The nuclear conclusion and the matter of trust

Tehran, August 5, The Iran Project – The nuclear accord reminds us of the world historic treaties like Westphalia, Tilsit, Vienna Congress and Versailles Peace Treaty which are immensely significant in terms of the involved parties and the historic impacts. What matters most in any international agreement is the issue of trust, and this is the case here, too.

The deal is not based on trust, but based on verification,” This is a part of the statement by both President Obama and John Kerry, the US secretary of State, in response to the criticisms over the deal. Theoretically, a treaty will succeed to endure to the extent that the parties trust or distrust each other. So will the nuclear deal be safe in absence of trust and how it is supposed to survive for at least a decade as the parties promise?

There is plenty of evidence that there is no trust between Iran and US. Before the agreement, two countries had both serious fear of no diplomatic accord, since no deal meant a greater chance of more war in the Middle East. But amid negotiations, the US represented Iran as a nuclear monster that has fallen asleep for years and may suddenly wake up, and after the agreement the administration boasted it could successfully halted this monstrous program, enchaining this monster. On the other hand, Iran sees itself as Gulliver in Lilliput Island being easily able to get rid of the wrapped rope when necessary and even threatens the kingdom of the Lilliput city.

What has come after the nuclear agreement is that China and Russia would be genuinely concern that Iran’s influence and hegemony inevitably grow as the result of the deal. The same is true about the Arab states and Israel as the most skeptical opponents of the nuclear deal and that’s why President Obama is doing his best to pacify the anxieties through boosting the military aid, reassuring them it still recognizes Iran as a sponsor of terror. So, it is expected that the real question ahead of those countries is how to contain Iran’s rising power in the Middle East. They may sharply employ a joint strategy of pressure and diplomacy to confront Tehran, as soon as the sanctions are gradually lifted.

While it is too soon to discuss the concrete consequences of the nuclear agreement, one thing is for sure, the nuclear deal is preferably the best alternative albeit based on verification not trust. This is primarily because both Iran and US know well how destructive is war, as the real alternative of the nuclear deal, for the future of the region.