US election seen from Iran: A "rare window of opportunity"

US election seen from Iran: A "rare window of opportunity"

Negar Mortazavi is a Washington DC-based journalist covering Iran and the Middle East. She is a columnist for the Independent in the UK and a frequent guest for the BBC. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Gabrielle Debinski: How much does the result of the US election in November matter to the Iranian people and the Iranian government?

NG: It matters very much. I would argue that US foreign policy impacts certain populations and countries in the world even more than Americans themselves. Regarding Iran, under Barack Obama, there was a policy of diplomacy and engagement and it was successful. They reached out to Iran and were able to negotiate and cut a historic nuclear deal and open the door for more engagement and diplomacy.


Under Donald Trump that has been reversed. President Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal and he has started this policy of maximum pressure on Iran, the cornerstone of that is economic sanctions. The goal of these sanctions is to crush the Iranian economy. And they've had a massive effect. And you see that in the daily lives of ordinary Iranians, very much working-class, middle-class Iranians who are feeling the pressure from these sanctions, which is also combined with internal mismanagement of the government and corruption.

So if President Trump does not win the election and Joe Biden comes in, he's promised to reengage with Iran, recharge the nuclear deal and basically reverse the Trump policy that is going to have a major effect on the Iranian economy.

GD: How has Trump's foreign policy affected Iran's internal politics?

NM: Since President Trump took office and put more pressure, the moderate faction of the Iranian political system has been weakened. And in contrast, the hardliners, who are the ones championing, you know, tensions, confrontation with the West and with the US, the "Death to America" camp, the ones that don't want so much engagement and relation and diplomacy — they have been emboldened and strengthened.

If Joe Biden comes to the White House, I think the moderate [movement] will have some time to regroup. It'll be revitalized and it will have a major impact on the upcoming presidential election in Iran [June 2021] and basically set the stage for almost the next decade. And the result of the election is going to determine the direction of Iranian policy for the next eight years.

Donald Trump has basically proved the hardline argument in Iran that the US is not to be trusted. Even when we go and make an agreement with them, they don't abide by it.

GD: The US recently pushed to re-impose so-called "snapback" sanctions at the United Nations. How have economic sanctions affected everyday Iranians?

NM: I was talking to someone in Tehran recently, somebody from the middle class who was telling me that compared to two years ago, they have gotten ten times poorer because the value of the currency has dropped by almost fivefold.

And then everything has gotten a lot more expensive than just the devaluation of the currency. In the meanwhile, salaries and incomes haven't changed much. So it definitely has had an impact to the point that certain families in the working class can't even afford to eat meat as much — meat has become a rare commodity on certain people's tables.

One of the areas where it's very painful to see the impact of sanctions is on medicine, even though you hear from the US government that medicine is supposed to be exempt from sanctions. But in reality, medicine that is hard to be made in generic form, or Western made life-saving medicine for diseases like cancer or like MS, there is a shortage of that and it's a direct impact of US sanctions.

GD: What's the general perception among analysts like yourself regarding how US-Iranian relations might have evolved if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election?

NM: Well, it's hard to predict 100 percent because there are so many moving parts. But it would be more reopening of the Iranian economy to the world, better engagement with the West and potentially better engagement with the US. Initially, engagement was just within the framework of the nuclear deal, but a certain political camp inside Iran was really pressuring the establishment to go further.

GD: If Biden comes to occupy the White House and a moderate wins the Iranian election next summer, do you think the Iranian regime might be willing to reengage with the US in a serious way?

NM: So the Iranians — and this is not just a moderate camp, we hear it from even certain hardliners and the Supreme Leader himself — they have been consistent in saying that they are ready to return to the JCPOA [Iran nuclear deal] if the US does, and sanctions are lifted.

So if a moderate eventually does win the presidency, then that could open the door for a similar situation, as I said, that we would have gotten with a Clinton administration, because it would be basically two terms of a Joe Biden most likely coinciding with eight years of a moderate in Iran. That would be a very rare window of opportunity, because in the past 40 years, one of the issues between Tehran and Washington has been timing.

This interview is part of the GZERO project Global voices on the US election, which you can find in full here.

Demography is destiny. That ominous-sounding pronouncement, credited to French philosopher Auguste Comte, is today taken to mean that a nation's fate depends on the youthfulness of its population. For a poor country to become rich, it needs lots of young people ready to work, to support those too old or too young to work, and to pay taxes. This is called the "demographic dividend."

