Major powers have interest in joining forces - comment

Broadly speaking, on one side are China and Russia and on the other side are the rest of the international powers party to the agreement, the US, Germany, UK and France.

By SALEM ALKETBI
IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER Mohammad Javad Zarif (left) meets with International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi in Tehran last month. (photo credit: MAJID ASGARIPOUR/WANA/REUTERS)
IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER Mohammad Javad Zarif (left) meets with International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi in Tehran last month.
(photo credit: MAJID ASGARIPOUR/WANA/REUTERS)
An objective observer cannot deny the profound negative impact of the division between the five international powers that signed the nuclear agreement with Iran. This division plays a major role in encouraging the mullahs to continue to violate their obligations under this deal.
Broadly speaking, on one side are China and Russia and on the other side are the rest of the international powers party to the agreement, the US, Germany, UK and France. The divergence has taken on another twist with a third rift between Washington and its European allies over the tactics to overcome the shortcomings of the nuclear agreement.
No one is asking China and Russia to change their position on nuclear issues or to abandon their strategic relationship with Iran’s mullahs. But all this should not fly in the face of regional and international security concerns.
The two powers’ commitments to Tehran should not impinge on the requirements of their strategic relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Moscow and Beijing need to take into account the concerns of Iran’s neighbors about its hegemonic regional role, as well as its destabilizing presence in many Arab countries detrimental to regional security.
In addition, Iran’s role in undermining the security of some GCC countries needs to be addressed. This includes backing and bankrolling Houthi militias that attack Saudi cities and civilians.
We know that Iran’s relations with China and Russia have a deep strategic dimension. Iran’s mullahs can serve the two countries’ objectives in the global balance of power. Iran may be used as a cat’s-paw. It competes with the current world order’s superpower and helps trim its influence and global role in favor of strategic adversaries.
But it is clear that the mullahs are going beyond this complex strategic game. They use the division of international positions on the nuclear issue to avoid censure, attain their nuclear objectives, consolidate their regional influence and then exchange this influence for other gains at the expense of the security, stability and interests of other nations in the region.
I doubt whether the Iranian mullahs’ acquisition of nuclear weapons is in the interest of Russia or China. At the same time, I don’t believe that the mullahs share the same principles of rights enshrined in international law, especially those of sovereignty and non-interference in the affairs of other states.
The Iranian regime sets the world’s most striking example of violations and abuses of these rights. How can it then receive the support of international powers that espouse slogans in defense of these principles?
It is in no way normal for a serious security crisis to become a subject of intransigence and political conflict between the major powers. All the more so if the other side, the Iranian mullahs, is gifted at using international differences of opinion to continue violating its obligations under the nuclear agreements, and even talks about wanting to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities.
Another important detail that deserves reflection: It is the responsibility of all international powers to ensure global security, including by making sure that all states comply with their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation conventions. Five members of the UN Security Council have committed to implement the objectives of the UNSC and assume its responsibilities.
So it’s not just the US or any other single country. It is a responsibility shared by the five member states, plus Germany, signatories of the nuclear agreement with Iran within the P5+1 group. While some may find disagreement among the major powers on the effectiveness of the nuclear deal, doubts about its effectiveness are not limited to the West.
It should not be forgotten here that neighboring countries are the parties most exposed and vulnerable to the shortcomings of the nuclear deal. They are the most aware of the seriousness, flaws and shortcomings of this agreement and how it endangers the security of the Middle East, as it has given an indecent and direct green light to the Iranian mullahs to strategically expand and set up sectarian factions that destabilize many Arab and Middle Eastern countries.
The unity of international powers in the face of the Iranian mullahs’ ambitions must go beyond their tactical differences. This is what US President Joe Biden’s administration did when it announced its openness to six-party negotiations (members of the international group that signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 with Iran) on the nuclear deal.
The mullahs should heed a united voice of the major powers concerned. International law and its principles are indivisible. Maintaining global security will only be possible after filling the gaps in international positions before thinking of correcting the shortcomings of a deal signed by the international powers themselves about five years ago.
The author is a United Arab Emirates-based political analyst and former UAE Federal National Council candidate.