Political phenomena can be quite strange at times.
Immediately after the signing of the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 (United States, Britain, France, Russia, China plus Germany) on July 14, the eve of the annual celebration of the French Revolution, the incident has been marked by sharp differences of opinion and interpretations from Arab commentators. Most of them have given very black-and-white interpretations of the deal, with no moderate shades in between.
According to one set of observers, the nuclear deal will witness, in due course, the end of the Islamic republic as we have known it for the last 35 years. What has actually happened in the guise of the nuclear deal is the implementation of an American strategy to contain Tehran, just the way Washington has contained several other countries — adopting a carrot-and-stick policy. America’s goal has always been to change the attitude of regimes, only the tools keep changing from time to time. The tool in this case has been the gradual introduction of the dynamism of ‘global capitalism’ to the fabric of Iran’s national economy, marked by an emerging Iranian middle class. The Iranian economy was dwindling owing to stringent economic sanctions and its currency was sinking fast. There were no spare parts for its machines, aircraft, oil facilities, ports and other infrastructure. For Tehran, the financial burden of meeting its domestic needs and the political obligation of supporting its foreign allies was fast becoming unbearable. As a result, inflation soared.
The Iranian fundamentalists and hardliners are no fools. They could not have ignored these dangerous circumstances and could see resentment to their harsh measures brewing on the streets. In major Iranian cities, the mullahs were no longer being respected because ordinary Iranians knew that most of them were corrupt, greedy and opportunistic. The ruling class was using brute force to make sure everyone fell in line and opposition in any form was quickly silenced.
New doctrine
The new generation, however, refused to accept such coercion. They were ready for change and if required, changing the regime as well. By siding with the moderate faction within the Iranian regime, the new generation in Iran wanted to make sure that the aspirations of the youth were taken into account. That is why the youth were celebrating on the streets of Iran once the nuclear deal was sealed. They knew that this pact could see a new era of dynamism, leading to the opening up of the Iranian society and economy and helping the country join the league of nations. This school of thought believes that this is US President Barack Obama’s new doctrine — to engage “rogue states” like Cuba, North Korea and Iran by dangling “carrots” at them. So change was inevitable and the moderate will prevailed, thereby ensuring peace and stability in the region.
However, there is a second school of thought, which is quite opposed to this, saying that the nuclear deal with Iran is very dangerous for the future of the region and the world. According to the proponents of this theory, Iran is like a ferocious animal that was tied so closely to a tree. But now, thanks to the nuclear deal, this animal is on the verge of being released from captivity. These experts have quoted Lakhdar Brahimi, the former United Nations envoy to Syria, who said: “When I spoke to Iranian officials, they reminded me that Iran was an important country in the region.” This shows how Iran was apprehensive about its image in the outside world and how very eager it was to recreate the aura of the old Persian Empire — this time not just driven by political ambitions, but by religious zealots as well. This way of thinking is not limited to Tehran, as Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader in Lebanon, had threatened a few weeks ago in a television address, saying: “Look at what Iran is doing to the region now, while it is under siege. What if it has billions of dollars after the nuclear deal?”
Moreover, recently, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself said: “Iran is neither changing its policies towards the satanic US government, nor abandoning its friends in the region — the people of Palestine, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria Lebanon and Iraq.”
Such statements ring alarm bells for people and governments around the Arab world. There were statements in similar vein coming from the top echelons of the Iranian military establishment, claiming that the negotiations with the P5+1 did not involve regional issues and were restricted to Iran’s nuclear activities only.
These statements have been interpreted by some Gulf countries and others in terms of Iran being allowed a free hand to do whatever it desires in the region, to the extent that it can wreak havoc with the internal security of neighbouring states. This can only spread alarm. There is deep mistrust among Arab commentators now, not just towards Tehran but also towards the Obama administration. Conflicting statements coming out of Washington do not just leave room for apprehension, but Gulf states believe that there is a real threat — that Obama is determined to go to bed with Tehran!
Mohammad Al Rumaihi is a professor of political sociology at Kuwait University. You can follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/@rumaihi42
