‘Long and dangerous chapter’ in Iran’s history ends

The lifting of international sanctions on Iran — in what has come to be known as Implementation Day — captured a major chunk of the debates swirling around in global media. However, opinion was sharply divided over whether the return of Iran to the global arena was actually a boon or a bane for the international community T he New York Times, for long a resolute supporter of the current White House policies, hailed the end of the sanctions regime as the harbinger of a safer world and said: “This is a moment many thought would never come: Iran has delivered on its commitment under a 2015 agreement with the United States and other major powers to curb or eliminate the most dangerous elements of its nuclear programme.”

Celebrating the “patient diplomacy” and US President Barack Obama’s “visionary determination to pursue a negotiated solution to the nuclear threat, despite relentless attempts by his political opponents to sabotage the initiative”, the newspaper noted in an editorial that there were still “daunting challenges ahead, including ensuring the deal is strictly adhered to, an obligation for the US, Russia, China and Europe”.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post, whose reporter Jason Rezaian was held captive by Iran for nearly 18 months and freed over the weekend to coincide with the end of the sanctions, observed that he “committed no crime and should have never been arrested”, and said: “[Rezaian] was not a convict but a political hostage. His freeing and that of the other Americans ends a gross injustice.”

But the paper also warned in an editorial that “Rezaian’s release, and that of fellow Americans Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini and Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, is unlikely to alter that policy or Iran’s transgressions of international law ... Since the [nuclear] accord was signed, Iran has twice violated a separate UN Security Council resolution prohibiting testing of long-range missiles. Possibly because of its interest in completing the prisoner swap, the Obama administration’s response has been weak. In the absence of a firmer US policy, Iran’s attacks on Americans and vital US interests will surely continue”.

The USA Today was similarly sceptical about the impact of the deal and said: “It remains to be seen how much of the $100 billion Iran’s government will devote to regional destabilisation vs how much it spends on rehabilitating its sanctions-scarred economy and satisfying the demands of Iranians under 30 ...

“For now, though, the US has to deal with the Iran that is, not the Iran that might be, and the current regime is one that continues to menace American interests.”

The UK’s Guardian was more optimistic and hoped that a “long and dangerous chapter in Iran’s recent history came to an end last week”. Noting that Iran could still make nuclear weapons, the paper said in an editorial: “But whereas until now some calculations have suggested it could have enough material for a bomb within a matter of weeks, now it would take a year. But more than just time would stand in the way of nuclear weapons status.

“Such a regression would have a high cost ... The expectations of ordinary Iranians are high. That would all be thrown away if Iran reneged or was found to be cheating.”