Iran Vs. Israel: Rational Actor Model

With sources dating back to the late 1960s, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has expanded to be a useful instrument of the government’s security. Its principal motivations for developing the nuclear weapons are as follows: to block foreign pressure, create an international impact and preserve the terms and conditions of the DPRK (ruling party of North Korea). In contrast, Iran 's motivations to develop strategic weapons appear to be more complex than that of North Korea. Iran 's efforts to develop nuclear, chemical and

Israel found an ally in the United States, yet when the Nixon administration had information that indicated the possibility of an attack, there was no action taken by neither . The U.S. had intelligence that Arab states were making efforts to build an offensive military. With continual bluff from Egypt’s President, Sadat, Israeli forces were readily mobilized creating accruing costs by having an army readily available. There was evidence that Arab states were beginning to transfer and move around military equipment and any combative tool that could be utilized in war. All the effort that was allotted to the movement and distribution was not something to have been taken lightly or oblivious to. The U.S. had intelligence of the movements being made and yet both Israel and the U.S. underestimated the Arab states. Leading up to October 6, 1973, the buildup of troops still did not alarm Israel enough to

Iran’s nuclear programme has in recent years worsened US-Iran relations. The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons (Bahgat , 2009). Other reasons for mistrust include USA’s support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980’s. Specifically, Iran continues to resent the US supplying Iraq with the chemical weapons it used during the war. Adding fuel to the fire, in 1988, US guided missile Cruiser the USS Vincennes on station in the Persian Gulf mistakenly shot down Iranian Airlines flight 655 killing 290. (Milinski, n.d.)

In his paper about Iran’s nuclear program, Barry R. Posen emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program may result on regional and global instability. On regional level, neighboring countries of Iran will feel threatened with Iran’s nuclear power. This situation may lead them to follow Iran’s step in developing nuclear weapons even though they do not have the capability to ensure the security of their nuclear sites. Clearly, nuclear weapons proliferation will put the Middle East in escalating dangerous situation. On global level, the U.S. and its allies are concerned that the situation in the Middle East may harm their national interests. The Middle East is still a prominent producer of oil which is the main energy resource for industrial

Iran is a country with majority of its population being Shia Muslims, it is a splinter branch of Islam where it is believed that only Muhammad’s descendants can lead the faithful. Muslim clergy plays political roles in Shia countries, even though Shia Muslims are a small segment (about 15%) of the entire Muslim population, since 1501 most Iranians identify as Shia Muslims. This is one way they differentiate themselves from the

Former President Ahmadinejad set Iran back years by putting Iran into extreme isolation from the international community. His continued badgering with the international community, eventually lead to a nuclear stand-off with world powers. With what seems to be the Ayatollah’s blessing, President Rouhani has so far shown promise to ease the country’s relations and assume a solution on the nuclear issue. “For Washington, meanwhile, the election offered stark confirmation that its strategy is working, at least to a point. The outcome confirmed that political will for a nuclear deal exists within the Islamic Republic. In other words, the path out of isolation and economic crisis is perilous, but Iran’s new president, who has sometimes been dubbed “the sheikh of diplomacy,” may just be the right man at the right moment to walk it.” (Maloney, 2013)

In the year 2014, The United States and Iran are considering working together in order to put a stop to the threats posed by the militant group, Isis. This is a big step for the two countries since just in 2013, the United States threatened to use force against Iran to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Even though, the two countries are facing a common enemy, Iraq; this does not reduce the tension that the U.S and Iran have towards each other. For 60 years, the U.S. had a tumultuous relationship with Iran. From the removal of Iran Prime Minister in 1953 to the most recent, Iran’s nuclear agenda, the United States have been involved. This raises the questions of how did the U.S. involvement in past history shape current Iran

Religious rhetoric certainly still appeals to certain Iranian factions, but a big fraction of the country’s population values its national identity over its religious one. By understanding this, President Ahmadinejad and his circle focused on nationalism, and made it an essential component of their rhetoric, especially in the context of nuclear program. During Ahmadinejad’s tenure, the nuclear issue became a matter of factional rivalry and state legitimacy and a symbol of Iran’s independence. Ahmadinejad, by constantly referring to the nuclear program as Iran’s disputable right and western attempts to refuse it, he triggered Iran’s victimhood and the need for resistance and used it as a tool to mobilize domestic opinion, to inflate his position

