Democrat or Republican

 

 

 

 

The 2008 presidential election of the United States is the most extraordinary election of this country in terms of the number of candidates in the primary stage, the difference in their opinions, and the issues under debate. 

Generally, issues such as national security and foreign diplomacy have not had a defining role in US elections, but the 2008 presidential election may be the first in which these issues have prevailed the debates and gatherings.

This, to some extent, results from 9/11 and its aftermath, i.e. overthrow of Taliban in Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq.

Assuming that foreign diplomacy and national security are the key topics of this year’s elections, it’s obvious that the three main issues which fall under the talks on national security and foreign diplomacy involve Iran in one way or other. In fact, we can say that Iran has become an internationalized concern of the United States for the first time. 

Terrorism, WMDs –especially nuclear weapons-, and Iraq have been the chief priorities of America’s foreign diplomacy during the recent years. Of these, which are associated with Iran, Iraq is the key concern of Americans.

These three fields have become extremely sensitive for America and its foreign diplomacy and Iran plays a key role in the related domestic debates and disputes. Iraq is the hot topic in America and Iran is considered as the major country related to problem, a key player in Iraq.

Allegations and Security Council resolutions against Iran relate to the matter of nuclear weapons. Terrorism is linked to the problem of Iraq, and routinely to those of Palestine, Lebanon and groups active in these countries. Therefore, the three main issues of debate inside the United States comprise terrorism, Iraq and WMDs.

On the other hand, a historical background exists for this debate. Iran has always been a concern of US presidents in the recent decades. No wonder it has turned into a serious matter and all presidential candidates, anticipating adoption of severe measures against Iran by Bush’s government, are forced to take a stance that brings them votes of people. Therefore, what policy should have been adopted by Bush and what his successor must do, have become highly important.

I do not believe that Iran or any other country must match its diplomacy with the resident of White House. Either Republicans or Democrats may serve our interests in long-term, but the differences between these two political parties shall not be relied upon excessively.

Currently there exists a concord among certain groups of major political parties in the United States. They consider Iran a threat or attempt to make the voters believe so. There may be differences in approaches, but the core idea, which is acting against Iran, is shared among them.

The American society and majority of the Democratic Party elite think of Iraq and Bush’s government as having a negative impact on the United States’ prestige in the world. Hence, there’s a consensus among Democrat candidates to reconstruct their approach towards Iran.

Meanwhile, there’s a problem with Democrats and that’s they anti-war stance in elections which functions as a double-edged blade. Public opinion in the United States always looks for a powerful president that keeps a tough face for issues of national security. To what extent can Democrats adopt this face so that public opinion tends towards them?

What now most of the Democrats claim is that they seek for a new way to deal with Iran. But continuation of this course depends on our own stances and the way we reinforce them. Therefore, if look forward to the rise of a pro-interaction force to power, Democrats are exactly the case. Will this inclination turn into a practical and sustained policy? Not necessarily. However, this depends on the way we act.

Even if Democrats take office and interaction paradigm holds sway, to what extent can that be advantageous for us? It may even make the situation worse since the Democrats enter the White House with a promise for new policies and if this policy does not receive an appropriate response from the Iranian side, it can turn into something undesirable.

The Democrats would say: “so what’s the difference between the hard-liner, conservative government of Bush -that rejected negotiations with Iran-, and us -that suggested diplomacy-?”

Therefore, speaking of negotiations with Iran can bring a harmony between Democrats. Although the tendency to negotiate with Iran is strong among Democrats, to a large extent it depends on our response. Obviously Democrats don’t approve of a military option. But at the same time we must not forget that America’s interventions around the world have mostly occurred during Democrats’ tenure. So it is wrong to think of Democrats as having low military capacity.

In conclusion, I can say that we can be happy that the next American government, if Democrat, will be less ideological. It will take a multi-faceted approach, because of the experience of Iraq and observation of the current situation of the United States government. But after all, taking giant leaps on the case of Iran is far beyond the potential of Democrats or Republicans.