To provide a sturdy answer to the question, it is necessary to first closely analyse the recent policies of Iran and the United States (US). In this context four topics namely; “Affecting-gaining public support”, “giving weight to diplomacy and seeking new balances-alliances as well as cooperation and support”, “constraint politics” and “amplifying position on the field and intimidation” can be realised.
When thoroughly examined, these four arguments betoken the heart of Iran and its immediate surroundings. In other words, the inconsonant “political-strategic-tools” near abroad policy trailed by Iran has retroacted both, domestically and internationally.
Hence, from the point of view of the first argument, the US appears to be at loss in the eye of world public opinion, while Iran seems to have considerably achieved the desired/expected result. Thus, the criticism/retroactions directed to the Iranian administration regarding it’s near abroad policy, the Palestinian issue and foreign policy can be evaluated in this context.
At the point of diplomacy, the situation seems to favour Iran more. The US, with its multidimensional power-advantage, is pursuing a new and strong block against Iran. On the other hand, it is directly-indirectly targeting bilateral/multilateral cooperation and organisation that include or take shape around Iran.
However, this policy has led to adverse effects in many states, particularly China, India, Europe and Russia. Although Russia seeks a balanced policy between Iran and US-Israel, Moscow must ultimately conceive the Iranian factor within the context of it’s near abroad security policy.
Moreover, the Iranian policy practised by Washington has divided the world into two poles; the US-Israel and the “other”. This policy, identified with Trump, has accelerated the formation of an “Alliance of Others”. Herein, the responses of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China, South Africa), Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Astana Process will be paramount. Furthermore, the weakening of the US shall turn into an opportunity for the surplus. In this context, it would not be surprising to witness the change in the European Union’s (EU) attitude-composition. As a result, the Iranian policy is isolating the US.
The Forfeit of Iran will Mislay the “Others” …
Although the US policy of oppression against Tehran seems to have led to different outcomes within actors, it still has given the desired results regarding the Iranian economy and society. If China fails to subsidise Iran, the current circumstances will be irresistible/tolerable for the regime. At this point, numerous changes in the political-bureaucratic mechanism to calm the public will miscarry.
The US, aware of this situation is very determined in its sanctions against Iran. However, the response to such coercive measures by the international community, particularly the ones from Iran’s neighbours and allies will be conclusive. Since, if Iran is dispossessed they will succumb too.
Therefore, the Iranian issue cannot be considered as a confrontation between two countries. For this reason, Tehran is attempting to develop a policy in line with this consciousness. Such reality provides Iran with the basis of withstanding the US.
Iran’s Near Abroad Policy is on the Verge of Bankruptcy …
The “near abroad policy” strived by Iran in recent years is often expressed as a result of Tehran’s inquisition for security. Nonetheless, the developments have led to the practice of a regional imperialist policy. The systematic power gap implemented by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Syria has shed light on the historical ambitions of Iran and quickly transformed the country into a regional threat. Iran, which was consistently remodelled into a regional threat by the US, has now become a regional-global target for Washington.
As a matter of fact, the methods and means utilised by Iran to combat terrorism in the region, particularly its immediate surroundings have caused Tehran to become a commination. As seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other instances, Iran is being labelled as a “failed state” that supports terrorist organisations. Hence, Trump’s enunciation of Iran as a “terrorist state” should not escape from attention.
Interestingly, even Tehran’s allies are uncomfortable with such policy. For instance; Russia is chafed at the policies badgered by Iran in Syria. If it had not, Putin’s stance would have been very different in Helsinki.
Additionally, the Iraqi factor cannot be ignored too. The reaction of the Iraqi public towards Tehran, during and after the election process clearly indicates that Iran has become “persona non grata”. Other countries may follow the same trend. Therefore, the immediate surrounding of Iran is no longer a safe haven.
Due to this, Iran must aspire for a new near abroad policy and withdraw to its historical zone of influence to circumvent the US bait. Otherwise, Iran will likely become an issue for the region.
