Foreign diplomacy and the thrat to our national interests

by: Mohsen Aminzadeh

 

Currently, we have an aggressive and adventurist foreign policy that injures a part of our national interests on a daily basis and jeopardizes our national security.

 

Among foreign diplomacy and international relations pundits, with whatever opinion and point of view, there’s no doubt on the chief element of this policy, which is causing threats to the country. Any difference goes back to the extent and nature of these threats.

 

Some believe that the outcome of this policy will remain contained to the current economic sanctions. Some think that with the continuation of this policy, the current sanctions will extend and become increasingly devastating, and some think that the ultimate result will be military confrontation with Iran.

 

The most optimistic prediction about these policies will be full paralyzation of foreign economic relations and infrastructural development of Iran. Throughout the recent years, these threats have been frequently mentioned and it has been indicated that these policies will challenge the greatest historic opportunity -which is the result of the Islamic Revolution and concomitant developments, dissolution of the Soviet Union, Iran’s scientific and economic progress, fall of adventurist governments in the region, absence of powerful regional opponents, and Iran’s key role in the region’s peace and security- and lose Iran’s golden opportunity to boost the country’s international prestige and dignity.

 

It has been said over and over again that the future generations will not forgive us if we overlook the greatest contemporary opportunities of this country and this nation and lose them with wrongheaded, radical policies and even make the country prone to the most dangerous threats after the revolution.

 

In all the recent years different stages of these bitter developments have been predicted. It has been said that how Iran, from its optimum position in the global scene, will enter a critical period, and how the enemies of the country will find a chance to ruin Iran’s unique opportunity to seize more power. But these warnings have been ignored and on the contrary, Iran’s foreign policy has entered a course which its shocking consequences are gradually emerging.

 

During the past two years, remarks and measures of the government and its supporters in the field of foreign diplomacy have caused great surprise and it has been mentioned that these policies will be the greatest help to foes of Iran to exert more pressure on the country. It has been asked, repeatedly; why a government that enjoys all the political and financial support inside the country to powerfully solve the problems, acts in such a bizarre way?

 

Why a government, that faces no obstacles in operating its policies, ignores national interests, development, and security with its political adventurism? Why does a government, that has no major opponent and enjoys the support of all the latent and manifest pressure groups of the society, brings crisis for itself and the country and not only it ignores the destructive consequences of these crises for national interests but it is not even concerned with its own vulnerability against problems that issue from its wrong policies?

 

The answer of some pundits, as evident in their writings, is that the current government, despite its superficially radical policies, is highly capable of reconciliation and ready to withdraw from its demands when necessary. Meanwhile, it needs its radical and revolutionary face inside the country and among the discontented mass of Islamic countries. By adopting such stances, it satisfies its hard-line supporters and meanwhile clears itself of accusations of passiveness and reconciliation .

 

Followers of this theory refer to events such as breaking the taboo of negotiations with the United States, while taking anti-American stance, and sitting at the table of negotiations with the United States in Iraq, although always opposing such a thing. Another instance is the full reversion of stances by the President in the University of Colombia on issues such as Israel and Holocaust, under the revolutionary mask and the self-proclaimed victory after the speech .

 

Evidence indicated by these experts is considerable, but it compounds the ambiguities and brings this question forward: why should the government impose such a heavy toll on the nation and the country with such radical remarks while it’s going to withdraw a while later? Naturally, it is not rational to bring the biggest threats for the country because of such short-lived stances and slogans .

 

Others believe that these radical stances are going to take the country to such a dangerous point, in terms of sanctions and threats, that there will remain no other way than yielding to the pressures of the powerful countries. In that case, the government will reconcile on every issue.

 

Supporters of this strategy in politics believe that based on this process, the country must get to a point of crisis so that it can take decisions contrary to the atmosphere itself has created. They believe the worsening situation between Iran and the United States cannot have any other result and none of the parties will be able to adopt a moderate stance .

 

There are still a lot of unclear points in this analysis, especially when this government is not under any kind of pressure for pursuing a trust-building foreign policy and pressure groups have absolutely backed the government in cases such as breaking the taboo of negotiations with the United States. Therefore, the government doesn’t need to take such radical stance and twine highly fanatic remarks with its honor such that it can’t withdraw from them unless in a point of emergency .

 

Some believe that this radical policy and multiple crises sparked off are a part of the domestic policy of the government and its supporters. Crises help the government to divert people’s attention, hide its inefficiency and defeats in economic and social fields, and distract peoples focus from the domestic problems caused by the government .

 

Adoption of such a policy always provides a chance for the government to ascribe the problems caused by its own great economic and social mistakes to enemies that are increasingly imposing sanctions on Iran and create problems for the country .

 

They think that projection is a favorable way to mislead people and, in fact, to avoid responsibility. Such an analysis is not convincing. Since, firstly, the elite have found out, and so will the people sooner or later, that the government could avert the current conditions with simple measures, without abandoning the principles of the Islamic Revolution, and what is being done has nothing to do with revolutionary values and principles, but it roots in the behavior of statesmen .

 

In these circumstances, naturally not only the society will protest inefficiencies of the government’s domestic measures, but it will also ask about its deficiencies in the foreign policy and they will never forgive the government for its course of actions .

 

Some believe that essentially, this government concerns the domestic issues and it regards the foreign diplomacy as an instrument to apply in the domestic policy. With such stances, not only the government is unconcerned about isolation, sanction, and confrontation, but it deems them as blessings that firstly, keep Iran intact from the danger of foreign countries and hold them away, and secondly, provide a chance of self-reliance for Iran. In fact, according to this analysis, from the government’s point of view, isolation leads to further security and sanctions are a path to development .

 

Threats make us hardened and hostile moves make us more powerful. If the influential countries avoid us, we will have higher security and applause of deprived nations for the radical slogans of our statesmen, is a sign of our country’s dignity and power. Maybe the applause hasn’t provided any opportunities for leaders with similar slogans in past, but it will do thus for us .

 

All these theories are worthy of consideration and each can be a part of the truth. But the most important question about the current tensive foreign policy of our country still remains .

 

Recently, to defend the foreign policies of the present government, some of its officials and supporters have turned to criticism of the foreign policy of the Reformist Government. Their remarks are bizarre and defy the principles of foreign diplomacy, national security and national interests .

 

Should this be considered an escape forward? Should we think that due to consecutive defeats of the aggressive foreign policy of the current government and the distressful prospect of the country, government officials and their supporters are trying to divert the attention of the society away from the reality in this way? Or is putting these issues forward, a preemptive move of the statesmen to distract attention from forthcoming criticisms and issues?

 

Whatever the reason, these two possibilities, with all their threatening consequences, are less perilous than another possibility and they cause less concerns. For these two explanations, we deem that the ones who express them are aware of the realities and their remarks have a hidden purpose. But the most distressing possibility is that we assume they truly believe in what they say and write, that is, they believe that the current foreign policy has provided the country with security and opportunities and probably, our foreign policy in past has led to escalation of threats and downfall of our prestige .

 

Although I think that remarking these untrue statements is in fact a stratagem concocted by the government and its adherents, but the last possibility can’t be ignored. We shouldn’t merely assume that the ones who express or write these claims are not honest in their beliefs, and all those who say that the current foreign policy is not a threat for Iran’s national security are aware of the untrue nature of it .

 

Due to the importance of the last group in forming this kind of mentality in the society, I presume the honesty of at least a group of them and through different perspectives; I will study the role of the Reform Government and the current government in reducing or increasing threats against national security and national interests of the country. I hope elaboration on this issue, leads to a better understanding of the circumstances