Policy Engagement with Iran

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

The doctrine of United States foreign policy has changed significantly during and after the Cold War, as the United States redefined its foreign policies during each of these eras. Although inarguably United States promotes liberal democracy, how it goes about doing so currently, could not be necessarily categorized as a liberal approach. During the Cold War United States had a more liberal approach towards promotion of democracy. Yet this approach has since changed as it did not emphasize enough the importance of other states materialistic needs and its impact on their international behavior, thus leading United States to adopt a more constructivist perspective toward its foreign policy.

Webster defines a sanction as: an action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws by limiting or stopping trade with that country, by

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

However, at that time to the American people the crisis invoked a feeling of national inferiority; for one of the first times, the US had been manipulated by a foreign country and could do nothing about it. However, the Iranian Hostage Crisis proved to be more than just an embarrassment for the country. It’s evident 33 years later that the Iranian Hostage Crisis had other significant effects on the political environment of the United States, including the negative influence on the 1980 presidential election, complete destruction of diplomatic US- Iran relations, and the establishment of a precedent for foreign, anti-American terrorism as an effective strategy against the US.

regarding the tense relationship between the U.S. And Iran in order to illicit a more

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.)

This investigation determines to what extent American foreign policy, within the years 1953-1982, caused the Iranian embassy siege. Furthermore, it questions the role that the Carter and Kennedy administrations had in furthering the American agenda within Iran. In order to assess the role American influence played, this investigation evaluates the relations between the Carter administration and Mohammed Raza Pahlevi during his tenure as Shah. Carter’s Middle-Eastern foreign policy is examined to gain further insight into the influence that the United States had over Pahlevi. Also, the role that the televised address from

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:

The notion that we do not need foreign policy, or that it is an antiquated concept is greatly misleading. In fact, we need a strong foreign policy now more than ever. We are living at a time when the world’s geographical divides are shrinking due to ever increasing advancements in communication, technology, trade, and a strong global economic interdependence. Even though the notion that we are somehow economically dependent upon other countries is not something new for the US, we still see a strong indifference to foreign policy. In order to understand the problems, let us take a step back and examine the history of US foreign policy.

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

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 INARA law gives the Administration a number of choices to cease or change U.S. Implementation of the JCPOA. These provisions raise the possibility of several courses of action as follows:

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