Khamenei.ir

Mr. Joe Lauria has been an independent journalist working on international affairs, particularly the politics of the Middle East, for over twenty years. He has worked as an investigative reporter for various newspapers; including The Sunday Times of London and Bloomberg News. Lauria has served as a correspondent, based in the United Nations, for The Boston Globe, Montreal Gazette, Wall Street Journal, London Daily Telegraph, Johannesburg Star and The National. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, Salon and The Guardian. In an exclusive interview with Khamenei.ir Mr. Joe Lauria sheds light on U.S. presidential elections and whether or not the United States could play an actual role in resolving different nations' problems:

Do you approve of the idea that the latest Presidential elections in US brought about a disgrace to America?

These were probably the two worst major party candidates ever to run for president. Both of them are under criminal investigation. Neither one is trusted by large numbers of voters. The establishment of both the Republicans and the Democrats have rallied around Hillary Clinton to protect their interests, while Trump, though a billionaire, is perceived as threatening the ruling circles' economic and geo-strategic interests. Trump wants to do away with trade deals that have enriched American corporations and Wall Street but have impoverished millions of American workers. He frightens the economic elites by stirring up disaffected voters, many previously in the middle class. And he opposes U.S. aggression against Russia and China, and questions NATO's role.  Trump is contradictory however, wanting to increase US military spending, though the US already spends more than the next ten countries combined.

Some believe the resolving of independent countries’ problems are tied into compromise with the U.S.; does history confirm such a notion?

Under two decade's influence of neo-conservatives and their agenda to achieve world dominance for the U.S. any government that does not obey U.S. dictates is at risk of being undermined, its government overthrown or in the most extreme case, attacked from the air and possibly invaded. In this circumstance nations with weaker militaries have very little leverage to negotiate with the US and will have to arrange some kind of compromise in the face of U.S. hegemony. 

On the contrary, there are those who believe negotiating with the U.S. will not only fail in resolving their countries’ problems, but will also intensify them; does history confirm it?

Most countries wanting to chart an independent course from Washington and uphold its sovereignty will be in a weak position regarding any negotiation with the U.S. Compromise of some sort is always preferable to armed conflict. Seeking military and economic alliances as a bloc, such as the BRICS, does restore some leverage to weaker nations.

U.S. officials acknowledge there is an economic, political, international and moral crisis within the United States; is such a crisis-stricken country capable of resolving independent countries economic woes?

The crisis of democracy in the U.S. and its neoliberal policies since the 1980s-- that have transferred enormous amounts of wealth from working people to the elites-- makes the U.S. uniquely unqualified to "spread democracy," which is just a code for spreading neoliberal control that benefits foreign capital and local oligarchs. US leadership cares little for American democracy let alone democracy in any other country. They are seeking economic and military dominance.