A Journey for a Fresh Start
The journey for a fresh start, accompanied by seasoned diplomats and prominent foreign policy experts Mohammad Javad Zarif, Abbas Araghchi, and Takht-Ravanchi, who are recognized as men of diplomacy and negotiation in both domestic and international political spheres, has increased hope for overcoming the current stalemate.
Domestically, expectations have now taken on a new shape, placing the public in a hopeful state regarding the advancement of normalization policy in foreign affairs.
The next step for the government is national reconciliation, pursuing dynamic policy and active diplomacy to break the global consensus against the Islamic Republic of Iran. From this perspective, it can be expected that the statesmen accompanying the President will utilize all global, regional, and domestic resources and capacities to undermine the basis on which the gap between the nation and the government was being advanced by enemies.
Centering Iran and its national interests in a government that has gained the trust of the majority of participants with the slogan ‘For Iran’ has placed a different kind of open diplomacy on the President’s table. Therefore, it is necessary to move beyond certain obstructionist considerations, with a focus on Iran’s national interests, to create a new political alignment in the international arena to uphold Iran’s national interests.
Breaking a false perception in the international arena, where Iran is seen as being on one side of international disputes, and framing the issue of Palestine from a religious matter to a humanitarian and human rights issue can unveil a new form of foreign policy for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran’s foreign policy now needs to move beyond a purely power-centric realist understanding, which breeds conflict and confrontation, to simultaneously utilizing the resources and capacities of liberal and constructivist schools. International relations experts analyze and examine international relations under the two main schools of realism and liberalism.
In the power-centric realism school, international relations are understood as such. In this school, international actors regard ethics and human rights as having secondary importance. Power-oriented individuals are pessimistic about international political relations.
Conversely, in the liberalism school, the global economy, market economy, human rights, and ethics are considered even more important than power. International institutions and organizations have determining value, and optimism prevails in the sphere of political relations.
Some thinkers in the field of international relations have introduced a new school called constructivism. Although constructivism is not the main stream and hasn’t gained the same standing as the other two, it is a notable school.
In constructivism, something between these two schools is observed. Both power and human rights are considered. International actors, rules, and norms are also important. Multilateralism prevails in this school. Constructivists are diverse but have commonalities. The interaction of states is important, identities and interests matter, and there is a possibility for reconstituting identities.
Bargaining in the field of international politics gains importance. Decisions are made at various levels. The utilization of the capacities of international politics and the gaps in global politics by prominent Iranian diplomats will place global conflict-believing realists in a state of decision-making instability.
Now, the Islamic Republic of Iran needs to utilize the simultaneous capacities of resources that realist, liberal, and constructivist strategies have put on the policy table to mend the gap arising from the dominance of conflict policy in the international arena.
Adopting this approach will align the Islamic Republic of Iran with a wider range of global political poles at various sub-levels of international politics. It will neutralize the Iranophobia project of conflict-creating Zionists, protect Iran’s national interests and welfare from the harms of confrontation and disputes of other countries, and expand the possibility of policy-making based on positive balance to overcome international threats.
