Iran nuclear deal: what Britain's national newspapers think
|
Version 0 of 1. The historic nuclear deal between the west and Iran got a mixed reception from Britain’s national press. Some newspapers hailed it as a triumph (Guardian, Daily Mirror). Some thought it unacceptable (Times, Sun). Several were wary (Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Independent). All recognised what it means for US president Barack Obama. It could well be the legacy that defines his presidency in the future. But not all were convinced he should have dared to make, as in the Times’s headline over its leading article, a reckless gamble. “An unreconstructed theocracy”, said the Times, “has won concessions on sanctions that enable it to tighten its grip on power and enrich its hardliners, including those who sponsor international terrorism”. It argued that “loopholes” in the deal could allow Iran “to outmanoeuvre weapons inspectors... the compromise over military site inspections thrashed out in the final sessions of the Vienna talks gives far too much away”. The Times contended that Obama has been guilty of “appeasement for the sake of a presidential legacy” and that his “gamble that will make life more dangerous for Iran’s neighbours and more difficult for future US presidents”. The Sun, Rupert Murdoch’s Little Sir Echo in the UK, believes that Iran will now be rich as well as dangerous. It compared Bill Clinton’s “worse than useless” ill-fated nuclear deal with North Korea to Obama’s Iranian initiative. It concluded sarcastically: “Great work, Mr President”. If the agreement with Iran is honoured, said the Telegraph, “then Iran’s bomb-making potential will be dramatically curtailed. But that is a big if”. It pointed to possible “flaws” in the deal and the “genuine concerns” of Israel and the Gulf states who do not trust the Islamic Republic. But, in its view, “a deal had to be negotiated” and said: “Perhaps the Vienna agreement marks a turning point – but we still need to be wary of an unshackled Tehran”. The Mail was also worried about whether we can trust Iran? “Seen in the most optimistic light”, it said, it might gain the west “a powerful ally in the fight against IS”. But it recognised that the deal is controversial: “Barack Obama may hail a rare foreign policy triumph. But the west must be ready to reimpose sanctions at the first hint of treachery from Tehran”. The Independent, in a lengthy leader assessing the pros and cons of the deal, said: “Much depends on just how intrusive and comprehensive the agreed international monitoring proves to be. Iran has a long track record of cheating. Even so the inspection regime, on paper, is among the toughest ever agreed to by a sovereign nation”. It accepted that critics within the US and elsewhere “will not be shaken from their belief that an over-accommodating American president... has been outmanoeuvred”. The Indy thought “the greatest short-term risk is that the deal will increase Tehran’s capacity to meddle, thanks to the release of billions of frozen dollars and the broader economic boost to Iran following the easing of sanctions”. It concluded: “It is essential that the agreement is thoroughly scrutinised... The achievement is a large one, however closely its consequences must be watched”. The Mirror was much more enthusiastic about the outcome of the deal, seeing it as a “ray of hope” and believing “the world is a slightly safer place today”. It contended: “Ten years of tense negotiations to bring Tehran in from the cold is a triumph for political and economic pressure over the hawks who would have started another war... “The landmark agreement tacitly acknowledges the important truth that Iran, not the USA or Britain, is best placed to confront and defeat the terrorists of the Islamic State... we should celebrate the success of dull diplomacy”. Similarly, the Guardian, in a leader headlined “a triumph of diplomacy”, viewed the deal as “a victory for patient diplomacy”. It continued: “Credit goes to the tireless US secretary of state, John Kerry, but also to America’s partners: Germany, France and Britain, including the former European high representative on foreign affairs, Baroness Ashton, and, in spite of tensions over Ukraine, also to Russia, and, to a lesser extent, China. Credit, too, to the Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, who has had to face down suspicious hardliners at home”. It urged President Rouhani to “push for domestic reforms, ending the house arrests of opposition leaders and the charade of the trial of the Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian”. And the Guardian, even more optimistically, called on Tehran to adopt “a more emollient approach to Israel” and to use “its influence to promote a peace agreement with the Palestinians”. Leaving aside the question of Obama’s legacy, the paper said: “The repercussions of the Vienna agreement go far beyond history’s eventual verdict on a US president. “This accord, so long in the making, offers the hope that one of the world’s great civilisations might be drawn back into the international community, with untold benefits not only for Iranians but for its conflict-ravaged neighbours. The opportunity should be seized”. |