Maria Salman and Uzair Zahid Siddiqui
Maria Salman and Uzair Zahid Siddiqui2013
Introduction:What is the most complex American problem in Middle
East? The writing is on the wall, IRAN. The country from being the
police man of the Gulf for America drifted to opposite end, naming
America the biggest Satan.Both countries have conflicting regional
interests, and both are unwilling to meet at a middle ground. They
are pitched against each other in all arenas, be it international
politics, Middle Eastern peace process, international oil market or
nuclear proliferation. The relationship was not always this
antognistic; Iran was considered an invaluable American ally. In
return Iran had American support, but the Shah benefitted more from
this relation then Iran. After 1979 revolution the relationship
went downhill as a new antiAmerican supreme leader made reform that
opposed the modern, westrenised culture and were leaning more
towards Islamization. After the Iranian attack on U.S. embassy,
America severed all diplomatic ties with Iran. American who had a
vested interest in the region felt the loss of such a staunch
political ally strongly.Since then a lot of major conflicts have
rose between the two, that havent been come to any satisfactory
conclusion. Mainly because U.S. now sees Iran as a security threat
to itself and to internation system, and tries to prevent any
social and economical developments in Iran. Iran on the other hand,
strongly anti-American, is determined to establish itself as an
independent state, free of U.S. intervention. On and off half
hearted negotiations have occoured in the last 3 decades, but have
yielded no significant results yet. The facts above seen in the
light of realist frame work prove the realist claim that states are
essentially selfish actors, safe guarding their own interests. Both
Iran and America have vested interests in the region, but can a
compromised be reaced? and is peace a possibility? are the big
questions under realist frame work.The one step forward, two steps
back relationIranian state sponsorship ofinternational
terrorismIran is a key player in the regional politics of Middle
East. Allegedly, Iran has been involved in various acts of
terrorism, and has backed numerous terrorist groups and activities.
Its political influence and the U.S charge of Iranian affinity
towards terrorism in the region are of uttmost importance in
contributing towards their strained relations.a) The political
IslamizationWhat is political Islamization? In today world, a new
concept of Islam is emerging, where Islam is infiltrating the
secular realm of politics. Scholars belive that Political
Islamization is when Islam over-steps the traditional boundries of
religion and slips into politics. (Hirschkind n.d.) Basically
political Islam is the use of a modern version of Islam by
political leader to achive their own goals in the political arena.
In this context we see that Islam is a tool to further selfish
objectives.In 1953, Shahs restoration to power had garnered
resentment in the masses as he had surpressed the Islamic practices
in Iran. (Bruno 2008) Iran, under the rule of Shah had become a
modern, moderately Islamic state. Shah introduced the White
Revolution, through which he pushed forward many economic,
political and majorly social reforms. (Ansari 2001) The idea behind
the White Revolution was to liberate the society and to adopt
Western values and culture, pushing aside the Islamic norms. Any
opposition on the publics part was brutally trampled by Shahs
secret police SAVAK. The oppression led to a simmering resentment
in the public until it became unbearable and the revolution was
triggered. (BAHRAMITASH 2003)In 1979, after the revolution, the
Shah was ousted, and in came the popular leader Ayatollah Khomeini.
A note worthy thing here is that though the revolution is claimed
to be Islamic it wasnt exactly so, the revolution came in reaction
to the years of opperssion that the Iranian people had suffered at
the hands of Shah and SAVAK. (Aslan 2012) In the after math of
revolution a void had been created and Khomeini, a theocratic
leader saw the opportunity to establish a more Islamic and less
westernized, fundamentalist government. In the wake of revolution,
Khomeini returned from exile and formed the Council of the Islamic
Revolution, which took control of the country. Both the Iranian
leaders had in their own ways used Islam as a tool. But where Shah
had used a moderate version of Islam to remain in power, Khomeini
used Islam to establish control in time of anarchy and revive
traditional practices. Irans influence on the regional
politics:Iran has considerable influence in the regional politics
as it is on of the largest oil producers, and also because it is
challenging the regional hegemons to their positions and is
collecting allies in Middle East. a) Afghanistan:The U.S. presence
in Afghanistan has become a major factor in Iranian behavior
towards Afghanistan. Irans relation with the Afghani government has
always been that of a helpful neighbor. In the beginging, despite
the anti-American stance, Iran saw Afghanistan as neutral meeting
ground for Iran and U.S., but America rejected every overture of a
friendly relation. (Christensen 2011) So now Iran seems to be
Pursuing Contradictory Objectives in terms of the fact that on one
hand Iran supports the Afghan government, while other hand iran in
interest of its anti U.S stance Iran also provides a measure of
support to Taliban, which ironically champions an anti-shia
ideology. (Laha and Nader 2011)b) Iraq:After Iraqs attempt to seize
control of Irans oil reseverse and the consequential war,
diplomatic relations between the two ceased. In post-Saddam era
Iran has developed a new strategy of reviving relations and
supporting the new Iraqi government. Despite the bad blood between
the two countries over the 1980-88 war, in this new era the main
ambition now is to prevent the Sunni from regaining power in Iraq.
