Last week, Iran’s central bank announced a staggering 12.5 percent growth rate in GDP for the2016-2017 year (March 2016 to March 2017). This is a critically important data for two reasons. First, Iranian officials and pro-Iran analysts in Washington and Europe have been warning since the Iran-deal was signed that Iran has not been getting enough concessions which could jeopardize the deal, as a result they have demanded more concessions and in many cases received it. This two-digit growth rate refutes all those false alarms. Second, the emboldened post-JCPOA Iran is now using its revived financial resources to directly challenge the United States and its allies in the region. Between Obama’s submission policy and a total war with Iran, …show more content…
As more international companies go into Iran for business or investment, its non-oil economy will see higher rates of growth in the manufacturing and service sectors while the growth rate in the oil sector will go back to normal level. As Iran comes out of economic isolation and can rely more on its manufacturing, agriculture and service sectors, it finds itself on a more diversified and solid financial ground.
The trend discussed above shows that despite claims made by Iranian officials and their supporters in the West, Tehran has steadily and significantly gained from the nuclear deal. Citing these complaints, the Obama administration turned a blind eye on Iran’s bad behavior; moreover, its officials have acted as Tehran’s business and investment advisors, going around the world, putting US diplomatic weight behind efforts to convince cautious international firms and investors to enter Iran despite the huge risks.
The rationale behind such efforts by President Obama and his team, many of who are still holding critical planning and operational positions in the US government, was that as more money and investment flows into Iran its government will become more moderate. That has been proven to be a wrong assumption. As Iran’s access to hard currency and international financial markets expanded, it has double downed on its aggressive foreign policy and support for terrorism; president Rouhani and the parliament has increased the IRGC budget while
Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make
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
“ 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
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)
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 September of 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, in the beginning of the eight year Iran-Iraq war. Iran was paranoid that Iraq’s leaders had “ambitions….in terms of expansion and regional hegemony”. 2 The invasion justified their fears. At first, we “did not have good relations with Iraq, which was had been close to the Soviet Union”.3 Although “not an ally of Iraq”, the United States believed that “Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to be defeated by a radical Islamist, anti-American regime”.4 There was speculation that the U.S. had given the Iraqis “the green light to launch war” against Iran.5 This would have been plausible because if Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq, could seize oil-rich territory, the U.S. would then have “access to Iranian crude”.6 The United States also wanted to terminate the radical Khomeini government and with the prospect of Hussein capturing Iran’s main source of revenue, this was probable. Because of this, “over the next decade Washington would play an ambiguous role in the Iran-Iraq War.”7 Not only was Iraq receiving U.S. support, but Iran was too, despite the fact our relations with them were
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,
Ali M. Ansari’s novel Confronting Iran describes the United States relations with Iran. Ansari begins his telling of the ever changing relations between Iran and the US in 1911. Anasari describes the apprehension of the US to enter into Iranian relations because there existed no government by the western perspective. At the time the Iranian Government was largely reliant on other powerful countries around them. In 1911 the Iranian Government Invited American merchant banker Morgan Shuster to assist a team of the country 's economist. Shuster arrived to a country that was mostly run by people from other countries, there we people from France, Germany, the English, Russians and many others. It was made obvious the many other countries had a steak in the country 's future and ultimately were only in it for said countries benefit from Shuster’s perspective. Iran was a struggling country, the country narrowly escaped European expansion, the Iranian independence was only maintained because the country had a few politically skilled statesmen. Ansari also describes Iran 's relation with the west during the 19th century. Ansari then describes the United States relation with Iran, largely the US experienced a formal commercial relationship with the people of Iran, they did not pursue a political involvement in the country 's affairs. While the US remained removed politically, they did send Shuster and his team to the country, Shuster and his team were not only employed by the United
