Iranian Majlis

President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech undermined support of Iranians who argued for better relations with the United States. When Bush made that speech in 2002, Mohammad Khatami, a reformer, was the president of Iran (Freedman 473). The United States sanctions against Iran have helped to further the Abadgaran regime’s agenda by giving justification to a group that is desperate for it; the sanctions have allowed them to consolidate their power and further oppress Iranians who go against the government’s policies. Iran’s current state is best described in Lawrence Freeman’s A Choice of Enemies:

The United States relationship with Saudi Arabia is one that begun on February 14, 1945 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt met King Al-Saud at the Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal. After World War II the United States became the most influential foreign power in Saudi Arabia. US’s main interest was focused in the direction of the oil industry. Then in 1960 Saudi Arabia was one of the main driving forces in the creation of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). During the Cold War, Saudis favored the United States while the two also continued to but heads over the issue concerning the ever present Israeli-Arab conflict. Americas constant support for Israel has, and will continue to be an issue that brings about confrontation between the Saudis and the United States. Foreign relation ties never were as intense as they were during the Persian Gulf War. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait posed a potential threat to the Saudis provoking the United States to intervene. The Saudis allowed the United States to have access to their bases during this time. Since that time, our troops have remained there which is something that has led to much controversy because many Islamist believe that we our occupying their holy land. This has sparked many extremist to take action, most notably Osama Bin Laden who used this reasoning to justify the horrors of 9/11. Post 9/11 opened a new chapter to US-Saudi

Since the Saudi Arabia is being as Sunni Muslims while Iran is Shia Muslims, causing an immediate hostility and tense relationship between the countries. The differences in the religious and economic, somehow impact the United States. "Shiites make up approximately 10 to 15 percent of the global Muslim population", but in the Middle East the large number is in Iran’s population. Sunnis are the majority. The separation between Shiites and Sunnis dates back to the time of choosing the Prophet Mohammed’s successor. Shiites believe that "leader should be a direct male descendant of the Prophet." on the other hand, Sunnis believe that "leaders can be chosen by the community consensus." The leading points of dispute between Iranian and Saudi Arabian

The post-coup era was a flourishing time for American-Iranian relations. It was not that the people of Iran were particularly fond of the US, but rather the Shah’s relationship with the US. His power was essentially granted to him by both the US and Britain, and as a result he was to do as they instructed, causing him to become the “American puppet.” The US propelled him into becoming a “domineering leader over the Iranian government and masses,” which was the opposite of Mossadegh. Such a regime warrants itself to the hatred garnered by people. The greatness of these times defined the reasoning behind the enormous amounts of animosity that was generated when the relations began to fray.

Another country like Saudi Arabia with vast amounts of oil is Iraq. However Iraq is not just about the oil. It is also about water ways and geopolitics. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers flows through Iraq. Giving Iraq the majority of control of the water resource. Iraq’s location is also desirable to the United States. It borders Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey. It also has a coast line of the Persian gulf. Their location is also missile sticking distance to Israel and the USSR. Controlling Iraq gives the United States the ability in “controlling” the Middle East. However the United States was not able to coerced Iraq into being a pawn. Saddam Hussein refused the proposals of the economic hit-man. For Saddam Hussein, this was the begin of his demise.

According to Irian’s constitution the supreme leader is responsible for the delineation and supervisor of ‘the general policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran’. Unlike the US president who takes the power of legislation and is the executive leader, in Irian it isn’t the present who has the power to make the important decisions. It is the supreme leader with the wide range of authority. The Supreme leader is seen to have the ultimate power the determine the interest of Islam and mediate between executive, legislation and judiciary. The Iranian government is to ensure that there is no single leader powerful enough on his own to pose a serious threat to the Supreme Leader’s control of the regime, and that the only groups of leaders who could do so serve exclusively at the Supreme Leader’s pleasure or are controlled by other groups the Supreme Leader selects. Whereas in America all this is down to the

