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saddam’s regime is that while the latter was a dictatorship, the former has always enjoyed popular support and maintained a vibrant relationship with its people. Thus bringing Iran to its knees won’t be that simple.

America’s constant reference to Iran being forced to the negotiation table as a result of crippling sanctions is a face saving argument, to hide, or downplay the fact that Americans were badly in need of presenting their public and the world with an achievement to divert attention from their many failures in the world and especially in the Middle East. All this whilst Iran’s influence in the region has been growing. So it is very probable that America starts cheating whenever it can afford it, because it has negotiated out of necessity rather than devotion to peace and diplomacy.

Summing up, the Iranian people, and all peace-lovers throughout the world, while remaining hopeful and praying for the best, should be prepared for American backsliding. We agree with President Obama on one point: “This deal is not based on trust”!


Elham Kadkhodaee is a PhD candidate in North American Studies in University of Tehran.


News Code 108629


Your Comment

You are replying to: .
  • 4 + 10 =