The Iran Nuclear Agreement and What It Means For The Middle East

At the moment world powers have agreed to stop sanctions in exchange for the end of Iran's nuclear program. This has major repercussions on the Middle East.Israel wants to keep Iran in the role of an existential threat so it can justify aggressive and expansionist policies. Saudi Arabia does not want to see a powerful Shia Muslim country be its challenger. The United States wants compliant states in the region to advance its foreign policy goals. These agreements are still in the early stages of development. They may not even be fully implemented or successful. Iran claims it only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes. There is no way fully to verify that they were developing atomic weaponry for malicious intent. It is a contradiction that the West enforces a standard on a country, when they have attacked numerous nations globally. The United States was the only nation to use atomic bombs in war on Japan in 1945.  Israel contains an expanding nuclear arsenal and continues to build settlements. When examining these facts, it is clear who the threat to peace is. Saudi Arabia continues a bombing campaign in Yemen to stop Shia Muslim rebels known as Houthis. The Saudi monarchy was involved in Libya and continues to destabilize Syria. The United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have no desire for peace.The only reason for this agreement is a simple one. The Islamic State of Iraq cannot be defeated without the help of Iran. These Sunni insurgents are also an enemy of  the West, Israel,  and Iran. The matter is complicated more, as the US has intent to depose Bashar Al-Assad of Syria. The ultimate conclusion could be mass regional war if the situation is not handled diplomatically. The threat of war waged by the West is still possible.
      Iran has been criticized for allegedly developing a nuclear weapons program, but France, Germany, Russia, China, the US and UK have nuclear arsenals. Israel has been amassing one for sometime, but the extent is not clearly known. If if Iran was to acquire nuclear weaponry, it would be weak in comparison to the world powers.  Iran would never be able to directly confront the United States. There is a clear contradiction in US policy in particular. North Korea is not punished for its nuclear tests. They are not sanctioned to the extent of Iran. There are two reasons for this.

The Final decision will be made by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei 

North Korea still has to some degree a level of protection form China. The country is highly militarized and would be more willing to fight to the end any invader. The United States never won the Korean War, but signed an armistice. Ever since 1953, the US has been in a state of war with North Korea. US military planners realize that an attack on North Korea would result in a large number of American casualties.  There could be a possible war of attrition that parallels the Vietnam War. This would be another intervention, which would be similar to Iraq or Afghanistan. North Korea would not be an easy target of US military aggression. Iran at its current state could be. The economy has been damaged by sanctions and a majority of Arab states are against Iran. Although Iran's power grew after the invasion of Iraq, it is somewhat isolated regionally and internationally. Iran is struggling to survive the only sole superpower, but other EU countries. States that appear weaker will at some point be selected for attack. Resources are a major motivator for these actions.Having a compliant government in Iran would give western oil companies huge profits. Iran is in a precarious situation between imperial agendas and evolving regional politics. If a state appears threatening enough it can, at least temporarily avoid western intervention. 

King Jung-Un  is not condemned or sanctioned to the same degree because an alliance to China and  his willingness to present North Korea as a threat.  

North Korea has a similar parallel, considering the failure of the six party talks. This could happen with Iran and the whole process dismantled. The contradiction is apparent in US foreign policy when examining the case of Pakistan. During the Reagan administration Muhammad Zia Haq  was allowed to pursue a nuclear weapons program. The reason he was not challenged was due to the fact he was an ally in the Afghan-Soviet War.  Peshawar was critical in the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan. This Pakistani city provided a base of operations and a supply route for arms. There was a reversal in the 1990s when the US imposed sanctions on Pakistan for nuclear weapons tests.The circumstances changed once more after the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Pakistan was now once again an ally, this time in the War on Terror. The former and current nuclear weapons activity was ignored for the sake of foreign policy objectives. A clear double standard exists for particular countries. The counties that do not submit to US objectives are labelled as dangerous.Iran does not have the potential to be truly a military threat to the United States.  

      The Middle East will not be the same. Iran's official foreign policy will not be altered. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated that Iran's stance on the US will not change. Iran will continue to support Bashir Al-Assad and Hezbollah. Iran will counter Saudi intervention in Yemen, while simultaneously supporting Hamas and other Palestinian groups. Israel and Saudi Arabia want to break growing Iranian influence. The Middle East is becoming a battle ground between these three powers.While this happens there is a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims that is becoming region wide.Iraq is the symbol of this, because ISIS consists mostly of Sunni Muslims. The matter is complicated by peshmerga military action. The Kurdish fighting force has been successful at combating ISIS, but it is clear at some point the question of independence will arise. This is pivotal because a newly formed Kurdistan would consist of land from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. If independence is not given, it is possible it will be taken by force. Turkey cannot be excluded from the equation. Its power is growing as well and has been dubbed new ottomanism. Turkey wants more influence in the Middle East, but it must compete with Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Israel wants Iran isolated and eventually invaded so it will not have regional challengers. 

