Trump Could Mean War, Says Former Diplomat

The polls say it's close. Around the world, people are preoccupied with the election in the United States, and Iran is no exception.

Dr. Fereydoon Majlesi was an international Iranian diplomat from 1968 to 1980. He first served in the Iranian consular officer in Washington DC and then as the second secretary of Iran's mission to the European Union in Brussels. Now retired, he has translated the works of renown authors, including Howard Fast, Robert Graves, Philip Roth, Kiran Desai, Roger Boesche and Gore Vidal. 

IranWire talked to Fereydoon Majlesi about the US presidential election and its consequences for Iran and the world.

You lived in Washington DC for many years as a diplomat. What does the US election mean for Iran? 

There are two schools of thoughts in Iran. The first belongs to a group that tries to act with moderation and rationally on the international stage in order to end Iran’s isolation, and to provide opportunities for economic development and public welfare. They know that to do this they must expand their relations with the world, and it was under these banners that the current government got the majority of popular votes. On the other side, there is a zealot and radical faction that believes it must keep the furnace of the revolution hot, and it must keep shouting slogans, protesting and fighting. They believe that any give and take on the world stage means a surrender from right to wrong. They fought hard against the nuclear negotiations and after the JCPOA [the nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] was signed, they stopped at nothing to undermine it. They have continuously pointed out its shortcomings to the other side — whereas they themselves have been responsible for the failures.

There is a similar situation in the US. The group that entered the nuclear negotiations and carried on the negotiations until JCPOA was signed acted based on moderation and rationality while expanding international relations. On the other side, however, we have the group that says that Mr. Trump is its standard-bearer. They want war and they want to destroy Iran’s system of government.

I am aware that the moderate group in Iran knows that American policies are not decided by personal preferences. But there are think tanks that come up with policies that they push forward and the influence of the president is rather limited. As we saw, Mr. Obama could not fulfil many of his promises. Similarly, the next president can say a lot of things but he cannot necessarily carry them out. Of course, one cannot deny the influence that a US president can have.

The influence of the US president is great, enough to preoccupy Iranian people and politicians. Many ordinary people in Iran have followed the presidential debates closely. Why do they take such an interest?

For the moment, the American presidential candidates voice slogans meant to support their campaign’s momentum. But their slogans are paying too much attention to foreign policy issues, and it is unfortunate that they engage in mutual hostility against Iran. This is what draws ordinary people to the American elections. Iranian people wish that whatever happens should benefit Iran. So do Iranian politicians, but what is good and what is bad is different for the two groups of politicians. The Iranian moderates and the American democrats are closer to each other in how they think. Iranian hardliners believe that any easing in hostilities means a surrender, and like American hardliners, they do not believe that the countries can be friends.  

When it comes to the election, what is the best outcome for Iranians? Who would be the best president?

I sincerely hope and believe that Mrs. Clinton will win this election, because I think it unlikely that American people have fallen so low that they will elect a vulgar character like Trump as their president. But whether Trump gets to be the president or not, his words show that he is close to those of his supporters who want war, those who want the US to dominate the world or part of the world in a classical manner that communists used to object to.

What do you believe will happen to Iran and the Middle East if Trump wins the presidency?

Impossible to predict but if we want to make predictions based on what has been said — and considering that the extremists in Iran have equally bragged a lot about being ready for a war — then it is not far-fetched to predict that the war in Syria, which for the moment is a slow-motion war of attrition, might extend to Iran as well. Iran is surrounded by wars, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Syria and even Turkey, that used to boast of being a regional power but now have become the scene of a mini civil war, and that have to deal with explosions and insecurity every day. And things are getting worse in Turkey day by day. So it is not unlikely that if extremists have their way, a war could start if the American Navy in the Persian Gulf is fired at or, conversely, the Iranian navy comes under fire. I do not see Mr. Trump as somebody who would avoid going to war.

But there are those in Iran who support Mr. Trump. They say Russia supports Trump and since Iran and Russia are allies in Syria's civil war then a President Trump would help them in Syria. Even Ayatollah Khamenei has implicitly supported Trump.

I really do not believe that this is the case. But if some people in the principalist camp talk this way about Russia it is because their political and historical knowledge is defective, and perhaps they are under the impression that Iran would benefit if somebody who is favored by Russia wins. Mr. Trump can in no way be an ally of Russia. If Russians secretly support Trump’s campaign it is because they prefer an unbalanced character to become the president of the United States so that they can take advantage of his unbalance — not because they want to support him ideologically.

So there wouldn't be a war if Mrs. Clinton wins?

Mrs. Clinton would deal with the problems with more patience and prudence. But the core of the problem in US-Iranian relations is Israel. Iran will not accept any solution like “two states,” or peace in exchange for compensation. Iran wants a fight to the end. And the US is Israel’s ally. Both countries have turned a foreign policy issue into an ideological fight and are confronting each other over it. If neither side retreats, then war will become the inevitable solution. If Clinton finds herself at a dead end, she will not avoid war. But she will give it more time than Trump. She will show more patience, so that perhaps moderates in Iran can convince all sides that a war is not in the interests of Iran.

Will the next president create problems for the implementation of the JCPOA?

As far as the JCPOA is concerned, it does not matter who wins the presidency. Anti-Western and anti-American elements in Iran try to link the nuclear agreement to the US. But the JCPOA and relations with the US are two separate issues. The JCPOA is not a guarantee of peace between America and Iran.

Some Iranian hardliners who insist on hostility toward America imagine that the JCPOA will lead to friendly relations between the two countries. But this is not true, because the JCPOA regulates relations between Iran and the UN. The sanctions against Iran were imposed by the UN Security Council during the time of [foermer president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and they are now gone. American sanctions were imposed before UN sanctions, because of Iranian support for anti-Israeli forces. During the presidency of Ahmadinejad this secret strategy became public.

UN sanctions are now over and Iranian oil exports, the main source of income for Iran, which were close to zero, have now multiplied, and have even passed the pre-sanctions levels. International trade with the east and the Far East has increased and cargo ships no longer have to unload at Dubai.

But American sanctions are still in place. And Iran has responded in kind. It has banned trade with the US and on imports from America. The two countries have taken a tough position toward each other. The day after November 4 [the anniversary of the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979], in response to the harsh slogans expressed on that day, Mr. Obama renewed another year of the sanctions that were imposed years ago. This was a message to those Iranians who seek hostile relations with the US. We do not have to be friends with a country, but we can have respectful, official and, of course, non-belligerent relations with them. This is in everybody’s interest.