<div>Talmiz Ahmad, an IFS officer of 1974 batch, served in India’s missions in the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula during his 36-year-long career. He was India’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Oman and developed a special interest in West Asia during his career. He spoke to Deccan Herald’s Anirban Bhaumik on the framework agreement between Iran and P5+1 announced recently. <br />Excerpts: <br /><br />Why do you think Iran and US agreed to come to the negotiation table?<br /><br />I believe that this engagement is the result of deep and substantial commitment of the US and Iran to bring their historic animosity to an end once and for all. The most important reason is the fact that Iranian revolution itself is now 36 year old and therefore, the concern that the revolution will be overturned is now much less significant. There are elements in new Iranian government who felt that the potential that Iran has to play a significant role in regional and world affairs have been needlessly compromised due to the controversy over its nuclear programme. <br /><br />If Iran has repeatedly stated at the highest level that it does not have any intention to make nuclear weapons, which are ‘Haram’ (sinful) according to Islam, then what does prevent you from reassuring the international community? There has been realisation in Tehran that its tough posture has denied Iran the fruits of its geopolitical status, restricted its energy potentials and has been detrimental to its economic interests. <br /><br />US President Barack Obama recognised that it does not suit the US interests to maintain continued hostility with Iran. There are powerful new forces at work in West Asia and, by maintaining a continued hostility with Iran, the US too was denying itself the constructive role that it can play through diplomacy. Till now, the US role in West Asia was primarily military. President Obama, however, was able to see that resorting to military solution to complex issues in West Asia served neither the interests of the region, nor the interest of the US. <br /><br />Washington also saw the significance of Iran as a geopolitical presence in West Asia and took note of its huge oil and gas reserves. The Obama Administration also saw Iran could be a factor for stability in West Asia where security situation is deteriorating, be it in Syria, Iraq or Yemen. <br /><br />How optimistic are you about the prospect of the framework for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) leading to a final deal before July 1?<br /><br />I am very optimistic. They have invested a huge quantum of political capital on both sides. That is why I am very confident that they will reach a final agreement on the basis of the just announced framework. It was very difficult to reach the framework agreement, because it had a huge political substance. It was a political agreement and, in any negotiation, you cannot go for details without having a political deal. There may be differences over technical details related to inspection or centrifuges. But the commitments are solemn and solid and are made at the highest level. That is why I believe the attempts to prevent a final agreement being inked on the basis of the framework announced recently would not be successful.<br /><br />Why Israel opposed the deal and what are the implications of the agreement for Saudi Arabia?<br />Israel is at war with the region. The greatest threat to the security of the region is Israel. It is for Israel to indicate that it is comfortable with its neighbour and is willing to engage with them. Israel today enjoys very little support in international community, because people have now recognised that Israel is the problem, that it aggravates the problem and that it does not have any solution to offer. Israel feels that by maintaining this environment of crisis, it does not need to pursue the West Asia peace process. <br /><br />Hostility to Iran is an integral part of this mindset and approach. Israel’s concern is not about nuclear capability of Iran, it is rather about the fact that if US resolves the issue of nuclear programme of Iran, their focus might be renewed on the peace process in West Asia. This agreement may become a factor in the US domestic politics. Once the Republican Party has its candidate for the next US presidential elections, it is quite likely that the opposition to the agreement will be a central poll plank for him or her. <br /><br />Saudi Arabia believes that it is facing an existential threat, primarily from two sources. One is domestic demand for reforms and the second is that the development in the past several years seems to have put Saudi at a strategic disadvantage. Riyadh feels that it is surrounded by enemies. The kingdom has in this situation opted to confront Iran on ethnic and sectarian issues and projected that Iran has hegemonic intention and wants to spread sectarian influence in the region. <br /></div>
<div>Talmiz Ahmad, an IFS officer of 1974 batch, served in India’s missions in the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula during his 36-year-long career. He was India’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Oman and developed a special interest in West Asia during his career. He spoke to Deccan Herald’s Anirban Bhaumik on the framework agreement between Iran and P5+1 announced recently. <br />Excerpts: <br /><br />Why do you think Iran and US agreed to come to the negotiation table?<br /><br />I believe that this engagement is the result of deep and substantial commitment of the US and Iran to bring their historic animosity to an end once and for all. The most important reason is the fact that Iranian revolution itself is now 36 year old and therefore, the concern that the revolution will be overturned is now much less significant. There are elements in new Iranian government who felt that the potential that Iran has to play a significant role in regional and world affairs have been needlessly compromised due to the controversy over its nuclear programme. <br /><br />If Iran has repeatedly stated at the highest level that it does not have any intention to make nuclear weapons, which are ‘Haram’ (sinful) according to Islam, then what does prevent you from reassuring the international community? There has been realisation in Tehran that its tough posture has denied Iran the fruits of its geopolitical status, restricted its energy potentials and has been detrimental to its economic interests. <br /><br />US President Barack Obama recognised that it does not suit the US interests to maintain continued hostility with Iran. There are powerful new forces at work in West Asia and, by maintaining a continued hostility with Iran, the US too was denying itself the constructive role that it can play through diplomacy. Till now, the US role in West Asia was primarily military. President Obama, however, was able to see that resorting to military solution to complex issues in West Asia served neither the interests of the region, nor the interest of the US. <br /><br />Washington also saw the significance of Iran as a geopolitical presence in West Asia and took note of its huge oil and gas reserves. The Obama Administration also saw Iran could be a factor for stability in West Asia where security situation is deteriorating, be it in Syria, Iraq or Yemen. <br /><br />How optimistic are you about the prospect of the framework for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) leading to a final deal before July 1?<br /><br />I am very optimistic. They have invested a huge quantum of political capital on both sides. That is why I am very confident that they will reach a final agreement on the basis of the just announced framework. It was very difficult to reach the framework agreement, because it had a huge political substance. It was a political agreement and, in any negotiation, you cannot go for details without having a political deal. There may be differences over technical details related to inspection or centrifuges. But the commitments are solemn and solid and are made at the highest level. That is why I believe the attempts to prevent a final agreement being inked on the basis of the framework announced recently would not be successful.<br /><br />Why Israel opposed the deal and what are the implications of the agreement for Saudi Arabia?<br />Israel is at war with the region. The greatest threat to the security of the region is Israel. It is for Israel to indicate that it is comfortable with its neighbour and is willing to engage with them. Israel today enjoys very little support in international community, because people have now recognised that Israel is the problem, that it aggravates the problem and that it does not have any solution to offer. Israel feels that by maintaining this environment of crisis, it does not need to pursue the West Asia peace process. <br /><br />Hostility to Iran is an integral part of this mindset and approach. Israel’s concern is not about nuclear capability of Iran, it is rather about the fact that if US resolves the issue of nuclear programme of Iran, their focus might be renewed on the peace process in West Asia. This agreement may become a factor in the US domestic politics. Once the Republican Party has its candidate for the next US presidential elections, it is quite likely that the opposition to the agreement will be a central poll plank for him or her. <br /><br />Saudi Arabia believes that it is facing an existential threat, primarily from two sources. One is domestic demand for reforms and the second is that the development in the past several years seems to have put Saudi at a strategic disadvantage. Riyadh feels that it is surrounded by enemies. The kingdom has in this situation opted to confront Iran on ethnic and sectarian issues and projected that Iran has hegemonic intention and wants to spread sectarian influence in the region. <br /></div>
