The Utter Confusion of the Foreign Policy of Pezeshkian’s Government
The Utter Confusion of the Foreign Policy of Pezeshkian’s Government
In the few months since the beginning of the fourteenth government, the field of diplomacy has witnessed the activity of statesmen in various and diverse areas of diplomacy, from official negotiations to public diplomacy, from Geneva to Cairo, Istanbul, and Riyadh.
This activity is natural with the change of government and techniques, as well as due to the extensive and rapid regional developments. However, how diplomats aim to utilize all possible capacities to advance national interests with which strategy, approach, and tactics, and what achievements they will accomplish is a matter of question and contemplation.
1. During the election season, Masoud Pezeshkian outlined a two-pillar strategy for the fourteenth government: internal cohesion and, as a result, interaction with the world. In the time that has passed, in the field of internal cohesion towards advancing foreign policy, there has been considerable cooperation, kindness, and a green light from the political power structure, and apart from the usual critics of engagement and negotiation, there hasn’t been any negative reaction.
Contrary to the confrontational approach of the twelfth government, in the style and manner of the thirteenth government, neither the President’s speeches nor the actions of the Foreign Minister have received negative feedback from the power structure, and there have been no verbal ping-pong disputes, part of which is due to the special and unique regional conditions, another part to the constant red carpet for the new government, and another part to Pezeshkian’s focus on cooperative and consensus-building spirit in various matters.
However, despite the suitable atmosphere in the pillar of internal cohesion, we do not witness its overflow into the second pillar and a significant and tangible advancement in laying the groundwork for constructive interaction in foreign policy, which would lead to a clear and noticeable change in the direction of national interests and improvement in interactions with the surrounding world, and consequently lead to a change in the general situation of the country that is closely and organically linked to the field of foreign policy after several decades of sanctions and tensions, and there are not many encouraging signs in the foreseeable future.
We will continue to address this issue specifically and review examples of the fanciful and slogan-like perspective in the country’s diplomatic approach during the elapsed time.
2. The second visit of the Presidents of Iran to the land of the pyramids was significant in itself and had a special and unique potential in bilateral relations. It could have solved the decades-long problem of relations between these two important countries in the geostrategic Middle East region, especially considering the events in Syria and the victory of the Brotherhood spectrum in recent developments in Egypt, as a symbol of Arab nationalism alongside the UAE and Saudi Arabia, in contrast to the winner in Syria, namely Turkey and Qatar, which have heavy geopolitical competition. This was a very important opportunity for the two countries to get closer and create a new and strategic alliance in the region.
But from this historic trip, aside from a few souvenir photos, a regular speech, and a restaurant presence, what feedback have we received in this strategic and special position? Of course, such approaches are not bad, wrong, or unnecessary, but they are certainly not sufficient for creating tangible changes and fostering constructive interaction.
3. On the other hand, we know that one end of the thread for resolving the complex issues of foreign policy leads to Washington, and the future Trump administration, given its background and key figures, has the potential to escalate tension and conflict in all areas, and a specific and pragmatic strategy must be outlined and defined in dealing with it. This was seen in the remarks of some statesmen in response to Trump’s election and also in the matter of the rumor of a meeting with Elon Musk, but it quickly faded with the Foreign Minister’s emphasis on observing and patience and a reactive approach to the actions of the U.S. government.
In the latest development in this regard, Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in an interview with an Egyptian publication that we are still waiting for the decision of the parties we have entered into negotiations with, which consist of three European countries, China, Russia, and the American party that withdrew from the JCPOA.
We are ready to enter into honorable negotiations based on mutual respect and interests.
Some domestic media and government supporters chose that part of readiness for honorable negotiations and welcomed it with headlines such as ‘Araghchi’s Important Remarks on Direct Negotiation with America,’ while Araghchi’s remarks were addressed to the members of the P5+1 and within the framework and context of JCPOA negotiations, and not only is there no reference to direct and bilateral negotiations with America, but fundamentally, since Donald Trump and his team showed no interest in the framework of JCPOA negotiations and withdrew from it, this statement by the Foreign Minister neither indicates a change in strategy nor provides the groundwork for it.
4. In any case, with these symbolic and attractive headlines or slogan-based reliance on public diplomacy approaches and not promotional image-making from foreign trips, one cannot expect the necessary and essential changes in the current sensitive and strategic position in the field of foreign policy.
We have now reached a stage where we must accompany the promotional and slogan-based approaches with a specific strategy of pragmatic diplomacy in the form of courage, boldness, and initiative, otherwise expecting change and results would be a mere illusion.
