Agreement with Iran as a Means To Solve US Problems

The framework agreement on the Iranian nuclear project reached in Lausanne could remain a protocol of intent. However, the outcome of the final reconciliation between the United States and Iran is widely discussed, while forgetting that it is practically impossible. After all, the Iranian nuclear bomb is not the issue.

Among many obstacles on the path to finalizing the preliminary agreement are certain aspects of the conflict in the Middle East, the general geopolitical situation, and even the domestic policy situation in Iran and the United States. Even if the final agreement is signed by the end of June, it can still be broken at any time, which would withhold sanctions relief and put an end to restoring Iran’s status as an active participant in world developments.

Let’s assume the agreement is signed on June 30. The International Atomic Energy Agency observes that Iran complies with its terms, which is followed by lifting the sanctions imposed on Tehran by the United Nations, as well as some of the European Union and American sanctions. The Iranian nuclear problem would no longer be a priority on the international agenda. What would that mean for Iran, the world and Russia? First of all, we need to understand what exactly is the Iranian nuclear problem, which for 12 years has been named a key issue for the entire world.

The paradox is that there is no separate Iranian nuclear issue; it is only part of a bigger, much more significant problem: the Islamic Republic of Iran. A regional superpower, the leader of the Shiite part of the Islamic world, a unique civilization descending from the great Persian Empire, the nation itself is not an issue. One would think that it should have every right to determine its domestic and foreign policies as its people see fit.

But this is exactly the reason why Iran poses a threat to the world: Its unique form of government, established after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, is a direct challenge to the modern world order. Iran is governed by a clerical authority, which goes against the Anglo-Saxon political model. This universal model recognizes one higher form of organization of state: a multiparty political system with separation of powers.

This system was exported to every country that at some point was under European rule, from India to Africa. It exists practically everywhere, distracting people and covering up the real power of oligarchy and the shadow elite. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule: for example the monarchies of the Arab Peninsula, like the basically absolutist Saudi Arabia. Although, when it comes to these exceptions, the West understands that such political systems are only “a thing of the past,” and even in the eyes of Muslims are definitely not in competition with the “Western model.”

The Iranian model, however, combines the separation of powers and completely democratic elections with the supreme authority of the clergy. This model, which ensures that power stays in the hands of the real leaders as opposed to symbolic figures elected every four years to satisfy the crowd, is an open challenge to universalism and globalization. It mostly attracts nations loyal to traditional faith, and these are numerous, especially in the Muslim world.

The danger of Iran lies in its nonconventionalism, which is reminiscent of the threat that came from the communist Soviet Union. This is the real threat Iran poses for the Western world; it is no coincidence that Iran was assigned the role of the main enemy of “progressive mankind” to fill a vacancy after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Khomeini labeled the U.S. “the Great Satan” (adding that the atheist Soviet Union was “a lesser Satan”) and for Iranians, it was not a figure of speech. Around this time, the sanctions began, as well as the blockade and the attempts to overthrow “the ayatollah regime.” In all the subsequent years, the United States led an undeclared war against Iran. Iran have been accused of a great many things — human rights violations and terrorism are among them — only to justify new sanctions or the renewal of the existing American sanctions. The blockade was supplemented with the global media campaign to damage the image of the country; it was included in the “axis of evil,” so the nuclear issue became another excuse for pressure.

In the mid 2000s, the U.S. openly threatened Iran with war, but didn’t dare to implement the threats. The party that came into power in the U.S. was aware that America would not be able to win this war. However, the nuclear issue was getting publicity not only as a pretext for sanctions and possible war, but also because of the real fear of Iran producing a nuclear weapon. Even though the Ayatollah Khamenei had repeatedly stated that Tehran was not going to produce a nuclear weapon, no one believed him because everyone knew that only nuclear weapons could give Iran an absolute guarantee of nonaggression from the United States.