Also, Iran is developing ties with shia militants in Iraq to
support them againt the American in an attempt to thwart them. Over
this America repeatedly accuses Iran of supporting terrorism in the
region. (BAHGAT 2009)c) Saudi Arabia:Since the fall of Saddam, the
Middle Eastern Political situation is drastically changing. Israel
and Saudia Arabia, the previous U.S.-backed hegemons, are no long
the only key players in the region. Iran is coming a front runner
to challenge them to their leading positions. The clashing
ideologies about the regional politics, the race to rule the region
and the shia sunni conflict are the factors that have put a strain
on the relation of the countries. But the most important is their
respective relation with the U.S. with Iran being anti-American and
Saudis being pro-Americans. And also their stances about the
Isreal-Palestine conflict, where Iran is firmly in Palestines camp
and supports all actions against Isreal. Saudi Arabia on the other
hand cant act as assertively because of iss U.S. alliance. This
rather passive attitude towards Isreal hanst endeared Saudi arab to
Iran. (Wehrey, et al. 2011)US Affinity towards Irans regional
rival, Israela) Pro-Jewish lobbyUS has long been a supporter of
Israel. US support has come in every form: military, political,
economic. Since the World War II, Israel has received nearly $115
billion from the US alone in form of bilateral assistance. The
Congress has always rendered its support to Israel, providing
favors to Israel that other states do not have access to (Sharp,
March 12, 2012 ). Although, other forms of assistances have been
extended to Israel, military assistance sits on the top shelf of
the US-Israel relationship. With the access to the US military
technology, Israel has a dependable resource for the latest
weaponry against all the threats, especially Iran.Both Iran and
Israel have competed for influence in the region, though the
aggressiveness between the two seemed non-existent before 1979,
even to the extent that Iran would purchase hi-tech weapons from
Israel, given that they had a common enemy in Egypt and Iraq
(Oliai, 2011). However, the cooperation saw its end in 1979 after
the advent of Khomeini and the theocracy.Since then, Israel has had
unrelenting support in this matter from the US, b) A call by Irans
President for Israel to be wiped off the mapThe Iranian President
Ahmadinejad has been unequivocal in his stance against Israel. He
has repeatedly called for the world to see that the Jews have
unrightfully occupied Palestine and this occupation needs to be
eliminated. On October 25th, 2005 Ahmadinejad spoke at a conference
The World Without Zionism in which he called for the Jewish state
Israel to be completely wiped off the face of the earth (Times,
2005):Our dear Imam (Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying
regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise
statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it
possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This
would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime
has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam
targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning
the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has
started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too,
will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.With a
resolute stance against Israel, Iran stands the opposite the US, a
supporter of Israel. It seems unlikely that either of the parties
will change their position on the legitimacy of existence of the
Jewish state on Muslim lands, hence, a constant bone of contention
between the two parties will subsist in the form of Israel.Irans
black gold trade a) U.S. economic interest in the Iranian oil
resourcesAnother reason of USs efforts to maintain good relations
with Iran were its interests in Iranian oil fields. This was
evident when Iranian oil fields were safeguarded by appointment of
favorable person by US into power in Iran, in order to prevent
these from going into Russian furnish, followed by allocation of
millions of dollars of grants to keep the region flourished and to
keep the interests met. This also built a relationship of trust and
harmony between the two countries. (Lenczowski may 1972)Creation of
oil weapon was another reason of Americas interest in Irans oil
reserves, initially in creation of such technology which drew them
closer and later by restriction of such assets which distant them
apart. One of the reasons why America closely monitored Iranian oil
reserves was to avoid a possible threat by disguising oil export
decline as a voluntary cut, causing an increase in oil weapon
creation and also an increase in premium attached to international
oil prices by decrease in supply of oil in international market.
(Stern 2007)b) SanctionSanctions imposed against Iranian shipping
companies and Iranian vessels by the United States parted its
shipping sector from contributing in national income. Moreover, the
embargoes on Iranian trade left Iran with a limited amount of trade
mostly with the Asian countries, it gave Iran to design good terms
with neighboring countries but at the same time weakened the
relationship with America and the west. Also in 2005 restrictions
were made on Iranian nationals entry in United Sates. These along
with several other sanctions imposed on Iran by US restricted its
growth and consequently distant apart the two countries. What
Washington called as neo-liberalization of the sector had a
discriminated meaning for every part of the world which leads to
distortion of the relationships between the two countries. (Ilias,
Iran's Economic Conditions: U.S. Policy Issues 2009) (Davis, et al.