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
The U.S. and Iran used to have a great relationship back in the day. President Jimmy Carter even spent New Year 's Eve in 1977 with the Shah, and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world".(Bakhtavar) This just goes to show how close the two countries were at the time. But all that changed later into the 1970’s when a series of unfortunate events eventually lead to the complete deterioration of US and Iran relations. These events shifted U.S. Iran relations in a way that still impacts both countries. Even to this day the US have expressed their dislike of the Iranian regime. Similarly, the Iranian leaders have shown their dislike, more like hatred, for the United States. But that brings up the
Nuclear weapons have provided states with the firepower to deter attacks since the United States developed the first bombs in the 1940’s. Nation-states with the abilities to develop such weapons have solidified themselves atop the global hierarchy. Since few states have such weapons, it is naturally attention grabbing when a nation is revealed to be in the process of developing them. Iran began a nuclear program in the 1950’s with the help of the United States, who subsequently suspended aid after the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (Breachy and Sinha 1-3). After the monarchy was overthrown and replaced with a clerical Islamic government, many nations, especially the United States, began to fear that Iranians were using their nuclear program to create weapons of mass destruction (10-13). Over the years, sanctions from the United States, the European Union, and other central powers have crippled Iran’s economy. After the 2005 election of former President Ahmadinejad, who supported the Iranian Nuclear program and offended Israel by calling the Holocaust a myth (Vick), many great powers have begun to work with Iran in an attempt to retard its nuclear capabilities in return for a reduction of international sanctions. Many actors in these negotiations want different things. Iran’s ideal agreements have the sanctions against the country lifted while still maintaining the ability to develop nuclear weapons. This would allow Iran to boost its position at the expense of others in the
The battle between president Obama and the congress is settled in favor of the President, however a similar battle in form, but different in nature, has emerged in Iran. The Rouhani’s government has insisted for weeks that the Parliament should not review and vote on the JCPOA. On the other hand, a handful of influential conservative members of parliament, close to the IRGC, insisted on the parliament’s rights to vote on the deal. The supreme leader finally sided with his devoted followers in the Majles. However, his intent is different from them. While the extreme hardliners in the Majles intend to reject the deal, Khamenei’s goal is to drop the responsibility of signing the deal, which he has to do if the JCPOA is submitted to the Supreme National Security Council. The
The relations between the United State’s and Iran were amicable throughout the post-World War II. In entering the Cold War, “the United States negotiated the Baghdad Pact in which an alliance between, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan was formed.” During this era, President Nixon encouraged the Shah of Iran to develop a nuclear program and provided the funding to Iran’s energy sector. The United States maintained a close partnership with Iran until, the Islamic Revolution in February of 1979. The revolution overthrew the Shah of Iran and Ruhollah Khomeini became the new supreme leader of Iran. Immediately following the revolution, Iran engaged in a war against Iraq in the early 1980s. “With a new balance of power, tensions grew between the U.S. and Iran. During this time, Iran held 52 Americans hostage in an attempt to negotiate with the United States; however, after the Iranian hostage crisis, the United States no longer saw Iran as an ally.”
Rarely in the history of U.S foreign policy has the diplomatic pendulum swept so wide an arc over such a short span of time. The swift regime change Iran witnessed in 1979 set forth a series of events that would define U.S relations with the Middle Eastern nation for decades to follow. It never occurred to me that one incident that lasted a little over a year could have such drastic repercussions.
President Hassan Rouhani recently called the nuclear deal the shining sun which everybody does witness, he may be right but what he does not mention is that the shining sun of the nuclear deal has not warmed the ordinary Iranians. Iran’s statistical center announced the disappointing growth rate of 0.7 percent between March 2015 and December 2015 for Iran’s economy. The stagnant growth is combined with an increase in the Gini Index, which measures inequality. After almost three years, Rouhani has failed to deliver his economic promises. The partial sanction relief and the consequent removal of sanctions have not translated into steady growth and prosperity. In 15 months, Rouhani faces re-election contest, his economic failure puts him on