نشریه مطالعات سیاست خارجی تهران
پیاپی 13 (تابستان 1398)

Iran was of special consequence in America's strategic plan and the US did its best to extend its influence in this important West Asian country after the overthrowing of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1952. However, the Islamic revolution demonstrated its revolutionary positions and surprised Wash Iran was of special consequence in America's strategic plan and the US did its best to extend its influence in this important West Asian country after the overthrowing of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1952. However, the Islamic revolution demonstrated its revolutionary positions and surprised Wash

Haj Hussein Khalil, Hezbollah political deputy and a member of Lebanon Hezbollah's council, is one of the prominent figures who has fought with the Zionist regime's threats to eliminate Lebanon's hostile occupants. Simultaneously, he has determinedly opposed American conspiratorial plans in his country and West Asia region. Hussein Khalil, who is politically intelligent, socially admirable and organizationally acceptable, has played a role in the most important political equations, and as a representative of Hezbollah (that has been victorious in all field equations of the past few decades) has successfully participated in conflicts with internal rivals. Taking advantage of his personal intelligence and organizational stability, he has always stressed Hezbollah's clear views and fair demands in different arenas and raised the victorious flag of resistance on the summit of willpower. With a realistic view stemmed from clear realities of the affairs, he considers the roots current crisis in West Asia in America's vindictive approach in order to compensate for its failures against the Axis of Resistance. He is convinced that the Western alliance led by the US has experienced multiple consecutive defeats against the independence- seeking spirit of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Axis of Resistance and the American authorities lack the operational capacities to deter Iran or neutralize its regional influence. Tehran Foreign Policy Studies Quarterly was thankful of the time this politician spared for the interview and discussed all the aforementioned issues in detail with him.

During the past forty years, since the Iranian Islamic Revolution till today, all the anti-Iranian hostile acts have had a common theoretical background and originated from the United States of America that has put its policies, strategies and initiatives against Iran into action with a realistic rationale. On the other hand, Iran has done its best for internal reinforcement or having an important regional role and balancing the power scale with a justice-seeking realism. The West Asian region has always been regarded a significant political region and western geopolitical experts have called it the heart of the earth and view it as the key to dominate and control the world. The cultural characteristic of this region is its Islamic origin which got even bolder and more sensitive by the Iranian Islamic Revolution and Iran's independent-seeking approaches and the inspiration this country was for the regional and global nations. The United States' top strategic priorities have always been to guarantee the Zionist Regime's security, make sure of a cheap and safe way to transfer energy sources from the region, guarantee the regional dictatorships' cooperation with the US, manage profitable conflicts which would produce great deal of profits for both US and western countries and deter the opposing countries to maintain an American type of order and paradigm. Islamic Revolution's values and fundamentals have always been legitimate defense, localization of resistance in the region, forming a resistance and power network, legitimate alliance and cooperation and implementing intelligent strategies in regional transformations which are all power and influence-forming factors of today's Islamic Republic of Iran.

The most important concern of any political unit during the time of anarchy is its safety and survival. The governments, as the main actors of the international system are always trying to increase their capabilities to establish security. Iran's missile program, as a reaction to security threats from the beginning (1980s and during the Iran-Iraq war) have always had a defensive and deterrent nature, and both political and defensive authorities of this country have repeatedly emphasize on this position. However, this program faced America's continuous oppositions from the beginning and is now facing much more serious reactions from this country. Given the range of Iranian missiles, they can't possibly be a threat for the US soil, and given Iran's missile arsenal, the program can't posit any threat to the Zionist Regime as a close ally to the US. Therefore, what is the main reason for America's incessant oppositions to this program? The present article is of the opinion that the US considers Iran's missile program a continuation of its nuclear program which has an important role in changing the power balance in the region at Iran's gain and US strategic ally, Israel's loss. Since the US national security strategy about the security in the Middle East depends on 'maintaining Israel's strategic superiority', any change in this balance is intolerable for the United States that is expected to promptly react. Thus, the main hypothesis is that maintaining Israel's strategic superiority in the framework of regional power balance is the principal reason of America's opposition to Iran's missile program. The following report attempts at analyzing the so-called hypothesis by examining America's positions in the history.

As a result of the inefficiency of sanctions to realize America's goal of Iranian regime's collapse or surrender with irrational conditions and also of the contradictory results of the policy of the maximum pressure, the United States government has now the lower hand with no suitable option to get out of the current crisis. On the one hand, the sanctions are at the highest level possible and can't be possibly increased. On the other, using the military option against Iran will bring about countless challenges the US government is not ready to deal with. If the situation continues to be this way and both internal and international pressures intensify, the White House might have to change its approach towards Iran. Trump government's willingness to start negotiations doesn't necessarily mean the White House's change of approach since Trump desperately needs a big achievement in foreign policy in his electoral campaigns. Trump's government is seeking to take advantage of talks with Iran as a promotional trick; therefore, we can't really expect a serious change of approach in the White House.