By Farid Mirbagheri
The long-awaited nuclear agreement between the five plus one and Iran was finally reached last month amidst hopes by some and fears by others of a spill-over effect that may bring Washington and Tehran closer together.
A rapprochement between the two capitals would have far-reaching implications almost on all fronts. Financially it would open Iranian oil and gas fields to US investment. Politically it would boost efforts in countering radical Islamists in the Middle East, and strategically it would potentially make for a partnership that could diminish the significance of certain other regional players.
Already there are talks of possible contracts between Iran and the Boeing Company to purchase tens of aircrafts. There are also rumours of US car makers working to open an assembly line in Iran. Of course in comparison to any oil or gas contracts these would be rather like icing on the cake. US markets would also be open to Persian carpets and other Iranian products.
In both countries, however, there are forces that persistently work for maintaining the status quo. Diplomatic relations were ruptured in 1979 over the hostage-taking of US diplomats in Tehran for 444 days. Several attempts at reconciliation by both sides have failed to break the impasse. The catalyst for a thaw could be the deal over the nuclear issue.
Radical elements in Tehran have already launched a campaign against the deal, galvanising their rhetoric with the old-chant of ‘death to America’. Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, bolstered their campaign when only over a week ago he reiterated his hostility to the ‘arrogant US’ and vowed to maintain the course in Iran’s regional policy.
The ‘reformist camp’ is presenting the nuclear deal as a ‘historic achievement’. President Rohani has likened the agreement to a football match, where Iran has defeated the five plus one by a score of 3 to 2. The country’s National Security Council still has to decide if the deal will have to be approved by the conservative-led parliament or not. In the end, however, it is the Supreme Leader who has the final say in stately affairs.
No faction in Iran wishes its rivals to be credited with normalising relations with the US, which would likely lead to an improved financial situation in the country. Inter-faction rivalry has up to now been an effective saboteur of efforts at rapprochement. It remains to be seen if the ruling ‘reformist’ faction can this time round overcome the impediments put in its way by the hardliners.
Parliamentary elections in Iran later this year could also be influenced by the outcome of the current in-fighting. A successful outcome of the nuclear deal would mean the removal of biting sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council on Iran and much-needed improvement in the country’s finances. In electoral terms that could translate to votes for the president’s faction.
President Obama is also facing opposition at home to the nuclear deal. Congress may well reject the agreement with Iran in the coming September but will probably fall short of a two-third majority to overcome a presidential veto; unless of course the tide of public opinion compels some democrats to side with their Republican colleagues. In the latest polling on the issue conducted by the CNN more than 50 per cent of Americans were against the deal.
One is reminded of the embarrassing situation Woodrow Wilson must have found himself in after Congress rejected the Treaty of Versaille that formalised the peace after WW I and which the US president had been the architect of.
Ironically the two camps in Tehran and Washington that are most hostile to one another find themselves in agreement over the rejection of the nuclear deal. Doubtless just as Israel may be lobbying for a ‘No’ vote in the US Congress, some other countries may equally hope for Iranian policymakers to reject the agreement. The domestic political scene in both countries will be compounded in the coming weeks and months by competing forces trying to influence the outcome one way or another.
Farid Mirbagheri is professor of International Relations in the department of European Studies and International Relations at the University of Nicosia