2011)
Bane of U.S. existence, Iranian Nuclear program The relation
between the two countries was smooth initially and US was taking
interest in Irans nuclear program, technology from France and other
part of the world was provided by US for the program, however due
to revolution and fall of Shah, the power changed which no more
regarded the interests of US, people became anti-American and so
were the polices. This was the time when the two countries started
to distant apart(Kibaroglu 2006) (J. D. Davis 2005)
But then Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty with other
nuclear possessing nations to ensure that Iran is using the nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes only and IAEA started monitoring
Irans nuclear facilities in 2003. This bridged the gap between the
US and Iran as US now felt secure. US policy towards Iran in this
regard started becoming neutral. However, the Natanz facility
enrichment was a violation to NPT and called for an immediate
action from US, UN and IAEA. (Babaei 2008) Irans perspective of
development of nuclear assets was for energy development and other
peaceful practices, however after this event US did not trust Iran
in this regard and an immediate shift of nuclear program to Russia
was demanded. Consequently, the relationships were being
consistently damaged, and the policies were designed in opposition.
(Blechman and Moore 2012)Analysis of the Iranian relation from the
Realist persectivea) Peace is not a possibility in the anarchic
international state system.Realist framework says that states are
rational actor which defend their own interest. The nuclear issue
in Iran was an act of self-interest of rational actor, which was
manipulated according to self esteem from time to time, initially
in favor of Iran and against the opposing colonial powers of United
States and later against Iran and in favor of United states itself
and other United Nations members. As long as America had the
interest for oil, its dollar value being added, dollar in terms of
oil being demanded and oil-based weapons made to break Russia,
America was totally in favor of how things went along with Iran.
Later with the evolution of Terrorism and Iran being declared as a
threat against America due to revolution, Americas interest has
flipped its face and is now heading against those of Irans.The
pursuing of national interests in a realist framework also lead to
uncertain policies and decisions as the interests of selfish states
are changing with the circumstances. This was observed in the
relationship between Iran and United States where there has always
been an uncertainty, uncertainty because of change of their self
interest or uncertainty due to intervention or protection of other
states, evident by the uncertainty in the United States policy of
granting loan to Iran only to keep Russia out of reach of Irans oil
reserves and not to let Iran to seek help from Britain, a colonial
power of the time. (Jordet 2009)
b) Some practical cooperation can be attained but only for short
spells of time.One of the princilples of realism is that the no
permenant cooperation can be achived, and all countries are
essentially selfish, but if the states have some common goal and
can be brought under one umberella on some issue then there is a
possibility of peace. But it may be noted that the peace is short
lived, because it is motivated by self interests, rather then a
desire for peace.Iran and U.S. must have cooperated on some level,
because they share some material and strategic interests in the
Middle East. From 1953 to 1976, because of their common interest
the two states were able to live in harmony, as long as both had
something to gain from it. Since Shah was working for U.S. and
looking after their geo-political concerns in the region the
Americans were happy, in return Shah had full backing from U.S. in
lording over the region. As long as Iran was under U.S. thumb, and
Shah was putting U.S. interest before Irans they had cooperation.
But when in 1976 Shah put Irans interest in forefront and refused
Americas request to lower oil prices in the international market,
the American interest was no longer being catered to and so they
colluded with Saudia Arabia to lower the oil prices. The
consequence of this was that the Iranian economy went into decline.
c) Rational actors or not?The realist claims that all states are
rational actors. If the state were rational actors, then they would
think objectively over then national interests and would not react
rashly toward day to day happenings. But can we claim that the
state actors in our political system are rational? That all
personal judgement of the state leaders is put aside, and they
logically think over all matter before taking any decision.In 1986,
Robert McFarlane, former security adviser of President Reagan, took
a shipment of spare part to Iran as a token of reconciliation. He
expected Iran to weild its influence over Lebenon to free the U.S
hostages held in Lebenon. Necaragua was funded the profits from
this transaction. The Iranian radicals sabotaged this secret
arrangement, by leaking the story, which resulted in Iran-Contra
sacandal, with associated repercussion for Americans.10 In 2008,
Iran opened doors to negotiations, with the permeneant members of
Security Council, on various issues issues including nuclear
program, peace in Mid East, international terrorism. The Security
Council members, led by U.S., preconditioned these talks with the
closure of Irans uranium enrichment program. Iran refused to even
concsider the option. Another stalemate was reached.More examples
of missed opportunities at peace can found in the Apendix
B.Analyzing the fluctuations in the relations, we see that though
both parties desire to have a better working relationship, their
irrational behavior keep them from achieving effective results. In
1986 America went against its own embargo by dealing with Iran,
when according to the realist they should have had no relations
what so ever due to the conflicting agendas. They would precisely
be called rational while acting in this manner. The same can be
said for Iran who belive the nuclear program to be set in stone,
not even considering the possibility of any other way.Then we have
the Isreals claim to declare war against Iran, with U.S. backing.
