Good deal: last thing we need here is another war

This posting has these items:
1) Al Monitor: What are Iran’s conservatives saying about the nuclear deal?, the nuclear deal has to be woven through several sets of conservatives. Arash Karami looks at the Iranian ones ;
2) Haaretz: Netanyahu lost his Iran bet, but his next gamble may be disastrous, there is no doubt that Netanyahu has been the great loser in this game – apparently threatening suicide – symbolic or literal;
3) The National: Now a deal’s been done, will Iran be better behaved?, opinion surveyor James Zogby looks at the shift from Iran’s being the leader of anti-western opinion to its being the unacceptable supporter of Pres. Assad;
4) Haaretz: German FM criticizes Israel’s opposition to Iran nuclear deal, British and German foreign ministers have so far shown their impatience with Netanyahu;
5) Media Line: Mixed Middle East Reaction to Iran Deal, Robert Swift reviews the views;

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Hassan Rouhani that the agreement required “careful scrutiny” before approval. Photo by AP

What are Iran’s conservatives saying about the nuclear deal?

Iran’s conservatives are warning that a nuclear deal with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council will not necessarily lead to better relations with the United States.

By Arash Karami, Al Monitor
July 16, 2015

The announcement of a nuclear deal between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) has been welcomed by most Iranians and Reformist media. The prospect of sanctions relief has overjoyed many Iranians who have sensed the crushing impact of sanctions. But the nuclear concessions Iran made in exchange for those sanctions relief has some Iranian conservatives worried on non-nuclear related issues.

The problem for many conservatives is that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has final say on the nuclear programme, has generally supported the deal. In his only response, through an open letter thanking the president and his negotiation team for their efforts, Khamenei wrote that the deal was “an important step.” However, he also warned that the text of the agreement “should be considered carefully” and “once ratified, be careful of possible violations of the opposing side.” He added, “You know well that some of the six opposing governments cannot be trusted.”

Khamenei’s position and the generally accepted idea that Iran needs to show a united front in the nuclear talks has muted some of the harsher criticism of a nuclear deal. Still, a close look at the more hard-line media shows that there is still some criticism of the deal.

Mojtaba Asghari wrote an article in Vatan-e Emrooz arguing that “Iran, despite all of the efforts of the Westerners, is not on the threshold of collapsing from within, but we do not have a doubt that underneath the bowl of a final agreement there is a half non-nuclear bowl.” The article warned that a “war of civilizations” still exists and that Iranians must “tighten their belts of faith.”

Mohammad Sarafi wrote in Kayhan newspaper that despite the fact that a nuclear deal was signed, “its waves will be non-nuclear.” Sarafi argued that “in contradiction to the imagination of some, not only will this agreement not result in a co-operation between Iran and the United States on regional issues, but there is a strong chance it will increase the chance of conflict.”

Sarafi wrote that for the United States the nuclear deal “is the beginning of a long list” that includes other issues such as terrorism and human rights. As an example, Sarafi objected to President Barack Obama placing the Islamic State and Iran next to each other by assuring Arab countries in the Persian Gulf of protection against these mutual threats. Sarafi also rejected the idea that the United States has changed its policies with respect to Iran, arguing that both Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry said negotiations were the only path to resolve this dispute.

Surprisingly, Mehdi Mohammadi, who was an adviser to former hard-line nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, had an overall positive view of the deal. In Tasnim News Agency, he wrote that while it may take time to judge all of the dimensions of the deal, “Overall, it could be said that the special negotiation strategy of the supreme leader produced a balanced text.” He added that the nuclear negotiators should be thanked for their efforts.

Mohammadi warned, however, “The implementation of such an agreement is more difficult than arranging and signing it.”

Netanyahu believing he’s leading the world against Iran, addressing Congress last March. Photo by AFP.

Netanyahu lost his Iran bet, but his next gamble may be disastrous

After the deal was announced, the prime minister’s appearance was that of a desperate gambler who had lost everything. But now he wants to wreck what’s left of U.S.-Israel relations.

By Yossi Verter, Haaretz
July 15, 2015

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks defeated. He was ashen-faced on Tuesday next to the Dutch foreign minister at their joint press conference in Jerusalem; his appearance was that of a desperate gambler who had lost everything. The Iranian nuclear agreement, against which he had vigorously and repeatedly warned, had become a fait accompli. The deal over which he had declared political war on the president of the United States, while breaking all the rules of diplomatic relations between friendly countries, had become a reality, for better or worse.

Even before the details of the agreement were known, and without having any idea what was or wasn’t included, senior Likud officials were firing cannon shells through the electronic media. Talking points that had been sent to them in advance contained three main points:
1. The agreement is bad, terrible, and awful;
2. If not for Netanyahu, the situation would have been much worse, much earlier;
3. The opposition is to blame and ought to be ashamed for not being supportive enough/for being critical now/for not standing tensely quiet at the side of the prime minister, meaning the State of Israel.

