Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis
Authors
1 Department of International Relations, Isfahan Branch (Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and international relations, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran
3 Associate Professor. Department of Law, University of Isfahan , Isfahan ,Iran
Abstract
Highlights
Introduction
After Donald Trump’s taking office, the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), one of the most important agreements reached between Iran and the United Staes several decades after the victory of the Iranian Revolution. This was the start of Trump’s policy of creating crises and securitizing foreign policy against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The first thing that came to mind about Trump was his unpredictability and impulsiveness, a limited grasp of key foreign policy issues, and unexpected changes. Prioritizing the peace process between Arab states and Israel, combating terrorism, and countering Iran constituted pivotal strategies employed by Trump to foster stability in the Middle East region. After taking office and withdrawing from the JCPOA, Trump not only sustained economic sanctions against Iran but also broadened their scope by introducing secondary sanctions, which were added to the previous ones. Consequently, American political elites characterized these sanction measures as "maximum pressure," supplanting the prospect of military intervention against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Trump sought to secure maximum US interests by maximizing pressure using crisis and securitizing relations with Iran. He leveraged international trade as a tool to achieve foreign policy objectives. Global trade has been the cornerstone of US national and foreign security, which can be interpreted as a challenge to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s neo-regionalist foreign policy and as aligned with the objectives and actions of the Arab-Israeli axis against Iran.
Theoretical Foundations and Conceptual Framework
John Mearsheimer, a distinguished scholar in international relations, contends that states should adopt security policies aimed at diminishing the strength of potential adversaries while concurrently enhancing their own power relative to other states. According to him, if a state intends to survive, it must possess a good offensive capability. Offensive realism sees anarchy and disorder as the primary reason for the aggressive behavior of states. A state with an offensive orientation exhibits a disposition where the principles of moderation and self-restraint are incomprehensible; rather, it seeks to optimize its power while concurrently diminishing the strength of others under any circumstances.
In accordance with the tenets of offensive realism, the United States endeavors to assert its supremacy in the West Asia region and globally through the adoption of an assertive strategy. To maintain the desired balance of power against threatening countries, including Iran, the United States employs various strategies. According to John Mearsheimer, one of the primary goals of superpowers is the pursuit of superior power, and the methods that countries use to achieve their ultimate goals are significant. In this regard, he presents two strategies: first, achieving relative power, and second, controlling aggressors and preventing them from attaining greater relative power, which is detrimental to the rival state. The paradox of hegemony is that hegemons always believe that their superiority is fragile.
Findings
The foreign policy strategy adopted by the United States towards the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout the Trump administration emanated from the principles of offensive realism and the hegemonic power paradigm inherent to the United States. The foreign policy of the United States is influenced by numerous internal and external factors, including the role and personality of Trump, the State Department, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, Congress, American think tanks and media outlets, Israeli influence and Zionist lobbying, the role of Saudi Arabia, the European Union, China, and Russia. Trump had a pessimistic opinion of the JCPOA and Resolution 2231. Consequently, he pursued an aggressive course of action, establishing new regional and global alliances and coalitions with the aim of countering Iran. These tensions peaked during the Trump administration. The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA the reintroduction of stringent sanctions under the policy of maximum pressure, as well as the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, brought the conditions closer to a military conflict than ever before. In this regard, Iran’s conduct in the West Asia region against the United States, recognizing the latter’s significance as a pivotal and influential nation in the volatile region, along with its concerted endeavors to attain self-sufficiency in military capabilities, and the advancement and proliferation of diverse long-range missiles featuring varying degrees of precision, constitute pivotal elements within Iran’s military framework aimed at countering U.S. influence over the past four decades. To control Iran and ensure the uninterrupted flow of oil and maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the United States views the nations of the Persian Gulf region as its strategic centerpiece. Trump believed that Iran posed a threat to the Strait of Hormuz and destabilized the security of the Persian Gulf countries through various tools and tactics. In the pursuit of smart power, Iran achieved a milestone by expanding its influence beyond the heart of the Syrian crisis to encompass the Mediterranean region and the Israeli borders. Despite the declared policies and repeated threats of military action against Iran, Trump administration persisted in its steadfast strategy of countering Iran. Threats directed at the Iranian government had the potential to escalate into a regional conflict, with the prospect of evolving into a situation more dire than the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In this regard, the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani cautioned Donald Trump regarding antagonistic policies towards Tehran, emphasizing that "America should know that a peace agreement with Iran is the mother of all peace agreements, and a war against Iran is the mother of all wars." The main component of Trump’s aggressive policy towards Iran essentially constituted a structure aimed at constraining Iran, a response driven by Iran’s influence in the region. Hence, Trump attempted to return to the policy of controlling Iran by exerting pressure on its neighbors and regional partners (i.e., Persian Gulf countries). Trump administration broadened the militarization of U.S. foreign policy with the aim of advancing the nation’s interests in international affairs.
Conclusion
According to Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism, the development of Iran’s regional activities weakened US influence in the region and diminished its hegemony. Trump, with his assertive and realistic personality, sought to preserve and enhance American power against Iran’s increasing power in the West Asia region by employing aggressive foreign policy instruments. He attempted to incite crises and securitize relations against Iran, persuading regional countries and the international community to take limited military action by creating a perception of an imminent threat posed by Iran. Owing to the absence of European backing for the United States, the evasion of sanctions, the escalation of Iran’s assertive military capabilities, and the ambivalent positions of China and Russia concerning Iran, Trump’s aggressive foreign policy towards Iran ultimately encountered a setback by failing to secure triumph in the presidential elections.
Keywords
Main Subjects
', './data/isjq/coversheet/41712757836.jpg'))