An analysis of the Iran Deal comes to us courtesy Max Fisher @ Vox, featuring Aaron Stein, a non-proliferation expert at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). His summation?
It exceeds or is directly in line with everything in the US fact sheet that was put out [in April]. I thought the US fact sheet was a great deal, and I think this is a good deal.
When I say that, I mean that it’s a very good nonproliferation deal. If you want it to focus on the problems with Iran running around in Iraq or Syria, this deal is not for you. If you are focused on the nuclear issue specifically, it’s a very good deal.
It’s a good, non-technical interview which seems to interpret the deal on its own terms, rather than through the lens of ideology. Then again, RUSI is a British organization and thus doesn’t have an American ideological axe to grind, a facet which I find quite valuable. Without a credible conservative American organization critiquing the deal, it makes me slightly suspicious of the liberal/Democrat response on the issue – what’s to keep them honest? (And look at the cynicism the situation forces me to project. Sad situation.)
AL Monitor‘s Bijan Khajehpour reports on the effect the deal may have on Iranian industry:
There is no doubt that post-sanctions developments will lead to a positive economic outlook in Iran. Despite the positive developments, unemployment will remain a major challenge for the Iranian government, so dedicated efforts must be made to create jobs and generate economic momentum. Although a number of nuances and legal processes will shape the new relationship between international companies and Iran, the Iranian economy nonetheless faces a new, unprecedented situation: Iran has invested heavily in industrial capacity to compensate for the gaps created by the sanctions, but post sanctions, these industries will have to operate in a completely different environment. On the one hand, their interactions with international trading partners will be free of previous limitations, but on the other hand, they will face international competition in Iran.
President Rouhani will have to manage this signal achievement carefully:
All in all, the opening of the Iranian market that could follow the lifting of sanctions will produce opportunities as well as threats for Iranian industry. Considering that unemployment has been President Hassan Rouhani’s main priority, and that a negative impact on domestic industry will affect the job market, the government needs to develop a set of policies to protect local industry while also allowing international businesses to re-enter the vast Iranian market.
AL Monitor also notes this may be the end of a popular Iranian chant:
[Iranian analyst and Tehran University professor Sadegh Zibakalam said], “July 14, 2015, is the beginning of the end of ‘Death to America.’ This day will be recorded as the end of ‘Death to the West.’” Zibakalam is no stranger to controversy and has even questioned Iran’s hostile position against Israel. The “Death to America” chant in Iran is often heard at state functions such as rallies or Tehran Friday prayers that are organized by hard-liners. In October 2013, with President Hassan Rouhani in power and promises of better relations with the world, an Asr-e Iran article suggested changing the “Death to America” chant to “Death to Arrogance,” given that the term “arrogance” is a religious one and does not specify a particular country. The author argued that “Death to America” was never originally a chant of the revolution and only came about as a result of geopolitical events after it. In fact, Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had once asked Iran’s media to suspend airing the “Death to America” chant, though this ban was never applied.
It also notes that not all the institutes of Iran are celebrating the deal:
The two most hard-line newspapers, Kayhan and Vatan-e Emrooz, did not share any of the celebratory mood of the Reformist ones. Vatan-e Emrooz’ top story was headlined “Awaiting Implementation,” a far cry from its sensational headlines that often go viral on social media for their shock factor. Kayhan’s top story, “Opposite narratives of one agreement,” read that the fact sheet released by Iran was a “win-loss in favor of Iran,” and that the fact sheet released by the West shows differences. The article, however, praised the hard work of the “faithful and brave” negotiation team.
Which circles back to an observation of Mr. Stein:
Now this is the leap of faith: if this [conversion of fuel with the help of the West] becomes the basis for what will become Iran’s future nuclear program, that you have a very small enrichment program, operating in perpetuity, that can basically just be a fig leaf allowing Iran to say it’s kept its enrichment program. Even though it’s completely minuscule in size, very well-monitored, and nothing really to call home about.
Mr. Stein is only one expert; I look forward to the analysis of other experts. This does not include faux analysts who can’t be bothered to actually read the agreement. Only intellectually honest need apply.
