Politics of nuclear pursuit

(Link on Daily Trust)

The protracted nuclear negotiations in Austria’s capital Vienna to revive the controversial 2015 nuclear deal between Iran, on the one hand, and the US, France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and Germany, on the other, continue amid mixed sentiments of hope and frustration. 

The tacitly Iran-friendly former US President Barack Obama was the influence behind the largely secretive deal, which analysts believe would effectively only delay Iran’s nuclear arms acquisition by only a decade after which it would be free to acquire it. However, Obama’s successor, Donald Trump kicked against it and withdrew the US from it, thereby rendering it effectively dysfunctional. 

Since he came into power, the current US President Joe Biden has been committed to reviving the deal in which he had personally played a major role as the then vice-president. All along he has been so eager to revive it that he appointed some of its key architects to various sensitive positions relevant to the US foreign policy and the deal. He, for instance, appointed Wendy Ruth Sherman and Jake Sullivan, key negotiators for the deal, as the US Deputy Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser respectively. Also, Susan Rice, the US National Security Adviser under the Obama administration, and Antony Blinken, the then Deputy Secretary of State were equally appointed the Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and the US Secretary of State respectively.

Now, notwithstanding the outcome of the Vienna negotiations, the emergence of a nuclear-possessing Iran is just a matter of time. I for one, in fact, believe that Iran has already acquired a nuclear weapon. After all, nuclear technology is no longer rocket science. Iran is only engaged in the negotiations to eventually get the world powers to come to terms with it as a nuclear-weapon state and interact with her accordingly to escape the sanctions and other restrictions associated with posseting it defiantly. 

The world powers equally realised that. The supposed opposition of the United States and its western allies against Iran’s nuclear pursuit is for mere internal, geopolitical and international political considerations. Contrary to their official stance, the West and Israel never consider a nuclear-possessing Iran a threat to them after all, for they deep down know the exact extent and nature of the ambition it seeks to serve with the acquisition of nuclear arms. 

A typical casual observer may find it hard to comprehend the fact that apart from Iran itself, Israeli and the US politicians are the biggest beneficiaries of the purported Iran-Israel enmity and, by implication, the issue of Iran’s nuclear pursuit. 

Since its transformation into a Shiite theocracy following the 1979 revolution, Iran has ridden on the wave of the popular anti-Israeli sentiment across the Muslim world in pursuit of geopolitical influence in the Middle East and across the Muslim world. It has always touted its purported commitment to liberating Al-Quds and the Palestinians from the Israeli occupation and indeed wiping Israel off the world, which informed the popular wish and eagerness among the gullible to see her possess nuclear weapons.

Whereas, Iran only realises the underlying political value of nuclear arms in international politics. It realises the fact that, regardless of the prevailing rhetoric that glorifies modern civilization, a country’s ability to assert its geopolitical or global influence is still largely determined by its real or perceived amount and destructive capacity of its nuclear arsenal. Because in addition to its deterrent effect against any threat or aggression with a similar weapon, a nuclear weapon equally prevents blackmail by an aggressor or extortion by a supposed ally. 

Interestingly, the situation between North Korea and the US regional allies e.g. Japan and South Korea is a case study par excellence in this regard. Though the latter are super-rich developed countries, they have been under persistent threat from the economically struggling but nuclear-possessing North Korea, on the one hand, and the extortion of the United States, on the pretext of protecting them, on the other.

There are currently nine nuclear-weapon states in the world i.e. the United States, Russia, France, China, United Kingdom, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea. However, while there are probably other countries with nuclear weapons, which wouldn’t want to be identified for various tactical reasons, there are certainly many others that possess the technology yet haven’t manufactured one e.g. Japan and Germany.  

Anyway, Iran’s nuclear pursuit is only in furtherance of its geopolitical ambition at the expense of its Arab neighbours. Also, though Israeli politicians realise that their Iranian counterparts are only manipulating popular sentiments and emotions for political goals, yet they (Israeli politicians) constantly and exaggeratingly cite Iran’s constant “threat” against Israel to subsequently reassure the frightened Israeli electorate that they are equal to the task of protecting Israel and tackling Iran. That way they also attract more and more international sympathy, solidarity and diplomatic support for Israel on the global stage.

Likewise, in the United States where pro-Israeli sentiment is particularly deep-rooted, no politician can afford to show indifference let alone support Iran’s nuclear pursuit, for it would simply mean the end of his political ambition. This is even though no one out there actually believes that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel.