Tehran (TT) – Trump is at the helm of the $35 billion American cabinet, which has been backed by Wall Street, the lobbying of U.S. corporations in the oil, pharmaceutical, and weapons sectors, all of which support Trump despite him being the first impeached President to run for re-election.
Unlike the 2016 election, which Trump and his cabinet members had no record of government jobs, they are now entering the 2020 election campaign with greater wealth and executive experience. In other words, the upcoming election will look more like a traditional competition between Republicans and Democrats.
Conversely, in this next election, the American people will have to choose a person among Republican billionaires and Democratic millionaires. Any decision that the people make will determine the future of themselves and their children for another four-year term.
Democrats, who cannot financially compete with Republican billionaires, have relied solely on popular donations in their election campaign, which has so far been estimated $5.18 per donor, with non-corporate supported Bernie Sanders being among the top fundraisers but built through small amounts.
Unfortunately, the Democrats have not performed well in the debates so far, so candidates are trying to defame Trump in their domestic policies and goal setting. They do not consider Trump as a right person for the presidency position due to his narcissism, lies, instability, moral corruption, and “abrasive attitude” that fuels their continued propaganda against him.
By criticizing Trump’s foreign policy, the Democrats’ chances of winning the election will be increased because they can gain the support of foreign countries that have been heavily suffered from Trump’s plans. Emphasis on unstructured diplomacy, part-time strategies, and decision making based on Trump’s tweets, which even have confused European allies of the U.S., have been mocked by Democratic candidates to pave the way for foreign political support for the Democratic Party.
To draw the attention of countries around the world, Democratic candidates have described Trump policies, which are based on “political militarism” and “military terrorism”, as his obvious blunders. They insist that Trump has failed to redefine his friends and foes, becoming reliant on dictatorial regimes and distancing from its old allies.
Democrats have used the JCPOA in their election campaign as a bargaining chip against Trump. To further pressure Trump, they state that the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal has led to a series of events that threaten U.S. national interests and security.
In this regard, Democratic candidates are seeking to please China, Russia, and Europe in an attempt for maintaining the JCPOA. Despite Trump, who left the nuclear deal and has consistently insisted on the benefits of this withdrawal, Democrats have agreed with a conditioned return to the deal.
Of course, their conditions include extending the Iran deal’s sunset provisions in the fields of nuclear and weapon restrictions or negotiating Iran’s missile and regional behavior, which is also being followed by Trump and Europe.
Along with the Democratic election campaign, Trump has been setting his foreign policy to reduce tensions with China and Russia, which are the most influential states in carrying out cyber-attacks or influencing the 2020 election.
Despite his efforts to find a way to negotiate with Iran, Trump has not yet succeeded, and the Democrats’ have chosen to focus on developments in Iran which they may hope to use as Trump’s Achilles heel in the 2020 election. Any unexpected event regarding Iran could face Trump with trouble. Therefore, Iran and the developments in Tehran-Washington relations are at the center of the Democrats’ attention.
In recent debates, the candidates were at obvious odds with Trump regarding the assassination of Commander Qassem Soleimani. By stating this issue, which is related to military terrorism, democrats are trying to show a public and international opinion that, unlike Trump, they are predictable and hate war despite the fact that every candidate besides Sanders said he would’ve done the same if Trump had just made the right phone calls.
In recent debates, most recently held in New Hampshire (February 7, 2020), two candidates stated that if they were in such a situation they would never order such a strike unless they evaluate all of the intelligence aspects and effects and learn about the results, while with President Trump’s decision, there is no evidence that the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani made the U.S. safer.
Candidates put forward their reasons for the lack of necessity to order the strike, saying that there is no evidence yet of an imminent threat that was going to come from General Soleimani yet at the same time continued to peddle the lie that Soleimani was still a dangerous man who mainstream media basically made sounds as if he was connected to ISIS.
One of the candidates stated, “You cannot go around saying you’re a bad guy, we’re going to assassinate you, and then you’re going to have, if that happens, you’re opening the door to international anarchy that every government in the world will then be subjected to attacks and assassination”. However, this type of rhetoric still needs to be weighed against the fact that most candidates still consider the IRGC terrorists and if Hillary had won in 2016, the situation in Iran could possibly be worse.
In the Democratic candidates’ debates, Trump is deliberately blamed for severe and dangerous tensions between the United States and Iran so that in the case of any disaster between the two states like a serious military conflict he is likely to be seen as responsible.
So far it seems as if the only such a situation that could make things better would be a complete reversal by the majority of candidates – excluding those like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard – making the sudden decision to denounce the use of a military option against Iran as well as other methods of warfare including economic, electronic, diplomatic and international pressure, along with the United States’ repairing relations with its traditional allies, who hold much less violent intentions for Iran.
This post was written by Mohammadreza Farahzadi and originally published by Tehran Times.
This piece appears here with the owner’s consent of the original publisher but may also not fully reflect the editorial positions held by Geopolitics Alert.