Iran 's Political System Of The United States

Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), or Iran Deal, was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, there widespread debate as to whether the agreement would benefit both sides of the pact. Due to the numerous amount of steps taken to ensure Iran’s compliance, the accord between Iran China, France, Russia, the U.K, the U.S, Germany and the EU (P5+1+ Eu countries) provides both sides with comfortable allowances that allow each state to thrive. Though highly contested, as demonstrated from the varying opinions in the supplied articles, the JCPOA solidified the deconstruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which is one of the hardest objectives to achieve in the field of international relations. As shown by the world’s quandary

The Iranian hostage crisis was one of the most dramatic events in a series of problems that took place during President Jimmy Carter’s term. The crisis, beginning in November of 1979, received the most coverage of any major event since World War II. It was one of many problems faced in light of the United State’s complex relationship with Iran. The effects on both the US and Iran were astronomical, especially politically as well as economically and socially. It took a heavy toll on American relations with the Middle East and changed the way we engage in foreign affairs. In light of this crisis, Iran started an international war that we are still fighting thirty-two years later.

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.)

“ The Islamic Revolution of 1979: The Downfall of American- Iranian Relations” analyzes American- Iranian diplomacy from 1953- 1979. It is an explanation of the causes and developments of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power and

Since the early 1900s the United States has been embroiled in Iranian affairs, something that would have great effects both in 1979 and now. The United States’ interest in Iran was originally spurred by the discovery of oil, but due to the Cold War U.S. interest in Iran grew even more for strategic reasons. To continue to exert their influence in Iran, the United States, through the CIA, installed shah Pahlavi as ruler. The shah was a cruel and strict dictator and was eventually overthrown and exiled. In place of the shah, an Islamic Republic came to power under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini.

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 and the United States are frigid bedfellows indeed. For the last thirty-seven years, these two cultures dogmatically opposed each other philosophically and theologically. To this day, the two countries monitor the other’s actions with suspicion and disdain. The United States accuses Iran’s Islamic theocracy of state sponsored terrorism and proliferation of nuclear materials with the intent of use against Israel. Iran by contrast sees the United States as an aggressive interloper driven by a lust for fossil fuel hegemony and diametrically opposed to Iran’s own national interests. Truly a match made in heaven.

Because of the sunset clauses in the JCPOA, the ultimate success of the nuclear deal depends on transformation of the Iranian regime over the next decade from a hardliner revolutionary regime to a moderate one. Surprisingly, the JCPOA removes the supreme leader’s financial empire from the sanction list on the implementation day. The Ayatollah has used this exclusively controlled financial-industrial conglomerate to pursue his hardline policy of supporting terrorist groups in the region, oppressing dissidents in Iran and demanding annihilation of Israel. Removing these entities guarantees prosperity of Supreme Leader’s financial empire in the Post-sanction Iran. Therefore,

The effect of this take-over on Iran’s relationship to the USA and the west can still be felt in relations between these countries today. The Iranian hostage crisis led to a suspension of diplomatic relations between Iran and the USA as well as other Western democracies. While the Soviet Union accepted the legitimacy of the revolution, it initially supported attempts to reinstall the Shah as leader. American leaders were determined to keep the Shah in power because of the cold war tensions, which caused them to fear that Soviet Communism would spread to Iran, should the Shah fall. (Cohen, 1). But while

In 1953 the United Kingdom with help from the United States ousted the first democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosadegh. Mosadegh was a revolutionary who sought to nationalize iranian oil, eliminating the monopoly that the United Kingdom had on iranian oil. Through Operation TPAJAX, which led to a series of U.S. backed coup état’s in various countries, Iran was robbed of their democracy and a tyrannical U.S. backed Dictator was installed in its place. This interference of Iranian affairs has led to decades of American hatred and later the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Before the 1953 coupe état, revolutionary, Mosadegh nationalized Iranian oil with an almost unanimous vote,later being threatened by American and British

Negative relations between Iran and the United States likely began in 1953 when the U.S. assisted in a coup which ousted then Prime Minister Mohammad

have nuclear and hydrogen weapons, but for Iran, which is not a member of NATO and its security is not guaranteed by any country in the world, the simple principle of self-defense becomes so problematic?” (Vaez, 2017). The JCPOA satisfies Iran’s demand for increased influence while maintaining the priority of international nuclear stability. With worldwide peace and proliferation safeguards an international interest, the United States should utilize a selective engagement mindset, specifically in regards to a great powers focus, to maintain leverage and unity within the multilateral agreement, “Selective engagement endeavors to ensure peace among powers that have substantial industrial and military potential – the great powers” (Posen, & Ross, 2000). By prioritizing vital interests, the great powers can develop a collaborative and effective strategy to force Iranian nuclear cessation and maintain unity to avoid Iranian partnerships with nations seeking to increase their sphere of influence. Additionally, the international response to Iran establishes a

The 1979 Revolution in Iran was the substantial end of the cooperative long-term relations between the United States and the Shah of Iran. In spite of Shah’s disagreement with the United States over his ambitious plans for Iran’s development since early 1970s, both parties conceded to each other in order to sustain their common political and economic interests in the Persian Gulf region.

The United States and Iran (then Persia) relations began in the late 1800’s. King Nasser-al-Din Shah sent an ambassador to Washington D.C. although Americans had been traveling to Iran since the mid 1800’s (1,1). From the late 1800’s till World War II, relations were very friendly and many of the representatives for Iran saw the United States as a “third force” in there drive to break free from the British and Russian dominance in Persian affairs (1,1). The United States relations with Iran led was very costly as it led to many highly appointed officials to be killed by those affiliated with the British and Russian influence (1,1). Although relationships with the United States were very friendly for more than half a century, many changes

The historical lift of decades-long sanctions on Iran earlier this year has sparked numerous discussions about what the future holds for the country. Without a doubt, possibilities that have been blocked by the past economic sanctions are now accessible to Iran. However, it’s crucial to understand that change cannot happen overnight. In fact, it may take years or even decades for Iran to catch up with the majority of countries around the world. There are some notable events in Iran’s domestic affairs that can assist us in navigating where the semi-theocratic regime appears to be headed. One of them would be the recent Iranian election and its conceivable outcomes. This paper will examine the possible progresses post-sanctions Iran can