For Republicans, Tehran Is But an Instrument to Arouse Americans' Emotions

From the U.S. Economic Crisis to Mitt Romney’s “Aggressive Policy” against Iran

The radicals of the U.S. Republican Party are trying to re-enter the White House with an even far more aggressive approach than George W. Bush. With the election of Obama, the whole world breathed a sigh of relief from the warmongering policies of Bush. But now the Republicans intend to restore the world to the Bush era and to have the climate of insecurity prevail again within the international system.

After four years away from the scene of global power, the Republican Party introduced Mitt Romney as one of its significant presidential candidates. He has adopted a much more warmongering language and attitude than the former president, George Bush. Hoping to achieve the seat of power in the White House, Mitt Romney has pulled the trigger of his commercial gun toward Iran. He cannot wait to start a new war with Iran and seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that Bush has already dragged the country down into the war morass in Iraq and Afghanistan, causing many U.S. soldier casualties to date.

However behind, Mitt Romney’s aggressive policy against Iran builds on an important fact, the U.S. economic crisis. In protest of the growing financial crisis, unemployment and social inequalities, many Americans have come out against Wall Street all over the country, from Boston and Chicago to Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The Iranian Diplomacy news website conducted an interview with Dr. Ibrahim Motaghi, an international relations professor at Tehran University and commentator on U.S. issues and strategies, to discuss the recent U.S. election campaigns and to study Mitt Romney’s aggressive policies against Iran:

ID: Why has Mitt Romney adopted a far more threatening gesture toward Iran in comparison to the practical and administrative policies of Bush presidency?

IM: Because the U.S. political climate has became more radical. It is in line with the U.S. social, intellectual and strategic imperatives. The American society has always praised and believed in issues like national security and power. Therefore, the political literature or language of persons like Mitt Romney, the 70th governor of Massachusetts, and Michele Bachmann, a Republican in the United States House of Representatives, in the 2012 presidential campaign would sound appealing and interesting to many Americans.

Nevertheless, it is not very easy to implement such aggressive and warmongering policies and ideas. Strategic rationality in the U.S. has always been applied as the main approach to control the political and security environment. In spite of the fact that society allows and welcomes the presence of people like Mitt Romney or Michele Bachmann and their emotionally exaggerated literature, the U.S. power structure will never provide them with the same environment.

Bush and his national security team were able to organize the military attack on Iraq. They perceived that security is achieved through use of power but hardly paid any attention to the consequences of applying force to retain their position. And this drew a lot of criticism toward the Republicans’ warmongering attitude.

Although Romney is trying to increase political excitement in the U.S., this would not be considered a main factor in decision-making within the structure of the U.S. political parties. The emergence of politicians like Romney and Bachmann is regarded as a reflection of the social conditions and environment. The equation of power in the U.S., however, goes beyond the social climate. In the recent presidential elections, radical and extremist rhetoric has been expressed about different national security issues. But they would not be the main basis for U.S. security policymaking.

Because of the right to freedom of speech in the U.S., there will always be some social waves or movements. And it is important to know that the intellectual ideas of security usually arise from the lower layers of society and parties.

Sometimes people like Romney and Bachmann would achieve the seat of power, but there will always be some other forces that control the processes that might lead to dangerous adventures. The U.S political structure follows a balance between the power of thought and security policy in different layers. Each group or party has unique ideas. The diversity of thought is clearly reflected in the multiracial society of the U.S. But in fact, there are powerful institutions that organize and direct these thoughts.

Perhaps several reasons can be mentioned for the emergence of Mitt Romney or similar politicians. But actually his ideas about the need to use the military power to defend the integrity of the U.S. is a reflection of the perpetual reality of society, political rivalry and the equation of power.

ID: In his campaign, Mitt Romney promised that if he wins the election, he will deploy U.S. aircraft carriers permanently in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean Sea against the “Iranian regime.” He has also promised to consider constructing more battleships and expanding the U.S. missile shield at the top of his agenda, within 100 days after entering the White House. How do you assess Romney’s aggressive policy against Iran?

IM: The power policies in the U.S. have a structural and institutional nature. Romney is expressing his ideas from the heart of the Republican Party. His opinion of how to exert power is also appealing to many different layers of society. But the U.S. military structure and the security institutions are used to calculate the exertion of power on international grounds and to evaluate the results. They try to provide the required fields for the multilateral political and security cooperation. This approach is considered as part of the strategic reality of the U.S. in the future. Therefore, there will be the possibility of controlling such extreme ideas when it comes to the exertion of military power.

Those who bring up their warmongering ideas without the consideration of the structural realities and the necessities of the U.S. will not be able to realize all their strategic objectives in the long term. The rhetoric of the presidential campaign is necessary but usually far from reality. The main reason for controlling such radical ideas and approaches can be looked for in the confrontation policies of the U.S. national security organizations. If Romney wins the 2012 election, his aggressive policy would definitely be controlled. And if he does not win, his campaign slogans would provide a social infrastructure in the support of the military actions and a rise in military funding in the future.

ID: Since the founding of the U.S. in 1789, American ideology and political thinking have mainly been based on building a new global system under the leadership of the U.S. as a free empire. In his campaign slogans, Mitt Romney talks about the divine responsibility of the U.S. to the world, while on the other hand, the economic protests that started on Wall Street have already spread all the way to Washington. Considering the fact that the U.S. has been greatly involved with national security issues and the huge military costs in the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think Mitt Romney’s rhetoric would be regarded more as a sign of power or an indication of the decline in U.S. economic and military power?

IM: Power and weakness are often intertwined. Sometimes radical and extremist rhetoric is a sign of weakness. When the U.S. economic structure is faced with internal problems, the emergence of such ideas and/or politicians is possible. And to get out of the structural deadlock, some aggressive methods might be suggested or applied. Therefore, the radical ideas are not necessarily considered as the underlying structure of the power in the government. Even John McCain, the other Republican candidate in the 2008 presidential election, did not use such literature in his campaigns. He was fully aware of the consequences of the extremism in politics.

Another thing that is considered part of U.S. political literature is publicly expressing religious ideas. These opinions are very effective, especially during presidential campaigns. So the debate Romney has raised is not so far from the social reality of the U.S. His literature has always existed somewhere in the social layers of the United States, which turns into a national security strategy only during limited periods of time. However, the U.S. national security is not to be dominated by such demagogic slogans. The U.S. defense, security and strategic structure constantly focus on all the consequences. Colin Powell, President Bush’s first-term secretary of state, still blames him for the military invasion of Iraq and its consequences for the U.S. Army. This is another fact that acts as a deterrent against Romney’s radical slogans.