The actual possibility of this war is very slim because the norms
of international system would not allow it to be executed.From all
this we see that though the realist clain to have states as
rational actors in all actuality that is not true. Looking at the
history we see repeated irrational behavior which shows great
eveidence of personal biases coming into play. Considering this the
possibility of peace is very slim, between the two countries, as
both are irrational and cant be objective enough to have civilized
talks. Iran the regional hegemon:Iran has been a major player in
the regional politics and is emerging as a threat tp the regional
super powers. Iran is using significant influence in the regions
political and economic arena and has a huge role in defing the
future of the region. But with direct opposition from U.S. would it
be able to reach the level of a regional hegemon and sustain it?
The answer is yes. Even though Iran is economically weak in the
recent time Iran has been gaining soft power in the region and is
now at a point where it can openly challage the previous leader,
Isreal and Saudia Arab to the position as hegemons. Iran is one of
the largest oil suppliers in the international market and has the
power to influence the world oil market. Iran is also trying to
develop a nuclear power plant and maybe weapons too, also Irans
defy America stance and the Iranian anti-Isreal stance is for all
to see as Iran make it know that the wipe Isreal from face of the
earth this action gains Iran considerable respect from the Muslim
world, particularly the region. What remains to be seen is that
will Iran compromise at any point or would it stand stong against
its opposers and also because it is challenging the regional
hegemons to their positions and is collecting allies in Middle
East.
d) A security dilemma exists between the U.S. and Iran.
As the power of Iran is growing on an increasing pace in terms
of its nuclear enrichment program over the last decade, United
States is viewing it as a possible threat. One of the reasons being
the arms race and increase in Iranian war heads which would later
help Iran to gain control over other nations as the realist
framework describes power and territory as the two golden tools for
the existence of states. Another is the increase in terrorism, US
accusing Iran of being a feeder of terrorism with unstable nuclear
reactors that possess a possible threat to the world security.
United States being endlessly threatened from Irans atomic project
is endorsing all efforts in isolating Iran in the region. As the
world increases the technology of nuclear weapons, Iran tries to
match their technology or to beat them off, which in turn
stimulates a non ending race of getting ahead in nuclear war heads.
As the other state or non-state actor feels insecure it increases
its power by either siding with other states as America is doing in
terms of United Nations and NATO or through increasing its own
power by creation of more war head via usage of advance technology.
For the security dilemma to end and get ahead in this arms race,
America took the help of United Nations to put economic and
political sanctions on Iran and even tried to shift the Iranian
nuclear reactors to Russia.Zero-sum conception: The theory states
that when one states win the other automatically loses, the is no
middle ground, nor any win win situation. Does it hold true for the
Iran U.S. relation? Looking at the shared of the history of the
region we are likely to belive that that it does. Both countries
are serving their own self interest, with out a regard to the other
and in some case going out of their way to maximum damage to eacho
other as is the case of U.S. sanction. ConclusionUnder the realist
framework the hostility between the two adversaries continues to
holdUnder the realist framework, the hostility between the two
adversaries continues to hold. As the theory suggests, states are
hegemonic, They are the supreme authority, no other state is
thought to be wiser than any other state, There is no non-state
actor to hold talks between the two states. Although non-state
actors like United nations and European Unioin do exist in todays
world but their say is limited to what United States say as U.S is
dominant among all the state and non-state actors as it has the
hegemonic power, it acts like a rational actor at such forums and
does what is best in its own interest or the interest of its allies
against Iran. There is no other state as strong as U.S that is why
the norms are created by United States depending upon its own
interests, geopolitical, socio-political and global welfare to
benefit itself in the long run and to safe guard its own territory,
population, sovereignty and governance. United States is the
hegemony in the unipolar world and its interest conflicts with
those of Iran, it is difficult for the two states to come at peace
with each other, and hence such unrest seems to continue in the
future.
Appendix A
1900Timeline - Iran Us relations:1951: Oil nationalization
crisisBefore the nationalization, the Iranian oil industry was
controlled by Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). In 1951 Prime
Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, with overwhelming support of the
parliament, nationalized the oil indusrty.1953:The coup d'tatOn 15
August 1953, US and British sponsored coup ousted Mosaddeq
legitimate government, reinstating Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who
had been forced into exile.1957:Szemn-e Ettel't va Amniyat-e
KeshvarSzemn-e Ettel't va Amniyat-e Keshvar (SAVAK), a CIA
sponsored and trained intelligence agency, operated form 1957 to
1979. Its was Shah secret police and was recognized as most hated
and most feared institute.1976:Effect of oil related events on
Iran.The oil prices in the internation market had been high since
1973 oil crisis.The United States and Saudi Arabia lowered the oil
prices, but Shah Iran refused to do the same, stating it to be
against Iranian interest. Consequentially, a financial crisis was
triggered in Iran that weakened Shahs hold on the power.
