Review of the US Foreign Policy towards Iran
Introduction:
Relations between the United States and Iran have gone from bad to worse since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran have been considered as a member of the “Axis of Evil” and the US foreign policy towards it have been built within this perspective. However, many domestic, regional and global changes have led to the belief of a need of review of American foreign policy towards Iran. It is widespread believed that A stable relationship with Iran will alleviate the pressure upon Obama’s administration and the US foreign policy makers. This review attempts to explain evolution led to the need of reviewing the policy towards Iran, and to provide the US foreign policy towards Iran of a clear vision of Iranian domestic politics and its regional politics towards states in the region and the perspectives of these states as well. It will conclude of key findings and recommendations to improve the efficiency of the US foreign Policy towards Iran.
The Need for a Review of the US Foreign Policy towards Iran:
The need of critical review of Obama administration’s foreign policy is significant, since much has changed in the security situation on the Middle East and Eastern Europe in his second term. There are three significant reasons that suggest a need of revision of the US foreign policy in general and towards Iran in particular.
Firstly, US strategic interests in the Middle East are challenged by Iranian ambitions to dominate the region. Iran is hardly involved in interventions of the domestic affairs of other Arab states, through establishing or supporting some Shiite groups, in terms of promoting the regional policies of Iran. Furthermore, despite geopolitical and economic prev...
... middle of paper ...
...ty of Iran and the Iranian people, and support the reforming movements such as (Green movement).
• Keep a pressure for human rights reforms and use it as a pressure card. It should be clear to Iran that pursuing to a final deal in its nuclear program does not mean disregarding human rights violation inside the country.
• Take an advantage of a common threat within Saudi Arabia and Israel to push for Arab-Israeli peace agreement.
• A coalition of Turkey and Saudi Arabia will fill any vacuum in the region resulting of American retreating in favor of Asia-pacific. This coalition needs a pressure upon Saudi Arabia and Turkey to settle their differences resulting after Arab-spring.
I wish considering this recommendation will rationalise the diplomatic foreign policy for rapprochement towards Iran. And I hope this review will assist to design effective foreign policy.
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East had depended on a friendly government in Iran. The newly appointed leader, the shah of Iran, began Westernizing the country and taking away power from the Ayatollah, powerful religious leaders. The United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages. This was the final straw for many Americans, and enough to push them to the “right” side of the political spectrum, Republican.
The book A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy, by Joyce Kaufman, and the essay, American Foreign Policy Legacy by Walter Mead both acknowledge the history, and the importance of American foreign policy. The two argue that American foreign policy has always been an essential aspect of the prosperity and health of the United States. After reading these writings myself, I can agree that American foreign policy in the U.S. has always been detrimental to the success of this nation. Throughout history most Americans have had very little interest in foreign affairs, nor understood the importance. This essay will address the importance of foreign policy, why Americans have little interest in foreign affairs, and what the repercussions
Following the war with Vietnam, America foreign policy saw a new shift. This shift is marked by the decline of containment to a policy of a ‘here and now’ approach. That is, the United States’ new policy was to deal with each situation on a case by case basis rather than treating every threat of communism as a threat to containment. This reclaimed part of the old policy of objectivity in international affairs. As the past shows, controversies and wars alike have the power to dramatically shift a countries foreign policy. One can only wonder what will cause the next change.
When the constitution of the United States was formed, the framers specifically designed the American Government structure to have checks and balances and democracy. To avoid autocracy the President was give power to preside over the executive branch of the government and as commander –in –chief, in which a clause was put into place to give the president the power to appeal any sudden attacks against America, without waiting for a vote from congress. While the president presides over the executive branch there has been ongoing debate over the role of the president in regards to foreign policy. Should foreign policy issues be an executive function by the president or should congress play a much greater role? With the sluggishness of our democracy, foreign policy issues most times need quicker response compared to how domestic policy is decided in the United States. Many believe to maintain openness and democracy both the president and congress need to agree on how the United States handles issue abroad. Although the president has been given much power, his or her power and decisions are sometimes limited based on decisions by congress and challenged and shaped by various bureaucracies throughout the government system. I shall discuss the Presidents role and the role of governmental bureaucracies (Department of Defense, Department of State and the National Security Council) that work together and sometimes not together to shape and implement American foreign Policy.
As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion.
