By: Heshmat Alavi
The nuclear agreement reached between the P5+1 and Iran was followed with a wave of analysis and opinions agreeing and disagreeing with the entire issue, both from the Middle East and the international stage, along with voices from inside Iran itself. The trip made to Tehran by International Atomic Energy Agency Director Yukiya Amano, his inspection of the controversial Parchin military site and interviewing Iran’s nuclear experts – both considered red lines and out of the question by Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei – were of grave importance. Amano’s presence in Tehran came prior to Iranian president Hassan
Rouhani’s visit to New York and just months before the December 2015 deadline when the IAEA is due to present a report on whether Iran has abided by its side of the bargain in the nuclear deal or not. In this visit Amano sought to personally make it crystal clear for Tehran that if it truly decides not to succumb to the agreement articles, and not abide by the necessary minimums for the IAEA to issue a report, it will most definitely be facing of the UN nuclear watchdog issuing a harsh report slamming the regime.
All signs indicate that the nuclear pact, despite its shortcomings, is being implemented. However, the key question here is that does this agreement have the power to curb Tehran’s ambitions or not? Can this agreement have a serious effect in improving the human rights situation in Iran or not? Can this agreement hinder Tehran from exporting terrorism, meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and supporting its affiliated militias and terrorist groups?
In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly Rouhani rose to defend Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad and Tehran’s intrusions in Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain. This shows that Iran is neither willing, nor can at all back down from its policies of aggression and terrorism. Rouhani’s emphasis on continuing his regime’s meddling policies in the Middle East and Arab countries is also yet another sign of the failed policy of appeasement and concessions adopted by the West, especially Washington, vis-à-vis Tehran.
Today, if the Middle East is burning in the flames of terrorism and war; if large slews of Iraq and Syria are under ISIS control; if Islamic extremist groups are rising one after another and threatening peace and security in the region, it is all due to weak policies placed forward by the West, and especially the Obama Administration in the face of challenging developments in the Middle East, and most specifically in Syria and Iraq.
The world is well informed of Iran’s true intentions of acquiring nuclear weapons to expand its influence in the region and maintain its very existence against widespread internal and international crises. Why? Simple. This regime, with its ideals and viewpoints that belong to the Middle Ages, cannot adapt itself with the modern world of democratic societies.
With a look to the future, we must accept that merely blocking technical means of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is not anywhere enough to establish peace in the Middle East. What has become ever more necessary is the need to uproot and limit the political and strategic tools of this threat. The “snake’s head” and the root of these dilemmas lie in Tehran. Regime change is possible and quite at hand. Supporting the nations of Iran, Iraq and Syria and their organized resistance against the ruling dictatorships in their lands is a practical solution that guarantees peace and stability for the Middle East. Short-term economic interests and turning one’s back to oppression and flagrant human rights violations in the region – under any pretext – will most definitely have its own catastrophic and irrecoverable consequences.