1979:Iranian Revolution.The Iranian public, dissatisfied with their
situation, took to streets against the unpopular Shahs regime. The
U.S. stooge, Shah, was ousted from his office, forced to leave the
country.Ayatollah Khomeini returns.Ayatollah Khomeini was exiled to
Iraq in 1964. The anti-American leader made a triumphant return, in
1979, after 14 years of exile. Iran hostage crisis.Against the
wishes of Iranian government, U.S. opened it doors to Shah to
recive cancer treatment. In retailation, the Iranian embassy in
Tehran was stormed by Iranian students, taking 52 American
diplomats as hostage. The U.S. cut all diplomatic ties with
Iran.1980:Failed rescue attempt.After the failed attempt at
negociations, U.S. president, in a last ditch effort to recover the
hostages, authorised a military rescue mission which was doomed to
failure.Persian Gulf War. Iraq conducted a U.S. backed invasion of
Iran. Iran was basically diplomatically isolated in the war. The
war waged on for 8 years. U.S. backed Iran and launched its own
military operations, like Operation Praying Mantis, to undermine
Iran.1981: Hostages released.The 52 U.S. embassy hostages were
released minutes after the U.S. president Jimmy Carter left the
office and Ronald Reagan was sworn in. They had been hald as
hostage for 444 days.1983-1984:Attacks on U.S. EmbassyTwo attacks
were launched on the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebennon. Hezbullah, a
political party and a militant group, was suspected to be behind
the attackes. U.S had grounds to claim that Hezbullah was receiving
its financial, military and poitical backing from Iran and Syria.
1985-1986:The Iran-Contra affair.The public learned of the American
attempt at under the table dealings with Iran. U.S. were trying to
sell weapons to Iran who was short of weapons supply at the time.
The funds of the deal were to fuel U.S. backed contra
(anti-communist) fight in Nicaragua.1988:Iranian airflight 655 shot
down.Iranian airbus airflight 655 was shot down over the Persian
Gulf by American Navy cruiser USS Vincennes. 290 people were
killed.Iraq- Iran war ends.UN negotiated a ceasefire between the
two gulf countries, after numerious failed attempts United Nations
Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 582, which was
accepted by both parties.1989:New Supreme LeaderSupreme Leader
Ayatollah Khomeini died on 3 of June. Khamenei succeeds Khomeini as
supreme leader the following day.1990:Gulf WarIran chose to remail
neutral in the U.S. intervention in Kuwait, and and war againt
Iraq.1993:Dual Containment policyIn 1993, Dual Containment policy
was practiced by America to isolate Iran and Iraq in order to
pursue US interests in the region.(20045919)
1995Imposed Embargo on Iranian TradeIn 1995, Bill Clinton
imposed complete embargo on the trade with Iran, the following year
US advised other western countries to stop investing in Iranian
Nuclear energy. European Union denounced it invalid.
2002Axis of EvilG.W. Bush described Iran, Iraq and North Korea
as axis of evil and called the proliferation of long-range missiles
enriched as an act of terrorism and a threat to US.(axis of evil
metaphor)
2003Additional protocol signedAdditional protocol was signed
between Iran and IAEA, Irans atomic functioning was now
monitored.(40277097)2005Ahmadinejad became presidentMahmoud
Ahmadinejad, who was religious and conservative as said by many,
became the president of Iran.Iran restricted from meeting UNUS
State department refused the visa of Iranian parliamentary speaker,
Mousa Qorbani, who had to participate in a meeting conducted by
UN.
Natanz nuclear enrichmentNatanz nuclear facility was made
operational for nuclear weapon creation, a violation of
non-proliferation treaty.
UN supports US interstThe same year, UN declared Iran as the
greatest single threat which US faced, as Iran continued its
uranium enrichment program to its full potential. (debating iran
nuclear prog.)
Multiple sanctions imposed In 2005 US imposed Multiple sanctions
on Iran through United Nations, restricting member states to
transfer technology and much more.(Charge-kept)
2006Official detained, second aircraft-carrier battleUS detained
several Iranian officials in Iraq and stimulated second
aircraft-carrier battle into the Persian gulf.(40277097)
Holocast ConferenceIranian President gives a controversial
interview, denying the presence of Holocaust.
2008Naval stand-offIn Jan 2008, naval stand-offs between Iranian
and American navy took place.
Obama ElectedObama was elected as the new president of United
States, a new approach to Iranian Nuclear Program.