That's an important part of China's success story. Over the past 40 years, more than one billion people have emerged from poverty in China. Waves of young people surged from the countryside into cities to work in factories. The state invested in education, and wages helped young workers, and then their children, go to school. The state also began a drive to develop the technologies of the future, by any means necessary. In China, once dirt-poor, hundreds of millions have created a middle class.

More Show less

Get insights on the latest news about emerging trends in cyberspace from Marietje Schaake, International Policy Director at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center and former European Parliamentarian:

This week we talk about one of my favorite topics, regulation. Laws are often framed as a barrier to innovation and not always recognized as a key enabler of freedoms and the protection of rights. But what's more is that regulation is a process, and one that can have tons of different outcomes. So, being in favor or against regulation doesn't mean anything. Except that those who oppose any changes are apparently benefiting from the status quo.

Is the world at a tipping point when it comes to regulating big tech?

And I would say absolutely. The outsized power of big tech is recognized more broadly because the harms are so blatantly clear. Harms to democracy, public health, but also to fairness in the economy are all related to the outsized power of unaccountable and under-regulated big tech. Now, what's significant is that this debate has finally hit home in the United States after it was already recognized as a problem in many other parts of the world.

More Show less

Do we spend too much time thinking about our own carbon footprints and not enough time thinking about bigger factors? Climate journalist Elizabeth Kolbert acknowledges it's necessary for individuals to make changes in the way they live, but that isn't the number one priority.

"What would you do to try to move this battleship in a new direction? It requires public policy levers. And it requires … some pretty serious legislation." Ian Bremmer spoke with Kolbert, an award-winning journalist and author and staff writer at The New Yorker, on a new episode of GZERO World, airing on US public television.

Watch the episode: Can We Fix the Planet the Same Way We Broke It?

Not everyone thinks that President Biden's decision to pull all US troops out of Afghanistan by 9/11/21 is a good idea. Conservative Congressman Mike Waltz (R-FL), a combat-decorated Green Beret with multiple tours in Afghanistan, thinks that the US still needs to maintain a small presence in the country to avoid incurring "massive risks." In a spirited discussion with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, Waltz, who served as counterterrorism advisor in the George W. Bush administration, argues, "The next 9/11, the next Pulse Night Club, which is right on the edge of my congressional district, the next San Bernardino, that's now on Biden's watch. He owns it with this decision." Their conversation is featured in the upcoming episode of GZERO World, which airs on US public television starting Friday, April 23. Check local listings.

Vaccines are the best hope to end the COVID-19 pandemic. But rich countries are hogging most of the doses, with more than 83 percent of shots administered to date having gone to residents in high- and upper-middle-income countries. Most poor countries will have to wait years to achieve widespread vaccination, according to one study.

To address this inequity some stakeholders are pushing hard for waivers to intellectual-property (IP) rights through World Trade Organization trade rules so that manufacturers in poorer countries can make their own vaccines locally. India and South Africa have been leading the charge, which would essentially mean that deep-pocketed pharma companies like New York-based Pfizer, for instance, would have to hand over the keys to the kingdom, allowing local companies in New Delhi and Johannesberg to make generic versions of their vaccines.

Unsurprisingly, the debate has gotten fiery, with passionate arguments emerging both for and against.

More Show less

Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on Europe In 60 Seconds:

What are the Russians up to against Ukraine?

We simply don't know, except the fact that they're concentrating a huge amount of military forces. And you don't do that for nothing or for fun. They are there for a purpose, to have pressure or to undertake limited to larger operations. We simply don't know. And when Putin delivered his State of the Union speech the other day, he didn't say a thing about this. They are now talking about withdrawing the forces. But let's wait and see. They have talked about withdrawing forces from Syria for a long time, but we haven't seen that as of yet.

More Show less

Australia rips up Belt & Road deal: Australia cancelled two 2018 deals signed between Victoria, Australia's wealthiest state, and the Chinese government, that committed the two sides to working together on initiatives under China's Belt and Road infrastructure development program. Foreign Minister Marise Payne said that the agreements "were adverse to our foreign relations." Similar deals between Victoria and institutions in Iran and Syria were also abandoned by the Australian government this week, under a 2020 law that allows Canberra to nullify international agreements struck at local and state level. (Australian universities say the "foreign veto bill" amounts to "significant overreach.") Meanwhile, Beijing hit back, calling the move "unreasonable and provocative," and accusing Canberra of further stoking divisions after a series of escalatory moves by both sides that have seen China-Australia relations deteriorate to their worst point in decades. Chinese investment in Australia dropped by 62 percent last year, a massive blow for Australia's export-reliant economy.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal