A nuke-free Iran is crucial to regional peace

Qatar and other Gulf states have welcomed the deal reached in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) to restrict Tehran’s disputed nuclear programme.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry called the agreement “an important step towards safeguarding peace and stability in the region” and said the Middle East should become a nuclear weapons-free zone.

The six-month interim agreement offers Iran about $7bn - equivalent to 20% of Iran’s budget deficit, or 23% of the oil revenues it would lose over the six months - in sanctions relief. Widely seen as the most significant breakthrough in the nuclear dispute for 10 years, the accord also increases Iran’s distance from a nuclear weapon.

Perhaps, Iran was desperate for a deal more than anybody else did. Global sanctions spearheaded by the US have cut Iranian crude sales by 60% since the start of 2012, depriving the country of more than $80bn in revenue. Oil exports have plummeted since 2011, from approximately 2.5mn bpd to around 1.3mn bpd, which is catastrophic for a country whose oil sales comprise 80% of export earnings and 50% of government revenue.

But with the interim agreement in place, experts say an eventual easing or lifting of sanctions can open up tantalising prospects for global firms. With its population of 75mn, Iran would be the largest economy to rejoin the global economic system since post-Communist Eastern Europe in the early 1990s.

There are plenty of obstacles to overcome, though. Any final deal is sure to face stiff domestic political resistance. Some regional players also worry that the West has prematurely eased the pressure on Iran, leaving the country with enough nuclear infrastructure to build a bomb in the future. “It’s a historic mistake,” said Israel, which sees a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat. The sceptics will be particularly worried that the agreement allows Iran to continue enrichment of uranium, albeit under heavy curbs, something that Israel in particular has opposed vehemently.

Beyond the ambiguities and limitations of the agreement, the negotiations have clearly exposed Iran’s understanding that nuclear weapons remain a geostrategic status symbol. This could stand in the way of achieving a comprehensive agreement with the possibility that international pressure could result only in a series of small deals to delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon, rather than removing the threat altogether.

Nearly 70 years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the devastation that followed, the view still persists globally that joining the elite circle of geopolitics requires nuclear weapons. This view is reinforced by the non-proliferation regime, which firmly divides countries into two camps: nuclear haves and have-nots.

It’s undoubtedly premature now to surmise that the status-quo-maintaining interim deal can lead to a final rein on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Eurasia Group sees only a 60% chance of the current agreement turning into a lasting solution.

A nuclear-armed Iran is seen as the most destabilising factor in the region. Will the country be pragmatic enough to do away with its nuclear ambitions for good so that its people can live in prosperity and the region in peace? Let’s remain both ambitious and realistic of a world that not only excludes the use of nuclear weapons but also underscores the ultimate unsustainability of their deterrent power.