Obama offers a solutionObama offered neutralizeation of Iranian
atomic program by transferring the setup in safer hands, Russia.
Deal not welcomed by Iranian President, Ahmadinejad.(BF 2010)
2009US Strengthens its stanceUS declared Iran as the most active
state sponsor of terrorism as Iran enriched its nuclear program.(30
years)2010Iran clears its stance2010, Iran admits to building a
uranium enrichment plant near Qom, but insists it is for peaceful
purposes.
All the events and corrensponding dates have been taken from the
following sources:"Timeline: US-Iran ties" BBC News. Last modified
January 16, 2009.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3362443.stm "Chronology -
U.s. Iran Relations, 1906-2002 " Frontline.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/etc/cron.html
(accessed ).Sam Sasan Shoamanesh . "History Brief: Timeline Of
UsIran Relations Until The Obama Administration." MIT International
Review. 2009.
Appendix B
U.S. - Iran Relations: Catalog of Missed OpportunitiesU.S.-Iran
Relations after the Revolution:A Catalog of Missed
OpportunitiesPaper Prepared for the American Foreign Policy
ProjectBarbara SlavinJune 12, 2008The most propitious time for
reconciliation in the past 30 years was after 9-11 when Iran
telegraphed in many ways its desire to improve relations and
contributed to the U.S. victory in Afghanistan in both political
and military terms . . . We could have made an ally of Iran instead
of intensifying its enmity.The history of U.S.-Iran relations over
the past three decades is a sad tale of mutual grievances and
invective and of repeated missed opportunities sometimes on the
Iranian side, more often lately on ours to reconcile. What
engagement has occurred has been tactical, not strategic, plagued
by concerns over exposure and how domestic political adversaries
would react if they knew talks were taking place.Frequently, the
two sides have been out of sync. When one side appeared ready for
authoritative dialogue, the other was not. On the U.S. side,
particularly under the Bush administration, there has been a
pattern of offering to little, too late.The most propitious time
for reconciliation in the past 30 years was after 9-11 when Iran
telegraphed in many ways its desire to improve relations and
contributed to the U.S. victory in Afghanistan in both political
and military terms. President Bushs biggest strategic mistake after
9-11 and he made many -- was to think he could go after multiple
enemies instead of focusing on al-Qaeda. We could have made an ally
of Iran instead of intensifying its enmity.Obviously, things have
gotten more complicated since Khatami left office. But engagement
is possible even with Ahmadinejad in power.Missed Opportunities
May 1986A delegation led by President Reagan's former national
security adviser, Robert McFarlane, travels to Tehran to deliver
spare parts for U.S. anti-aircraft missiles. McFarlane also carries
a Bible and a chocolate cake in the shape of a key from a kosher
bakery in Tel Aviv. Reagan hopes the scheme will free U.S. hostages
in Lebanon and establish ties with Iranian moderates. Profits from
the sale of the arms are used to fund anti-communist rebels in
Nicaragua, in violation of a congressional ban. Iranian radicals
leak the story to a Lebanese newspaper. The ensuing Iran-Contra
scandal shakes the Reagan administration and leads to the execution
of the son-in-law of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeinis designated
successor, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri. The plan, wrote
historian James Bill, "was poorly, clumsily and unprofessionally
conceived. It involved the wrong people . . . advised by the wrong
'experts' . . . supported by the wrong allies."11989-90President
George H.W. Bush declares in his Inaugural address that "goodwill
begets goodwill," strongly implying that the United States will
resume relations with Iran if it engineers the release of the last
U.S. hostages in Lebanon. Iran ransoms the hostages and in 1990,
agrees to meet with the United States in Switzerland. At the last
moment, the Iranians pull out. Brent Scowcroft, then White House
national security adviser, said later, "My judgment at the time was
that the situation in Iran was delicate enough that nobody was
prepared to stick his neck out and actually have a conversation
with the Great Satan."21995-96The government of Iranian President
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani offers a billion dollar contract to the
Conoco oil company to develop two offshore oil fields in what is
seen as an olive branch to the new Clinton administration.
President Clinton responds by slapping a total embargo on U.S.
