What else can Iran undertake?

There is no doubt that Barack Obama, the American president who is serving his last year in office, merits all the praise he received since paving the way this week for allowing Iran to join the global economy after the international sanctions have been lifted in exchange for Tehran abandoning its nuclear ambitions for at least 10 years.

The agreement reached with the United States and the European Union will allow Iran to sell much more oil and get back some $100 billion held by the US government, virtually ending the economic and political isolation that crippled its economy.

Simultaneously there was an agreement to exchange prisoners, which allowed the return of The Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, along with his wife and mother, and four other Americans, as well as the release of seven Iranian prisoners from US jails.

Facilitating this was Iran’s agreement to ship 98 per cent of its fuel to Russia and to dismantle more than 12,000 centrifuges that could enrich uranium.

At the beginning, the Iranians, some 80 million people, reportedly, with an annual oil output of some $400 billion, seemed doubtful about the reward. That will change when they will see major international companies rushing to establish offices in Tehran and the international sanctions definitely lifted.

This agreement with Iran is historic, but there remains a serious issue that divides Washington and Tehran, namely Iran’s attempt to develop “ballistic” missiles that are capable of delivering nuclear warheads, assumedly towards Middle East targets.

Now that the US has closer ties with Iran, the Obama administration might think of launching a behind the scenes attempt to improve Iranian relations with the Arab governments, especially those in Iran’s neighbourhood.

The recent conflict Iran, a Shiite state, had with Saudi Arabia, where Sunnis are the majority, following the execution of 47 people, including a prominent Shiite cleric, understandably worsened the relationship — a sectarian conflict that the Arab world would do well to avoid. 

Out of all people in the Middle East to blow their horn once again this week against Iranian leaders was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, a country that many believe possesses nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu’s concern is that “Iran will now have more resources to dedicate to their terrorism and aggressions in the region and in the world, and Israel is prepared to deal with any threat”.

Alleging that “Iran has not relinquished its ambition to obtain nuclear weapons”, Netanyahu, in turn, could offer his accusers a willingness to allow international inspection of his warehouses, a step Iran is obliged to undertake under the new agreement.

Adding oil to the fire, US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro criticised last Monday Israel’s West Bank settlement policies at what has been described as a high-profile security conference held in Tel Aviv.

Shapiro maintained at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies that Israel’s continued expansion of illegal settlements raises questions about Israel’s intentions and its stated commitment to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

According to the American ambassador, as reported by The Statesman, Israel also legalised some Israeli-occupied West Bank outposts despite pledges to the United States not to do so.

Shapiro also exposed Israeli actions that are typical of apartheid regimes.

“Too much vigilantism goes unchecked and, at times, there seem to be two standards of adherence to the rule of law, one for Israelis and another for the Palestinians.”

The Statesman explained: “Israelis are subject to Israeli civil law, while Palestinians are governed by Israeli military law, which offers far fewer legal protections.”

Israeli human rights group Yesh Din said Shapiro’s comments were grounded in data it has been collecting, which showed an 85 per cent failure rate in investigating ideologically motivated crimes by Israelis against Palestinians.

Shapiro’s remarks, The Statesman continued, sparked a terse response from Netanyahu, who said they were inappropriate at a time of heightened violence with the Palestinians.

This spat, The Statesman concluded, highlighted the tense relations, of late between the United States and Israel, mostly over Israel’s fierce objections to the Iranian nuclear deal.

The writer is a Washington-based columnist.