These days better than 80 percent of news flooding the airwaves is about what the Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, trumpeted and what he might have meant by it. The media anchors and their invited guests spend hours dissecting and scrutinizing every word Mr. Trump utters and project how this potential next President of the most powerful empire on earth might put those words into action if he sits at the White House.
But Trump is not the only one whose utterances are weighed and measured; Ted Cruz and John Kasich, not to overlook their Democrat rivals, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are also making statements during their campaign tours that do deserve attention, but are being eclipsed by the Billionaire businessman's obnoxious and unmeasured statements.
My focus here is away from the domestic policy statements regarding such issues as immigration, abortion, jobs, education, health, etc., even though practically all the bickering among both Party's candidates is quite rightly over such subjects. My primary focus is, instead, on these presidential hopefuls' foreign policy agendas, and specifically with regard to America's potential attitude and relations with Iran.
Of course, we should not be naive enough to think that campaign rhetoric would necessarily translate into real action once the competition is over and the choice for the new Commander-in-Chief is voted into office. What is worth being concerned about is that any campaign rhetoric is aimed at gaining public support and winning the greatest number of delegates for the party nomination. And, what is alarmingly sad here is the fact that all our candidates, Republicans and Democrats, have been singing the same negative tune about Iran without the slightest hesitation or reservation, with not even a question or challenge by the powerful and opinion-molding American media pundits. What this means is that a negative portrayal of Iran seems to be quite appealing to the American public at large, and catering to such pervasive sentiment is regarded as a useful tactical approach by all candidates.
How this negative portrayal has been perpetuated is a subject that I have been addressing for nearly thirty years of lecturing and writing and I do not intend to bore the readers here and now.
A recent article by Philip Giraldi about the recent theatrical performances by all the candidates, minus Bernie Sanders, at the Israel lobby, AIPAC, in Washington, DC, where they each tried to outdo the others in their worship of the Jewish state and the hatred of Iran, is a wonderful expose of what is going on. Let us not forget that even the only left-liberal socialist candidate, Mr. Sanders, has called Iran a promoter of terrorism and regional instability, at least once that I happened to have heard! After all, as dim as his chances are, he is, nonetheless, running his campaign, too!
The sad reality is that anyone running for office at any level here cannot go wrong by showing disdain or at the very least a great suspicion against Iran.
It is quite interesting, at the same time, that the Iranian government and media are not trying to reciprocate with anything like the vulgarity and venom spewed from here, outside of some rather mild and much more mature criticism as would be the case of an older adult admonishing a group of misbehaving children. Do they know something?! Perhaps they do.
Mr. Trump seems at this time to be the most likely Republican candidate that would challenge Hillary Clinton in the general elections, come November. He is a somewhat illiterate businessman with excellent business instincts, reminiscent of Iran's old Hojabre Yazdani. His cunning and manipulative instincts and financial successes have given him the sense of confidence or invulnerability that enables him to throw out whatever comes to his mind with no concern about its consequences. What he says has no depth or roots embedded inside a sophisticated and well-informed brain; he assumes that he could always twist and turn his statements around through doubletalk and his characteristic non sequiturs to the satisfaction of his flocks of equally uninformed supporters.
The positive thing about Donald Trump, the billionaire businessman, is that he is not stupid, an ideologue, nor a bought-and-paid-for politician. If he tries to run a nation's internal, as well as its foreign, policies as a true businessman, he would certainly not overestimate his own knowledge and expertise, but would surround himself with the most capable advisors without prejudice, as would a capable mega corporate CEO such as himself.
The other potential Republican Party nominee, Ted Cruz, is a totally different story, especially regarding America's future foreign policies. Cruz is delusional enough to believe that he is God's gift to God's own chosen nation, America and, by extension, Israel. I just wonder what Mr. Cruz sees when he looks at himself in the mirror every morning! He has already picked his foreign policy advisory team, a bunch of Israel-firster, Iran-hater, radical neocons whose Zionist affiliations, as their records show, far outweigh their national interests. Cruz would tear up the nuclear agreement reached between the P5+1 and Iran as he has repeatedly stated, even though such action would hurt America's national interests and actually boost Iran's standing in the international community. Cruz's attitude toward the Islamic World, if he manages to implement his diabolical and apocalyptic plans against the objections of the Pentagon and his military advisors, would prove catastrophic for the United States and especially for his beloved Israel. Donald, the big mouth, might say he would tear up that agreement, but retract it once in power, but Cruz would actually attempt that stupid (and illegal) act.
Mrs. Clinton, who I believe will be the next Commander-in-Chief, made some of the most incendiary anti Iran comments at the recent AIPAC gathering. But for an experienced, brilliant politician the path to victory in a presidential election is quite clear: First, you have to get the votes toward the party nomination. When it comes to foreign policy, you must sound as tough and belligerent as the toughest of your rivals. When you know the power, money and influence of the Jewish lobby and its widespread tentacles, including the Zionist owned mass media, you kiss ass and lick up more convincingly than anyone, (you can always wash and disinfect your face later in private!) Second, as a consummate politician and diplomat, you use your great talent and mastery at the art of hypocrisy; say, show or advocate something that suits the time and the place, and do something else as the situation demands! Hillary Clinton is not a closed-minded bigot like Ted Cruz, or an ideologue like Bernie Sanders, or an uninformed, play-it-by-ear political novice like Trump.
It is my opinion that, should Hillary Clinton end up in the Oval Office, her tough rhetoric against Iran would gradually soften up and fall into grove with President Obama's approach once the heat of the campaign subsides. No doubt the superficial mistrust and animosity toward the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue to appease the public opinion, but behind-the-scene efforts towards a rapprochement will continue. This is good politics, not because America should feel sorry or need to show sympathy for the Iranian nation, but simply and pragmatically because such policy would be beneficial for America's own strategic interests.
About the author:
Kambiz Zarrabi is the
author of In Zarathushtra's Shadow and Necessary Illusion.He has conducted lectures and seminars on international affairs,
particularly in relation to Iran, with focus on US/Iran issues. Zarrabi's latest book is Iran, Back in Context.
... Payvand News - 04/01/16 ... --