Obviously. The opposition is to blame for the centrifuges spinning, the uranium being enriched, and the slaughter during the six consecutive years of Netanyahu’s rule.

Netanyahu deserves credit for stubbornly putting the nuclear issue on the global agenda, significantly contributing to the intensified sanctions on Iran. On the other hand, he lost his brakes when he did not hesitate to hook up with the Republican Party in its campaign against U.S. President Barack Obama. Sometimes it’s hard to know where Sheldon Adelson, the biggest Republican donor, ends and Netanyahu begins.

The prime minister himself hastened Tuesday to call on the opposition to “put petty politics aside and unite for the State of Israel’s national interests,” as if the Iranian nukes hadn’t served as an effective political weapon for him during every recent election campaign.

Netanyahu’s spokespeople said he plans to “kill himself” pursuing the last remaining option for scuttling the deal – preventing its ratification by the U.S. House of Representatives – by persuading Democratic congressmen to defect to the Republican camp and vote against their president. The destruction and devastation he avoided inflicting on the nuclear facilities scattered throughout Iran, he now wants to wreck on what’s left of U.S.-Israel relations. Here we again see his compulsive gambler syndrome: After losing his pants, he’s now putting his underwear on the roulette wheel in a move that experts on American politics say hasn’t much of a chance.

In this context, the call by Likud ministers for “internal cohesion that’s been lacking until now” sounds pathetic. Why exactly is Netanyahu demanding that Labour’s Isaac Herzog, Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid, Meretz’s Zehava Galon and Yisrael Beiteinu’s Avigdor Lieberman join him? So they can share responsibility for the worsening of the fight between Israel and the leader of the free world?

Herzog and Lapid were competing with each other on Tuesday to show whose patriotism was greater. Lapid drew first with an interview he gave to a foreign television network. But Herzog landed a crushing blow on him by tweeting that he had spoken with the prime minister and would soon be traveling to the United States “to advance a package of security measures to suit the new situation.”

Perhaps Herzog has been named defence minister and nobody told us. Perhaps something else is going on between him and Netanyahu, and under the pretext of the “new situation,” the chairman of Zionist Union plans to bring his party into Netanyahu’s government.

Now a deal’s been done, will Iran be better behaved?

By James Zogby, The National
July 18, 2015

With the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Iran, some are panicking while others have visions of a dramatically realigned Middle East. Both views are overreactions, since the deal itself is quite limited in scope and the impact of 35 years of history cannot easily be erased.

As Barack Obama has made clear, the focus on the negotiations was on Iran’s nuclear programme. The US has not embraced Iran, eased its concerns about Iran’s behaviour or absolved it for its hostile actions against US citizens. This is not the change the president sought, nor is there any support in American public opinion for a changed US relationship with Iran. And so those who envision the JCPOA as a sign that the US is abandoning its traditional alliances ought to relax. It’s not going to happen any time soon.

I’m not sure that Iran wants or could easily ingest such realignment either. Iran continues to harbour deep resentment toward the West and the US, in particular. For 35 years, the Iranian public has been fed a steady stream of vitriol based on resentment of past American actions toward their country and anger at current US policies in the broader region. This has taken a toll.

Just a few months ago, when asked for their views as to whether the US “contributed to peace and stability in the Middle East”, 94 per cent of Iranians said “no”. This anti-American mindset runs deep. In fact, it is the cornerstone of Iran’s self-identity.

For decades, Iran has fashioned itself as the leader of the anti-western resistance movement across the Muslim world. Their support for groups in Lebanon and Palestine and their involvement in Syria, Iraq and Yemen has not been motivated by mere sectarian ambitions. Rather it has been part and parcel of establishing the Islamic Republic as the vanguard of the regional effort to weaken the role of the US and its allies across the region.

This too has established itself in Iranian public opinion. In 2012, Zogby Research Services polled in several Muslim countries asking respondents whether they favoured “achieving peace and understanding” with the West or “continued struggle”. The only Muslims who supported the latter option were Iranians. And they did so by a substantial margin.

The mantra of “resistance” is the “soft power” weapon that Iran has used to lay claim to its regional leadership role and to challenge its Arab neighbours. For a time, it worked. Israel dealt devastating blows to Lebanon in 2006 and to Gaza in 2008. Iran’s message to the region then was, in effect, “Look at what Israel, supported by the US, is doing to your Arab brethren. And look at how your weak governments are passive in the face of these assaults on your dignity. And now look at how we are supporting the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance”.

