Tuesday, 30 May, 2017

Competition for Cooperation, Not for Making Crises

139309031512278764149594 - Copy

By: Abdolreza Ghofrani

It is now more than one year that Iran and 5+1 have had breathtaking hectic negotiations, and the talks will persist for seven months to come and probably the two sides will conclude a final comprehensive nuclear agreement. By and large, it is a vexing and inconvenient way to pursue.  The objective is to reach a balanced nuclear deal from that not only the two parties will derive deserved benefits, but it will serve the interests of all countries in the world and particularly the nations of crisis-stricken Middle East. Over the past couple of months, the benefits of the above said deal have been repeatedly discussed. This author is not to replicate those benefits. Though repeating those points may be even useful and necessary. Iran has over and over again declared that her uranium enrichment has been for industry and peaceful purposes; however, it agreed to proceeding with this challenging negotiations to appease the global public opinion and particularly the regional countries. Now it should have been crystal clear for the whole world what has been the objectives of Iran for enrichments. Iran has been flexible more than it was initially expected, because it abides by international rules and regulations and is serious for upholding global and regional peace and stability.

Under these circumstances that the two sides negotiating teams had been painstakingly trying to conclude a balanced and fair deal and  Israeli regime, with its baseless and vague claims and allegations, do not spare any efforts to undermine the process. However, as many analysts and political circles now do believe Israel has not too much staunch support and Tel Aviv has been further isolated. Undoubtedly, Israel is not seeking for peace and stability in this region; so, any hostile action against Israel should not be made anybody surprised.

However, in the course of the yearlong nuclear talks, new opposing countries have emerged, unfortunately being determined to block any achievements of the negotiations and conclusion of any deal. So far, given some considerations, these countries have tried to make their opposition covert, but they spared no effort to torpedo the talks. Before November 24, there were, however, episodes that should be given some thoughts. In fact those countries, that were trying covertly to stall and fail the talks, did emerge and now are boldly ignoring international public opinions, opposing the talks and sparing no effort to undermine the process. This absolutely does not serve the peace and stability of the region.

Reportedly, in the words of Suzan Melanie, an expert of Iran affairs, Saudi Arabia has threatened. Should Iran and 5+1 sign a nuclear agreement recognizing the right of enrichment, the Kingdom would undertake the same venture. If Saudi Arabia, she has said, intends to take on a nuclear project, obviously the Kingdom, having close relations with nuclear states such as Pakistan, can have access to the resources and potentialities it needs and this will assist the kingdom to rapidly develop and advance the plan. Certainly this will account for arms rivalries in the region regarded as a dangerous episode and is unacceptable and unrespectable by countries of the region.

If all these reports and comments are true, shouldn’t we take it as hindrance for the peace and stability in this sensitive region? Now most of the political circles and analysts have this conviction in common that nuclear agreement and securing the peace and stability of this region have tight interrelationship with each other. In present conditions that Iran and 5+1 are making their best endeavors to reach an agreement and uproot the peace threatening sources in the region and establish an enduring and sustainable security and stability in this region, how should this policy be interpreted? What are the consequences of that? Then who is responsible for deteriorating situations in the M.E.? It is worthy to note that the apprehensions of Saudi Arabia and some other countries of the region for Iran’s nuclear power are pointless.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia oil overproduction has accounted for a glut in energy markets and the sharp fall of crude prices as much as 40 US$ p/b through 2014, having no economic logic and is politically motivated. Certainly this is not beneficial to anyone. Firstly, this will just perplex the world oil market. In the last OPEC Ministerial Meeting In Vienna, Saudis’ opposition to reduction of oil production in order to maintain the crude prices, or stop further fall of the prices, indicates that they are following their own logic and not the international norms and standards. Secondlt, this will cause the oil producing countries, most of them in this region, to lose huge income and eventually be entangled with economic problems. Certainly all this will just complicate and deepen difficulties of the region.

Saudi Arabia should notice that Iran as a powerful country (either with nuclear energy or without it), having influence in the developments of the region, in no way is seeking for hegemony and adventurism because Iranian leaders are pretty aware that for development and growth, security and peace is the top priority. Iran knows well that the lack of stability and calmness is not good for its interests. If Iran intends to enter a competition, it will be a competition for cooperation aiming at peace and security.

By and large, in this circumstance, global public opinions can judge what the sources of crises are and where they should seek for those who have created them.

fair to share...Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*