l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Analysis: Nuclear agreement risks projecting US weakness
April 5, 2015 - 3:05 PM
By DAN PERRY, Associated Press
CAIRO (AP) — On a basic level, the framework deal between world powers and
Tehran will be judged by whether it prevents an Iranian bomb, but that will
take years to figure out.
A more immediate issue is the projection of Western power. Supporters of the
framework deal can argue that the U.S. and world powers extracted
significant concessions from Iran, breaking a decade-long impasse and
proving that diplomacy backed by tough sanctions can bring about positive
change even in the Middle East.
But if, as critics contend, the agreement ends up projecting U.S. weakness
instead, that could embolden rogue states and extremists alike, and make the
region's vast array of challenges -- from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
and the Syrian civil war to the fighting in Libya and Yemen -- even more
impervious to Western intervention.
The United States wants to rein in Syria's President Bashar Assad as his
ruinous civil war grinds into year five. It would like to encourage more
liberal domestic policies in Egypt and push Iraq's leaders to govern more
inclusively. Despite years of setbacks, the U.S. would still like to see a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But if leaders in those places read the fine print of the agreement the U.S.
and other world powers hope to reach with Iran by June 30 and conclude that
they were duped or have flinched, these leaders will be less likely to give
in to pressure in the future, rendering the Iran agreement a lonely foreign
policy achievement clouded by the region's chaos.
The implications may first be seen in Iran itself. If the agreement leads to
acceptance of Iran's theocracy, hard-liners could feel less pressure to
curb their support of regional militant groups and crack down even harder on
dissent at home. They would be flush with cash from the lifting of
sanctions and emboldened in their confidence that the West will turn a blind
eye.
Alternatively, the deal could mark a major victory for President Hassan
Rouhani, a relative moderate, and a broader rapprochement could bring about
a Persian glasnost of sorts that leads to democratic reform.
Whichever direction Iran goes will have wide-ranging implications for the
rest of the region. Iran backs powerful Shiite proxies in Iraq, Syria, and
Lebanon. It also has supported the Palestinian Hamas, the Sunni Islamists
who rule Gaza. Sunni powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear and distrust
Iran and have warned of a regional arms race if it becomes a threshold
nuclear weapons state. Saudi-led warplanes are bombing the Shiite Houthi
rebels in Yemen, who are supported by Iran, though both Tehran and the
rebels deny it arms them.
The implications of a weak United States, meanwhile, are not just regional
but global, affecting events from Russia to China and North Korea — as well
as the prospects for global accords on climate change or even significant
trade deals.
Many of these questions will only be answered by the final agreement,
assuming there is one. For now, both sides are presenting the framework
accord as a major accomplishment.
On one hand, Iran accepted limits on its enrichment levels and centrifuge
numbers to prevent the accumulation of weapons-grade material for a decade
or more. "Breakout time" to a bomb would be extended from mere months to a
year or more.
But on the other, its right to enrich uranium would be enshrined, its
facilities would remain in place, the sanctions would be lifted and a sort
of legitimacy bestowed.
Critics in Israel and elsewhere cannot understand why world powers, who
could afford to play for time, did not squeeze Iran by presenting it with a
mind-clearing choice between having a nuclear program and having an economy.
They never believed Iran's claims that — with oil in generous supply — it
was investing such effort for nuclear energy and research. They expect Iran
's energies to now focus on fooling the inspectors and developing a bomb.
That won't be easy. Under the framework deal the U.N. nuclear agency would
have substantially more authority than it has had in the past. The fact
sheet issued by the U.S. says Iran has agreed to grant inspectors more
intrusive access to both declared and undeclared facilities — access that
may not be "anytime, anywhere," but goes far beyond anything that was in
place when weapons were developed by India, Pakistan, North Korea — and
Israel.
Supporters of the deal argue that any risks that may remain are preferable
to war. Implied is the admission that a global consensus on tougher
sanctions to force Iran to its knees was unattainable -- Russia, China and
even India could not necessarily be corralled. That would leave armed force,
never taken off the table, as the only remaining option.
Some also note that viewing Iran as an implacable regional menace is
simplistic. Iran backs groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which the West views
as terrorist organizations, but it is also training and supporting Shiite
militias battling the Islamic State group in Iraq, where Washington and
Tehran have found themselves on the same side of the conflict.
Washington's bridled ambitions are understandable given its recent failures
in the region. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are still at war more than a decade
after the U.S.-led invasions. The Islamic State group, an al-Qaida
breakaway, controls a third of both Syria and Iraq. A NATO intervention
helped topple dictator Moammar Gadhafi, but Libya today is a failed state in
the grip of rival militias and jihadi groups. The Israeli-Palestinian peace
process is in shambles.
One senses, beyond the specifics of the Iran deal, an implied admission by
the global powers: there is a limit to countries' ability to interfere with
one another, however interdependent the world may be.
Ironically, it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the most
outspoken opponent of the Iran deal — who might have reason to appreciate
this kind of humility. Recently re-elected and at odds with the White House,
Netanyahu faces a global clamor to end the West Bank settlement project and
enable the creation of a Palestinian state. If the United States and other
powers got serious about enforcing their will on other countries, Israel
could be no less a candidate than Iran.
___
George Jahn contributed to this report from Lausanne, Switzerland. Follow
him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/georgejahn |
|
