Arabs Should Learn from Iran Deal

The importance of the nuclear deal is not only in the text and its margins. What goes beyond the text is perhaps more important than the technical details of the deal. One of these important aspects is its impact on the Middle East. To have a better understanding of the impact of the nuclear deal on the region, one must consider the special features of the Middle East. Among these is the number of active conflicts in the region. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya and Egypt are involved in crises and conflicts. Apart from this, the whole region is faced with tribal conflicts and Sunni-Shiite and Kurd-Arab disputes.

Non-state actors are playing a very important role in the region too; al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups, such as ISIS, the al-Nusra Front and dozens of other groups associated with the Takfiri ideology and terrorism as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Kurds within the Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish systems have an active role as non-state actors. Civil activists, political parties and the youth also have a very important role in the region. We should not forget the role of the youth and social networks in the Islamic Awakening.

One of the main differences between ISIS and other groups is its organized activities in social networks. An ISIS member does not need traditional mechanisms and military affiliations to carry out operations. He can become part of the group through social networks. Many young people have the potential to become part of a suicide operation without any security record and merely by using social networks.

Yet another special characteristic of the region is that, throughout history, never has the situation been as complicated as it is today. This is why no single actor can accomplish the task from beginning to end by itself. Understanding this fact was the key point for the Iranians in the nuclear deal, which led to emphasis on a win-win solution. A counterexample would be Saudi Arabia’s approach in Yemen, where it was not able to accomplish anything all by itself.

Forgetting non-security issues is another feature of the region. Issues such as the environment, human development, economic development and education in the Middle East have been forgotten in the region and can each lead to a disaster.

In such circumstances, Iran has reached a deal to solve the most complicated conflict of the Middle East peacefully and through dialogue.

After the Iran nuclear deal, terrorism is the most important challenge and most dangerous problem in the region. No one could deny Iran’s effective role in fighting against terrorism, thus Iran could not be ignored. For years, the Arab world was seeking a Middle East without Iran and now is the time to accept the Middle East with Iran’s partake. After the nuclear deal, Iran’s ability to fight terrorism cannot be ignored. The world has now realized that Iran is not omissible.

The Arab world’s view on the Iran Deal could be optimistic or pessimistic:

The Pessimist View toward the Nuclear Deal:

This point of view is mostly emphasized by those who were against a peaceful deal with Iran: Israel, some Arab countries and the US Republicans. They believe that, due to the change in the power equation in the region, the Iran Deal could end up in war. The main argument here is that, after the lifting of sanctions, Iran will increase its expansionist approach. They do not consider the fact that the release of Iranian assets helps the Iran dossier to be normalized and desecuritized. At a time when Iran is no longer a threat, it could function well in non-security issues. Making Iran a threat is just a bonnet to cover other regional problems and coalitions.

The Optimist View toward the Nuclear Deal:

This view puts emphasis on the fact that Iran’s nuclear case could teach a lesson: the most complicated crisis of the region was settled through negotiation, and therefore, it would be possible to settle other crises in the Middle East via dialogue. This view also indicates that Iran's society is young and thus needs development. From this perspective, the released resources would be applied to the development of Iran. It also indicates that Iran's power is not through its military threat, but rather, as the nuclear deal shows, through peace. 

There are three perspectives on putting aside the confrontational approach:

The first analysis asserts that, at present, the power equation is in favor of Iran and the other party would not negotiate when it is on the weak side. Thus, it would seek to gain concessions on some issues, like Yemen and Syria. Only after this power change would it negotiate with Iran and accept a new atmosphere in the post-Deal era due to the increasing international pressure to resolve Arab conflicts with Iran’s participation.

The next view stresses that, as long as there is hope to remove the Deal, the other party would not leave its confrontational position.

The third view, which is more pessimistic than the other two, is that the confrontational position is the other party's only option. Thus, it would make other new issues to challenge the Islamic Republic of Iran in the region to benefit from keeping the threat-framing of Iran alive and to avoid its problems.

Conclusion

It seems that threat-framing Iran would be almost impossible. We should not forget that it was the West that began and expanded the threat-framing of Iran. The regional countries joined the process later. Thus, now if the West shows its reluctance to keep the threat-framing of Iran alive, it would be almost impossible for other regional countries to see Iran as a threat. 

The world cannot ignore terrorism, the most significant reality after the nuclear crisis. It has been reemphasized that terrorism is now at Europe’s gate. Thus the world cannot ignore Iran’s role in fighting terrorism and instead is trying to take advantage of Iran’s constructive role in this fight. Therefore, threat-framing Iran would not be successful anymore. Failure in this regard would also open the possibility to settle other regional conflicts, since threat-framing Iran has been at the center of most of these conflicts.

The most pessimistic view in the Arab world is not hesitant on declaring that the Deal has been a lesson. Most of them emphasized that Iran has taught them resistance in order to gain their demands and follow their policy beyond the Western view.

But it is important to note that to follow these policies some context is needed. The Arab world should know that instability is not good in the region. Destabilizing the opponent would not be good for Iran either. Iran has been in a position in which it does not need to destabilize its neighbors. I am really against the dominant views in Iran. Instead of introducing ourselves as the hegemon of the region, we should introduce ourselves as the "responsible power" and the "anchor of stability" in the region. Iran is an independent country that wants to remove the crisis via negotiation. The other party claims to have the leadership of the chaotic Arab world. But to lead a region some prerequisites are needed. There should be something to advertise. Iran on the other hand has different issues to advertise like independence, democracy, economic development, and human development.

Any Arab country that wants to lead the Arab world should have a claim on Arab nationalism due to heavy support for pan-Arabism in the region. The other party has not been identified as the leader of Arab nationalism. On top of that, the idea of the revival of the Islamic caliphate has been led by other groups and that is why the other party cannot claim political Islam. Now there are two competitors in the Arab thought: ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood. The other party also cannot have a claim on good governance either.

Thus if the other party wants to learn something from the Deal, it should rely on foundations of power; ones that are fortunately available in Iran. By relying on these foundations, Iran has been able to settle the region’s most complicated crisis.

Translated by Parisa Farhadi