Essay about Iran Engagement Policy Option

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

“ 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

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 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

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

Maslow’s law of the instrument states that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but what if it works alongside a sickle? As a key player of the Cold War (1947-1991), the United States (US) has had a dual role in the nuclear proliferation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Consequently, this conflict of imperialism has had major implications for Iranian relations to the present day. Even with the support of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the European Union (EU); Iran’s path towards peaceful nuclear energy still faces opposition from the US. In summation, from the nativity of the Second Red Scare in 1947 to the present day, a mix of political and strategic interests has lead to the formation of the Joint

Iran’s nuclear program can be traced back to the 1980s when it was at war with Iraq. It sought develop a nuclear program as an anticipatory move that would defend against Saddam’s Iraq’s nuclear aspirations. Prior to the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iran’s government, which was then in favor of the US due to its alignment to US policies was developing a nuclear program, but it was annulled as a result of the revolution. The US, along with its allies, is wary of the current nuclear program in Iran. There have been many approaches to curb this threat from Iran’s nuclear program. The most recent and notable one is the Iran nuclear deal, which will inevitably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The main US allies who are against the Iran

Is preemptive military attack or patient diplomacy the best way to deal with Iran and its development of nuclear weapons? According to Norman Podhoretz he believes that in the event of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons it would result in a devastation because they pose such an enormous threat towards many nations around the world such as the United States and their opponents in the Middle East. But on the other hand Christopher Hemmer believes that if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons it can pose a threat to the United States. He believes that patient diplomacy would be the best alternative to deal with Iran. Iran having nuclear weapons not only affects United States, but will also affect the world, especially the near east.

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)

Still, Iran continuously denies that its nuclear objectives are to construct atomic weapons, but a large majority of the international community remains skeptical to the legitimacy of this claim due to the secrecy of Iran’s productions and their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA on several notable occasions. However, in defense over the concerns pertaining to the secrecy of Iran’s program, Iran’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Javad Zarif, claims Western tension and dwindling support for Iran’s early nuclear energy programs forced Tehran with no choice but to continue their nuclear activities in a discreet matter. Zarif wrote in Colombia University’s Journal of International Affairs, “To avoid the

Netanyahu and Israel called upon Obama to take action against Iran. For Obama, however, the priority was to try to get the Iranians to change their policies by dialogue, not force. This change in perspective was one of the many realizations that the strategic plans of the two nations were drifting apart. Israel believed that the U.S. was not on their side because Israel wanted all of Iran’s nuclear facilities destroyed and disassembled. Since Obama refused to use force against Iran, it created tension and in the eyes of Israelis a sense of disappointment and frustration. Obama did not want to use force because he did not believe that was the best approach. He considered the best approach was to solve this issue diplomatically, which as a result would have fewer repercussions in the long run. In addition to the disagreement between Obama and Netanyahu for the Iranian’s nuclear plant to be disassembled by force or settle the issue through peace, Obama’s attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, an effort that appeared partially aimed at putting additional pressure on Iran to scrap its nuclear enrichment program, came into conflict with Israel’s need for nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a possible attack by its enemies, particularly Iran and the Arab countries with whom it had not yet made peace with (Freedman ). Israel felt the need that

The U.S. also has major concerns for Iran’s nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights record. The U.S. has tried to push the Iranian government to talk with the U.N. to try and dissolve the nuclear program and human rights abuse. The current Iranian government still has not recognized, one of America’s closest ally, Israel’s right to exist, this has hindered the Middle East peace process by arming militants, including Hamas, Hizballah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and continues to play a disruptive role in sustaining violence in the region, particularly in Syria.

To many observers of contemporary international relations, Iran and its behavior in the international arena appear somewhat perplexing. Kenneth Pollack has described the “Persian Puzzle,” and the “labyrinth of U.S.-Iranian relations;” Stephen Walt has described Iran as a “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma;” and Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations has testified that “the Islamic Republic of Iran remains one the most poorly understood regimes in the Middle East,” and that their foreign policy is “often inconsistent and contradictory.” A Google search of the terms “Iran enigma” returns dozens of pages of articles exploring the complexities of Iranian statecraft, rhetoric, and ideology. But despite decades of relations prior to the 1979 revolution and an unknown number of undisclosed diplomatic contacts between the United States and Iran post-1979, most Americans—and perhaps more importantly those at the highest levels of government—simply don’t understand present-day Iran on the level required to successfully engage the revolutionary state. Indeed, some former U.S. national security officials, like Columbia University professor Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council for President Jimmy Carter in 1979, have stated that the U.S. was wholly unprepared to deal with the new Islamic Iranian state, which was a "new

Due to the severity and danger of nuclear weapons, it is very important for nations to have some sort of regulation with regard to the nuclear program and more specifically their nuclear weapons program. After the first nuclear bomb was created by the U.S. nations states that followed the U.S. with the creation of a nuclear bomb seek to justify their creation of the nuclear. There are many reasons why a nation state will create a nuclear bomb but the key issue here is why and how nations states should be regulated with regard to nuclear weapons development. If Iran is considered a potentially hostile regime based on the perspective of western allies it would be logical to attempt to negotiate with them so that their nuclear program can have some type of regulation rather than no regulation at all or striving to strong arm them from developing their nuclear program and possibly a nuclear weapons program.

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