The Iranian Constitution has been a controversial document, causing many questions about human rights, and how religion plays into it. It came into effect after a revolution that fought for rule of law and a civil society. The government however has faced lots of criticism internationally from the Western World, including the European Union, United States, United Kingdom and man Human Rights Activists. The country is ruled by a combination of Democracy and Theology, putting Shari’a law as it’s biggest influence. The government consists of a President, and Clergy that acts as a guide. This Clergy, however,

As Shakespeare prophesied with satirical accuracy; “Ancient grudge breaks forth to new mutiny, and civil blood makes civil hands unclean.” This ancient grudge has always been simple: The Islamic Republic of Iran wants to continue it’s peaceful nuclear program, and the rest of the world doesn’t trust them to tell the difference between ‘peaceful’ and ‘nuclear threat.’

The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s spiritual leader, returned from many years of exile to take control. Khomeini was the son of an Islamic religious scholar and had devoted his life to the study of Shia Islam. He was the first religious leader in Iran to openly oppose the shift toward westernization. Khomeini’s attitude towards the U.S. opened the door for a continued policy of Anti-Americanism. He infamously referred to America as the “Great Satan”. The immediate moment of Khomeini’s return, he was appointed as Iran’s political and religious leader for life. Under his rule, women’s rights were greatly suppressed, Westernized culture was prohibited and traditional Islamic law was reinstated.

Israel, due to the great rivalries it has created throughout the short time it has even been legitimized as its own nation, proves to have only been around since World War 2. After the war in 1948, Israel proved itself to be considered legitimate by the United Nations. Taken under siege by multiple nations in the Middle East after being found legitimate, Israel proved itself to be in need of allies in order to ever sustain. Many countries even today refuse to see legitimacy of the nation of Israel, one of these has proved to become one of its greatest rivals, Iran. The Iranian hostility towards Israel in the Middle East has caused great questioning over the future of the area due to the hostility between the two nations, especially the possible war between Iran and Israel which may uphold if these tensions continue to escalate. The conflict binds itself in the political struggle of Iranian leadership against Israel and the counter aim of Israel to prevent alleged nuclear weapons from the Iranian government and downgrading its allies, and further creating instability of power. For much time there was peace between these two countries, Iran actually being one of the first to recognize this area as a sovereign state. This was until the revolution of 1979, which resulted in the Islamic government to not see legitimacy in recognizing Israel as a state. The turning point from cold peace toward hostility occurred in the early 1990s, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet

After successfully campaigning against the domestic and foreign policy direction of the Bush administration, the newly inaugurated President Obama immediately and abruptly faced one of the principal challenges to his promise of change, reanalyzing and redefining the purpose of the United States’ long-term troop commitments in the Middle East. President Obama faced a public weary from the ongoing war in Iraq and disillusioned with the perpetually increasing list of US casualties, but also needed to ensure the security of US interests in the Middle East and deter future terrorist attacks against the US homeland. And while President Obama ultimately decided to commit 30,000 troops to combat terrorist cells in Afghanistan, some questions remain over whether the president’s eventual decision met all the criteria of rationality as defined through the Rational Actor Model. Such questions hold the utmost importance in an ongoing analysis of Obama’s presidency, as the American people expect any successful and enduring president to rationally chart the course best able to further the interests of the American people and maintain the United States’ global supremacy.

Oil. This one word can explain the relationship between the western world—especially the United States—and the Middle East. It can be used to trace the reasoning behind many interactions between these two spheres of the world. It is also the basis of one of the most controversial foreign policy operations of the United States, Operation Ajax. Although Operation Ajax happened sixty years ago, its consequences had immediate and lasting effects on both Iran and American-Iranian relations. I will argue that the coup led to the 1979 Islamic revolution and consequently put into motion the strained relations between Iran and the United States; it also had significant effects on both the United States’ and Iran’s political history. I will cement my argument by giving a detailed account of Operation Ajax and the players involved in it as well as giving descriptive examples of why it happened as well as how it continues to have a lasting effect.

Still, Iran continuously denies that its nuclear objectives are to construct atomic weapons, but a large majority of the international community remains skeptical to the legitimacy of this claim due to the secrecy of Iran’s productions and their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA on several notable occasions. However, in defense over the concerns pertaining to the secrecy of Iran’s program, Iran’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Javad Zarif, claims Western tension and dwindling support for Iran’s early nuclear energy programs forced Tehran with no choice but to continue their nuclear activities in a discreet matter. Zarif wrote in Colombia University’s Journal of International Affairs, “To avoid the