Alireza Ramezani reports that the United States has succeeded in sowing concern and anxiety in Iran, as the various intellectuals and factions attempt to predict the behaviors of Trump and Clinton with regard to Iran. From AL Monitor:
Clinton, who claimed that she was the only adult in the presidential race when it comes to foreign policy, announced in January that her approach toward Iran would be to “distrust and verify.” She, however, welcomed full implementation of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a major part of which focuses on lifting economic sanctions on Iran. Clinton described the landmark nuclear deal as an important achievement of diplomacy “backed by pressure,” referring to her effort to intensify sanctions on Iran. …
Trump has been critical of the nuclear deal, calling for an expansion of sanctions as a way to force the Islamic Republic to make more concessions, adopting “America First” and a “stay unpredictable” approach toward Iran. Yet, Raisdana believes that Trump could be more reliable as far as the nuclear deal is concerned given the GOP’s record on major foreign policy decisions. In this vein, Raisdana points out that Republican President Richard Nixon ended America’s involvement in the war in Vietnam and opened diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Trump comes from the same party as Nixon, a party that can easily change its hostile approach toward Iran if need be, Raisdana said.
Abdoh Tabrizi disagrees. He told Al-Monitor that Trump is “too risky” to deal with, whereas Clinton is more predictable. In this vein, he acknowledged that Barack Obama has been an “exception” among US presidents. “We have to take advantage of the several months of his remaining term to hammer out agreements in favor of our country and economy,” Abdoh Tabrizi emphasized, implicitly agreeing with Raisdana that Clinton would not be as favorable to Iran.
I agree with Tabrizi. It’s a signal error of analysis to equate the party of Nixon with the party of Trump. As the years passed in the post-Nixon era, the GOP has transformed from a good conservative counterweight to the Democrats to a right-wing fringe party which is willing to cannibalize even its own if they can’t deliver. Consider this report from Steve Benen @ Maddowblog:
The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down.
Wait, it gets worse.
As Milbank reported, a former Ted Cruz adviser complained yesterday that Gowdy “did not draw a connection between the dots.” And why not? According to retired Gen. Thomas McInerney, the Benghazi Committee chairman “had his reasons – political” for holding back.
McInerney “speculated that congressional leadership had approved ‘black operations’ to run weapons from Benghazi to Islamic State forces in Syria.”
While such flakes existed back in the Nixon days, they were more or less told to stay in their fever swamps and fume. Now they’re the Tea Party and voters pay attention to them despite – or because of – their bizarre antics.
Back to Iran. Clearly, neither presumptive nominee is attractive:
One can perhaps argue that Clinton is more predictable than Trump, yet she has insisted that Iran “continues to threaten the peace and security of the Middle East” and that the country is “violating UN Security Council resolutions with its ballistic missile program.” These statements indicate that if her concerns are not addressed, Clinton could cause trouble for Tehran, just as she has in the past, pushing for tough sanctions.
There’s a certain grim entertainment value in considering the fact that Iran is fairly powerless in this situation – they can do very little to influence our internal politics. I think Clinton’s approach is very sensible, while Trump might back out of his vow to rip up the agreement – but, of course, it’s hard to be certain.
