By Syed Qamar.
Much is being debated and criticized in the American media about president Obama’s decision of striking the nuclear deal with Iran. The question arises here is that what wrong Obama has committed if he, at the occasion of US-Iran nuclear stand-off, via his forceful advocacy of pragmatism- borrowing its ideological moorings from the US doctrine of the ‘smart power’,has adopted such a feature of the foreign policy that is virtually driven and perceived by the US’s Declaration of Independence , the true ‘universalization’ of American values. The deal—justifiably and richly– distinguishes him from his predecessors.
Put historically, the weltanschauung of the US foreign policy, in many ways, is the reflection of four classical approaches: Woodrow Wilson’s ‘idealism’, George Kennan’s ‘containment’, Hans Morgenthau’s ‘realism’ and Henry Kissinger’s ‘realpolitik’.
As for the Middle East-the hotbed of the US foreign policy for the last six decades, Washington seems to have adopted all the above referred approaches- ‘containment and realpolitik’ during the Cold War period; realism and idealism during the post Cold War period. After the end of the Cold War, president Clinton adopted a policy of ‘double containment’ in the Middle East, thereby containing Iraq and Iran in the East and focusing on engaging its diplomacy in the West– the ‘Mideast peace’ process. Yet Clinton’s policy was subsequently replaced by George W. Bush’s Middle Eastern narrative of the ‘axis of evil’ (Iraq, Iran and North Korea).
The Junior Bush’s Middle Eastern policy also followed a mixture of the twin schools of thought–the doctrine of ‘exporting democracies’ via an idealist frame—while attacking on Iraq through a realist mind. Yet the results of that policies are no secrets to the world.
Under the Democrat Obama,the Washington’s policy choice while dealing with Iran, has been that the Capitol Hill has refuted the former calls of realism by applying a new force of ‘pragmatic liberalism’ in the US’s foreign policy-an Obama’s coup de maitre.
The general impression of the US’s policies in the Muslim world,particularly in the Middle East is: that the US, on the backing of Israel, has had been following an ‘aggressive foreign policy pursuit’. The case of Bush war in Iraq is a glaring example of the Muslims’ feelings of resentment about the US. That the Iraq war was waged without a warranted ‘casus belli’. But in this case of Iran, Obama has not followed Junior Bush’s policy of ‘war mongering’. In the absence of sufficient warrants or concrete evidence regarding the western apprehension that Iran is developing the nukes, Washington has had no better choice than to start a peaceful dialogue with Iran. This Obama’s gesture of a peaceful discourse towards Iran justifiably entitles him as an ‘ambassador of peace’.
In Oslo, in December of 2009, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama said, “Within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists—a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.”
This thinking reflected a new pattern of thinking in the US’s establishment’-the expansion of American ‘credo of exceptionalism’.
“We’ve got a historic chance to pursue a safer and more secure world,” president Obama said, “an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes.”
‘’Without a deal, we risk even more war in the Middle East,’’ the president said during an East Room press conference. “With this deal, we cut off every single one of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Obama said.
There is no doubt that Obama’s ‘nuclear diplomacy’ has tried its level best to curtail Iran from producing the ‘hardcore nuclear enrichment.’’ It also goes without saying that by stopping Iran from the western speculated pursuit of making the nukes, Washington has wisely involved Tehran’s strategic and proactive role in both the regional and international politics. The Iranian strategic regional penetration from ‘Tehran to Gaza’ is an internationally acknowledged reality.
Geostrategically, a new Middle East is in the process of making– characterizing the ‘geopolitics of the opposites’– where Iran and India ties are growing with the rebuilding of relations between Saudia Arabia and Israel.
Though many Sunni governments in the Middle East are not happy with US- Iran ‘nuclear détente’. Despite the seemingly apprehension that Sunni/Shiite fissures may be increased as a result of deal, there is also an argument that is gaining the pace that the governments of the GCC(the Gulf Cooperation Council) may constructively be engaged via Washington’ influence to work constructively with Iran in the region.
For a long and durable strategic affect, Obama’s vision of utilizing the Iranian role in the Middle Eastern politics is probably based on ‘the urge of orchestrating a ‘strategic balance’ in the Middle East accompanied by the justification of Iran’s strategic influence in the region. Surely,Iran has its profound influence in Iraq Syria and Lebanon whilst it has had its deep clout in the Arab-Israeli conflict via Hezbollah and Hamas. Therefore, Obama’s initiative of Iranian inclusion in the future Middle Eastern scenario is by all means prudent, pragmatic and dynamic.
And yet for the ‘liberal pragmatists and internationalists’, the Obama’s move has to be objectivity seen as a ‘way forward towards the path of harmony and peace’ in this era of expanding globalization-seeking an end to the regime of ‘old antagonism’ among the nations.
Notwithstanding the Israeli feeling of bete noire regarding the deal and the fact that Obama’s Iran- policy may provide some discomforts for the Sunni governments in the Middle east, the deal may act as the ‘safety valve’ against the ‘ongoing proxies’ in the region. Given history of the US-Iran partnership (1965-79) in the Middle East, albeit during the Cold War era of ‘bipolarity’, it reflects that the ‘regional negative politics’ was not out of control. In this context,a joint future US-Iran role may provide positive implications in the region.
However, judging from every argument of ‘justified pragmatism’ and analysing from every angle of ‘the liberal optimism’, Obama’s decision– offering new ‘vistas of thinking and new vestiges of partnership’– of providing the Iranian government the opportunity for a responsible sharing role via this nuclear deal—should be seen as an act of ‘political acumen’. And of course, the Muslim community at large, through the lens of the Iranian deal, may not be wrong in its anticipation of seeing president Obama to take an historic stand on the decades old the Arab-Israeli conflict.
