What would a nuclear deal mean for Iran?

If Iran and the world can reach a nuclear settlement by the end of this month, what will it mean for the people of Iran? Sadegh Zibakalam, political analyst and professor at Tehran University, outlines the potential benefits for Iran, from large-scale economic investment to a shift in the battle against Islamic State.

Iran and the West have discussed much more over the past 18 months — since the present government has been in place — than they ever did during the previous 10 years. The fact that it is taking a long time shows there has been progress.

If there had been no progress, as was the case under Saeed Jalili (the chief nuclear negotiator under President Ahmadinejad), those involved would have talked for a few sessions and then negotiations would have postponed for an unknown period of time. But now, at every round, the two sides have agreed to meet on specified dates in Vienna, Geneva or somewhere else. This by itself demonstrates progress.

If we assign a number from 0 to 100 to the differences between Iran and the West over the nuclear issue, we can conclude the progress has been somewhere between 50 to 80 percent. Of course, we should not forget that this is the first time that the United States and Iran have sat around a table, negotiating face to face over something as vital as the nuclear program. Before Rouhani’s government took over, such an idea was impossible.

Remember the outcry from Rouhani’s opponents when President Obama and Rouhani had a ten-minute phone conversation in September 2013?  Now our foreign minister talks with the US secretary of state for hours and nobody says, “America is Satan and we are not supposed to deal with the U.S.” There has been progress. Rouhani’s negotiating team has worked on the basis of building confidence for the first time. And it seems the Americans have also understood this, and have responded positively. So the chances for an agreement look good.

A nuclear agreement would have both short-term and long-term benefits for Iran.

The first short-term benefit is that an important economic change would take place in Iran. The truth is that for years Iran has not been able to invest in the energy, oil and gas sectors. Iran lacked the capital and the technology. This can be provided by Western countries. For years not a penny has been invested in Iran, both because of the sanctions and because large corporations have had no confidence in Iran [in the current situation]. An agreement would remove obstacles, [making it possible for] investments from Western countries and big Western corporations.

The long-term benefits would be political and social. Relations with the West would improve. Even if “improve” is too strong a word, we would have a sort of détente with West and the United States. If Iran and the U.S. can agree on a vital question such as the nuclear issue, which has paralyzed our country for the past 10 years, why shouldn’t they agree on a range of other issues, including Iraq and the fight against Islamic State, and the Taliban in Afghanistan?