The US has had relations with Iran ever since the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The United States real engagement with Iran dates only from World War 2. The relationship has been punctuated first by the involvement of the CIA in the coup of 1953. The US dealt with one ruler, Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who came to the throne in 1941 and continued to rule for almost four decades. In this period, the relationship was governed by a number of enduring and persistent features. On the American side, the interest in Iran was due in large part to the country’s strategic location, bordering, on the one side, the Persian, Gulf and on the outer, at least until the collapse of the Soviet Union, sharing a very

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

What do Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Qaddafi all have in common? All three of these people have tried to set up an alternative market for oil, where oil could be traded in Euro, thus threatening the supremacy of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. The US foreign policy has taken a strategy of democratization in specific countries that have resisted cooperation on political and economical levels. The US already has the power and control over a sovereign state like the Saudi Arabia whose regimes has been run misogynistic monarchs. The United States has set up army camps in Saudi Arabia during the war with Iraq, which gives them direct control over one of the richest countries in oil in the world. The relationship between the United States and Middle East is different from country to country; the more a country shows economic cooperation better the relationship. To the extent that the US has turned a blind eye to human right violations and women's rights in order to secure the oil supply from Saudi Arabia.

Sectarianism between Saudi Arabia and Iran shouldn’t be concluded as a foreign ancient feud that conflicts modern political logic but rather a modern phenomenon and a product of contemporary politics. Furthermore, it is playing out not in obscure theological forums but in the political arena.

Their ability to access wider world markets and export oil to the US threatens Saudi Arabia’s monopoly of the Middle East oil market and will result in both states exacerbating regional rivalry. Given the long-standing alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia, the Saudis will undoubtedly aggressively push back against any chance of allowing Iran to gain economic advantage. There is also tension between Iran and Israel, in which, Iran builds up its nuclear arsenal to counter Israel’s and the continuation of Iran serving as the main threat to Israel’s security. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke out about Iran’s threat on Israel’s survival to former US president Barack Obama when the JCPOA’s framework was under discussion.

Saudi Arabia has a clear stake in the fighting in Syria; by overthrowing Assad, they are weakening Iran. Weakening Iran is of great importance as their influence is spreading across the Middle East and threatens Riyadh’s security. After witnessing Tehran meddle in Yemeni and Iraqi politics, the Kingdom feel their enemies could push their minority Shi’a population towards rising against the Sunni crown. Therefore Iran must be weakened so that they are not strong enough to spur a Saudi revolution. The fight against Iran has evolved throughout the war. Along with the battles in Syria, it

As noted before, the Iranian aggressive policies date back to the 1979 revolution, after which the country has continued to instigate cases of sedition, unrest, and chaos among the countries in the Gulf region. This is thought to have been a long-term effort by Iran to undermine security and spread instability in the region completely disregarding the moral principles, international conventions, and treaties. However, despite the numerous consequences caused by continued Iranian interference, Saudi has maintained a policy of restraint to prevent any major outburst. The

Since 2015, Iran physically dismantled a good deal of its nuclear infrastructure , shipped out 98 percent of its enriched uranium , poured concrete into the core of its only heavy reactor capacity to render it permanently inoperable and implemented rigorous transparency measures across its nuclear program. In Return, United states not only failed to implement fully its commitment through facilitating the Iran’s trade with the world but also it chose to get back the pre JCPOA atmosphere and prevent others to work with Iran.

With the Islamic Sunnis-Shiite divide and attempts by democratic advocates who actively try to challenge dictators, the region has fallen into a state of conflict. While, the United States might want to focus on Asia, it will most always have its concerns about Iran, where oil, its nuclear program, and most likely outcome to draw a nuclear arms race is one that the world is keeping an eye on. The Iran Deal signed by the former President Obama, has the intention of lifting sanctions with the goal to keep Iran from producing nuclear weapons. With regards to the nuclear issue, the Qatari’s close relationship with the Iranians is beginning to add fuel to the gulf issue as a resolution is not that easy to broker.