The Silent Majority: Where Are Our Interests?

In 1990, we were thrust, against our will, into the tunnel of international politics through the gateway of “our supreme interests,” not the interests of others. We learned many hard lessons from that experience, particularly the Iraqi occupation, which exposed the falsity of many slogans and the waste of tons of goodwill in the wrong places. In my view, the most important lesson was identifying where our true depth lies and with whom we should build our partnerships, regardless of their differences.

In that year, which marked our forced awakening, we understood the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, based primarily on our own interests. The Republican Party, under George H.W. Bush, was the party of action, unafraid to wage wars to achieve its interests.

In contrast, the Democratic Party retreated inward. This was the party that had fought the Korean War (under Truman) and the Vietnam War (under Johnson), but had since become more inclined toward diplomatic solutions, with the exception of the Balkans War surge under Clinton against the Serbs.

For the past 36 years, whenever we witnessed a “freeze” in military action by any Democratic president, especially during Obama’s tenure, we said, “Thank God,” that the invasion catastrophe did not occur under his watch; otherwise, we would have been a thing of the past. For the record, the Iranian nuclear agreement was signed during Obama’s presidency, which neglected to restrict Iran’s ballistic missile program and enabled Tehran to build a missile arsenal capable of reaching the safe cities of the Gulf region during the recent war.

Like many others, I followed the results of the midterm congressional elections and noted the euphoria over the Democratic Party’s candidates winning majorities in both the House and the Senate. This was due to some of them adopting positions against the influence of the Zionist lobby and other issues, none of which included curbing Iran’s nuclear program or ensuring international freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz—issues that directly affect our interests.

The American voter, who voted for Democratic candidates—including eight transgender individuals who became congresswomen, by the way—chose his personal interest over slogans opposing AIPAC, after tasting the bitterness of rising fuel prices. For those who do not know, Americans generally do not care about foreign policy or the outside world, as evidenced by the fact that nearly half of the American population does not possess a passport.

On the other hand, some have forgotten where our interests lie and who is the party whose interests align with ours. We are still in a predicament imposed upon us: “unfinished business.” Neither the American project to overthrow the Iranian regime and destroy its nuclear program has been realized, nor has the Strait of Hormuz returned to its pre-February 28 status. Therefore, if we assume that matters will continue in this pattern of stagnation and allow the Democratic Party’s whims to influence our situation, I say now: “Surrender” the Strait of Hormuz, submit to the fees and tolls that Tehran will impose on global shipping, and prepare for its renewed regional influence, blessed by the Democratic Party.

In conclusion, will this generation, which did not witness what happened in Kuwait in 1990, need another hard lesson to understand the language of interests in international politics, and that interest is the compass of our positions?