Benjamin Netanyahu has been vociferous in his objections to the nuclear agreement with Iran. His government has voiced this even to US Defense Secretary Aston Carter. The arguments lack cogency. Prime Minister Netanyahu says that Israel's security is jeopardized and Iran will attack Israel.  These claims are mendacious when examining Israeli aggression in the region. The actions done by Israel were not defensive, but attempts at expansion. Israel continues to conduct air strikes in Syria  and allows settlers to penetrate deeper into the West Bank. Operation protective edge caused an immense amount of Palestinian casualties in the Gaza Strip.Israel has not desire for peace. The Likud Party which is far right believes solely in military solutions. Iran becomes a justification for Israeli expansion. Arab states still dislike Israel for its policies and anti-Arab racism, but collaborate temporarily against Iran. These are mostly the Gulf monarchies, but the populations of these countries are angered by these decisions. Persian and Arab rivalry has been a factor ever since the Iran Iraq War. Not all Gulf monarchies are hostile to Iran. Oman was responsible for being an intermediary between the US and Iran before the talks. Oman was sending messages between the two countries, when both refused to correspond directly. It is strange that Oman does not receive some credit for making this possible. The reason for this is that the West wants to appear as a diplomatic peace keeper. This does not represent true nature of events. There still is an effort to depose the Baathist government of Syria.  It is gradually being done under the cover of fighting ISIS. The US and UK are hitting targets in Syria where ISIS has control. This is mainly in the North of Syria, with Raqqa being a prominent base of operation. These air strikes will eventually target Bashir Al-Assad when ISIS is dismantled. The Baathist government is fighting the same enemy, but it also has to defend itself from the US and UK  air strikes.All this tension and conflict will only result in mass regional war. The scale could be on the level of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War  or the Six Day War of 1967. This chaos would allow Israel to gain more land under its mendacious excuse of "protecting itself." Balkanization works in the favor of Israel's foreign policy.  

The less united Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and Muslims are the stronger Israel gets. Conquest is simple when the colonized are not fighting the invader. Domestically, presenting Iran as a security threat helps unify the Israeli state. Its doing this by an ethno-religious nationalism mixed with militarism. The nuclear agreement has now been molded into a spark that will ignite a much larger war. 

     The intentions of the United States is not to reduce conflict or normalize relations.It is a way of attempting to contain the ISIS growth. The United States cannot beat ISIS without Iranian assistance. The nuclear agreement was a trade off. Sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for fighting ISIS in Iraq was the real heart of these agreements. This should not seem like a surprise. During the US invasion of Afghanistan Iran did provide assistance. Iran did not support the Taliban regime. The extremist Sunni Muslim state would have caused Iran security problems. Some observers thought that this was a lost opportunity to normalize relations. The US realizes that it does not have the ability to completely decimate ISIS. After nearly a decade of failed foreign policy, the US has been weakened in the region. The American public will not tolerate another massive war. Iraq has caused most to reject nation building projects in the Middle East and elsewhere. The financial aspect also factors in to certain decisions. The US cannot afford to fight. A struggling economy and market uncertainty prevent this. Other methods are being employed that could lead to regime change. Luring Iran into a false sense of security would make it vulnerable. By making the country seem that it is welcomed in the international community, they will lower there guard. This model was used for Libya. Libya relinquished its weapons of mass destruction programs, but was attacked anyway. An attempt is being designed for Iran. However, the country is still suspicious of the West considering the history of  involvement in their internal affairs. 

          Detractors state that this nuclear agreement was a mistake. They made  criticisms without examining the content. Iran's nuclear facilities are to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Uranium mines will be inspected  and centrifuges will be reduced in number. The other sanctions that remain in place on Iran are related to human rights abuses,  terrorism, and the possession of ballistic missiles. All sanctions will not be removed. This proves there still is a level of hostility between Iran and the West. The talks almost failed, because the topic of ballistic missiles was discussed. There was a demand that Iran dispose of them, but the talks were focused solely on its nuclear program. It appears as if the West wants Iran to disarm completely. This would make it defenseless against particular challengers. These agreements may not even come to fruition. They do have UN support, but in the United States the Republican Party has massive opposition.As much as this agreement is being portrayed as "historic,"  There is nothing radical about it. This claim seems more appropriate for the US and Cuba taking steps to normalize relations. The motive to change will not be established as long as Iran is treated like a pariah. The only result will be that Iran will be more resistant to future negotiations.Detractors also make the claim that this makes the Middle East and by default the world less safe. The world was already unstable before Iran's nuclear program. The only precarious element is that this could start an arms race between Israel and Iran . Arab states would start programs of their own to remain competitive. Nuclear brinkmanship could engulf the Middle East. This can be avoided, but certain paradigms need to change.

      The Iran nuclear agreement seems superficial when examined closely. It was not produced to reduce tensions and solve regional issues. This was done out of realpolitik and foreign policy failures. There is a level of contradiction. No country has a right to say what other countries can do or have. The United States was the only country to use nuclear weapons during wartime. Lecturing other nations on  nuclear weapons demonstrates arrogance and hypocrisy. The ideal would be to see the elimination of all nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. However, the West does not share this view. Nuclear weapons are only suitable for certain countries from their perspective. Israel has never been sanctioned for its nuclear weapons programs . The reason is that is a nation that contributes to western foreign policy objectives. This is not a crusade for international justice or security, but a modernized imperialism. Humanitarian intervention is used to justify conquest and invasion. Various Asian, South American, and African are portrayed as evil in the western media. The demonization  of the global south has an economic purpose, which includes gaining access to natural resources. Iran's predicament is that it has an immense amount of oil. This resource has been the root of many conflicts in the Middle East. The nuclear agreement is an extension of that. Ultimately, the nuclear agreement means that there will be more political, ethnic, and religious division in a volatile region.