Iran's Foreign Policy since the Early 1990's

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

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

President Reagan wanted to remain the adored figure in the public’s eye and deemed to succeed where President Carter failed, even if it meant breaking the law. Throughout the scandal, Reagan’s first priority was free the hostages. Iran stated that they would release the hostages if. there was an exchange for the arms. This exchange benefited the Reagan administration as the money they received were given to aid the Contras. In politics, the job description of a President is well known; The President runs the White House with full authority as commander in chief and everyone knows and respects this role. With this claim, how is it possible that President Reagan was unaware of the activities being conducted in his office, regarding the Iran

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:

When the Iranian Revolution succeeded in 1979, Iran wanted to gain the admiration and the support of Arab countries, benefiting in particular from the support by the Shah of Iran and his relationship with Israel before the collapse of his regime. On this very first day of the victory of the revolution, Iran was keen to extend its bonds with the Islamic world, and when this was not possible in most cases, because of many complex causes of the revolution, Iran began to look for «organizations» instead of «regime’s or countries», in order to continue its role in Islamic issues. Iran was keen to show that this role was one of the foundations of the revolution and its beliefs, in

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

The focus of this investigation is on the United States’ influence on the National Revolution of Iran of 1978-1979. Topics investigated include the sociocultural and political differences between the two countries which

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

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.

This paper will begin by providing background information on the Iranian Hostage Crises, then shifts to the different viewpoints taken by the divisions of the executive branch. This will provide the different policy options and supporting actors. The final part of the paper will focus on the foreign policy outcome.

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

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.

USSR and the West tried very hard to influence Iran. The west wanted to influence Iran to be democratic while USSR wanted it to be communist. Both of them shared one common interest though, they wanted access to Iran’s oil. Iran from the dawn of Iran's beginning had an excellent source of oil like no other and both the west and USSR wanted to be able to access it. Iran was never colonized by the west or USSR but they were greatly influenced by USSR. The past between USSR and Iran has gone between rivalry and companionship, the end of world war two created the start of America’s political dominance in Iran while USSR fell behind. Soon after, America became politically involved in Iran they put up a communist block and ending USSR’s influence on Iran for many years. After the fall of the USSR, the relationship between Iran and Russia changed. Iran even began to purchase weapons for their military from Russia. Iran’s current military is greatly influenced by Russia instead of the west, as it was in the past. The relationship between Russia has become stronger as they both feel the same about limiting the U.S’s political control in Central Asia. Iran was always wanted for its oil, the U.S and the U.S.S.R were always fighting for

Iran is a very complicated country that is heading towards many domestic and foreign changes. Some foreign changes that can be predicted in Iran’s future will include a foreign relations change with the United States and Israel. The relationship with the United States will improve with the negotiations of a nuclear deal. With an improving relations between the United States and Iran, Israel thinks it will lose its qualitative edge on Iran. Therefore, the Israel and Iran relation will worsening. Coming back inside the country, a domestic change will be a more democratic government. However, in order for Iran to push for a more democratic future, it will have to go through lots of political unrest and civil protests. Iran will have to see some dark days filled with protests. Iran is on the path for a more democratic government, improving U.S. relations, and declining Israel relations.