The deal to reduce and contain Iran's nuclearisation is a geopolitical game changer. it has implications for the Shia-Sunni conflict, the global balance of power, for Sunni power politics, and for jihadi groups in our own neighbourhood

The nuclear framework deal between Iran and six global powers (the so-called E3+3 that includes France, Germany, Britain, Russia, the United States and China), whose main purpose is to restrict, restrain and postpone any formal entry by Iran into the nuclear weapons club, has major geopolitical implications. It has been facilitated primarily by the rise of Islamo-fascist forces such as ISIS, Boko Haram, the Pakistani Taliban, and the Kenyan al-Shabab, not to speak of what’s left of the al-Qaeda.

While the nuclear deal cannot be called final till it is signed, sealed and delivered by June, the fact that both the US and Iran are beginning to portray the deal as a victory for their positions says a lot. It shows a commitment to get it done, warts and all. This means the odds are more than even that the final deal will probably happen, assuming the US Republicans, radical Iranian clerics and Israel do not manage to spike it in some way. It is only politics that can derail the deal. (See some of the details of the proposed deal here)

The deal - which is essentially between the US and Iran despite the optics of a six-power engagement in order to avoid the embarrassment of Shia Iran having to do business with the Great Satan - has less to do with the negotiating skills of the two former enemies and more with changing power balances in the Islamic world.

The Islamic world is seeing two major internal power struggles along two ever-present faultlines: one is as old as the religion itself, which is the Shia-Sunni conflict that currently pits Shia Iran against Sunni Saudi Arabia for leadership of the Islamic world; the other is the bloody conflict between Conservative (but fundamentalist) Islam and violent (and even more fundamentalist) Islam.

In the post-9/11 phase, apart from (a now-debased) al-Qaeda, the Islamic world has seen the rise of murderous, super-violent groups like ISIS (Islamic State of Syria and Iraq), the Pakistani Taliban, Boko Haram (Nigeria), and al-Shabab (in largely Christian Kenya). They are not your traditional terrorists, nor your traditional Islamists. They are mini states that have demonstrated an ability to hold and administer territory – even if only for a short while in some cases. Their aim is to establish a caliphate of sorts to run the Islamic world, and however unlikely that may seem right now, given the deep schisms within Islam, one thing is certain: they have an ability to attract talent through a demonstrated capacity to wield power through violence and cow down opponents. Even India has managed to send some recruits to ISIS. This ability to attract talent means such Islamo-fascist groups could be successful at some stage in some place or the other. They will get a country of their own sometime, somewhere – as Osama bin Laden did in Afghanistan till 9/11 happened.

It is customary to dismiss phenomena like al-Qaeda, ISIS and such-like groups as fringe elements unrepresentative of mainstream Islam, but this would be a serious mistake. Alone among major religions - or at least since Christianity formally separated spiritual power from temporal power – Islamists widely believe that the political head can also be the spiritual head. No Islamist, whether moderate or conservative, even now talks of separating the two for the simple reason that the prophet made it a point to combine both roles, and for most Islamic states this remains the norm.

A broader philosophical digression is needed here to explain why this is so. All monotheistic religions are, by definition, about centralising power. The minute you posit only one god (who happens to be the one I worship), it philosophically militates against diversity, difference and diffusion of power – as Rajiv Malhotra demonstrates so effectively in his book, Being Different. Uniformity and similarity are emphasised in monotheistic cultures in order to dissipate “difference anxiety”. In the process, this enables tyrants to centralise power.

Hitler’s Third Reich slogan, "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer", is the ultimate expression of monotheistic ideas transforming into fascism. Monotheism, unless restrained by a formal separation of spiritual and temporal power, or by strong democratic institutions that formally restrict the concentration of power, is the ideal foundation stone for religious fascism.

In a one-god state, it is logical for rulers to either proclaim themselves as god or try and be his sole agent on earth. Christianity also followed this regime till constant conflict - and even wars - between Kings and Popes forced a formal separation of domains and power.

Islam is still to see this kind of formal separation, and appears unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. This is why ordinary Muslims will not oppose the ISISes and Boko Harams of the world. Fear, and Islam's history of equating power with faith, will hold them back. Islamism stems from power and power stems from Islamism, and till this link is broken, talk of moderate Islam is tosh. It is only in non-Islamic countries that there is anything called a moderate Muslim.

In his life-time, the Prophet of Islam combined both roles, unlike Christ, who clearly talked of rendering unto Caesar the things that were Caesar’s and rendering unto god the things that were god’s. Jesus at least implanted the seed of separation of powers in his teachings even though the Church accepted it only many centuries later; Mohammed did not do so. Muslims who take their cues purely from the Prophet’s own life and message.

Coming back to the main theme, the reason why the Iran nuclear deal is even possible is because the whole world - from radical Shia Iran to Conservative Sunni Islamic countries to the US, EU and even Russia and China - knows that radical Islam is a threat to everybody. This is why the US is dealing with Iran despite the serious objections of Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu - something unthinkable till recently.

Just as the spectre of Hitler and Nazism brought all of Europe, the US and Communist Soviet Union – separated by ideology, but united by a common enemy - together during World War II, Islamo-fascism, as represented by ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Shabab, is facilitating a closing of ranks between the US and Iran, silently supported by the four other permanent members of the UN Security Council. Russia and China also face Islamist threats of their own and have no stake in ISIS-like groups developing into global Frankensteins.

The geopolitical implications of the nuclear deal are the following:

One, the easing of economic sanctions will allow Shia Iran and Shia-majority Iraq (and Basher Assad's rump Alawite state in Syria) to take on ISIS.

Two, the rise of Shia power will counter-balance Sunni power – which means the US and Iran are heading for the same kind of geopolitical accommodation that existed under the Shah of Iran.

Three, this balance is good for the world in the short-term, but will ultimately prove troubling for Saudi Arabia. The battle with extreme Sunni Islam and Conservative Wahabi Islam will worsen. It means the Saudi Arabian regime will face an existential threat sooner than later, especially because its ability to stay in power will depend more on US support. So could military-backed Egypt.

Four, Turkey could emerge as the new node of Sunni power as Saudi Arabia and Egypt face their own internal challenges.

Five, Israel, despite the violent noises from Netanyahu, will actually benefit from the balancing of Sunni and Shia power, as will India, which can now pursue its old ties with Iran for economic and political advantage. But more Sunni radicalization cannot be ruled out, as the attraction of recruits to radical outfits like Indian Mujahideen and even ISIS indicates.

Six, it remains to be seen whether the Pakistani Taliban will gain the upper hand against the Pakistan army or will be contained in their war of attrition. Either way, it is can’t be bad for us. If the Pakistan army is forced to fight the Taliban, its ability to do damage in India will be limited. If the Taliban damages Pakistan beyond repair, we face the prospect of having to deal with sundry jihadi groups on our borders, and a weakened (or even dismembered) Pakistan. A separated Balochistan or Sind will reduce Pakistan to a Punjabi entity that is at war with itself. Fighting this entity and its jihadi fronts should be easier than fighting a unified Pakistani army that systematically supports jihadis.

Seven, the only real worry for us is the prospect of Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of the Taliban or some such fascists. Hopefully, Uncle Sam will handle some of that worry. But we need to have our own plans to build a limited missile shield from fly-by-night nuclear powers.