involvement in Iran's petroleum sector and a year later signs into
law the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, threatening punishment against
foreign companies investing in Iranian or Libyan oil or gas
production.1998-2000Iran's new president, Mohammad Khatami, calls
for a "dialogue of civilizations" with the United States to "break
down the bulky wall of mistrust" between the two countries.3 The
Clinton administration responds by promoting exchanges of athletes
and academics and sends a letter to Khatami via the Saudis offering
to begin an authoritative dialogue. The Iranians do not reply. In
1999, the administration eases sanctions on the sale to Iran of
U.S. food and medicine and then secretary of State Madeleine
Albright outlines a "road map" for better relations. A year later,
Albright gives a major speech in which she apologizes for the 1953
CIA coup that re-installed the Shah and for U.S. support for Iraq
during the Iran-Iraq war. However, she distinguishes in her remarks
between the "elected" Khatami and the "unelected" supreme leader of
Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Iranians reject the
overture.4November 2001The Iranians inform a U.S. diplomat that
Khatami, planning a visit to the United Nations for a delayed
meeting of the General Assembly after the 9-11 attacks, would like
to bring a large delegation with him, including experts on
al-Qaeda. He also asks to visit Ground Zero to pay his respects to
the victims. Neither offer is taken up by the Bush
administration.5January 2002James Dobbins, U.S. envoy to Afghan
talks, and then Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill are approached by
Iranian diplomats at an Afghan donor conference in Tokyo and told
that Iran would like to open a broad dialogue with the United
States. Both men relay the message to Washington to no apparent
effect. A week later, President Bush includes Iran on an "axis of
Evil" with Iraq and North Korea.6March 2002On the fringes of a
multilateral meeting on Afghanistan in Geneva, Dobbins is
introduced to an Iranian general who had been in charge of Irans
military aid to the Northern Alliance, an anti-Taliban Afghan
militia. The general tells Dobbins that Iran is willing to
contribute to a U.S.-led effort to build a new Afghan army and is
prepared to train up to 20,000 troops. Dobbins mentions the offer
to then secretary of state Colin Powell, then national security
adviser Condoleezza Rice and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"Insofar as I am aware, the issue was never again discussed and the
Iranians never received a response," Dobbins said.7November
2001-May 2003U.S. and Iranian diplomats meet secretly a dozen times
in Europe in talks led by Ryan Crocker and Zalmay Khalilzad, then
senior Bush administration officials. The talks initially focus on
Afghanistan but later deal with al-Qaeda fugitives, Iranian
opposition groups and U.S. preparations for the Iraq war. The talks
end after they are publicized and bombings take place in Saudi
Arabia that the Bush administration asserts are linked to al-Qaeda
detainees in Iran. Iran denies any role.May 2003The Swiss transmit
an Iranian agenda for talks including all issues of U.S. concern,
among them: Iran's nuclear program, support for militant
anti-Israel groups and rejection of a two-state solution to the
Palestinian question. Powell and White House political aide Karl
Rove see the document, authored by Iran's ambassador to France,
Sadegh Kharrazi, with help from Swiss ambassador to Iran Tim
Guldimann and Mohammad Javad Zarif, an Iranian deputy foreign
minister. The Bush administration, feeling triumphant after the
toppling of the Iraqi regime, does not reply.8February-March
2006Iranian national security adviser Ali Larijani authorizes a
deputy, Mohammad Javad Jaffari, to begin backchannel talks with
U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley. When the overture is
unsuccessful, Larijani and Khamenei endorse a previous U.S.
proposal for talks just on Iraq. The Bush administration rejects
such talks until more than a year later.9May 2006Rice offers to
join broad multinational negotiations with Iran but only if Iran
first suspends its uranium enrichment program. Iran weighs the
offer for three months and then rejects it.May 2008Iran offers to
begin "constructive negotiations" with the United States, the other
four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany on
a range of issues, including the nuclear program, terrorism and
Middle East peace but continues to refuse to suspend uranium
enrichment.10 The Bush administration and the European powers reply
by reiterating the standard demand that Iran must suspend
enrichment before serious negotiations can commence.11Footnotes1.
James A. Bill, The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of
American-Iranian Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988)
pps. 312-313. [back]2. Barbara Slavin, Bitter Friends, Bosom
Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation (New
York: St. Martin's Press, 2007) p. 179. [back]3. Christiane
Amanpour, CNN interview with Khatami, Jan. 7, 1998. [back]4.
Slavin, pps. 175-177. [back]5. Slavin, p. 194. [back]6. James
Dobbins, After the Taliban: Nation Building in Afghanistan (Dulles,
Virginia: Potomac Books, 2008) p. 103. [back]7. Dobbins testimony
before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, November 7,
2007. [back]8. Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret
Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S. New Haven, (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2007) p. 247. [back]9. Slavin, p. 218. [back]10.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IranProposal20May2008.pdf
[back]11.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/Diplomatic_Offer_16June2008.pdf
. [back]
BibliographyAnsari, Ali M. "The Myth of the White Revolution:
Mohammad Reza Shah, 'Modernization' and the Consolidation of
Power." Middle Eastern Studies, 2001.Aslan, Reza, interview by Toni
Johnson. Political Islam in the Middle East (December 7,
2012).Babaei, Ahmad Reza. "Isreal's Concerns and Iran's Nuclear
Programme." Economic & political weekly, 2008: 21-25.BAHGAT,
GAWDAT. "United States-Iranian Relations: The Terrorism Challenge."