It would have been strange if the ayatollahs, perfectly aware that they are in the way of a world empire and its allies, did not try to protect their nation. It is unclear why this motive is not taken into account, given the way the United States has been treating Iran and what it has been doing in the world since the early 1990s. This is more than enough reason to develop its own nuclear weapons, all the more so that neighboring Pakistan and hostile Israel already have them, and no one wags a finger at them. Is it because they are allies of the United States of America?

Not only was the U.S. interested in destroying Iran, but its allies as well. For Israel, Iran is the most consistent opponent because unlike most Arab countries — the global elite was able to strike the right note with the leadership of most of these countries — the attempts to convince the Persians to “forget” about the Palestinian issue have been unsuccessful.

After several unsuccessful wars with Israel, the authorities of the neighboring Arab countries have come to realize that they do not have the resources to fight against the Jewish state with its superior military power, nuclear weapon, and protection from the United States. Supporting Palestinians on paper, in reality they can only lend moral and financial support. In contrast, not only does Iran lobby for establishing a Palestinian state, but it also assists those who offer armed resistance to Israel: for example, Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah. It doesn’t mean that Iran, as they like to say in Israel, tries to destroy the Jewish state (there is a thriving Jewish community in Iran), but it demands the release of the occupied territories.

Iran’s consistent policy in the Palestinian question has earned the nation respect in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia — another regional opponent of Iran — is part of this world. Just like Iran itself, Saudi Arabia has the ambition for leadership in the Islamic world. The confrontation between the Saudis and Iran involves the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites (the two main versions of Islam) and the feuding between the Arabs and the Persians. Although Islam originated among Arabs, Persians greatly contributed to it and have always been considered the second important nation among Muslims. The Arabian caliphate collapsed long ago, after which the Arabs were ruled by Turks and then by the Western world. Currently, the Arabs are divided into two dozen states. Iranians are not only united but aspire to lead all Muslims. Although officially Israel remains the main enemy of the Saudis, they consider Iran as such and naturally would prefer it remained under the Western blockade forever. The plans of the United States to restructure the Middle East were under deadlock.

After destroying Iraq, the United States had to hand over power to the Shiites, and after the withdrawal of the troops, had to watch Baghdad yield to the influence of Tehran. Trying to remove Assad in Syria, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia faced the fact that Iran helped its Syrian ally to survive. So, the attempt of the United States to negotiate with Iran has nothing to do with the joint redistribution of power in the Middle East — Americans absolutely do not need a strong Iran. It is about the realization that nothing in the region can be done without the involvement of Tehran.

The U.S. want to stabilize a situation spiraling out of control. American positions in the Middle East are threatened by the increasing influence of radical Islamism and the emergence of a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. If the caliphate expands, Arab states could collapse. The United States wants to use Iran to stabilize the situation while avoiding further strengthening the country and extending its influence in the Arab world. How will they accomplish it?

Sanctions relief is supposed to be Iran’s reward for refusing to lead the Islamic resistance. It is difficult to imagine that the Ayatollah, having a good idea of what American hegemony is, would agree to this deal. True, Iran wants to be rid of the sanctions, but not at any cost. Abandoning the nuclear program is a reasonable price to pay for the removal of the sanctions. Abandoning the struggle for al-Quds (Jerusalem), which represents Islamic ideals, is against the very core of Iranian regime.

The Islamic Republic giving itself up is the Iran that the United States could theoretically agree to make a deal with to restructure the Middle East. Washington and Tehran have nothing to discuss otherwise. Two possible scenarios in the region are equally unacceptable for the American global project: The anti-Western caliphate getting control over the region is as unacceptable as the region being under the influence of anti-American Iran, especially if this Iran continues its rapprochement with Russia and China, in other words, if Iran becomes an important part in the new world geopolitical structure that is being organized by Moscow and Beijing.

At the first stage, Iran would need geopolitical protection, which has to be as reliable as a nuclear weapon. Not only will China and Russia open the nuclear umbrella for Iran, they will admit it to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.