Alwaght- While the European countries say they are devising a mechanism that will help protect their companies which do business with Iran from the re-imposed American sanctions against Iran, the spokeswomen to the US Department of State Heather Nauert on Thursday in a press conference told of Washington’s efforts to build an international coalition against Tehran after Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal two weeks ago.
On the other side, US secretary of stateMike Pompeo has laid out 12 demands for Iran that hea said Tehran must meet for a new nuclear deal.
In a Monday speech titled “After the Deal: A New Iran Strategy” at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Pompeo spoke about a set of drives that motivated Washington out of the 2015 agreement, but specifically made no comments about a plan B. Instead, he only made some demands from Iran and threatened the US will impose “strongest” sanctions if Tehran does not comply.
Washington seeks to absorb pressures against its agenda
Along with releasing the plans to form a global alliance against the Islamic Republic, the Secretary of State, however, claimed that the front will target the government of Iran and not the Iranian people.
Pompeo said that his country along with many other global countries is trying to form an alliance against Tehran for “realistic control of Iran.” But he contradictorily claimed that the coalition will not be anti-Iranian, seeking to draw a line between the government and people.
The attempts to form a front against Iran are never new and a top goal of the US foreign policy in the West Asia region since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the US-backed Shah regime, has been to confront Tehran’s role in the region. But this is the first time Washington brazenly differentiates between the government and people.
So far, the anti-Iranian embargo and measures were severely criticized by those who accused various US administrations of violations against the human rights because the restrictions affected the ordinary Iranians. But now the Americans have unveiled a new plan, making allegations that their new wave of bans will regard a difference between the people and their government.
It appears that the claims of distinction are coming in response to the increased pressures and criticism against the anti-Iranian approach of the White House which has frequently been under fire for putting restrictions on the international provision of basic services for the Iranian citizens.
Contradictory pro-democracy agenda
The US claims that it draws a distinction between the Iranian people and their government while firstly the Iranian political system is based on elections and the people’s right to democratically choose their government and there is the separation of powers. This very clearly questions the American allegations of separating between people and the government. Secondly, it clear crystal that over the past four decades the sanctioning policy of the US has meant to put strains on the ordinary Iranians to punish them after they, through their popular revolution in the late 1970s, chose to be an independent state and release themselves from the yoke of the West which flagrantly meddled in their home affairs under the monarchy rule over Iran.
Many international critics are disparaging this US approach towards Iran, arguing that the Western, and particularly the US, pro-democracy agenda is sham and that in practice Washington puts the heaviest pressures and costs on the democratically-elected governments and political systems which are non-compliant to the US policy. They give as an example the latest US dealing with the Venezuela presidential election. Commenting on the presidential vote held this week, the White House declared it will not recognize the result that put to rule for the second term the anti-American, pro-independence Nicolas Maduro.
Many analysts agree that Washington’s confrontational approach towards the democratically-chosen governments very well discredits its pro-democracy, pro-people slogans which are often highlighted in the White House dealing with other states, specifically the non-compliant ones.
This issue calls attention particularly when we know that the turnout rates in Iran is 60 percent on average, compared to the less than 50 and even 40 percent in the Western states. This reveals how meaningless the democratic standards are for Washington in practice.
People and government “inseparable” in Iran
The US seeks to show that it has come with a new roadmap for dealing with Iran, to separate the people from their governing system. But this is unattainable, to the White House frustration. Having in mind that any government position enhancement on the global stage essentially results in enhancement of the people of the country too, how can a foreign government try to boycott and eliminate any possibility of regional and international role-playing for another government while assuring that the pressures will not touch the target country’s people?
This claim embodies the Washington’s escaping forward policy amid a sheer criticism against its policy and because of a failure to garner support for its warlike anti-Iranian agenda among the global public and recently its European allies which are at loggerheads with the US after it announced return of sanctions to Iran on the heels of scraping the nuclear deal to which the European powers— Germany, France, and Britain— as well as China and Russia, were signatories.
The US leaders possibly hope that by pushing forward with the government-people separation agenda they can gain public favor inside Iran. But this is a failed pathway, with regard to the earlier records and the deep roots of Islamic and patriotic nationalism in the Iranian society which for decades have brought the Iranians under an umbrella of unity in opposition to the foreign threats.
The separation roadmap appears to be stemming from an ignorance about Iran. Apparent enough, after 40 years of the life of Islamic Republic, the US has failed to learn from its past anti-Iranian policy to develop an understanding of the Iranian society, something misleading the White House officials into speaking about the practically-unfeasible efforts of working out an alliance against the Iranian government without pressuring the people.