Kawa Ahangari (Special to Entekhabeazad)
Mr. Obama’s speech (Washington Post) at the American University on August 5th, 2015 like the speech of President Kennedy about fifty years ago addressed the peace, had a particular importance. The lecture dedicated to the so-called P5+1 negotiations with Iran on nuclear issues. In the past few months there were obvious and serious objection among official political circles against the agreement of United States of America with Islamic Republic. Generally, the oppositions inside and outside the United States are Republicans, formal and informal circles and political centers that somehow influenced by the Jewish lobby and Israeli government, beside of Persian gulf countries from outside.
The speech regardless of explicit references to some of the criticism leveled at Obama’s negotiation team, including other important points that I believe it can be used as “A new approach to the Middle East with a Double-Edged strategy” by America. Partly it addresses to the content of recent nuclear agreement which contains Iran restrictions faced by West in order to have them doing direct actions and decisions. This part of the issues in nuclear agreement has not been made in public, apparently the Iranian people remain unaware of it. Personally in relation to such agreements and commitments, not only because of the bad history of Islamic Republic once in a year, but during the past 36 years and permanently, I trust approvals issued by West rather than the Islamic Republic negotiation team claims. I believe that Iranian Regime has not been true not only with its people and the world but also with its self-mass.
Mr. Obama began his speech pointing to late President of America, John F. Kennedy’s view toward the Peace and introduce it as “A practical and attainable peace” and continued: Peace is not just based on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions which a series of concrete actions and agreements would be effective on it.
I believe this part of his speech refers to his policy discourse and general US policy that can be considered as the first loop strategy in respect of the whole world in general and specifically Middle East. Middle East new phase after Iraq’s political change (however in a sudden revolution not in a gradual evolution) has been started and America is apparently persisting to continue on such political approach in Middle east particularly strategic countries like Iran.
America’s economic and political life depends on this double-edged as a new innovative approach to the Middle east. He has frequently given speeches in renouncing of war in the interests of the US, however war has not been completely rejected and on this occasion explicitly pointing to the US and its allies fully prepared on other option rather than negotiation (the first loop of the strategy). In another part of his speech, considered Israel prime minister’s explicit criticisms of his government’s concerns regarding the recent nuclear agreement, assured Israel and Persian Gulf countries as the most significant allies of the US in Middle East (second loop of the strategy), and in particular to those who claim that Iran is on the verge of conquering the Middle East and even the world, says: Iran will remain as a regional power with its challenges, dangerous and oppressive regime. Sanctions on Iran will remain due to terrorism and human rights violations. Our efforts to release unjustly detained Americans will be continued. We have high differences. Such an addressed regime which has been reached to a possible nuclear agreement could be the other edge and future of the US strategy.
Obama in other part of his speech points to Iran’s possibility of nuclear progress despite of sanctions and believes the agreement is the only strategy to prevent Iran to access nuclear weapon. In terms of agreement he also points to the fact of the probability of nonconformity and lack of cooperation of other countries even allies-for ten or fifteen years- on the set of sanctions adopted against Iran. This part of his speech is the sign of farsighted attitude to tranquilize its allies and US economic interests, particularly the role and influence of Russia and China on this issue in next coming years.
The gist of his speech refers to that Doubled-edges strategy which can be introduced as gradual evolution. Even though the primary objective of this strategy is not letting Iran to access nuclear weapon, great change is the other side. Concurrent with the negotiation with the Iranian Regime, the demands of the people and the chance to change from within will not be underestimated. On one hand referring to the US 600 billion dollars compared with Iran a budget of 15 billion dollars for defense affairs, he explicitly says that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and talks about his country’s ability in military actions, and on the other hand he notes his pursuing the adopted policy by his successor. On one hand his complicity with Israel logistically and on the other hand invitation of establishment a peaceful and secure environment for next generation in US.
Everything points to a new approach towards Middle East after the war of Persian Gulf. West offensive and defensive technics to the “Risk” in Middle East has changed, contrary to some experts who believe That America and the West have left Middle East and try to prove their arguments by pointing to Us current attempts to discover more source of oil within America and some parts of Europe, I believe that the West in general, Western Europe and America in particular, will say in Middle East and Washington will be the most effective factor in this region.
Nevertheless, with taking a look to West offensive and defensive approaches and methods upon Middle East, do we, as oppositions, need to revise our approaches accordingly? By replacing evolution rather than evolution in US strategic policy how the engagement should be with Iranian Regime? Finally, how would be the strategy of oppositions which agree with the changes? What would be those changes?