How U.S. presidential election will impact Iran
PDF Print E-mail
Font Size Larger Font Smaller Font
c_330_235_16777215_0___images_stories_edim_15_ziabari15bb.jpgU.S. citizens will be shortly going to the polls to cast their ballot and decide who will be their next president. In the past weeks, different surveys and polls indicated varying results; some predicted the reelection of the incumbent President Barack Obama and some anticipated his defeat to the former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Whatever the predictions and poll results are, we do not have to wait too long to see who will be going to the Oval Office. 
On November 2,the Rasmussen Reports released the results of its latest tracking poll which showed a tied race between Obama and Romney with each attracting the support of 48% of the voters nationwide. 
The latest Gallup tracking which was suspended on October 29 due to the effects of the Superstorm Sandy also reported a 48%-48% draw between Obama and Romney, despite the fact that Romney had been taking lead in all four major tracking polls in less than two weeks to the Election Day.
Who will be elected is a matter of American people’s choice and the rules of democracy demand that the will of people be respected. However, once a good friend told me, if the peoples of South Korea or Guatemala make a wrong decision in electing their leaders, they will be the only ones who will suffer from the consequences of that bad choice, but the problem is that the whole world will suffer, if the American people make a mistake in electing their leaders.
The third presidential debate between Obama and Romney on October 22 in Boca Raton was disappointing. Focused on the foreign policy issues, the third debate mostly revolved around Iran, Syria and Israel, and those parts in which the two rivals discussed Iran was a testimony that firstly, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made a mistake in awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Obama for purportedly promoting peace, rapprochement with the Muslim world and fostering nuclear non-proliferation, in only two weeks after taking office, and next, that the hawkish policies of the Republican party as manifested in Romney’s statements do not seem to be inclined to change, at least in the foreseeable future.
In the debate, both candidates showed that despite their differences on domestic issues discussed in the first two debates, they agreed on confronting Iran, and that no effort should be spared to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology.
Obama and Romney, who were apparently trying to please the Israeli lobby by competing with each other in taking a tougher stance on Iran, promised that “all options” should remain on the table with regards to Iran’s nuclear program. 
Romney criticized Obama for not being too assertive on Iran and implied that Obama presented a meek image of the United States. And Obama responded by saying that the toughest sanctions which have crippled Iran’s economy and pushed millions of innocent people to starvation were implemented upon the discretion of his peace-loving administration, so he was not passive and weak vis-à-vis Iran.
The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, like the past 4 years since he took office as the U.S. President, talked of “all options” regarding Iran’s nuclear program, and these options, according to Obama, may include everything, from the intensification of unjustifiable sanctions which deny Iranians access to medicines, foodstuff, agricultural products and humanitarian goods to a military strike against Iran. Obama and Romney used the words “Iran” and “Iranian” 34 times in their statements during the third presidential debate, and all of these references represented a hawkish and aggressive rhetoric against Iran and its people.
“We are going to make sure that if they do not meet the demands of the international community, then we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon,” Obama warned Iran in the live debate. Romney adopted a more strict posture, saying that Iran is “the greatest threat the world faces.”
Obama came to office in 2008 with a slogan of change, and promised that he will take up reconciliation with the Muslim world in general, and Iran in particular. But what he did in effect was the continuation of the path that George W. Bush had followed a path of confrontation. He renewed unilateral sanctions against Iran and honorably referred to these sanctions as the success of his foreign policy.
It’s true that Romney and Obama disagree on such issues as healthcare, employment, military spending and taxation, but they share a common point, which is the prolongation of opposition to Iran and its peaceful nuclear program. 
The next U.S. president will be announced in a few hours; it’s unquestionable that whoever is elected will be hostile to Iran, like all of the U.S. presidents who have been in office since the victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979. But what is not clear is that why the United States does not abandon its enmity with the Iranian people and wants to continue punishing them for a crime they have never committed.

rssfeed socializeit
Socialize this
Subscribe to our RSS feed to stay in touch and receive all of TT updates right in your feed reader
Twitter Facebook Myspace Stumbleupon Digg Technorati aol blogger google reddit