The message worked. Back then, Iran’s favourable ratings across a deeply traumatised Arab region were higher. What ultimately turned the tide against Iran was the war in Syria. Arab outrage over the horrific violence meted out by the Assad regime and the strong support Damascus continued to receive from Iran served as the “final nail in the coffin” of Iran’s reputation.

Not Gaza destroyed by Israel but Douma, in Syria, destroyed by Assad’s forces. Iran’s continued support for the Assad regime has lost it its leadership role among many MidEast Muslims. Photo by Abd Doumany / Reuters

But even with that, Iran is too invested in the Syrian conflict and the Iranian public has become strongly supportive of their government’s policies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere for there to be any immediate change in Iran’s regional policies. In the poll we conducted in late 2014, nine out of 10 Iranians said that it was important for their country to be involved in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, while 80 per cent were supportive of their role in Bahrain and 60 per cent of their role in Yemen.

In much the same way, the rhetoric used to support their defiance of the West on the nuclear question has also affected Iranian public opinion.

For example, while the Supreme Leader maintained that it was against Islam to seek to possess nuclear weapons, 87 per cent of the Iranian public told us that they wanted their country to have such a weapon, as a matter of national pride and defence. And two thirds told us that “maintaining our right to a nuclear programme is worth the price being paid in economic sanctions and international isolation”.

Our polling in both 2013 (shortly after the election of Hassan Rouhani) and 2014 showed that Iranians were deeply divided. The Iranian president continues to have the support of a slight majority but he does not get stellar grades for having delivered on creating jobs, protecting personal and civil rights, advancing democracy or increasing the rights of women – issues that, shortly after his election, Iranians told us should be the new president’s most important priorities.

Given that some Iranians may have high expectations that the deal will improve their lives, it will be necessary for the government to deliver the goods quickly. But weighing heavily on Iran’s leaders will be the knowledge that strong majorities of the public will still need to be convinced that the deal was worth the price they paid.

So while the US is presenting the deal as a blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Iranians need to maintain that it was their victory, that they did not capitulate. And that is why just as there will be no rush for the US to embrace Iran as its new ally, neither will the Iranians be able to dramatically change their rhetoric or the regional policies anytime soon.

As Mr Obama noted, the goal of the negotiations was limited to Iran’s nuclear programme. In this regard, it is a good deal. Now, the hard work begins to address the broader regional concerns. In the meantime, naive optimists and panicking critics should take a rest. The concern that Iran might develop a weapon has been addressed. But the process of seeing whether this deal can lead to more significant changes in Iran’s behaviour and in the attitudes of both Americans and Iranians has just begun.

James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute. On Twitter:@aaiusa

German FM criticizes Israel’s opposition to Iran nuclear deal

‘This is a responsible deal and Israel should also take a closer look at it and not criticise the agreement in a very coarse way,’ says Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

By Caroline Copley, Reuters / Ha’aretz
July 14, 2015

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier criticised Israel’s opposition to a nuclear deal agreed by six world powers and Iran, saying the agreement will help contribute to security in the Middle East.

“This is a responsible deal and Israel should also take a closer look at it and not criticise the agreement in a very coarse way,” Steinmeier told German broadcaster ARD in an interview on Wednesday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the deal as a “stunning, historic mistake” and said it would enable Iran to pursue a path to nuclear weapons.

But Steinmeier said the basis for the agreement was transparency and the ability to monitor Iran’s compliance.

“In the agreement, Iran has to commit to these monitoring possibilities. And we will make sure that the monitoring possibilities are also observed after this deal,” he said.

Closer Iran-US relations? Why Ayatollah Khamenei says, ‘No.’

Iranian Supreme Leader says Tehran will have no negotiations with the US over bilateral issues, but other Iranian officials do not dismiss the possibility.

By Denise Hassanzade Ajiri, Christian Science Monitor
July 18, 2015

Over the past 13 years, Iran’s nuclear program has caused long-term quarrels among the international community and resulted in severe economic pressures on Iran. But it also eventually led to direct negotiations between decades-long arch-foes: Iran and the United States.

Iran and six world powers reached a historic nuclear deal on July 14 after talks that spanned 20 months. The deal was received by the negotiators with broad smiles and even tears of joy.

In the wake of that momentous pact, leaders of both countries hinted that the deal could lead the two nations toward a more cooperative relationship. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the agreement begins “a new chapter.” He added that if carried out correctly, “we can gradually eliminate distrust.” And President Obama noted: “This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it.”

But on Saturday Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei vowed that Iran’s policy toward the US will not change. “We will have no negotiations with the US over bilateral, as well as regional and international issues. There are some exceptions like the nuclear program that has been previously going on as well,” Mr. Khamenei said.