Tehran continues to realize its ambitions
America faces two options in its dealings with Iran, the two of which are bitter
Iran's ballistic missile programs will remain unrestricted if sanctions are lifted. Archive
Trump applied the strategy of "maximum pressure" against Tehran. Father
Biden sees the possibility of returning to the nuclear deal if Iran "strictly" adheres to it. Reuters
picture
Former vice president and presidential candidate in November 2020, Joe Biden, wrote in an article published by Foreign Affairs last spring, “I have no illusions about the Iranian regime, which has engaged in destabilizing behavior in the Middle East and suppressing protests in the Middle East.” The Iranian interior is brutally and unjustly arrested. But there is a smart way to confront the threat that Iran poses to our interests, and another that leads to self-defeat, and President Donald Trump chose the second. ”
The United States has not acted on any global challenge in recent years as it has done with Iran. Although this challenge has not changed radically, since the 1979 revolution in this country brought an extremist religious rule to power in Tehran. The Iranian regime, driven by its expansionist ideology, continues to threaten the United States and its allies, as they seek to possess nuclear weapons, develop ballistic missile programs, sponsor terrorism, and work directly or through their proxies to destabilize local governments, and brutally oppress its people.
The strategic goal of all US administrations has not changed since the rule of former President Jimmy Carter towards Iran, and is reflected in persuading the Iranian regime to change its method and reform its working methods, and to become a member of the international system that is based on the rule of law. The issue that angered all presidents was whether it was possible to try to achieve this goal, through pressure (in the form of sanctions and political humiliation), or persuasion (in the form of cooperation and assistance).
Departments move
And although Washington, through all or some presidents, has moved between pressure and persuasion, the most obvious change in its direction occurred after President Trump succeeded his predecessor, President Barack Obama, as Trump withdrew from the nuclear agreement with Iran signed in 2015, which was established Obama, with his engineering, abandoned hopes of making strong Iranian-American relations through economic aid, and the less hostile American stance. Instead, President Trump imposed the "maximum pressure campaign" with the harshest sanctions aimed at forcing the Iranian regime to abandon its nuclear ambitions, its bad behavior in the region and its violation of human rights.
Of course, Americans are focusing on other issues as they prepare for the presidential elections in November. And through their elections, they will tacitly endorse one of two different ways of dealing with Iran, and the challenges it poses in a volatile region. Accordingly, we may get another four years of "maximum pressure", or a return to more conciliatory positions with Tehran with a president who was Obama's deputy and helped make American policy towards Iran. Neither method is a guarantee of success, and both involve significant risks.
Each method can be talked about separately, as Trump's campaign of maximum pressure, which aimed to weaken the Iranian economy through sanctions on governments and companies that deal with the Iranian government, has had a great impact. It is said that Iranian oil export revenues decreased by 92% over the past year, and foreign investments in Iran decreased by 26.5% in 2019, and the Iranian currency (rial) reached its lowest level in its value since the Iranian revolution, and inflation increased.
Unsurprisingly, the public protests, which became a staple of the public’s life across Iran, erupted again. Unsurprisingly, too, the authoritarian Iranian regime, which has become increasingly insecure, brutally represses demonstrators, while denying access to the Internet from which protesters set out. In fact, extremist regimes driven by ideology do not intend to change, as a result of economic and political pressures and the transformation to moderate regimes. Accordingly, we should not expect that economic pressures will fuel public discontent to the point that they will overthrow the regime.
The great unknown
The great unknown in this case is who will replace the regime if it falls. But it seems that it is very difficult to imagine what is worse than a regime aiming to acquire nuclear weapons, a sponsor of terrorism, and a violator of human rights in Tehran, but we have to look at Iraq, which is Iran's neighbor, to see how the departure of a dictator could lead to a vacuum that could arise. Filled with bloody chaos.
In comparison, Biden suggests that he could try to deal with Iran and return to the nuclear deal if Iran stuck to it "strictly", and this could lead to an improvement in America's relations with its European allies, who were angered by Trump's approach and tried to save the nuclear deal without participation. United State. By canceling the sanctions that appeared when Trump withdrew from the agreement, and those additional sanctions imposed by the United States, because Biden would decide to support the stability of the region by providing economic support to Tehran.
But this stability will lead to the return of a stark reality, this fact that the restrictions imposed on Iran's pursuit of its nuclear ambition will end in the coming years, Iran's ballistic missile programs will remain without restrictions, and Iran will continue to sponsor terrorism and other activities that make the Tehran regime an evil force.
Frankly, when it comes to Iran, the United States does not have good options that it could use to deal with the Iranian regime in order to curb its ambitions. The question is whether Americans will choose the risks of using extreme pressures, or the relative stability of accepting the current system and trying to find a way to coexist with it.
Lawrence Haas is a writer for the American Foreign Policy Council.
Trump's maximum pressure campaign, which was aimed at weakening Iran's economy through sanctions on governments and companies doing business with the Iranian government, has had a major impact. It is said that Iranian oil export revenues decreased by 92% over the past year, and foreign investments in Iran decreased by 26.5% in 2019, and the Iranian currency (rial) reached its lowest level in its value since the Iranian revolution, and inflation increased.
The strategic goal of all US administrations has not changed, since the period of former President Jimmy Carter’s rule towards Iran, and is reflected in persuading the Iranian regime to change its approach and reform its working methods, and to become a member of the international system that is based on the rule of law. The issue that angered all presidents was whether it was possible to try to achieve this goal through pressure (in the form of sanctions and political humiliation) or persuasion (in the form of cooperation and assistance).
The United States has not acted on any global challenge in recent years the way it has done with Iran.
The extremist regimes that are driven by ideology do not intend to change, as a result of economic and political pressures, and the transition to moderate regimes. Accordingly, we should not expect that economic pressures will fuel public discontent, to the point that they will drive them to topple the regime.