Tehran and Nikki Haley's Resignation; A Dream That May Not Come True

Nikki Haley transformed from a Trump opponent to one of his close advisors, playing a major role in hardening Washington's policy towards Tehran. Her resignation will likely be met with pleasure in Tehran, but this satisfaction may not be justified. Haley's entry into politics was ironically initiated by the Democrats; she has stated that she became interested in politics in 2003 after hearing a speech by Hillary Clinton. She later joined the Republicans and became aligned with the most extreme factions of the Tea Party. With the help of these factions, she was elected twice as the first woman and the first non-white immigrant to the governorship of South Carolina. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Haley was a staunch defender of the broad rights of citizens to bear arms, strongly opposed abortion and homosexuality, but as the daughter of a Sikh Indian immigrant family, she had some considerations regarding immigration policies, even though after her election as governor in 2010, she signed one of the toughest immigration laws. However, this did not prevent her from demanding the removal of the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds after a man killed nine Black individuals in a church in Charleston, South Carolina, despite opposition within her party. During the election campaign, Trump accused Haley of having a soft immigration policy and called for stricter laws. Thus, during the Republican primaries, she did not get along with him and was one of his critics, supporting another Republican candidate. She described Trump's immigration policy as irresponsible and left no doubt in opposing the eventual Republican nominee for the presidential campaign with her famous tweet. Given these challenges and disagreements, it seemed unlikely that after Trump's victory in the November 2016 presidential election, Haley would play a role in his administration. Therefore, the day Haley's name was announced as the U.S. representative to the UN was surprising and fueled the analysis that Trump wanted to silence and neutralize one of his serious opponents by sending her to an institution that, under the unilateralism of the White House, no longer holds much importance, especially since Haley's membership in the important National Security Council, which usually included U.S. representatives to the UN, was ruled out. However, Haley displayed the toughness and rigidity that Trump and his hardest advisors desired, considering their actions aligned with the President's 'America First' policy. While Rex Tillerson, the first Secretary of State under Trump, behaved cautiously and quietly and was not very active compared to the National Security Council and the Pentagon, Haley effectively became a prominent and significant representative of Trump's diplomacy and ultimately, at the end of last year, Trump agreed to elevate her to the National Security Council, expressing satisfaction with her record. In her mission at the UN, Haley was uncompromising in three areas: one was her insistence on reforming the UN to make it leaner, more efficient, and cheaper from the White House's perspective. Her threat was that if things continued as before, the U.S. would reduce its funding for the UN. Another area of Haley's determination at the UN was her passionate defense of Israeli interests, including supporting and pushing Trump to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and withdrawing the U.S. from the UN Human Rights Council due to its 'anti-Israel' stance. In her joint appearance with Trump to announce her departure from the administration, she effectively confirmed her warm relations with them by warmly praising Trump's daughter and son-in-law. Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, play a major role in shaping policies and the unprecedented close relations of the U.S. government towards Israel, and Haley apparently had extensive coordination with them in this area, which naturally included countering the policies of the Islamic Republic. In fact, Haley's hardline stance at the UN also had another prominent aspect, which was her confrontation with the Islamic Republic on issues such as the JCPOA and its regional and missile approaches. There was hardly a month that Haley did not direct an attack towards the Islamic Republic at the UN. Initially, she was not a supporter of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, emphasizing instead the need to reform it, particularly to 'curb Iran's missile and regional policies.' In an unprecedented move at the UN, she even displayed pieces of missiles that she claimed were made in Iran and that the Houthis had launched towards Saudi Arabia. In this context, she was a staunch supporter of a resolution condemning Iran for 'sending weapons and missiles' to the Houthis. When this resolution faced a veto from Russia, Haley's fierce attacks on Moscow intensified. In cases like Iran and Russia's approach in Syria, Haley was tough and did not hold back from attacking Moscow and Tehran. She was a strong advocate for missile strikes on Syria during the two instances when there were signs and suspicions about the use of chemical weapons, with the finger of blame pointing at the Assad government. She never tired of reiterating the U.S. position on the 'necessity of the Islamic Republic's forces leaving Syria.' Overall, the refusal of other parties to comply with the U.S. demand to amend the JCPOA and to engage firmly with the Islamic Republic regarding its 'destructive and destabilizing' regional policies ultimately aligned Haley with individuals and factions within the U.S. government that sought to exit the JCPOA. This move was ultimately realized with the departure of figures like Tillerson from the administration and the entry of hardliners like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo into the government, along with James Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, softening his previous stance, leading Trump to fulfill his threat to withdraw from the JCPOA last May after a year and five months. After this withdrawal, Haley also joined the mobilization of U.S. international resources for extensive sanctions against Iran, and during a trip to India last June to persuade its leadership to stop buying oil from Iran, she acted with full force, an effort that has been somewhat successful. Although Bolton has also left, Haley's departure is different. While she consistently denied that the U.S. government was seeking regime change in Iran, she had no qualms about calling a special Security Council meeting to examine the protests in Iran despite criticism from Russia, China, and even France, and sought support for it. She attempted to use the U.S. position as the President of the UN Security Council last September to hold a Security Council meeting with Trump solely on the subject of Iran, but later, as it became clear that America's European allies would also have to speak against the U.S. and in favor of the JCPOA at this meeting, the agenda changed significantly. John Bolton also served as the U.S. representative to the UN for a year (2005 to 2006) during the first year of George W. Bush's second term. He was a staunch supporter of war against Iraq and extending it to Iran. He stated that it would not matter if 10 floors of the UN were removed, and only one country deserved a seat on the Security Council: the U.S. His departure coincided with the exit of figures like Rumsfeld from the Department of Defense and a general reduction in the power of proponents of preemptive wars tested in Iraq. He was replaced by Zalmay Khalilzad, who was somewhat softer. Now that the news of Nikki Haley's resignation has spread, there is hope in Tehran that a less hardline replacement will take her place, a dream that may not come true. Now, Bolton, with almost the same threats as before, holds a key position in the White House and, along with Pompeo, is increasing pressure policies on Tehran. Even if a slower replacement comes after Haley, it is highly likely that there will be no change in Washington's overall policy. The experience of the past two years indicates a hardening of Washington's tone and approach towards the Islamic Republic, in which Haley played a major role. Given the current power dynamics in the White House and the unlikely change in the Republican status in Congress as a result of the upcoming November elections, it is unlikely that Haley's departure will change the atmosphere in Washington in favor of Tehran's hopes and positions, nor will it eliminate the necessity for a comprehensive negotiation to resolve the chronic issues between Iran and the U.S., including Tehran's stance on issues such as the existence of Israel, even temporarily.