Obama’s reelection and Iran’s interests

TEHRAN,Nov.19(MNA)--Before the presidential election in the United States, hypotheses were made on which candidate, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, would be of greater benefit for Iran over the next four years. Obama’s reelection has now changed the media agenda on Iran, and everyone is now speculating on whether he will enact a policy shift toward Iran and how he will deal with the dispute over the country’s nuclear program. Some believe that Obama’s reelection creates more opportunities for Iran since he is apparently willing to engage more directly with Tehran and find ways to resolve the nuclear dispute. Others say the opposite and argue that Obama will continue his policy of piling more pressure on Iran by intensifying the sanctions on the country’s banking and oil sectors. However, experience shows that there is almost no tangible difference between the Republicans and the Democrats when it comes to dealing with Iran and both camps have the habit of describing Iran as a major threat to U.S. national interests. The only slight difference can be seen in the manner and methodology used by the two parties in their efforts to counter Iran. The Republicans mainly rely on hawkish and warmongering stances to pressure Iran and are thus usually unable to gain the support of U.S. allies. The Democrats, however, prefer softer methods, which have proven successful in unifying the United States’ allies against Iran. Iran normally would not express a preference for either the Democrats or the Republicans in U.S. elections because it would be regarded as a passive stance, given the country’s clear record of adopting anti-U.S. stances over the past three decades. However, Iran should ascertain which candidate would be of better use in meeting its interests. The current discussions in the Iranian media about the possibility of direct negotiations between the United States and Iran should also be analyzed in this framework. In other words, who sits on the opposite side of the negotiating table and the degree to which he is willing and able to satisfy Iran’s interests is of great importance for the Iranian government. Thus, Iran never rejects direct talks with the United States and believes the idea of negotiations is positive in principle. But, if the other side is not willing to consider Iran’s interests, going to such negotiations would be a fatal mistake and would put Iran in a completely static position with no dynamism. In addition, Israel will remain a major factor in future Iran-U.S. interactions. U.S. governments, whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power, have always declared that the Zionist regime is their non-negotiable red line, and the powerful Zionist lobby still exerts a great deal of influence on U.S. officials. This has been a major obstacle for any U.S. administration seeking to establish direct contact with Iran. The Iranian government should also increase its efforts to persuade the country’s citizens about the necessity of talks with the United States, which has been regarded as a taboo issue for many years. The intense disputes and power struggles between political factions in Iran over the past few years have not only undermined the government’s ability to respond to internal needs but have also reduced the government’s confidence in its ability to actively engage in diplomatic affairs. Thus, the government should promote unity among political factions in order to clarify the issue of talks with the United States for the Iranian people. This would help Iranians from all walks of life understand the pros and cons of negotiations with the United States and the fact that they must support their government in every scenario. Amir Mohebbian is a political analyst and expert on U.S. strategic studies based in Tehran. (By Amir Mohebbian )