2009.BAHGAT, GAWDAT. "United States-Iranian Relations: The
Terrorism Challenge." 2009.BAHRAMITASH, ROKSANA. "Revolution,
Islamization, and Womens Employment in Iran." 2003.Bakhash, Shaul.
"The U.S. and Iran in Historical Perspective." Newsletter of FPRI,
September 2009.. "The U.S. and Iran in Historical Perspective."
Newsletter of FPRI, September 2009.Blechman, Barry, and Taj R.
Moore. "Iran in Perspective:Holding Iran to Peaceful Uses of
Nuclear Technology." Stimson, March 2012.bonakdarain, mansour.
"U.S. - Iranian relations, 1911-1951." Iran Chamber Society. Bruno,
Greg. "Religion and Politics in Iran." Council on Foreign
Relations. June 2008.Christensen, Janne Bjerre. "STRAINED
ALLIANCES: IRANs TROUBLED RELATIONS AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN." DIIS
Report, march 2011.Christensen, Janne Bjerre. "STRAINED ALLIANCES
IRANs TROUBLED RELATIONS TO AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN." DIIS REPORT,
2011.Cole, Juan. Engaging the Muslim World. 2010.Davis, Jimmy D.
"IRANS NUCLEAR STRATEGY OPTIONS AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
IMPLICATIONS." 2005.Davis, Lynn E., Jeffrey Martini, Alireza Nader,
Dalia Dassa Kaye, James T. Quinlivan, and Paul Steinberg. "Irans
Nuclear Future: Critical U.S. Policy Choices." RAND PROJECT AIR
FORCE, 2011.DELOIA, MATTHEW A. "A NEW TACTIC FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH
IRAN: FAITH-BASED DIPLOMACY." 2011.Hirschkind, Charles. "What is
Political Islam." Middle East Reports. Ilias, Shayerah. "Irans
Economic Conditions: U.S. Policy Issues." CRS Report for Congress,
April 2010.Ilias, Shayerah. "Iran's Economic Conditions: U.S.
Policy Issues." Congress Research Service, 2009: 1-40.Ioannides,
Christos. "TURMOIL IN IRAN: THE DAWN OF THE POST-KHOMEINI ERA." In
Depth, August 2009.Jordet, Nils. "Explaining the Long-term
Hostility between the United States and Iran: A Historical,
Theoretical and Methodological Framework." 2009.Katzman, Kenneth.
"Iran: U.S. Policy and Options." CRS Report for Congress, JAN 2000
2000.Kaye, Dalia Dassa, Alireza Nader, and Parisa Roshan. "Israel
and Iran." RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
2011.Kibaroglu, Mustafa. "Good for the Shah. Banned for the
Mullahs: The west and Iran's Quest for Nuclear Power." The middle
east Journal, 2006: 207-232.Laha, Joya, and Alireza Nader. "Irans
Balancing Act in Afghanistan." RAND, 2011.Lenczowski, George.
"United States' Support for Iran's Independence and intergrity,
1945-1959." SAGE, may 1972: 45-55.MOSHAVER, ZIBA. "REVOLUTION,
THEOCRACY AND IRANS FOREIGN POLICY ." MIDDLE EAST FOREIGN POLICIES,
2003.Nader, Alireza, and Joya Laha. "Irans Balancing Act in
Afghanistan." RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
2011.ODonnell., Thomas W. "The Political Economy of Oil in U.S.-
Iran Crisis: U.S. globalized oil interests vs Iran's regional
interests." 2009.SamSasanShoamanesh.
"HISTORYBRIEF:TIMELINEOFUSIRANRELATIONSUNTILTHEOBAMAADMINISTRATION."
MITInternationalReview. 2009.Saudi-Iranian Relations Since the Fall
of Saddam. Stern, Roger. "The Iranian Petroleum Crisis and United
States National Security." PNAS, 2007: 377-382.Wehrey, Frederic,
Theodore W Karasik, Alireza Nader, and Jeremy Ghez. "Saudi-Iranian
Relations Since the Fall of Saddam Rivalry, Cooperation, and
Implications for U.S. Policy." RAND (2011), 2011.Wehrey, Frederic,
Theodore W. Karasik, Alireza Nader, Jeremy Ghez, Lydia Hansell, and
Robert A. Guffey. "Saudi-Iranian Relations Since the Fall of
Saddam." RAND NATIONAL SECURITY RESEARCH DIVISION, 2009.
Oliai, S. (2011). The Past, Present and Future of
Iranian-Israeli Relations. Michigan: Michigan State
University.Sharp, J. M. (March 12, 2012 ). U.S. Foreign Aid to
Israel. Washington D.C: Congressional Research Service.Times, N. Y.
(2005, October 30). Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech. Retrieved
January 1, 2013, from New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070&_r=0