Iran 's Current Status Of The Middle East, But Not A Nuclear Iran

The complexity of America’s relationship with Iran increased steadily beginning in 1908, when Iran struck oil. The Shah, the king or emperor of Iran, after taking the place of his young predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi with the help of the CIA, led Iran into a period of extreme wealth and prosperity, the likes of which the Iranian people had never experienced. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran came the growth of Iranian resentment towards the West, specifically the United States. The Iranian’s resented the uneven distribution of wealth that they felt existed and the United State’s influence in “westernizing” their society. In 1963, this growing hatred led to a conflict with the Islamic clergy. The conflict was quickly settled by the Shah, but he was unaware that this dispute was the beginning

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

As Michael Axworthy states on the back cover of his book, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, Iran is a “land of contradictions”. As this is true these contradictions is what makes Iran, Iran. Iran today is looked as the pinnacle of the Islamic faith in the form of a Government structure. Since 1979, Iran has been known as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iran will continue being an Islamic Republic for centuries to come. Iran has a rich history of intellectuals and scholars. Iran is known for its vibrant culture that dates back longer than the Western Ideals were even conceived. However Axworthy asks a question about Iran and its impact on the world’s history and the current events that we see in Iran today, Axworthy asks “Is Iran an aggressive power, or a victim?” This statement is a true paradox, can Iran be the next Nazi Germany, the next Soviet Union or the next Great Islamic Caliphate or is Iran just fighting to keep its culture alive from a vast array of attacks from foreign entities and internal struggles.

Iran’s government by definition is considered to be theocratic since it is ultimately controlled by a single religious leader; Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei. Although Iran has an elected president, Hassan Rouhani, the supreme leader/ayatollah controls the military, state broadcasting services and the judicial sector. The Islamic Republic of Iran, previously known as Persia, first established diplomatic ties with the United States in 1883. Many people do not understand the importance, significance, and/or second and third order effects of U.S.-Iranian relations, although important. As mentioned in an article by Akhilesh Pillalamarri, “Iran is uniquely poised to help stabilize the region,” likely through its current circumstances and shared international interests. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to describe the significance past and present of Iran to the United States and the second and third order effects, furthermore providing predictive analysis concerning the overall significance. Secondly, assessing and discussing how Iran impacts the Middle East in all aspects while providing analysis into the second and third order effects. Lastly, this paper will formulate a clear and concise short and long term predictive assessment on Iran, with a clear picture of the future intelligence value of the country.

Contemporary actions against the nation of Iran stem from the United States’ self-appointed obligation to fight that terrorism abroad, as well as the rise of an Iranian nuclear program. Iran’s claim to be solely interested in nuclear power for its energy benefits is continually met with skepticism, as Iran refuses to meet all requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which they are a signatory. The United States is also deeply interested in peace within the Middle East. The political, religious, and ideological differences in the region have turned into a decades-long conflict for which the American public has a waning appetite. As such, the US has employed a number of DIME efforts to induce Iranian compliance with the political goals stated in the NSS.

The relationship between the West and Iran has been notoriously rocky. Several main factors accumulating at the beginning in the 20th century have led to a perfect storm of religion, imperialism and radicalism that have come together to create the Islamic Republic of Iran that was built primarily on anti-Americanism. How did this happen and why is this republic so anti-American? The Islamic Republic is built upon a revolutionary type of anti-Americanism that can be “found among opposition groups seeking to overthrow regimes closely identified with the United States; attacking such regimes thus involves attacking the United States.”

The Supreme Leader, President, and the Head of Expediency Council have shown cooperation to maintain the stability. The come together and place their differences aside. As stated previously, Iran’s decision making policy is lengthy and needs refining. Although genuine disputes do exist within the government, there is relative agreement for policy, especially during periods when Iran is threatened. In President George W. Bush State of the Union address in 2002, the US President referred to Iran as a rogue state and a member of the “Axis of Evil”. It is still apparent the people of Iran have a dislike accompanied with a strong distrust towards the West. In a recent special the Iranian people were pleasant to the US reporter in the streets, however; clearly stated that the US is Satan. Today the US is demanding Iran to cease their nuclear program. The future of our relationship with Iran is currently being

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

Islamic fundamentalism has been the cause of the long-term hostility involving the United States and Iran. However, there are other substantive causes of this disagreement that have existed for a long time in the history of both countries. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which is a military organization that is made up of countries from North America and a reasonable part of Europe, was established to enhance global security and peace (Cottam 1988, p.18). This has also been a great issue of concern in the raging war existing between the U.S. and the Iranian government. Over the years, the objectives of NATO have changed to be more focused on a military structure due to the opposition that it has faced from diverse quarters since its birth (Crane 2008, p.15).