Thomas Schelling, in his book Arms and Influence, describes the way the threat of war can be used in negotiation, to coerce another country to abide by the demands of another. In this case, the United States and the European Union, among others, have been trying to negotiate, even coerce, Iran into giving up its nuclear arms program. For the most part, Iran has not been willing to negotiate much. In fact, Iran is often described as being defiant against the world. Will this defiance cause a war to be started with Iran? The chances are good that a war could take place, but the chances are just as good that political leaders will find another way to deal with Iran’s relations with the world, especially after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Maghen, Z. (2009, January). Eradicating the "Little Satan": Why Iran Should Be Taken at Its
Russia, a vast country with a wealth of natural resources, a well, educated population, and diverse industrial base, continues to experience, formidable difficulties in moving from its old centrally planned economy to a modern market economy. President Yeltsin's government has made substantial strides in converting to a market economy since launching its economic reform program in January 1992 by freeing nearly all prices, slashing defense spending, eliminating the old centralized distribution system, completing an ambitious voucher privatization program, establishing private financial institutions, and decentralizing trade. Russia, however, has made little progress in a number of key areas that are needed to provide a solid foundation for the transition to a market economy.
Relations between the United States and North Korea have been unstable since the second world war and with each passing decade the relations have become more tense. The U.S has never have formal international relations with North Korea , however the conflict has caused much controversy in U.S foreign policy. North Korea has been the receiver of millions of dollars in U.S aid and the target of many U.S sanctions. This is due to the fact that North Korea is one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, that uses unjust techniques such as murder, torture, and starvation to get their citizens to be obedient. They restrict contact from their citizens to the outside world, through censorship of technology and rarely allowing visitors to the country. The root of the US-North Korea conflict however ,has been on the basis of nuclear weapons and North Korea threatening to use those weapons against the U.S and neighboring South Korea. The U.S and other nations have been working for the last few decades to stop the regime from purchasing and utilizing destructive nuclear weapons.
The pro-Israel intervention represented the US foreign policy reaction when the violation to regional stability was committed by Israel. The cases discussed above were evaluated against the US reaction to Israel’s regional behaviour; in terms of whether the Israeli behaviour served or hampered US interest in maintaining regional stability and whether or not the US opposed Israel when it acted in ways that the United States deemed undesirable. It was concluded that, as a general rule, Washington was ready to intervene to address any violation to the status quo in the Middle East system except when this violation was committed by its regional surrogate. Israel had contributed directly in destabilizing the Middle East system (pushing the system out of its equilibrium point) in several cases, four of which have been discussed above. These crises, in spite of their negative effect on regional stability, witnessed minimal US reaction.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
Although the Iranian Revolution was both a political and religious movement in that it resulted in major shifts in government structure from an autocracy to a republic and that Islamic beliefs were fought to be preserved, it was more a religious movement in that the primary goal of the people was to preserve traditional ideology and in that the government became a theocracy intertwined with religious laws and desires of the people. Although the Iranian Revolution was caused by combination of political and religious motivations and ideas, the desires of the people supporting the movement were more dominantly religious ideas that were wished to be imposed in society and in a new government. The Shah, or king, of Iran at the time was Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, who had developed relations with nations in the “western” world, specifically with the United States. The United States supported the White Revolution, which was a series of social reformations the Shah made to remove Islamic values, law and tradition from the government to boost the country’s economy (White Revolution, 2010).... ...
The Islamic Republic of Iran, formerly known as Iran or Persia, was crowded with a young generation looking for full freedom against the Shah. Persia, once as a powerful country with vast oil resources, soon became a vulnerable nation, ready to accept a new leader to guide them. The people were ready for change, but were the changes they got the changes they were looking for. The people wanted freedom against the shah, (For generations Iran was ruled by Kings) who allowed some freedoms, but it was somewhat limited. The people wanted freedom of speech, so that the press could freely publish their own opinions. They wanted to get rid of a law that made all eighteen-year-old males attend two years of military service unless they are accepted to a university, which would allow them attend the army later as a service worker. The shah was anti-religious, which was not ideal for many of the civilians in Iran. Savak (Secret organization of Iran) was accused of many anti – human rights actions, such as killing students who protested and immediately jailing press members for inappropriate conduct. A major problem was that the shah was a “puppet” of the United States many say, because the Shah would constantly confer with the U.S. of all of his decisions as ruler. The after affects of the revolution resulted in similar conditions, however. Human rights are horrible, the government limits all freedoms, the economy has suffered greatly, average salaries are hard to live with, most of the educated people in Iran fled to foreign countries, the quality of public schools is horrible, and the government still controls all television broadcasts and keeps a watchful eye on the newspapers. From bad to worse is what many people feel has become of Iran, but the people are ready for a real change.
The discovery of oil in Middle East in the late nineteenth century added a critical dimension to the region as major outside state powers employed military force to protect their newly acquired interests in the Middle East. The United States efforts to secure the flow of oil have led to their ever-increasing involvement in the Middle East’s political affairs and ongoing power struggles. By the end of the twentieth century, safeguarding the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf had become one of the most important functions of the U.S. military. The close relationship between the United States and the Saudi royal family was formed in the final months of World War II, when U.S. leaders sought to ensure preferential access to Saudi’s petroleum. The U.S. link with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region has demonstrated to be greatly beneficial to both parties, yet it has also led to ever deepening U.S. involvement in regional politics.