Flawed Foreign Policy of Jalili
In the first debate with Masoud Pezeshkian in the second round of elections, Saeed Jalili once again raised the same ideas and aspirations that he has pursued his whole life, which during his time in charge of nuclear negotiations led to the issuance of various resolutions against Iran in the Security Council.
He clearly stated that in the JCPOA and FATF, he is seeking demands and that Iran has fulfilled its commitments and now the other party must fulfill its commitments. When faced with the question of what he would do if they do not, he did not provide a clear answer.
The main problem with Mr. Jalili is that he does not understand international relations and its dynamics. He has a legal and ethical view of international relations, whereas fundamentally what determines the interests and positions of countries in the international arena is power.
The day the JCPOA was agreed upon, I emphasized in a note that the JCPOA is the result of all the power, capabilities, and possibilities of Iran, and it was not the case that the US wanted to give more concessions. However, the Iranian negotiating team either did not want it or did not strive for more concessions.
Mr. Jalili is currently talking about demands that he mentioned more than a decade ago in nuclear negotiations, emphasizing the necessity of Iran’s presence in global management. If Jalili’s positions back then led to the issuance of paralyzing sanctions and consecutive resolutions against Iran, today’s demands will also have no result other than that.
In a debate on Tuesday night, Jalili said that sanctions are America’s tool, and we should make America regret imposing sanctions on Iran. In other words, like in the past, he insists and does not say, ‘Well, how do you plan to do this?’ In reality, his positions are nice in terms of slogans and may even provoke the pride and honor of some. Yes, we should not yield to force, and we should make the enemy regret it, but in reality, these positions will only bring pressure, hardship, and misery.
Mr. Jalili says we can export $11 billion worth of fruits to Russia. Whether Iran has the capacity to produce this amount of fruits beyond domestic needs or not, aside from him, he should explain how you plan to receive the money, in rubles or if you intend to barter with Russian goods.
They either do not know or do not want to know that about 70% of global transactions are in dollars and more than 20% are in euros today, and if the United States does not allow, no transaction or financial transfer in dollars will take place between two countries.
That is why even Iraq, which claims to have so much influence and friendship with that country, cannot pay the electric bill it bought from Iran or settle Iran’s claims with China unless the United States allows.
In these circumstances, Mr. Jalili’s friends must definitely consider solutions such as physically transferring dollars, bartering goods, trading in local currencies, and similar ways. As doctors have said, perhaps by doing these things, one can survive, but we certainly cannot achieve any development.
In fact, it is Mr. Jalili who does not have a correct understanding of international relations and thinks that if he says ‘give us our rights,’ America will put it on a plate and present it. That is why he is guided by incorrect prescriptions.
Mr. Jalili says foreign policy is the field of realities, but he does not understand the main and important reality that in foreign policy, based on the level of power in the broad sense, not just military, maneuvering and acting can be done.
So it is quite clear that for Mr. Jalili and his friends, ideology takes precedence over interests, and ideology even takes precedence over reality, otherwise no rational person would say that sanctions are a blessing.
The writer had previously emphasized in a note that one of the issues that could harm national interests is the miscalculations of senior officials regarding the country’s actual power and position in the international arena.
In other words, just as underestimating the country’s power relative to its actual level can lead to loss of interests and opportunities, overestimating it is also damaging and mistaken.
That note was written in response to the remarks of Mehdi Safari, the Deputy for Economic Diplomacy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Raisi government, who is now an advisor on foreign policy to Mr. Jalili.
He had said that Iran is somewhat distant from a superpower. Certainly, the existence of such views causes Mr. Jalili to be more focused on managing the world instead of solving the country’s main problems and focusing on its development.
