One of the liberal perceptions in which America is being promoted and introduced as a friend of the Iranian nation is the perception of changing the pattern of friendship and enmity of America towards Iran. These people and these perceptions show that the Americans’ perception of Iran has changed and it is necessary that the approach of the Islamic Republic towards Americans and Westerners, especially regarding the “overthrow of the Islamic Republic”; Because neither the Westerners nor the Americans sought to overthrow the Islamic Republic and are not. In this note, we will try to first, while examining the words of the Western officials, investigate and examine the fact that this view is not correct in any way and the story was only to retouch the hostile actions of the United States after the JCPOA, and secondly, the important reasons for adopting this We will examine the approach taken by some groups.
Some examples of the statements of Western officials after the JCPOA in contradiction with the claim of changing the pattern of friendship-enmity raised by some national liberals are:
The most obvious example against the above statements is the idea of the American president for what is called “behavior change”. He stated in an interview with “New York Times”: “What we have observed is that there is a pragmatic tendency in the Iranian regime… They are concerned about their security. To some extent, they are sensitive and responsive to the reaction of their people. The election of President Rouhani showed that with their emphasis on the economy and their desire to be connected to the global economy, there is a great appetite among Iranians to join the world community… an opportunity has been created for the forces that want to break out of the narrow-minded framework of the previous years. and be on a different path. “It’s not a radical break, but I think we’ve been given a chance to experience a new kind of relationship, and I think the nuclear deal could be a potential platform for that to happen.”
He also says in an interview: “We must have a transition period in Iran. A period that may be gradual. In this transition, people must understand that shouting death to America or denying the Holocaust among Iranian leaders or threatening to destroy Israel or arming Hezbollah will cause the international community to hate Iran, and I can guarantee the moment that the Iranian regime stops these rhetorics and behaviors. He will be treated according to his size, resources and talent, and his power and influence will increase in the world. This is what I hope to achieve, and this requires a change in Iran’s politics and leadership. A different way of thinking compared to dealing with other countries in the world, especially the United States. And maybe this generation is the one that is able to make such a thing happen.”
Another person who commented in this regard is British Prime Minister David Cameron. He states, “I spoke with President Rouhani and said that we want to see changes in Iran’s approach to issues such as Syria and Yemen and terrorism in the region, and we want to see these changes in Iran’s behavior.”
John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, also points out that fifteen years after the JCPOA, he can bring about many changes in Iran. “My belief is that things happen in a country every year. If you look at Iran today, you will see that it is a country with an educated population that previously had friendly relations with all countries in the region, including Israel… I don’t know what will happen in fifteen years, except that I know a lot will happen. The thing is, you can’t create change, you have to test the possibilities…”
Nicholas Burns, the former deputy of the US State Department, also stated: “The nuclear deal is a small deal compared to all the issues with Iran. The nuclear agreement should be part of a more general and intelligent policy to contain Iran. We had a problem with Iran since 35 years ago. In 1979, Iran took our diplomats hostage. But overall, Obama decided to negotiate only on the nuclear issue, which I think was the right decision. It was necessary to create a framework for negotiations, and this framework should first deal with a specific issue and cannot include all issues together.”
Philip Hammond, the British foreign minister, also states: “It is clear that there are voices inside Iran, but we hope that with Iran’s return to interaction with the international community, by becoming an actor with a greater role in the international community, in this way, maybe it will correct its behavior in the region.”
These statements are an abstract of the general thesis that has been proposed and theorized in Western and American think tanks regarding Iran. The Defense of Democracy Foundation think tank in a note written by Benjamin Winthal, “The Iranian government’s vulnerability to change increases with the escalation of Tehran’s widespread violation of human rights. Perhaps, carrying out sustained human rights campaigns, especially in Europe, created a split within the Iranian government. Navigating the path to change in Iran will be difficult, but the current deeply flawed nuclear deal provides a unique opportunity to focus on changing Iran.”[1]
And the American Enterprise Institute also formulates as follows: “Obama knows that the nuclear deal will lead to regime change in Iran. According to American Enterprise, Obama’s policy towards Iran, which Niall Ferguson called a guessing game, indicates that this agreement will lead to regime change in Iran. This is very likely… President Obama hopes that bringing Iran into the international community will force the Iranian government to adjust its behavior and become a responsible power in the region, and ultimately change the nature of the regime itself, but Ayatollah Khamenei And Iran’s security and military leaders are fully aware of this goal.”
But what causes this desire to belittle the West?
But there are reasons why some people do not see these issues and try to tarnish the face of the West in the domestic arena, some of which will be mentioned below:
۱٫ The need of some people for the political life of the ideology of liberal democracy
The political life of some groups in the domestic arena is heavily dependent on the issue of relations with the West being brought up and remaining prominent. It is said that if the relationship between Iran and the West is hostile, the political death of this group will come and they will suffer ideological despair. This is why they want to keep the relationship with the West alive by any excuse to keep their social legitimacy alive. For this group, it does not matter whether the country’s political atmosphere will be polarized and conflicted or not. What is important for this group is the issue of maintaining a prominent relationship with the West as a symbol of the ideology of liberal democracy.
It is for this reason that the indicators of liberal democracy are very important for these people and their worldview is in close connection with the issue of human rights, the world community, hegemonic interests and other issues from which a western (not normal) security person sees the world. .
۲٫ The distribution of ideological capabilities appropriate to liberal ideology
Following the previous one, i.e. trying to keep liberal democracy alive, we should also mention “the distribution of ideological capabilities based on liberal ideologies”. Some people, especially in the social space, are dissatisfied with the social capabilities that have been distributed in the social space, and they are trying to redistribute the social capabilities in order to get a bigger ideological share of this by clinging to the moral labels and in the next step of human rights to the West. get a view This is why it is sometimes heard from some political elites that the society is made up of two major political groups, and we will avoid explaining this matter here. In this analysis, keeping liberal democracy alive will definitely keep this group alive in the field of political life and even more fundamentally, in the field of social life.
۳٫ Ignoring the achievements of other political groups
Another reason for the illusory promises of democratization of some political groups in the domestic arena is due to the fact that the regional and political achievements of successful groups in this field are flawed. For example, in recent years, some branches of the system in the regional arena have achieved very visible achievements, which in the history after the revolution, this level of influence and influence has not been seen. This is an issue due to which the Islamic Revolution has received attention and due to which the social sphere of people’s lives has also been affected and will react to it. However, some political groups are narrow-minded about this matter and try to highlight the deceptive democratization of the Western authorities towards Iran and put it in front of their claimed “security” in order to influence the social atmosphere.
۴٫ Trying to create new dipoles
For a long time, some political groups have sought to create bipolarity in many issues related to Iran’s internal politics, in order to ride the social wave of the country and achieve their political-economic goals. Foreign policy issues have long had a high potential to benefit from these dichotomies. The relationship with America as a factor of economic development can be analyzed and investigated in this framework. Therefore, these people try to highlight the role of America in the pattern of economic development and express the sameness between some inappropriate patterns of development, to consider the utopia of development as America and bandwagoning of America, so that through it, the first goal that was said in this framework (that is, life) achieve political) and benefit the most from the emotional wave of polarization in the country.
End of speech
The tarnishing of America’s face by some political groups in the domestic arena is very thought-provoking and an issue that should be examined from various social, economic, political, cultural and even security aspects. What factors cause such a perception of the West in some political groups, despite the objective hostility of the Westerners and especially the Americans, to Iran, is not only a coincidence, but also indicates the damage that we must look for in the socio-political layers. Investigating these damages is important in the sense that they will create risks for the country’s national security at critical moments.
Mostajar mostajar.ir
PS
