Print        

Iran and US Election Campaigns: Anatomy of the Ongoing Propaganda Hype

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Seyed Mohammad Kazem Sajjadpour
University Faculty Member & International Issues Analyst

Presidential election campaigns in the United States have not only already started, but also intensified. Republican hopefuls are engaged in a dog fight over firstly being nominated by the party for presidential race and, secondly, defeating the incumbent President Barack Obama and occupy his place at the White House.

In two party meetings which have been held over the past few weeks in Iowa and New Hampshire, Republican nominees have been entangled in heated debates over various issues, the most important of which was the issue of Iran. Every one of them took more radical position on Iran to dispel any possible doubt that the country is now one of the major concerns for the United States’ party policies and an important factor in determining the fate of each and every nominee.

On the opposite, Obama, who is dreaming about one more term as president, cannot remain indifferent to Republican nominees’ election hustings. The question is why Iran has become center of such heated debates and what would be the final consequence of those debates?

To answer this and other similar questions, at least, three important phenomena should be taken into account. The first phenomenon is myriads of challenges facing the United States while no solution can be seen on the horizon. The second phenomenon is prominent role of Israel and the Zionist lobby in presidential debates, and finally, the third phenomenon is the impact of such debates about Iran on presidential polls.

Myriads of Challenges with No Solutions in Sight

US and international analysts have no doubt that the United States is grappling with a host of political, economic, and social problems both inside and outside the country. Most of those problems are chronic and no immediate solution is conceivable for them. Although Obama administration has been able to manage some domestic crises and issues, but managing a problem is different from solving it. In other words, there is no immediate or even medium-term solution for many problems as they cover a wide range of different issues.

Perhaps one of the most prominent existing problems, which is usually ignored, is the extant political differences between two parties and two frozen and sclerotic political cultures in Washington which have fueled regular disputes between the Congress and the Executive. These disputes have become so deep-rooted that no short-term solution can be found for them. In addition, there are many economic and social problems in the country while neither Republican, nor Democrat presidential nominees are able to solve or even manage all of them. In the meantime, concentration on issues which are less costly to US domestic policies and make room for better maneuvering seem to be the easiest way. Iran's issue cannot be considered independent of this phenomenon.

The issue of Iran cannot provide a solution to any of the US problems. By emphasizing on Iran issue, neither economic problems of the United States would be solved, nor would it be of any help to cutting the Gordian knot of political culture in Washington or other social challenges and identity crises. In the absence of a basic solution to the existing problems, the issue of Iran, however, can provide the nominees with a pretext to attack Obama administration claiming that its current policies on Iran have not been effective and he should have taken sharper positions. This does not mean that all US problems are limited to Iran issue. The Republican nominees are not delusional and know that by resorting to Iran issue, they can cover up their theoretical and practical weaknesses in providing solutions for more fundamental and structural problems.

Emphasis on Iran issue during ruthless election campaigns which are going on inside the Republican Party and also between Republicans and Democrats, provides a means of hiding lack of internal coherence in both parties and their inability to come up with effective solutions to correct US domestic policies. This, however, does not mean that no other effective players are involved in the media hype which has been launched by the American mass media. One of such effective players is the Zionist regime of Israel and its supporters inside the US government that try by overemphasis on Iran issue, not only to get the United States engaged with Iran in a military conflict, but also to overshadow internal problems of Israel and their own regional problems.

Prominent Role of Israel and Supporters of the Zionist Regime

Strategic analysts have reached a consensus on the changing balance of regional power and alterations in traditional strategic relations. Emergence of Iran as a regional power is a common point on which all such analysts relatively agree. The increase in Iran's power has disturbed mental and strategic structure of the Zionist regime, which is, in turn, trying to limit, contain, and undoubtedly, eliminate the power of Iran.

The Zionist regime’s strategists, however, are well aware that they cannot take such measures, as eliminating and destroying Iran's power on their own. Therefore, engaging the United States in a serious and bloody war with Iran is one of the goals that Zionist strategists are following and, indeed, have been following since the beginning of the 1990s. A leftist Israeli writer, Isaac Shahak, had focused on this common quest of Israeli strategists in an article he published before the US invasion of Iraq and added that Israel is really looking forward to such tension between Iran and US.

If the media hype launched by the Republican candidates is a way to hide weakness of their analyses and absence of ready solutions to US problems, for the Zionist regime, it pursues a strategic goal which is to reduce the power of Iran by keeping Iran busy or causing conflicts between Iran and its peripheral countries, including a military confrontation between Iran and the United States. Interestingly, concerns have been growing inside the United States, even among the ruling elite, in the past few years about Israel’s efforts to cause tension over Iran. The famous book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, published by two realist American experts of political science, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, reflects such concerns. A lot of written material which has been published between that book and a recent article in the Foreign Policy magazine by Mark Perry on Israeli agents using fake US passports in dealing with Jundallah terrorist group to hire its operatives against Iran, reflect concerns among part of the American elite about Israel’s warmongering role in the intensification of Iran-US disputes.

Despite its traditional tendencies, the Republican Party has become increasingly more inclined toward the Zionist regime of Israel in the past years and has, at times, overtaken Democrats in this regard. This is why, at present, an index to judge the merits of a given candidate nominated by the Republican Party, is his inclination toward the Zionist regime of Israel.

On the whole, Israel’s role in the ongoing media hype over Iran is quite remarkable. Whether this warmongering hype is a result of the absence of a solid solution for US problems, or because of Israel’s prominent role, we cannot remain indifferent toward its end result.

Consequences and Results of These Debates

Regardless of the final result of this Zionist-masterminded hype, it will certainly add more heat to Iran-related debates in the United States. More heated debates will put more pressure on Obama administration and will prod him to adopt even more radical and hostile policies compared to policies adopted by his government in the past couple of years. In other words, Obama administration should prove that it has not become weak in its confrontation with Iran and its positions are sharper than those of the conservatives. The race for taking sharper positions will have its effect on the country’s practical policies and in the final faceoff between the government and a Congress supporting Israel, the government is sure to back off.

In the meantime, it is noteworthy that sharp rhetoric on Iran, which has at times been unprecedented, will elicit Iran's reaction. Although Republican candidates have stuck to Iran issue for domestic purposes and although Obama tries to show itself more inclined toward Israel in order to win a reelection, anything said on Iran will reverberate within Iran, the Middle East and even the whole world and will invoke specific reactions.

As put by Gary Sick, national security advisor to the former US president, Jimmy Carter, who was speaking in a recent edition of Charlie Rose show, you cannot talk about a country in such a reckless manner and yet expect that country to remain indifferent to its security issues. He added that debates about possible military attack on Iran as a result of the atmosphere created by the media hype, have invoked reactions not only from Iran, but also from other international players.

The dynamics of such remarks and positions cannot be simply considered within the context of bilateral relations between Iran and the United States. Global consequences of these debates may usher the world into a new stage of spiritual and physical structures.

Source: Iranian Diplomacy
http://www.irdiplomacy.ir
Translated By: Iran Review

More By Seyed Mohammad Kazem Sajjadpour:

*Military Attack on Iran: Anatomy of Israel’s Intentions: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Military_Attack_on_Iran_Anatomy_of_Israel’s_Intentions_2.htm

*Attacking Iran: Intention, Possibility and Limitations: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Attacking_Iran_Intention_Possibility_and_Limitations.htm

*Libyan Developments and International Politics: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Libyan_Developments_and_International_Politics.htm

طراحی و توسعه آگاه‌سیستم