Trump’s Return: New Conditions
Trump’s return: The American magazine Time, in an exclusive interview with Donald Trump, the former and possibly future president of the United States, asked him about his plans for a second term if he wins.
From the interview, which is in the current issue of the newspaper before you, it appears that he is not only not regretful about what he did not accomplish in the first term, but he intends to continue with determination, this time without previous considerations, and has even mentioned retaliation.
Trump’s return has been presented as one of the most serious threats to Europe as well, and thus, Iran is not the only one under his threat. Although it cannot yet 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 maturity era of the Islamic Republic.
Contrary to what might be expected, the most significant threat of Trump’s return for Iran is not that it makes the revival of the JCPOA impossible, because even now, the chance of reviving the JCPOA is not high.
If Trump returns, two main threats will face Iran, and these should be considered. First, he is likely to decisively resolve the situation in Ukraine, and it is unlikely he will allow the Ukraine war to continue much longer, whether by arming and equipping more or by reaching an agreement with Russia. In this scenario, Iran cannot export oil as it does now.
If Iran’s crude oil exports have increased from 200,000 barrels during the late Rouhani administration to one million barrels a day, and the economic growth figures 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 because of the Ukraine war, which they cannot simultaneously restrict buyers and customers from multiple points and must compensate for the limitations of ports involved in the war elsewhere.
Thus, the most significant damage to Iran could be the reduction in oil sales, not because the JCPOA is off the table, 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 in football terms, it’s ahead three to zero. If Trump wants to confront Iran, he must eliminate this three-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, and third, as mentioned above, Ukraine.
Let us remember that in 1980, in the very first parliament, two representatives with completely opposing views on most domestic matters warned of a common issue, which was that after the Shah’s death, the continuation of the hostage crisis of Americans working in the embassy was null and void and would lead to the emergence 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 emergence of Ronald Reagan. But the thought that believed there was no difference between them acted in reverse and did something that not only did not use this card to benefit Iran and Carter, making him indebted to the Islamic Republic in the second term, but on the contrary, on the very day the hostages were handed over to Washington’s envoys in Frankfurt, Reagan’s victory was confirmed, and subsequently, the White House was in the hands of Republicans for three consecutive terms, two terms of Reagan and one term of Bush Sr.
Currently, Iran cannot do much to keep Biden in office unless it plays a special role in Gaza or Ukraine, but it must have a scenario for a possible Trump tomorrow, a tomorrow where Trump will seek to compensate for that advantage in three areas, and if not an advantage, at least a benefit.
From the Afghanistan development, there is a security and economic benefit to the Herat market and an addition to the Sulaymaniyah market; from the Ukraine development, a political benefit and assurance of vetoing resolutions in the United Nations Security Council; and from Gaza, a political benefit because now, instead of the Abraham Accords and Israel approaching Iran’s borders, universities in America and even Canada are witnessing widespread protests, and the effort to liken Hamas to ISIS has failed, and the 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 invalidate them and waste them. In football terms, we should protect our three goals. In Gaza, of course, we are facing a humanitarian disaster, and in Ukraine to a lesser extent. The reference to the three goals here is an advantage in foreign policy and a shift in the balance of power.
