JCPOA, Elections, and the Shadow of War Over the Country: Khamenei Against Rouhani

The story began when Rouhani stated at the beginning of 2017: "The JCPOA lifted the shadow of war and the oppressive threats and sanctions from the country." Khamenei opposed this statement for two reasons: 1) that Rouhani would attribute the lifting of the shadow of war to himself, and 2) that it would imply that the leader's nuclear program caused the shadow of war over the country and that the nuclear negotiations lifted this shadow. For this reason, he explicitly disagreed: "Sometimes we hear some say that when we took responsibility, we were able to lift the shadow of war from the country; no, this is not true. The presence of workers and all segments of the nation has always reduced the shadow of war and the aggression of enemies over the Iranian nation." Immediately after Khamenei's remarks, officials close to Rouhani sought to resolve this disagreement between Khamenei and Rouhani, which had previously occurred in other instances and led to further division between the head of government and the leader. Eshaq Jahangiri, in the second presidential debate, said: "As the leader stated, it was the presence of the people that in 2013, with the election of Rouhani, shortened the shadow of threats over the country." Additionally, Majid Ansari, the parliamentary deputy of the eleventh government, said: "The people, by electing the government of prudence and hope and a team that can talk to the world, have lifted the shadow of war from the country." Khamenei responded two days later: "Do not distort what I have clearly stated and say that the meaning is that the presence of the people brings a government to power, that government... no, the governments have no effect." These reactions indicate how sensitive Khamenei is to this issue. However, it is unclear from Khamenei's remarks whether he perceived a shadow of war over the country or not, and if such a shadow existed, how the people lifted this threat: by chanting slogans in his presence against "enemies", conducting missile tests, or by adopting a policy (nuclear agreement) that reduced the likelihood of war. What do independent realities say about the shadow of war over the country during and after Obama? What we know from the statements and actions of the Obama and Trump administrations during and after their electoral campaigns indicates that these two administrations were not seeking regime change in Iran; they were fundamentally opposed to state-building through war and occupation of other countries by the United States (an issue that ignores the fabricated choice between Rouhani and war to encourage people to participate in elections and vote for Rouhani). U.S. administrations from the Clinton era to the present have not sought war with the Islamic Republic; the Obama administration tolerated provocative behaviors of the Islamic Republic and its military expansion in the Middle East and Africa. Even Congress suspended a plan for further sanctions a month and a half before the 2017 presidential elections to observe developments in Iran and decide based on them. U.S. officials want to give the Islamic Republic an opportunity to change its behavior. The Trump administration did not consider the nuclear agreement a suitable agreement but adhered to it, meaning they did not seek further tension with the Islamic Republic. If they wanted such tension, they would have stated that they welcomed violations by the Islamic Republic. Unlike the Obama administration, they see little difference between the two factions of the government to invest in one, but as Trump stated in his inauguration ceremony, they are not seeking to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. It seems that Zarif could have gained leverage from threatening to eliminate reformists and moderates from Kerry, but this would not work on the Trump administration. Although the Trump administration seeks to get closer to traditional U.S. allies in the region (Saudi Arabia and Israel) and does not count on the Islamic Republic or the Shiite crescent—as Obama did or wanted to create a balance of power between it and the Sunni world—they are also not seeking war. All the above points indicate that despite the claim of having all options on the table during the Obama administration, the threat of war has never been serious. Contrary to opponents of sanctions who see them as a precursor to war, sanctions have fundamentally been an option against war, not a prelude to it. Hatred of the West: A Catalyst for War What is presented as a threat and shadow of war against the Islamic Republic by the United States does not stem from the behaviors and attitudes of American officials but from the behaviors and words of Khamenei and the commanders of the IRGC. This situation is not changed by the JCPOA, elections, or "the presence of the people" (the slogans of Basijis in favor of Khamenei in his office). Six realities rooted in the hatred and enmity of Khamenei, the clergy, and the IRGC with the West, especially the United States, have created and continue to create conditions for military confrontation between the Islamic Republic and the United States: 1. The U.S. Navy has recorded 50 instances of "unprofessional and unsafe" provocative encounters by IRGC boats in the Persian Gulf in recent years (including the capture of Navy personnel in 2016). The Obama administration ignored these encounters. The Trump administration also seems to have adopted the same policy as the Obama administration. The Houthis have targeted Saudi and Emirati ships with missiles received from the Islamic Republic in an area where U.S. military vessels are constantly moving, increasing the likelihood of them being targeted. If the Islamic Republic continues its previous behaviors in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Aden (arming the Houthis with anti-ship missiles) and one of the American ships is hit, then U.S. officials will inevitably respond to demonstrate their power. 