It is of paramount significance to view the recent Iran’s Nuclear deal as an agreement signed not between the US and Iran alone, but among the (P5+1) members of the Security Council; US, UK, France, Russia and China and Germany. Here is an agreement reached between Iran and the most influential global actors. This might open new vistas of economic prosperity for the resource-rich Iran and the powerful international actors. For one, Iran never had trade ties with the US, since the Islamic Revolution took place in 1979. Second, the currency employed for international transactions by Iran is not dollar, but Euro. At the time of writing this article, the US and UK declare the withdrawal of support to the Syrian rebels stranded in Lebanon. A number of reasons have been adduced for this move, the most important one being the blatant violation of human rights in Syria perpetrated by the rebels.  This is clearly good news for Iran and its only ally in the Arab world, Syria.

Obama after assuming presidency in January 2009 employed diplomatic channels to engage Iran. The frequent rounds of talks had borne little fruit in the past, and reaching such a deal was nothing short of far-fetched idealism.

It is important to note that Iran’s vociferous condemnation of nuclear armaments to the extent of being ‘forbidden’ by the verdict of the Supreme Leader has always been taken with a pinch of salt. Interestingly Yukia Amano, the US backed head of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in an interview was categorical in his doubts about Iran’s nuclear programme, yet he crisply stated: ‘Despite all unanswered questions, we cannot say that Iran is pursuing a nuclear programme’. Hence it cannot be ascertained that Iran is opting for anything close to building nuclear arsenal.

The deal unravels a fact hitherto unexplored that no matter how much the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be averse to claim, it stands with Israel  in its initial objections and ‘warnings’ against such a deal. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel stood at equal wavelength. As much as the Arab bloc comprising the Salafi majority hoped for the talks between Iran and the world’s most powerful sextet of states, ending in a fiasco, so that their dream to further browbeat Iran could be realized, subsequently  paving way for bringing down Bashar al-Assad. The case is quite otherwise. The deal has been struck where Iran agrees to freeze its nuclear program in exchange of limited ease in sanctions.

Thus, the call for joining the nuclear talks by Saudi Arabia and Qatar was vehemently turned down by the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, Marzieh Afkham as ‘irrelevant’, as reported in Tehran Times. Alaeddin Borouujerdi the chairman of Majlis, Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission downrightly rejected the presence of the GCC Arab states in the talks. Likewise Israel has also been isolated. Robert fisk has termed this deal as a ‘Shia’ victory. Whether this deal has sectarian undertones will be judged in future, but the Syrian conflict makes it amply clear that if there had been a military strike against Syria; the world would have witnessed more strife and unrest involving countries on sectarian grounds; the array of Arab states posed against it.

This is not to forget that the Iranian population, especially the youth are proud of their endeavours on the nuclear front despite hostility and estrangement meted out by the international community. Iran emerged resilient and fared well with the program, which it claims was always meant for ‘peaceful’ ends. According to the agreement there is no further expansion of nuclear facilities, as well as no dismantling of the existing facilities.

The Supreme leader’s role has been under discussion with regards to the Geneva Agreement Novermber 24, 2013. Firstly, whether Rouhani is deemed as a ‘moderate’ or his predecessor, Ahmedinejad as a ‘hardliner’, it certainly makes no difference, as this is how the West chooses to see. In Iran however, Rouhani is termed as a young ‘Hashemi Rafsanjani’. The current diplomacy is a sequel to the practices of the past. The Supreme Leader has always accentuated the need for negotiations between Iran and the international community. This was also prioritized by Ahmedinejad, although with no tangible results. For example, the single centrifuge demanded in 2004 for enrichment of Uranium, (a prerequisite for radio medicines, whereas 5 percent was required to meet the demands for energy), such as electricity, was not allowed by the then international powers.

The result is, today when the deal has been struck, Iran owns 12000 such facilities! Looking into the decision-making faculty of the Supreme leader, history testifies that the said leadership does not translate its writ into dictatorial moves. Its first step is towards educating the masses on the country’s national interests. For example, when the supreme leadership rested with Imam Khomeini, Bani Sadr was allowed to contest the elections, the votes of the public respected and democratically, he became the first elected President of Iran, despite being from an opposite party.

The second phase of the deal would be more important following the six months time. The US government marched ahead with the deal despite fierce opposition posed by the Congress. This will be the time when the role of the US government will be placed under scrutiny. In Iran, the role of the Supreme Leader would be central in determining the national interests.  For Pakistan, one hopes that the Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project precipitates into pragmatic action although the US has thrown the hint that despite entering a deal with Iran, its stance on Pak-Iran gas pipeline remains the same, i.e disparaging to put it laconically. Pakistan will have to thwart the evil of ‘jehadists’ in the bud. These so-called self-appointed Jehadists have assumed the proportion of a front-line force, and will have to be curbed with an iron fist as their very existence is not amenable to China and Iran, our good-faith neighbours.

The writer is a freelance columnist.