& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Don't let the hawks win

Syed Mansur Hashim
PRESIDENT Obama is fighting a battle with Congress in an effort to deter the latter from introducing a range of new sanctions against Iran, which he believes will derail the progress made on the nuclear issue. The roadmap agreed upon in November between the two sides will see, as stated by John Kerry, "for the first time in almost a decade, Iran's nuclear programme will not be able to advance, and parts of it will be rolled back, while we start negotiating a comprehensive agreement to address the international community's concerns about Iran's programme." With the European Union, China, Russia, France, Germany and the UK (besides the IIS) firmly onboard the plan, why are certain quarters within Congress hell bent on announcing a fresh round of sanctions, which if implemented will almost certainly spell doom for talks and any agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue.
Well for starters, the Obama administration had kept Congress out of the loop during the talks. As pointed out by The Guardian in one of its articles printed in November, 2013: "The meetings ran parallel to official negotiations involving five other world powers, and helped pave the way for the interim deal signed in Geneva....in which Iran accepted strict constraints on its nuclear programme for the first time in a decade in exchange for partial relief from sanctions." Indeed, the easing of sanctions will allow for Iran to get access to
some of the foreign exchange (approximately $7 billion in total) holed up in foreign accounts - not all. What has perhaps prompted some of the more conservative voices in Congress, be they Democrat or Republican, to pursue a tougher line against Iran comes in the backdrop of the Iranian supreme leader Ayotollah Ali Khamenei's blistering attack on the US where he likened America to the "great satan." What ought to be remembered here is that Iran has branded the US the "great satan" since the revolution and such rhetoric is hardly out of place in the country. Taking that out of context could prove a fatal mistake at this juncture.
Presidential veto notwithstanding, opinions are divided on the issue of sanctions. Apparently, conservatives on Capitol Hill, Prance and Israel are disquieted by the fact that Iran will retain its capacity to enrich uranium. What is being overlooked is that the country's capacity to enrich will be limited by terms of the agreement. It is interesting to note that in the midst of this row looming over Capitol Hill, UAE's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid has come out with a statement that he believes Iran is "telling the truth when saying they only intend to use nuclear technology for civilian means." That is perhaps the single most surprising statement to emerge from the region. Needless to say, the UAE's defence procurement and policy is largely geared at countering Iran's larger conventional forces. Yet, here we are. An old adversary speaking out and reaching out on behalf of a nation at which it has been at odds for decades, for a possible peaceful solution that can only benefit the region's stability and trade.
The debate is strong on all sides. Can the world trust Iran to keep its end of the bargain? According to the
Israelis, we can't. According to Mathew Bunn, Professor at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center and former White House adviser on non-proliferation, we can. Mr. Bunn argues that the deal goes far beyond mere a comprehensive agreement. The restraint and verification regime would make it near-impossible for Iranians to rebuild a stock of 20% enriched uranium without setting off alarm bells in half a dozen countries. The deal if inked could also have other ramifications for Iran's domestic politics -- by strengthening the hands of reformers over that of hardliners. By defaulting on any of the many preconditions that will inevitably be set in a firm agreement, Iran would certainly be looking at the possibility of serious military action by all major powers (that could very well include support from Russia and China). The counterargument to Mr. Bunn comes from people like Dr. Ephraim Sneh, who served two terms as Israel's deputy minister of defence and a cabinet member on several Israeli governments. Dr. Sneh believes that the P5+1 deal have achieved only one
thing, and that is the continued existence of the Ayatollah regime. According to him, Iranians are now free to meddle on in the region in the cat-and-mouse game that will see Sunni regimes of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain threatened, and that internal opposition to the Ayatollahs will continue to be repressed and weakened.
What is the alternative to a negotiated settlement? If the hawks would have it their way, forget any deal, more sanctions and throw in some napalm and bomb the Persians back to the Stone Age - just to be safe! The whole question of sanctions will automatically fall into place and the US will have all the support it needs from Europe, both East and West should Iran fail to live up to terms of the agreement. The world is watching and it would be a tragedy to walk away from a lasting peace now because of preconceived notions about Iranians not being trustworthy.