1) The U.S. midterm election results, which were a disaster
for Barack Obama and a great victory for the Republican
Party, may impel the U.S. president to turn toward domestic
problems, particularly the lingering economic crisis in the
country. In terms of international relations, Obama, who
advocated a policy of reconciliation in the early months of
his presidency, may have to dispense with his strategy and
follow a tougher line against the Islamic Republic of Iran
under pressure from the Republicans and the Tea Party
movement. His failure to overcome diplomatic challenges in
Iraq, Afghanistan and with Iran’s nuclear program has put
him in a difficult situation, one that has forced him to
withdraw his initial stance. The Tea Party has also turned
into a burgeoning challenge for Barack Obama.
2) One may claim that the ruling party’s failure in midterm
elections is not a new phenomenon. This is true, but the
domestic and international circumstances are not analogous
to those during Ronald Reagan’s and Bill Clinton’s tenures.
On the domestic scene financial challenges, particularly
unemployment, are Obama’s biggest problem. On the
international stage, the United States is still engaged in
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Iran’s nuclear program is
a project as yet unresolved. The fervent enthusiasm over
Obama’s presidency as the first African-American president
who had Muslim blood in his veins and was young, also raised
expectations for his agenda. The premature Nobel Peace Prize
also backfired and projected the image of an efficient
president that was too early for Obama. Many ordinary
Americans and politicians forgot that Obama inherited the
radical ideological and unrefined policies of the Republican
Party, and the consequences of George W. Bush’s blunders.
His predecessor radicalized the domestic and international
stage, leaving Obama a devastated legacy that will take a
tremendous amount of time to be reconstructed.
3) Although the United States’ strategic policies won’t
shift, even in case of a different composition in the
Congress or a different president, a shift in the diplomatic
approach after the midterm elections is predictable. The
U.S. foreign policy climate is becoming more unbearable on a
daily basis and early signs of a possible diplomatic shift
in U.S. foreign policy are gradually appearing. A few days
after the election, comments by influential Republican
Senator Lindsey Graham should alert every political
observer.
Sarah Palin, who has now turned into the unofficial speaker
of the Tea Party, is also worth noting. Using religious
rhetoric tailored to her conservative followers in the Tea
Party movement, she claimed that a nuclear Iran could “lead
to Armageddon”. The Israelis are not idle either, fueling
the tension over Iran’s nuclear program to accelerate a
confrontation between Washington and Tehran.
Ironically, the U.S. military seem to be the least hawkish
party in these political debates. While they serve as
enforcers of the orders of American politicians, common
sense and freedom of speech urges them time and again to
warn about the threat of opening a third front in the Middle
East while the country is still engaged in unfinished wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The outcome of the Republican congressional victory will be
further pressure on Iran in terms of fiscal, trade,
transportation, and other restrictions. Unilateral,
multilateral and international tactics will proliferate.
Besides, more Islamic Republic officials may be accused of
violation of human rights in order to pressure Iran in every
possible aspect and force it to moderate its policies on its
nuclear program, the Middle East Peace Process, and human
rights issues.
Nevertheless, while Washington and its allies are trying to
break down Iran’s resistance through biting sanctions,
clearly the weight of sanctions is still not enough to
succumb to West. I believe that the struggle between the
Islamic Republic of Iran and the West is moving to a point
that I call ‘all-out strategic confrontation’. On the one
hand, Iran’s nuclear activity at its maximum potential is
intolerable for the West, and on the other hand, it is
unstoppable for Iran. The fate of this strategic encounter
is a growing struggle which may lead to military encounter.
Under Article 41 of the UN Charter, Iran is now facing
sanctions and an economic embargo in some key sectors of its
economy. However it seems that sanctions are not still at
their maximum and could become even more stringent. In this
context, a military attack based on Article 42 of the UN
charter would not be entirely impossible. It is unlikely
that Israel or the United States would strike Iran
unilaterally and without a U.N. Security Council green
light. Washington is still stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan and
no global consensus over a military attack on Iran has
formed yet, though it may come into existence in the near
future.
In the gloomy post-midterm election climate, when dark
clouds are moving toward Iran’s political-security
firmament, the overjoyed reaction of Iranian conservatives
to ‘Obama’s defeat’ and ‘The Islamic Republic’s victory’ is
nothing but naiveté. With all due respect, I suggest these
fellow countrymen study and think more carefully. If they
do, they will discover whether we have made any political,
economic, security or social progress, and will realize how
things have changed after Obama’s defeat in the
congressional elections.
In view of the new situation, Iran’s diplomatic body can
choose either of these two paths, although they must take
responsibility for the consequences of their decision: a) a
passive policy which tends to ignore reality and
rationality, fails to notice the different aspects of a
problem, follows a reductive approach to complicated issues,
is boastful and adventurous, increases international
isolation and ignores the plummeting state of the country in
developmental criteria –particularly during the past five
years; or b) an active policy which is down-to-earth, is
aware of what it possesses and lacks, is reflective and
knows its limits, tends to expand the circle of friends in
the international community, is not restricted to minor
friends such as Venezuela, Bolivia, or the Comoros Islands,
and aims to improve Iran’s ranking in developmental charts.
It is time to dispense with passive attitudes in foreign
policy. As the first Shi’a Imam, Ali (AS) said, people
should be the “children” of the age they’re living in. It
may be an uphill mission, but it’s not impossible.
Increasing knowledge, improving rationality and exploiting
human experiences, free thinking, dialogue and
methodological decision-making can help us move in this way.
Any suggestion for overcoming our country’s challenges will
be futile unless the Islamic Republic shifts to an active
diplomacy. It is only in this way that our nuclear program
will find a solution, national security will be reinforced,
and we can again move upward in developmental rankings.
