The inclusion of Iran: Not a question of nuclear weapons

What is the significance of the nuclear deal that has been reached between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China plus Germany - known as the P5+1, and Iran? How will this agreement impact the world and how will it change the balances? For me, it tells of a new state of balance not only for the Middle East, but also for Europe. First, let me say that the Iranian issue, or the agreement that has been made, does not only concern Iran's production of nuclear weapons since it cannot be evaluated separately from the Greek crisis, the troika's - the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Commission (EC) and European Central Bank (ECB) - virtual seizure of Greece; Egypt's military coup, the ever-stiffening junta of President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi in Egypt; as well as from Russia, Turkey and China's dynamics.

Now, everyone should be straightforward with the issue of nuclear weapons. Today, every country can use and develop the most advanced technology in all fields including the defense industry. Moreover, organizations and paramilitary structures can also access nuclear weapons technology. Here, the matter of debate is not the country's capacity to produce nuclear weapons, but rather how it is positioned within the system and with which method is strives to have a share in the global market.

Pre-World War II Germany is the most striking historical example in this regard. Nazi Germany had difficulties in two major areas. First, it did not have colonies, unlike the U.K. and France, and it did not have access to marketplaces. Second, it did not have rich ore deposits and energy resources unlike the fast-growing U.S. As such, Germany acknowledged that it would never be able to compete with the U.K. and France within the system and that it would be overshadowed by the rapidly emerging U.S. This being the case, the industrial capital behind the German financial capital could not choose, but pursued an expansionism that was based on fascism.

Let us take a look at Iran now. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has been balancing Israel in the Middle East and legitimizing Israel's regional terror. Moreover, it has been supporting terror-based dictatorships, particularly in Iraq and Syria, in the Middle East, masterminding structures such as Hezbollah and spending billions of dollars for the continuation of civil wars as can be seen in its support to President Bashar Assad's regime in Syria.

In one sense, Iran was both inside and outside the system. However, Iran's status in limbo was also the preference of the U.S. and Europe in the previous century. Furthermore, the revolution of 1979 was a Western production. By pretending to be outside of the system, Iranian mullahs both legitimized their power inside the country and developed a clandestine economy with the regimes that they surreptitiously controlled in the region. In this sense, the embargo perturbed the Iranian people, however, it nourished the mullah oligarchy that was in power. Particularly in recent years, Iran has been overseeing the economy and politics in the military and financial areas in Syria and Iraq and forming a political and financial cycle by transferring military and paramilitary structures to these areas. Meanwhile, it has been striving to retain illicit money traffic and financial networks in the Gulf region. Recently, Iran has also started to tamper with the arch of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan - envisage these countries as a bow from the north to the south in the east of Iran.

The same Iran was also Israel's one and only partner that legitimized the Israeli terror in Palestine. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been telling all along the line that Iran, rather than Palestine, poses the major threat for Israel and that the reason for the occupation of residential areas in Palestine is Iran because of it relation with Hezbollah. Therefore, it was Netanyahu who first objected to the deal reached with Iran. This is because if Iran changes, Israel will change as well.

Now, Iran has come to terms with the West. As I said above, it was not a question of Iran's production of nuclear weapons, rather it was about the West, which is gradually losing control in the Middle East, Caucasus and Eastern Europe because of Russia and Turkey, wants to reshape Iran in accordance with the spirit and dynamics of the new period. The energy cards in the region will be reshuffled with Iran's international expansion. Now, there is a major partner to Turkey's Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) that is nourished by the Caspian region. In the upcoming days we will see with which capital and powers behind it Iran will strive to be included here. Also, a new trade road will become open to discussion along with the transit trade road coming from China to the Caspian passing through Turkey and reaching Europe. The new road would be a Pakistan-Iran-Iraq line. Here, Egypt is of critical importance in that Iran can reach the Mediterranean through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal on the Gulf of Aden by sea and it can reach the Mediterranean through Iraq and the Latakia Port of Syria by land. As can be seen in the case of Nazi Germany, one can understand why Iran supports the Assad regime in Syria and clandestinely supports the Egyptian coup.

So, Egypt's coup and Iran's "expansion" to the West are sister processes. Let me address Greece before Turkey. The "mind" that has agreed with Iran and the "mind" that economically and politically seized Greece is one and the same. As Paul Krugman and many other economists suggest, Turkey would be the first market and country toward which Greece would turn to recover if it exited the eurozone. Moreover, a free market would quite likely be formed here. On the other hand, energy lines coming from the Caspian Sea through the SGC and the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) pass through Greece through the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). Certainly, Germany would not be happy if the most important energy line coming through Turkey would reach Europe through a Greece that broke away from the eurozone. That is why Germany forced Greece not to exit the eurozone and brought it to its knees. In this regard, operations in Greece and Iran are sisters, which are complemented by the coup in Egypt.

The steps taken in Egypt, Greece and Iran are the West's moves to redesign the economic cycle, energy and market transits and, by extension, the political map of the Middle East, Mediterranean and Eastern Europe. Here, Russia and China should not be ignored. The move regarding Iran is also aimed at preventing Russia's rapid rise and its becoming an alternative system once again like the Soviet Union. Iran's inclusion in the energy market and possession of trade routes that will come from the Asian Pacific apart from Turkey are a major threat against Russia's domination that is based on energy and northern commercial transit routes. We witnessed a major attack on the Chinese markets before the nuclear deal, as China plainly put its will to make the yuan a reserve currency. The yuan becoming a reserve currency and the fact that countries like Russia, Iran and Turkey develop bilateral trade through the yuan and their own local currencies would be the most fatal blow against the dollar-based monetary system. That is why Iran was "allowed in" without any delay.

As a result, as Giovanni Arrighi says in his "Adam Smith in Beijing" a new Asian development will leave its mark on the 21st century in all probability. This is why it is a futile attempt to integrate Iran into a rotten system.