The US's process of besieging itself

The sanctions program announced after the United States under the Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear agreement with Iran began to be implemented as of yesterday.

US President Trump announced this period through a statement on Twitter as follows: "These are the harshest sanctions that have been applied so far, and in November the sanctions will be raised to a new level. Those who do business with Iran will not be able to do business with the US. I want world peace, nothing less!"

Trump's words that he wants "world peace" seem to mock humanity's intelligence. We are familiar with such words from the discourse of terrorist groups like the PKK, which it supports in Syria and in Turkey. Never letting the words of peace leave one's tongue and never letting the weapons leave one's hands are like two events that follow one another causally. Carrying out massacres against the civilian population while saying peace, destroying the will of nations while saying democracy, launching chaotic processes that cost the lives of millions of people: these have been the actions that have followed all the operations the US has undertaken so far "in the name of peace."

However, it appears that the sanctions that Trump's US administration has set its mind on applying to Iran will not, this time, find a broad alliance alongside them as he supposes.

Besides, there is no country in the world that finds him right in the process of deciding on these sanctions, that is, in the process of withdrawing from the nuclear agreement with Iran. None of the countries known as the 5+1 has so far encountered, in the negotiations conducted with Iran, any situation showing that Iran has failed to comply with the agreements.

The US decision to withdraw from the agreement is not based on a ground such as Iran's failure to comply with the agreements. On the contrary, this entire process rests on Trump's promise in his election campaign to cancel the agreement with Iran.

Since nobody gave any chance that Trump would win anyway, nobody felt the need to discuss the seriousness of this promise. But there is no convention that international agreements change merely with the change of a government. The opening of such a path is in itself an irrational step sufficient to upset all the balances of the world.

What brought Trump to the point of breaking these agreements with Iran is likewise not a new situation concerning Iran's attitude but the intense demands of Israel and the lobbies that support it in the US. In the end, the US has never appeared more unjust in the eyes of the world, in anything it has done, than it does today.

Truly, even if it has always been unjust, it has always found a way not to appear unjust and has always had some kind of alliance group beside it, for better or worse. Now, however, there is no one but Israel that regards it as right.

Indeed, almost all the EU countries, including the countries that are parties to the nuclear agreement, are signaling that there is no reason to break the agreement with Iran and that they can continue trade with Iran. To reflect the view of the EU in general, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, in a statement during her visit to New Zealand, said that they encourage increasing trade with Iran, which is faithful to its nuclear commitments.

China immediately declared that it would not comply with the embargo decision of the US covering the cutting of oil imports from Iran, and has already announced that it will continue to import oil from Iran. Likewise

the Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the US sanctions decision and its application against Iran and made a statement expressing "deep disappointment" at the US breaking the agreement that had been made and then putting these sanctions back into force. Since it is understood that Russia too will not comply, we can say that these sanctions will to some extent remain a dead letter.

Meanwhile, it is clear that the countries that will have to comply with this decision because they fear the US will do so reluctantly. By imposing its unilateral decisions on the world, the US is trying to impose, as it were, an international dictatorship. The style of the US, which boasts of its democracy at home, of presenting everything as a fait accompli in world governance with unilateral decisions far removed from democracy and with the wind of fear and threat it stirs up, is in essence an approach that completely cancels other countries' right to a say in matters of democracy.

When the decision on sanctions against Iran is added to the trade wars it had previously begun with China and the EU, we had said before that the US is in fact besieging itself in this way.

No one can claim that the rise of the dollar against the Turkish Lira or other currencies today is in favor of the US economy. Because a rising dollar rate deeply hits US exports and turns the whole country's economy only toward domestic consumption, and the country's domestic consumption cannot carry the US's production volume for long.

While the US is already giving signals of closing in on itself with trade wars, with the restrictions it places on the circulation of capital and goods it is starting a new current in the exact opposite direction of globalization all over the world. This current is truly good for no one, but when one looks at who it would harm most, it is none other than the US. Because America is the country that has benefited most from globalization, and the reverse of this course harms it most.

We watch with admonition the US administration, trapped within the narrow limits of Evangelical theo-politics, increasingly besieging itself economically and politically today. And how can one possibly watch without worry what this costs for itself and for the world?