The records of the former U.S. presidents reveal a change of foreign policy between their first and second terms of presidency is made by changing the Secretary of State. Now as Obama has been earlier reinstated, is expected that the American foreign policy will undergo new developments. Khabar Online held an interview with Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, a senior Iranian expert of international relations to consider what impact the foretold developments will have on the U.S. relations with Iran, particularly in regards with the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
What changes do you think will be made to Obama’s foreign policy in his second term of presidency?
The president of the United States will basically enjoy a more powerful freehand with less limitation. The reason lies in the fact that the Israeli lobby always put the American presidents under pressure to push the U.S. foreign policy in their own favorite direction. In recent presidential election in the United States we witnessed one of the major developments in Washington's foreign policy as Israel headed by Benjamin Netanyahu stressed on plans which were illogical, and made efforts to force Obama's administration to hike up pressures on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But this year the president of the United States could reject the extremist measures Israeli and Jewish lobby have planned against Tehran. It means that although the presidents of the United States account on Israeli lobby to win considerable votes we observed that Obama could resist such political pressures andsecure the U.S. national interest.
Will Hillary Clinton be at the helm of the U.S. Department of State for the second term?
It is predicted that the U.S. Secretary of State will be replaced in the second term of Obama’s presidency. The reason is that during the last four years Ms. Clinton set a premium on Jewish lobby which has prepared the ground for a replacement at the top position of the U.S. Department of State.
Can we hope that the impasse of relations between the United States and Iran will be broken or at least their nuclear negotiations will reach to a reasonable conclusion?
What I said does not mean that the enmity between the two countries has come to an end. All right, Obama was able to counter illogical pressures of Netanyahu, but we cannot conclude that the U.S.position on backing Israel will undergo new changes. The idea of backing Israel has been influential in foreign policy of the United States for more than 50 years and is regarded as a part of the American national interest.
How will be the effect of such attitude in Iran's nuclear talks with the United States?
Due to the recent presidential election in the U.S., the issue of Iran's nuclear dispute with the Western countries above them the United States was frozen. However we have evidences that the new U.S. government seeks to improve the related negotiations. Here I want to attract the attention of the Islamic Republic's officials to a key point: during the last 20 years whenever Washington has adopted a more moderate tone toward us, the Iranian officials have become perplexed in granting concessions to the United States. We should bear in mind that this issue is a geopolitical one which can be fruitful on the condition that both parties grant concessions and receive concessions while a balance must be maintained. But in the past the concessions Iranian officials granted were more than what they received. Rumors spread recently that a hidden round of talks is underway between Tehran and Washington. The U.S. officials denied the rumors but it provoked numerous reactionsin Iran which shows that Islamic Republic's officials have become perplexed.
Are the nuclear negotiations supposed to be halted once again because of the upcoming presidential election in Iran?
By no means, we should note that the United States is the key decision-maker on the options of war, imposing and hiking up the sanctions on Iran. But we are the defender not and the decision-maker and any government of the Islamic Republic must defend our best interests.
