The world heaved a sigh of relief when the United States and Iran announced a rapprochement, penultimate Friday, which halted the four-month old war that the former and Israel had waged against Iran. Four earlier attempts had ended up hollow. But the new agreement will span 60 days, in the first instance.
Plainly, the quelling of hostilities imposes enormous responsibilities on the belligerents: The Strait of Hormuz that had been under the stranglehold of Iran is now open for the free movement of oil vessels, while the US blockade against Iran has been lifted, with its Treasury Department’s authorisation of the production, sale and delivery of Iranian oil within this armistice window, even to the US.
The pact, mediated by Qatar and Pakistan in Switzerland, embodies much more than the cessation of hauling missiles at each other and freezing of trade. Its real test lies, in our opinion, in producing the critical “roadmap towards reaching a final deal within 60 days,” as stated in the joint statement of the mediators, which also lauded the steps taken so far.
Needless to say, the agreement’s immediate impact is the stabilisation of the energy sector, with the lowering of crude oil prices at the international market to pre-conflict levels. From $118 per barrel at the peak of the conflict, it is now vacillating between $79 and $72.48 per barrel. Gasoline pump price in the US that went as high as $5 per gallon now costs about $3.93 per gallon. Gradual cost reduction is equally being reported in national economies globally.
A total of 20 per cent of global oil sold is transported through the Strait of Hormuz. Its blockade, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), caused the greatest historical disruption to the international oil market. A maritime intelligence firm, Kpler, told the BBC last week that from 18 June, 284 ships had passed through the Strait, with crude, Liquefied Natural Gas and fertiliser. For a Strait through which 100 ships passed daily before the conflict, the prevailing scenario remains a cold comfort.
Iran’s commitment to the successful implementation of the agreement will see it reaffirm that it will not procure or develop nuclear weapons. This would be followed by the disposition of stockpiled enriched materials, pursuant to a mechanism that it would also agree to with the US. The materials would then be down blended on site under the supervision of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
On its part, the US alongside its regional partners would develop a definitive mutually agreed plan, with at least $300 billion granted to Iran for post-war reconstruction and economic development. The implementation mechanism for this will be part of the final deal made within the crucial 60 days.
We can’t wait for this “final deal” to be reached for the sake of global macro-economic stability, especially for a country like Nigeria in which inflation has ruined many lives due to unbearable costs of living.
The triangular peace deal involves Israel’s ceasefire with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah embroiled itself in the conflict immediately after Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed by an Israeli strike. Their irreconcilable differences are so deep that a day after the US-Iran ceasefire was brokered, Israel’s military offensive killed 67 persons in Lebanon for its claim of a newly discovered underground military fortress. Five persons equally died during Hezbollah’s retaliatory action, as it vows that each inch of Israel’s further expansion or seizure of its territory within this period would be fiercely resisted.
These are fragility indices to be worried about. But the mediators are not oblivious of these concerns. As a result, “De-confliction Cell,” as a subtext in the general agreement, was inserted, to ensure total compliance with the peace protocols by both Israel and Hezbollah.
Communication lines have also been established between the US and Iran for the clearance of possible misunderstandings that might arise within this period. This guardrail is critical.
Regrettably, the US and Iran have breached the agreement with the exchange of military strikes on their respective facilities between last Friday and Sunday.
Oil sector experts are cautious in their optimism of the present free flow of the commodity. In terms of sales, there are deep concerns about oil kept in storage tanks and on board a number of ships in the past four months. If this stock gets exhausted, supply chain disruptions might resurface, since production has tanked for long, particularly in the major producing states impacted by the war.
ALSO READ: Trump doubts US responsibility for fatal Iranian girls’ school strike
Besides, gargantuan oil facilities in the Gulf states were destroyed as targets of Iran’s retaliatory actions to US’ military aggression and attack of Tehran. These affected Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Kuwait, who were accussed of complicity by hosting US military bases in the region. The repairs of these facilities would certainly not be quick-fix projects.
Remarkably, beneath the converted language of American diplomacy, after four months of relentless bloodshed and widespread devastation, lies an inescapable question: Why did President Trump choose to unleash the ultimately self-defeating and catastrophically unsuccessful “Operation Epic Fury” at the very moment when the third round of negotiations was still on course? By one estimate, the conflict has already taken the lives of more than 7,300 Iranians.
In truth, few paradoxes in contemporary geopolitics are as striking as the strange grammar of American foreign policy discourse. Every hypothesis may be advanced, every explanatory model internalised, except one: the possibility that the extraordinary leverage of the Anglo-Zionist lobby has profoundly shaped the strategic choices of the world’s most powerful and scientifically sophisticated nation.
How Israel has repeatedly induced the United States to internalise its regional ambitions, shoulder the consequences of its strategic miscalculations, and faithfully sustain a doctrine of permanent war, stands as one of the most intriguing and under-examined puzzles in the study of International Relations.
This has been a military misadventure at a huge cost to the US public treasury. The Pentagon said that $29 billion has been spent on the war. Much more would have been squandered bar the ceasefire. Last week, the White House requested a congressional approval of $87.6 billion for “urgent needs,” even as the lawmakers have not spared Trump flak for the indefensible war.
Humanitarian challenges that the war created, whether in Iran, Lebanon, or the entire Gulf Region, are daunting. “Nobody had expected or predicted the attacks when we had finished a third round of negotiations in Geneva,” Alireza Salarian, Iranian ambassador to Cyprus, reminded all shortly after the US 28 February missile strike.
Mr Trump’s volte-face, perhaps, validates the popular belief that “all wars end on the negotiating table.” It is our wish that the present search for peace ends this war now, and brings an abiding conclusion to the negotiations.
The agreed return of UN Nuclear Inspectors to Iran as part of the peace protocol, to examine its facilities that Mr Trump had repeatedly claimed earlier to have “completely obliterated”, while demonising Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden for toeing the path of negotiation, which he has now also resorted to, should inform him of the primacy of reason, common sense and altruism in statecraft.
Mr Trump should bury his megalomania and give peace a chance, for a breather to humanity.
