Trump’s Return: New Conditions
Trump’s return: In an exclusive interview with former and possibly future U.S. President Donald Trump, American Time magazine asked him about his plans for a second term if he wins.
From the interview published in the current issue of the magazine, it appears that he is not only unrepentant for what he didn’t accomplish in his first term, but he intends to continue decisively, this time without previous considerations and even speaks of retaliation.
Trump’s return has been posed as one of the most serious threats to Europe, and thus Iran is not the only one threatened by him. Although it cannot be said with certainty that his return is definite, scenarios should be prepared for his return, and the belief that they are all the same is not acceptable in the mature period of the Islamic Republic.
The most significant threat of Trump’s return for Iran is not, contrary to belief, that it would negate the possibility of reviving the JCPOA, because even now the chances of reviving it are not high.
If Trump returns, two main threats will face Iran, and these should be considered. First, he is likely to decisively settle the issue of Ukraine, and it is unlikely he will allow the Ukraine war to continue much longer, whether through more arming and equipping or an agreement with Russia. In this situation, Iran cannot export oil as it does now.
If Iran’s crude oil exports have increased from 200,000 barrels at the end of Rouhani’s administration to one million barrels per day, and the economic growth statistics that the government boasts about are due to this, it is not because Joe Biden has turned a blind eye to oil sales to China, but due to the Ukraine war, which prevents buyers and customers from being restricted simultaneously from multiple points, and the limitations of ports involved in war must be compensated elsewhere.
Therefore, the most significant damage to Iran could be reduced oil sales, not because the JCPOA is negated, but due to the resolution of the Ukraine war.
The second point is that Iran has benefited from three developments: the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Ukraine war, and Gaza, and metaphorically speaking, it is ahead three to zero. If Trump wants to confront Iran, he must eliminate this three-to-zero advantage.
How? First, by destabilizing the eastern borders and weakening the Herat market. Second, by changing the situation in Gaza in a way that Iran does not benefit. Third, as mentioned above, Ukraine.
Recall that in 1980, in the first parliament, two representatives with completely opposing views on most internal matters issued a joint warning: that after the Shah’s death, continuing to hold American hostages in the embassy was pointless and would lead to the rise of Jimmy Carter’s rival.
Dr. Ebrahim Yazdi and Sheikh Mohammad Montazeri, representatives of Tehran and Najafabad, emphasized that the continuation of Jimmy Carter’s presidency was in our favor, not the rise of Ronald Reagan. But a mindset that believed there was no difference between them acted contrary and ensured that not only was this card not used to benefit Iran and Carter, making him indebted to the Islamic Republic in his second term, but on the contrary, the hostages were handed over in Frankfurt to Washington’s envoys the very day Reagan’s victory was confirmed, and subsequently, the White House was in Republican hands for three consecutive terms—two terms of Reagan and one of Bush Sr.
Currently, Iran cannot do anything specific to keep Biden in power unless it plays a special role in Gaza or Ukraine. However, scenarios should be prepared for a possible future with Trump, a future where Trump will seek to reclaim the advantage in three areas, if not the advantage, then the benefit.
From the Afghanistan transformation, there is a security and economic benefit from the Herat market and an addition to the Sulaymaniyah market; from the Ukraine transformation, a political benefit and assurance of vetoing resolutions in the UN Security Council; and from Gaza, a political benefit, as now instead of the Abraham Accords and Israel approaching Iran’s borders, American and even Canadian universities are witnessing widespread protests, and efforts to equate Hamas with ISIS have failed, and a wave of support for Palestinians has risen everywhere.
The most important vigilance and alertness of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be to maintain these three positions so that Trump does not negate them and squander them. In football terms, we should guard our three goals. In Gaza, of course, we are facing a humanitarian disaster, and in Ukraine, to a lesser extent. The three goals here refer to an advantage in foreign policy and a shift in the balance of power.