Storm gathers in the Gulf

MK Bhadrakumar 

The US President Donald Trump’s decision last Tuesday to pull out from the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal has undermined peace in the Persian Gulf region where millions of Indians live and work and whose stability is in India’s vital interests. For Trump, this is a personal decision. Opinion polls show that the majority opinion in America is supportive of the 2015 agreement. There has been no precipitate situation to warrant the US pullout, since the IAEA inspectors certify Tehran’s scrupulous adherence to the terms of the agreement. Nor is this a situation where international opinion forced Trump’s hands. 

Iran is ready with a measured response. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei lost no time to publicly endorse the stance taken by President Hassan Rouhani to explore how the nuclear deal can still be salvaged. Rouhani’s plan of action is to forthwith enter into discussions with the remaining signatories to the 2015 pact — E3 (France, Britain and Germany) plus Russia and China. Tehran has signalled its willingness to “keep alive” the nuclear deal provided the five remaining countries guarantee Iran’s interests under the agreement. How this is going to pan out remains to be seen. Meanwhile, Rouhani has instructed the authorities concerned in Tehran to be in a state of readiness to resume nuclear enrichment at the industrial level “without any limit.” For sure, the boat is approaching dangerously close to the cataract. 

The E3’s reaction is still evolving. In a joint statement, France, Britain and Germany expressed “regret and concern” and agreed in principle that “Iran should continue to receive the sanctions relief it is entitled to, whilst it remains in compliance with the terms of the deal.” But the statement also stressed that taking the 2015 agreement “as a base”, other “major issues of concern need to be addressed.” It singled out the need for a “long-term framework” for Iran’s nuclear programme even beyond 2025 (when the 2015 agreement’s validity expires) and the need to address “in a meaningful way shared concerns” about Iran’s ballistic missile programme as well as Iran’s “destabilising regional activities, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.” Indeed, these concerns are voiced by the Trump administration as well. 

A period of diplomatic engagement is commencing. France’s economy minister Bruno le Maire asked in an emotional interview in the weekend, “Do we want to be vassals who obey decisions taken by the United States while clinging to the hem of their trousers? Do we want the United States to be the economic policeman of the planet? Or do we Europeans say that we have economic interests, we want to continue to trade with Iran as part of a strategic agreement? It’s time for all European states to open their eyes.” France’s ire is understandable. Plane-maker Airbus, oil giant Total, and car manufacturers such as Renault and Peugeot could be among the French companies affected the most by the US sanctions against Iran. The French minister urged European nations to step up their economic sovereignty. France, le Maire said, would reach out to other countries and look at “how to endow Europe with financial tools to become independent from the United States”.

Nonetheless, while the Europeans are clearly dismayed by Trump’s decision, what is less clear is the likely reaction of European companies as the crunch time comes in another 180 days when the US sanctions click in. If these companies defy the US sanctions, they may risk access to the American market. Given the power of US banks, they lack leverage, too. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini has called a meeting of the foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss a unified European stance. On coming Friday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is paying a working visit to Sochi to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Indeed, a question mark must be put on Iran’s willingness to mothball its missile development programme, which is at the core of its defence strategy of deterrence. (Iran’s military spending comes to only one-fifth of Saudi Arabia’s.) Again, the genesis of none of the regional conflicts that the E3 singled out — Syria, Iraq and Yemen — can be attributed to Iranian policies. It all began in Iraq with the US invasion and occupation in 2003. The regime-change agenda aimed at overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria also dates back to that period — as indeed the birth of the Islamic State. The Saudi interference in Yemen’s internecine strife too has a long history and the current blowback began only after the brutal Saudi-led military intervention in the civil war in 2015. Ironically, Iran fought on the same side as the US against the Islamic State. Clearly, there is no magical formula available to unscramble these omelettes. 

The overarching geopolitical reality is that Iran’s emergence as regional power displaying strategic autonomy and pursuing independent foreign policies is anathema to Washington. The US containment strategy and the sanctions against Iran are four decades old. The US would have loved to strangle the Islamic Revolution of 1989 in its cradle, given its deep roots in nationalism. It is hard to see how such a proud nation fired up by nationalism would capitulate. The US’ interference in Iran and its subversion of democracy in the 1953 coup against Mossadeq is still living memory. Iran will not be browbeaten, given its capabilities to hit back at American assets in a wide arc from Afghanistan to Syria. 

Meanwhile, the strong showing by Hezbollah in the election in Lebanon on May 6 and the prospect of pro-Iranian groups surging in the Iraqi parliamentary elections on May 12 provide an immediate backdrop too. The regional balance in the northern tier of the Middle East is shifting decisively in Tehran’s favour (which deepens Saudi and Israeli angst). Fundamentally, the Iran question can be tackled only by addressing that country’s integration into the international community. But the US possesses neither the leadership stature nor the political will and the credentials to be an arbiter to constructively engage Iran. This is where the upcoming meeting between Merkel and Putin in Sochi assumes significance. 

The Kremlin has disclosed that the Iran nuclear issue is on the agenda. Berlin and Moscow enjoy influence with both Tel Aviv and Tehran, and Moscow also happens to be a big player on the Syrian turf where the Israel-Iran mutual antipathies are playing out. When it seems all is lost, it may so happen in life that the present dismal situation isn’t necessarily the final destination. 

The writer is a former ambassador