2. Since the signing of the nuclear agreement, the Islamic Republic has launched 12 ballistic missiles (in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231), some of which have the capacity to carry nuclear warheads and some can reach Israel. The Islamic Republic wrote on one of these missiles that "Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth." The continuation of these missile tests and the increase in their range will not be acceptable to Israel and the United States. 3. Khamenei and his close associates have identified the United States as an enemy for four decades, and to prove this imaginary and conspiratorial enmity, they must directly confront it one day to validate their statements. Khamenei and his associates have always claimed that the United States is seeking to overthrow the Islamic Republic, whether through hard or soft war, military attack, or Western art and culture. Their best evidence for this enmity is a limited war. Obama's friendly letters to Khamenei, contrary to the claims of the left that one should talk to U.S. enemies to abandon their delusions and reduce tensions, have had no effect on this issue. The nuclear agreement also had no effect on reducing the hostility of Islamists towards the United States. Even receiving the equivalent of $1.7 billion in cash and the release of traffickers related to the nuclear program (beyond the exchange with Iranian hostages) has not reduced this enmity by a fraction. Photos of Obama and Trump together at state parades are trampled underfoot, indicating that military and propaganda officials see no difference between the two. 4. The Islamic Republic acts against the United States in all regional disputes, even if this action contradicts Iran's national interests and is inconsistent with its previous foreign policy practices. The Islamic Republic has established close relations with the Taliban, has acted against American forces in Iraq, which it handed over to them, and its allies (Gulf countries) are the arena for its sabotage and destabilization. In cyberattacks against American institutions (not only military entities but also a dam in New York), the fingerprints of the IRGC can also be seen. Military officials of the Islamic Republic are constantly proposing provocative ideas to U.S. military officials. The need for war is more evident than ever in their statements. Khamenei and the IRGC commanders are dissatisfied that ISIS has taken the lead in the anti-American movement in the region in recent years and wish to regain this leadership through low-cost actions, but it is unclear whether their actions will be low-cost. The Obama administration lacked a long-term strategy to defeat ISIS, which Obama stated several times. His administration also did not have such a strategy to contain the Islamic Republic. However, in the absence of a strategy, it tolerated the provocations and bullying of the Islamic Republic and even placated it, even at the cost of discontent among some senior generals (who later joined Trump's team) and alienating parts of the population from the Democratic Party due to the display of weakness. However, the Trump administration sees no need to tolerate the provocative and bullying behaviors of Shia Islamists. This causes the threshold of American tolerance for the provocative behaviors of the Islamic Republic to decrease. Saudi Arabia and Israel will cooperate with this. Khamenei's return to Rouhani's words Thus: 1) The shadow of war in the country has always existed and will always exist during the Islamic Republic; 2) The main factor is not the neocons and imperialists, but the hatred of Islamists and their enmity with the West and the behaviors and words stemming from this, such as the rebelliousness of the Islamic Republic in the international arena; and 3) The alleviators of these tensions have been the de-escalating policies of governments like Khatami and Rouhani, not the terrorism of the Rafsanjani era or the nuclear program during Ahmadinejad, not arming the Taliban and Iraqis to kill American soldiers, and not the "people" (Basijis from the government's perspective) walking on the flag of the United States. In fact, Khamenei, contrary to all his statements denying Rouhani's and his colleagues' words about the alleviating factors of the threat, after denying them, considered the elections (in the same engineered form) as a factor that removed danger from the country and the system: "If there were no elections, today there would be no trace of the Islamic Republic of Iran left."