Essay on Shargh Newspaper - October 16, 2018 -
The original text is in Persian and the following translation was done by Ai.
In the past weeks, we have witnessed several events on the international scene: the events in New York, including the speeches of the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council meeting that the Trump team organized to create an atmosphere against Iran and the strong defense of other member states, and finally, the speeches and interviews on the sidelines that were not a little out of the text, the ruling of the International Court of Justice (The Hague) against the United States in the sanctions on Iran and the reaction of White House officials, the court's ruling rejecting the United States' request to freeze $5 billion in Iranian assets in Italy, and the approval of the bill on the Convention on the Combating of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) in the parliament, which itself will have an important weight in Iran's international equations. But among all these cases, what is exceptional was the meeting that led to the 4+1 and Iran's statement on the JCPOA and the creation of a financial transfer infrastructure to circumvent US sanctions; The news that, following Switzerland’s joining this infrastructure, had an impact on India’s re-ordering of oil from Iran in November (i.e. immediately after the US oil sanctions) and China’s bold decision to stop buying oil from the US.
The fact is that the various components of international politics cannot be seen in isolation. In this regard, it should be assured that the issue of the US government’s confrontational approach towards Iran is directly related to other international issues such as the US-China trade war, the NATO issue, the oil price, the relationship between Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Turkey and China, and the relationship between the US and Europe. It is even clear that the issues of the domestic politics of countries also have an impact on international relations: the best example of this mutual influence of the domestic and international political space is the same government in the White House, which has faced tension and change in numerous relationships in the international system and has at least taken away reliability and commitment from it. Within the country, we also see several examples of the competition between different domestic currents and its manifestation in the external aspect of politics.
On the other hand, issues on the international political scene affect the domestic politics of countries: It is clear to observers of the political scene that the confrontation between the Trump administration and Tehran and its fate will affect the congressional elections in November of this year and the second presidential election for Trump (2020), and part of the naked support of Europe and the Democratic lobby is also with an eye on these two elections. Both today's European politics and the confrontation of the Democratic Party in the United States have (neo)liberal origins. While Trump and his administration, with their reactionary authoritarianism, display conservatism and political and international authority in their relations and approaches, and for this reason, they have put bilateral diplomacy on their agenda and ridiculed multilateralism.
One of the most important aspects on which the world system is based is the reliance of the international system on liberal democracy as the political system of some countries in the world, which in the science of international relations leads to something called liberal peace; in the sense that there is no military war between countries that recognize themselves and the other side as a liberal democratic system. This is because the cost of a tough confrontation is to be paid by the same people who are the main decision-makers in the country and therefore always accept it in the most difficult and late possible circumstances, and this is the most important example of the impact of domestic politics on foreign policy. Of course, tension has existed in the history of "liberal peace" between liberal democracies, but what we are witnessing today in the arena of international relations is widespread tensions in the United States on several fronts, the most obvious and rare aspect of which is the European Union's stubborn stance in insisting on preserving the JCPOA; not only because of the value of their relations with Iran, but also for larger reasons, the independence of the European Union's decisions and actions being the most important of them. If the European Union, as it has stated and insisted, can achieve the goal of creating a financial transfer channel independent of its dollar, not only will Iran have the most important strategic partner of the United States to help it in its confrontation with Trump, but something greater than simply preserving the JCPOA, Iran's national interests, and regional stability will have been achieved, and that is, of course, the creation of a financial institution through which one of the most important monopolies of the United States in the world, which was used here and there as a lever to advance the tastes of this country's government, will be broken. The fact is that what the United States has accumulated for itself today in the form of wealth, relationships, and influence in various parts of the world is the legacy of the liberal system and agreements with its strategic allies, based on alliances, free trade, and liberal peace. Now that, through the semi-democratic US presidential elections and despite the smaller number of votes, a person who is not a liberal but a conservative has become the president of the largest political and economic power in the liberal world, it is impossible to imagine a smaller event for the international system to protect itself from his abandonment. And in this matter, the principle of free competition is crystallized: due to the unfair exploitation of one party's monopoly in a matter (the banking system), the other party reserves the right to operate in parallel (and create another system for banking transactions) and uses it whenever they want. The US also cannot expect to benefit from all the privileges of the international system and strategic alliances and, when acting on its part, refuse to yield to the desires and interests of strategic allies through such an election in the country and rely solely on and emphasize the development of its own interests.
That is why in recent days there has been news that the US Treasury Department has asked the government to maintain Iran's contact with SWIFT. Of course, it is clear that the US Treasury has no heart for Iran, nor is it concerned with fairness and truth. Rather, all its fears are about the creation of the European system of financial and banking transactions, which means that America will suffer. The exclusive benefits that the United States loses as a result of the creation of this European financial system are incomparable to the losses that Iran will suffer from sanctions and the cutting off of its access to SWIFT.
The above scene is the best illustration of the impact of professional politics in changing the international scene. If, years before the start of the JCPOA negotiations, when even China and Russia voted in favor of four resolutions to sanction Iran in the UN Security Council, it had been said that through diplomatic rhetoric, not only these two countries but also the Europeans could be helped in the most difficult days of confrontation with the US government, the speaker would have received nothing but ridicule. Because in the previous round of sanctions, China and Russia were not willing to jeopardize their interactions with the US to help Iran, let alone Europe, which is America's closest strategic ally, and the volume of trade and financial exchanges between the two sides is incomparable to the volume of transactions with Iran.
But this is what happened: not only China and Russia, but also Turkey and India, and even more powerfully and loudly, it is Europe that has risen to support Iran and not only does not comply with US sanctions, but has actively taken a much further step towards institutionalizing and creating a permanent mechanism that will both neutralize banking sanctions and potentially pose a threat to the United States, which, whenever it wants to break away and act unilaterally, will not have Europe's support in its unilateral decision. This is in fact the rebellion of multilateralism and (neo)liberalism against unilateralism and conservatism, and the best evidence that in the long run, the international system will be emptied of the kind of policies that are doomed to failure by "Trump", which mostly belong to the 20th century.
According to this analysis, we too must increasingly turn to multilateralism and interaction with moderate forces of countries on the international stage; This is certainly an effective strategy for us in the international arena, given the size of Iran's power: Iran is a medium-sized power that, depending on its approach, can either progress easily and without ongoing tensions and create sustainable development, or be vulnerable to conflicts and international challenges.
If Iran's foreign policy continues to be a combination of self-confidence, correct strategy, pragmatism, and wisdom, as it has been in the past five years, by utilizing the best experts in law and international relations, we will be more and more in the first place, that is, the country will become more legitimate in international forums and, as a result, develop national interests.
Shargh Daily link
File
