Iran 's Domestic Affairs And Foreign Policy

With the shah still sick, it was hard to manage what was back in Iran. The speed of change in Iran was too hard to get command. “The shah was in trouble, reaping the harvest of years of brutal and unpopular policies, including the use of secret police that controlled dissent with arbitrary arrests and torture.” It was obvious that the shah had lost all control of his people of Iran, but the president had hoped for an alliance of opponents to be formed. A man

This paper will seek to identify three key aspects of US sanctions imposed on Iran. First the paper will briefly introduce the reasons as to why US and Iran relations have worsened since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Secondly, this paper shall outline some of the key sanctions imposed on Iran which have influenced Irans’s behaviour. After sanctions are reviewed, the paper will then summarise the impact of sanctions on Iran. Last but not the least and most importantly, the paper will elaborate how Iran is resisting stringent US sanctions. This paper will argue that despite punitive measures adopted by the US, Iran has found alternative mechanisms to fight them and has reoriented its

Did American foreign policy and influence lead to the Iranian revolution and spark the Iranian hostage crisis?

On President Jimmy Carter’s third year as president, the shah of Iran was in deep trouble. Iran had brutal and unpopular policies that many people did not agree with. Revolution broke out in the January of 1979, because many Iranians didn't agree with the shah's ruling. The shah had no support due to his “secret police” that would

The [Bush] administration found it consistently difficult to get the measure of Tehran. Bush depicted it as a “nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is repressing and isolating its people,” but the reality was far more complex. (482)

Things move so far and so fast in the Middle East that some of the pieces here already seem like distant history just a year or two after happening and being written. If Iran, in 2013, ‘felt that the economic pressure and the credible threat of military intervention were to threaten its very survival, it might, just as Assad did with the chemical weapons, go as far as give up the entire nuclear program altogether.’ Before 2014 started was a relatively peaceful time. But of course, we know now that the West will never make such a threat, that the mullahs will have their way, and that the Americans are in retreat amidst the confused ruins of their policies as the Russians move in.

National Geographic : 27 Sept 2006. Television. Abrahamian , Ervand. Iran Between Two Revolutions (Princeton Studies on the Near East). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Throughout the 19th and 20th century Iran saw not only the changing of three regimes, but also the coming, and going of classical imperialists in Britain and Russia, but also late comers to the game in the United States. In each instance however, Iran was on a road to appeasement. In some instances such as with the Qajar’s, Iran’s Imperial family was trying to get more money for the betterment of itself. In the event of the Pahlavi’s, Iran was trying to modernize based off of a western model of success. In both instances the carving out of resources was involved in which Iran stood to lose the most by giving up very lucrative state industries to

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 has posed a prominent threat against the United States for decades, and after their long strenuous ordeal, a controversial, yet tolerable agreement has been committed. To many, this compromise is anything but beneficial given its short timeframe, but others are greatly relieved with such an agreement altogether. This article is truly eye opening and personally helped me form a better perspective of an important ordeal in the world. Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, it is a read that keeps the reader informed and engrossed throughout every line. The author effectively connected emotionally to the audience, used diction, and listed many facts, that each were incorporated throughout the article in order to enhance the article’s persuasive

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

and the Iran and what could happen after the result of the next election. It is mentioned in the article that the recent nuclear agreement that was signed between the two nations could be in jeopardy after the next election.The next election, next month, in Iran is electing the next parliament and members to the Assembly of Experts. The parliament is a lot like Congress and the Assembly of Experts elects the Supreme Leaders. Unlike the U.S., the Supreme Leader has all the real power, the president doesn’t really have any power. Similar to the type of government in the United Kingdom. It then goes to explain how the candidates that support the U.S. and Iran relationship are disqualifying. Due to this, if the future members of the parliament and members to the Assembly of Experts of Iran do not bid by the agreement or has a different view on the relations with America, all of the efforts of having friendly relations with the two nations will be

Iran has always, it seems, been the breeding ground for some kind of political upheaval or another. In recent times, back in 1979, there was a major revolution which was, in some ways, similar to the revolution we are seeing today. The people were angry and they were tired of being controlled by the government that was in power. They had concrete ideals and were incredibly passionate about their revolution. The revolution Iran is experiencing today does not appear to be quite as passionate and does not appear to maintain a belief in any real solid political system. They just know they want something different. In the following paper we present an illustration of the current revolution that is taking

It is however limited in that it is translated from Turkish and has a number of phrases that require personal interpretation and therefore need to be assessed by other sources. The piece goes over the conflict between the current Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and the leader of the revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It also discusses how Ayatollah Khomeini’s followers actually opposed each other, but opposed the Shah more. It also explains how the Shah’s progressive attitude offended some for being too progressive, and some for not being progressive enough. This resulted in another conflict upon the abdication of the Shah, as to what the republic of Iran should be. In the end, Ayatolla Khomeini was declared Supreme Leader for life.

In order to understand ideology in Iran, placing constituents of the ideological aspects on a spectrum accentuates an established left and right. Specifically, a labeled representation of said spectrum includes: modernization and Westernization on the left, Islam as moderate, and Islamic fundamentalism on the far right. To demonstrate the ideological spectrum described above, the historical context of Iran, generally speaking, symbolizes ideological shifts in society throughout the 1900’s. Beginning with Reza Shah’s administration, politics began to shift middle left in proportion of non traditional Western influence and providing Women with more rights and opportunities. Throughout Reza Shah’s period, abolishment of the chador, readily increased