The Role Of Iran

Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), or Iran Deal, was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, there widespread debate as to whether the agreement would benefit both sides of the pact. Due to the numerous amount of steps taken to ensure Iran’s compliance, the accord between Iran China, France, Russia, the U.K, the U.S, Germany and the EU (P5+1+ Eu countries) provides both sides with comfortable allowances that allow each state to thrive. Though highly contested, as demonstrated from the varying opinions in the supplied articles, the JCPOA solidified the deconstruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which is one of the hardest objectives to achieve in the field of international relations. As shown by the world’s quandary

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

In his paper about Iran’s nuclear program, Barry R. Posen emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program may result on regional and global instability. On regional level, neighboring countries of Iran will feel threatened with Iran’s nuclear power. This situation may lead them to follow Iran’s step in developing nuclear weapons even though they do not have the capability to ensure the security of their nuclear sites. Clearly, nuclear weapons proliferation will put the Middle East in escalating dangerous situation. On global level, the U.S. and its allies are concerned that the situation in the Middle East may harm their national interests. The Middle East is still a prominent producer of oil which is the main energy resource for industrial

Iran and the United States are frigid bedfellows indeed. For the last thirty-seven years, these two cultures dogmatically opposed each other philosophically and theologically. To this day, the two countries monitor the other’s actions with suspicion and disdain. The United States accuses Iran’s Islamic theocracy of state sponsored terrorism and proliferation of nuclear materials with the intent of use against Israel. Iran by contrast sees the United States as an aggressive interloper driven by a lust for fossil fuel hegemony and diametrically opposed to Iran’s own national interests. Truly a match made in heaven.

Former President Ahmadinejad set Iran back years by putting Iran into extreme isolation from the international community. His continued badgering with the international community, eventually lead to a nuclear stand-off with world powers. With what seems to be the Ayatollah’s blessing, President Rouhani has so far shown promise to ease the country’s relations and assume a solution on the nuclear issue. “For Washington, meanwhile, the election offered stark confirmation that its strategy is working, at least to a point. The outcome confirmed that political will for a nuclear deal exists within the Islamic Republic. In other words, the path out of isolation and economic crisis is perilous, but Iran’s new president, who has sometimes been dubbed “the sheikh of diplomacy,” may just be the right man at the right moment to walk it.” (Maloney, 2013)

In the year 2014, The United States and Iran are considering working together in order to put a stop to the threats posed by the militant group, Isis. This is a big step for the two countries since just in 2013, the United States threatened to use force against Iran to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Even though, the two countries are facing a common enemy, Iraq; this does not reduce the tension that the U.S and Iran have towards each other. For 60 years, the U.S. had a tumultuous relationship with Iran. From the removal of Iran Prime Minister in 1953 to the most recent, Iran’s nuclear agenda, the United States have been involved. This raises the questions of how did the U.S. involvement in past history shape current Iran

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.

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

Towards the final years of the war, appeared that neither side were getting any closer to the goal they set when they entered the war. Iraq was no longer pushing into Iran to try and overthrow their government to ensure Hussein’s reign as dictator. While Iraq mainly played defense in the war, Iran was unable to push far enough into Iraq to accomplish their goal of taking Hussein out of power. In an attempt to stop this stalemate of a war, city warfare was taking over instead of conventional, foot warfare. This lead to both sides exchanging bombings of cities in their nations. Iran bombed Baghdad and then in turn, Iraq bombed Tehran. This war of cities continued on for some time, yet this was just another example of stalemate warfare just with

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

Direct U.S.-Iranian relations date back as far as 1923 when the United States sent an economic advisor to Iran in an attempt to help provide independence and stability to the Persian economic system. The relationship between these two countries however, has not remained as positive as it began. Over the course of the last 70 years the United States has been both close allies and distant enemies with Iran; never seeming to make constructive diplomatic relations last. This troublesome history between the U.S and Iran has created a climate in which long-lasting successful diplomatic relations are unlikely. Considering this, the United States must continue on a path of aggressive foreign policy in regard to Iran in order to ensure the interests of the U.S are adequately protected.

Contrary to the dazzlingly clear presentations from Washington (complete with it’s own theme music and hashtag!) there is nothing about this context or deal that is simple or predictable. However, should it work, the Iranian Nuclear Deal could simply be the most important step in the stabilisation of the Middle East in modern history.

According to the official White House website, Iran currently has two means to produce a nuclear weapon, which are highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. Assuming there are no other secret facilities, uranium is currently produced at Natanz and FFEP, while plutonium is produced at Arak. The website also mentions that Iran currently possesses enough HEU to produce eight nuclear bombs, and that it possesses 20,000 centrifuges between the previously mentioned Natanz and FFEP sites. The deal requires Iran to reduce its HEU levels by 98% and maintain the levels at or below the 3.67% while reducing the number of centrifuges to 6,104 for at least the next 10 years. Additionally, the deal addresses concerns about future secret facilities, specifying that Iran is subject to exceptionally vigorous monitoring, verification, and inspection measures as well as allowing the IAEA access to any suspected nuclear

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

The bilateral relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran has dated back to the mid 19th century when Iran was then recognized as Persia. For some time, through the 1800s and well into the 20th century, the two had a mostly positive relation. These positive relations ended with the arrival of the 1979 Iranian revolution, which carried a heavy anti-American sentiment. The following three decades resulted in continuing degradation for the relationship amongst the two nations. These relations digressed to a point where currently neither country has an embassy or ambassador to the opposite country. At this time, the only influence Iran has within America’s capitol is in section of Pakistan’s embassy.