Region could see changes in political landscape

Beirut: The interim accord hammered out between Iran and global powers focuses narrowly on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions but the reaction across the Middle East points to a broader significance: the prospect of a geopolitical shift with repercussions across the region. The process is still embryonic and may go nowhere. But the Middle East is already abuzz with speculation about a thaw between Washington and Tehran emerging from the Geneva talks.

Some analysts say it may turn out to be a “hinge” moment that — however gradually — alters the political landscape of the highly volatile region.

“This is already being seen as a kind of game-changer,” said Paul Salem, an analyst at the Middle East Institute, a Washington-based think tank. “This is not just about how much uranium is being enriched or when. It’s about a new alignment and its potential impacts in Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in all the regional arrangements.”

Condemnation from Israel and angry silence from Saudi Arabia — both key US allies and avowed enemies of Tehran -- highlight a profound disquiet over the new agreement. Antagonism between Iran and the US has been a major factor in the region’s web of alliances for more than three decades. Saudi officials view their kingdom and its allies as being engaged in a colossal struggle for regional influence between Islam’s two great branches.

The Sunni-dominated Gulf kingdoms accuse Shiite Iran of meddling from Syria to Lebanon to Bahrain. Riyadh plainly would prefer to see Iran consigned indefinitely to membership in an “axis of evil” than engaged in direct and seemingly amiable negotiations with the US.

“The Saudis and Jordanians are shocked by this American transformation,” said Fahad Khitan, an Amman, Jordan-based political analyst. “The Saudis and the Israelis are, perhaps for the first time, in a camp together.” While Saudi officials have kept their ire private so far, Israeli authorities have publicly denounced the preliminary nuclear accord with Iran as a “bad deal” and “historic mistake,” in the words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

US officials have been careful in discussing wider regional implications. They’ve stressed that even while opening up this new diplomatic channel, they have kept the conversation focused narrowly on the nuclear issue — both in the public multinational negotiations and a series of secret bilateral talks between US and Iranian diplomats. Other thorny issues such as Iran’s support for Hezbollah were not discussed, according to a senior administration official. The difficult case of Syria — where Iran and Saudi Arabia are major players in a proxy war — may give some indication of whether a broader reconciliation between the West and Iran is on the horizon.

On Monday, UN officials said it was not yet clear whether Iran would be invited to UN-backed Syrian peace negotiations scheduled for January 22. But a senior Obama administration official cast doubt on Iran’s participation. The parties at the table in the upcoming Syria talks must agree to support the transfer of power from Al Assad’s government to a transitional executive authority, language the US interprets as a call for Al Assad to step down. The US is not expecting Iran to agree to those terms, the official said. Iran seems unlikely to abandon Al Assad and let Syria slip from its orbit. Some observers say Tehran could help to shape a new transitional government. “If the West can talk to Iran about such a hugely sensitive issue such as Iran’s own nuclear programme, then I’m sure they can talk about what a transition might look like in Syria,” said Salem.