Mutually Beneficial, A Dependency On Iranian Oil For Beijing 's Policy Decisions Before

Lee, Wei Chin. “Arms Twisting: U.S.-Taiwan Arms Transfers in the First Decade of the Twenty-

One of the largest communicational issues between China and the United States is due to the severe lack of transparency, creating enormous trust issues which has fueled national differences. A few of the ways that lack of trust has proven to be detrimental to China and U.S. affairs is analyzed in Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jishi’s, Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust. It states, “China views the U.S. as taking advantage of the dollar as the reserve currency and adoption various projectionist measure to disadvantage the People’s Republic of China (PRC) economically”. Additionally, the United States disapproves of China’s mercantilist policies because they fear it will cause their efforts in economic recovery

Iran ranks second globally in natural gas reserves and fourth in proven crude oil reserves (Penn Wharton). In 2014, oil accounted for 20% of Iran’s GDP, so government expenditures count heavily on their oil exports and prices heavily. Since the 1950’s, the U.S. has played a major role in manipulating Iran’s oil and their dependance on oil. The United States’ foreign policies and relationships in Iran have seemed to be created to take advantage of Iran’s oil-rich markets. Not only that, but new sanctions that have been put on Iran’s nuclear program which has severely hurt them because these sanctions have costed them to lose over $500 billion in oil revenues through the sanctions, research, construction, and operation. Although the U.S. has hurt Iran financially, it is very important that they stay involved with them because they are one of our main sources to get petroleum from and if the U.S. can stay on good terms with them, it will benefit both nations economies.

However, China perceives the Middle Eastern states, including Israel, as business partners. Therefore, the Chinese government believes that if it aligns with one side, China will terminate diplomatic and economical relationships with the other side.

The United States and China Relation started since 1784, but it wasn’t until 1970’s when The United States finally recognize the communist people from China. This led us to be influenced by their culture, politics, but the most important economically. The relation of these two countries was not so good at the beginning, since China is a communist country that was involved with many countries that were in war. The interaction of these countries goes back to 1785 when the first Chinese sailors arrived to Baltimore looking for wealth and then it increases in 1847 with the Gold Rush in San Francisco that attracted many Asian Immigrants in look for new opportunities. The U.S. Department of State mentions in their archive United States Relations

The relationship between the United States and China would prove crucial for one side in the future. In 1941, Japan went to war with the U.S. because of embargoes put on oil. One of the reasons for the embargoes was that Japan had violated the Open Door Policy. Japan would later be defeated in 1945. Unfortunately, in 1949, China had a civil war, in which the communists were victorious. The communists ended all special privileges to foreigners and made the Open Door Policy meaningless

Since the oil embargo of 1977, there has been an increased awareness of our nation's energy security. As global population and energy consumption rise, the need for a stable energy supply has become a hot topic and a politically volatile issue. As our negative trade balance grows larger by the day, the United States finds itself in a rather precarious position. We are becoming more and more dependent on Middle East oil.

During World War Two China was considered the USA’s greatest ally in Asia. In 1949 when China was taken over by the the communist, many people were shocked. The subsequent search for an explanation of what took place in China shook-up the US government creating poisonous blame and accusations that would set back America diplomacy and foreign policy for many years.

relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been considered the most significant, lasting effect of the Arab Oil Embargo. However, these changes were much less direct than those in the energy sector. Even though the embargo led to the United States allying with Saudi Arabia when they had previously been enemies, it can be argued that the embargo was not a direct cause of this shifting alliance (Myre). Furthermore, the fact that the United States is now rivals with Iran is more the result of the overthrow of the shah, who was effectively a puppet of the United States, than a consequence of the embargo itself (Myre). While, the effects of these changing dynamics are still seen today and are undoubtedly significant, the relationship between the embargo and the changing U.S. energy sector and policy is much more visible and direct. What’s more, the argument that the embargo most influenced U.S. energy is backed with an abundance of evidence, while the evidence suggesting the changing international relations resulted from the embargo is shaky and tentative at best. Due to this, it is apparent that the claim that the embargo affected U.S. energy policy most significantly is the correct

This quote highlights the essential cooperative relationship between the U.S. and China through both the regional and global scales. With China as the economic powerhouse in the global economy and the U.S. as the world’s policeman, it is clear that both countries hold major powers in the world and their cooperation is important in addressing the global challenges. However, the relationship between U.S. and China is becoming increasingly complex and competitive. The two countries share a lot of common interest in achieving peace and stability around the world, but they often disagree on the process of attaining those goals due to the different perspectives. It’s also important to point out that these two countries are more cooperative outside

As the Iranian economy continues to strain under mismanagement, the obsession for nuclear power, corruption, and crippling subsidies, the strategy of engagement provides incentives to build trade ties. The military and strategic threats Iran poses to the U.S. interests are serious and diverse. The threats will require determined efforts for engagement. History shows engagement and détente undermine governments more quickly than exclusion and enforcing an estrangement

Although China had already built a nuclear research reactor in Iran that became operational in 1994. but not until 2003 when “In 2003, a man went to visit Olli Heinomen at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna. Heinomen won't reveal his source, but said that the man told him that Iran was building a replica of its existing uranium-enrichment site near the city of Qom. The informant also said Iran was replicating its heavy-water plant in Arak, which is capable of producing plutonium. The first claim was verified, but the second has not been” - Iran Intelligence program states from Wall Street Journal 2013. But in 2003 the CIA was well aware that Iran had some sort of nuclear program running behind closed doors. With the research and evidence I have gathered from this excerpt is that an anonymous man gave a tip that there was a site where Iran was producing a Nuclear bomb The Iranian government, confronted in February 2004 with new evidence obtained from the secret network of nuclear suppliers surrounding Khan. it had a design for a uranium than it previously revealed to the IAEA. Iran has also sought to master heavy water technology. Iran decided to to develop a heavy water production plant and a heavy water research reactor at a site in the Khondab near Arak. Some people worry about weaponization but according to the Agency, "quite likely accommodate" a nuclear warhead but there is currently nothing proving that. Alhough I personally belive they have secret plans, for instance in 2003, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami announced the discovery of uranium reserves near the central city of Yazd and said Iran was setting up production facilities “to make use of advanced nuclear technology for peaceful purposes” We of course did not want to hear this as it was an alarming development because it suggested Iran was attempting to obtain the means to

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

This paper explores long-strained relations between Iran and United States that began decades ago. The paper also examines the events that led to this decades of disagreement between Washington and Tehran. Allies to enemies, that is what happen after series of events such as the CIA backed coup in 1953 to the hostage crises at the U.S Embassy in Tehran. The U.S and many of its allies criticized Iran’s nuclear program which they believed that Iran was using it to develop nuclear weapons. Iran on the other hand denied this accusations and stated that their nuclear program was only for civilian use only. After long talks and crippling sanctions against Iran, finally there was a historic agreement between Iran and six world powers that would stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and would lift the sanctions imposed on Iran.

Taking into consideration the historical timeline of brutal conflicts of Israel with many Arab countries, specifically Iran and Israel have not always been particularly on bad terms. David Menashri, an Israeli expert on Israeli-Iranian relation, said that “in the back of the historical memory of the Israelis, when you speak about Iran, Iran is considered to be a good friend of Israel.” (Sterling, 2012) These good relationships have been largely formed based on their economic interests where they traded goods which were significant to them such as Israeli weapons and Iran oil.