This paper will show that the US and its allies should take a more Hard Power approach when it comes to nuclear program of Iran. The paper will show how Iran cannot be trusted, due to its history of braking its word, and how the deals that we have made so far shows that the world is giving them the ability to create nuclear weapons. Also I will show how the resent agreements mad heave not done enough to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

Prior to assessing the actual threat of a nuclear Iran, it is necessary to analyze why Tehran is pursuing this capability. Many experts view Iran—a country that invests heavily in Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Assad regime in Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen—as an aspiring regional hegemon. This may explain why Tehran has endured extraordinary isolation to develop its nuclear program. Merely possessing nuclear weapons would significantly strengthen Iran’s relative power over its neighbors. , Others claim that Iran views itself as a vulnerable state surrounded by adversaries, and therefore is pursuing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. They argue that the current Iranian regime is historically a passive actor primarily motivated by self-preservation rather than hegemonic aspirations. Some scholars believe that deterrence and hegemony are not mutually

The greatest threat to the United States in today’s world is Iran’s investment in nuclear proliferation and its potential to destabilize the region. Iran has shown a history of aggression towards not only the U.S., but countries in the region as well. Acquiring nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver those weapons against the U.S. or its allies poses significant ramifications. In order to reverse Iran’s progress towards developing a nuclear bomb along with the associated delivery platforms, the U.S. must engage Iran more forcefully using containment, deterrence, and pre-emption. This paper will begin with an overview of Iran’s history with the U.S., followed by an explanation of why Iran’s nuclear ambitions are detrimental

The relationship between the United States and Iran has increasingly been deteriorating, especially since Tehran began to flex its muscles following the Iraq war in 2003 and its insistence on maintaining its uranium enrichment program. Both sides have grievances against each other that date back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and beyond (Ben-Meir, 2009).

It is a common conception that Obama’s prior efforts of engagement with the Iranian government have set many precedents for how the U.S is to communicate with Iran (and the Middle East) in the future, with some even referencing Obama’s attempts to amend the relationship between the two countries as monumental for not just the political legacy of the U.S, but specifically, the Obama administration as well. The relationship between the two countries seems to be primarily focused on the fact that the U.S is trying to control how Iran manages their nuclear weapons program, as the Obama Administration is unsure of what the nuclear capacity of the country is, and thusly, this may severe and cause suspicion to arise not just with reference to neighboring countries, but also one that connects to dangers that are prevalent on an international level; this is important because we are not aware of what the destructive capacity of the weapons are as a whole, due to the secretism that the Iranian regime’s nuclear program undertakes when looking into building their weaponry. The Obama Administration seems to have taken the approach of establishing strong diplomatic ties in order to prevent Iran from engaging in any acts of mass terrorism, as they have priorily expressed interest in taking action against Israel. In some cases the U.S utilized sanctions, some which caused disruption in their oil industry, thusly impacting their economy to a certain degree. Many have criticized Obama’s

Hope, as an idea, is a very powerful psychological booster. It creates a mental narrative which makes human actions based on the idea that things eventually do get better - if one attempts to try just one more time. Hope, as a concept, can also be a charming deceiver and has an unassuming ability to hide certain undeniable realities on the ground especially when dealing with the realities of geopolitics. When hope replaces the reality of geopolitics and territorial domination; it just prolongs the magnitude of a disaster. It does not eliminate it. Hence, when one must assess the durability, credibility and effectiveness of the recently concluded Persian nuclear deal, one must look at the geopolitical realities of the Mid-East and the role outsiders and those within the region, play to mutate those realities. That is a tough analytical order to conduct. But, it must be undertaken in order to provide a credible assessment of this diplomatic venture. A simple approval or disapproval - eloquent or otherwise of the nuclear deal, is a shallow response to a very serious and complicated matter in a very volatile region. A serious and solemn assessment always avoids an ideological lens. Additionally, the ideological rhetoric regarding the Iranian nuclear issue obscures and trivializes the broader issue of nuclear proliferation especially in the Middle-East.