Search

Drawing on the Strategic Culture Theory, this article analyzes Iran's evolving ballistic missile program (BMP), by focusing especially on the period of the Trump administration (January 2017-January 2021), including both Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shooting down a US surveillance drone in the Strait of Hormuz in June 2019 and Iran's attack on the US military bases following the assassination of IRGC General Qasem Soleimani, in January 2020. This work demonstrates the increasing reliance on the 'revolutionary', more offensive narrative, which has become additionally reinforced after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani and Professor Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. This has consolidated the retaliatory aspects in Iran's foreign and security policy, while it has also marginalized moderated actors willing to engage in negotiations with the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on several issues concerning the decision of Iran to abandon its deal with the European Union (EU) on the suspension of its uranium enrichment program, as of November 2004. Concerns of the EU and the U.S. over the decision; Terms of the agreement, including the recognition of the right of Iran to the peaceful use of nuclear energy; Information on an investigation initiated by the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify the nuclear program of Iran.

The article offers the author's insights on the response of Roger Fisher towards the Iranian hostage conflict. The author tells that the seizure happened early in the day Tehran time on November 4, 1979. He says that Roger saw legitimacy as a central and powerful tool of persuasion too frequently overlooked and underutilized. He mentions that Roger's advise to the U.S. government focused on using legitimacy arguments to change Iran's choice.

Now that Tehran knows who will occupy the White House for the next four years, talks may soon resume in earnest. But Iranian eagerness to talk should not be mistaken for willingness to compromise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

India's ties with Iran have become an irritant in the India–US relationship. Several scholars have alleged that the US is influencing India's Iran policy. This article examines three cases in which the US is said to have influenced India's position: the Iran–Pakistan–India (IPI) pipeline; India's votes against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency; and the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines of December 2010, which stopped oil payments to Iran through the Asian Clearing Union. The article concludes that while American pressure on India in each of these cases was tremendous and might have had some influence on India's position, this alone was not the decisive factor that determined India's stance. Given its well-documented tradition of maintaining strategic autonomy in its foreign policy, India would not have taken the positions it did if it had fundamental disagreements with the US on these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the launch of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) nuclear program between Russia and Iran. He mentions that the project will provide Russia substantial politicals dividends, as it expands its nuclear capabilities in the Middle East, building relationships with Middle Eastern countries. He also looks into a possibility of a U.S.-Russia nuclear projects.

The West has focused on how to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or what to do after it does. What we lack is a framework for dealing with Iran before, while and after it crosses the threshold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – This article aims to analyze the Iranian and American national cultures and to discuss the implications of cultural differences for communication/negotiation styles. Design/methodology/approach – First, the concept of culture is framed and an integrative model of cultural analysis is constructed. Then, building on the extant literature and secondary data, the various traits of American and Iranian national cultures are analyzed and the implications for communication/negotiation are discussed. Findings – It is found that Iran and America portray dissimilar and somewhat opposed cultural orientations that might create substantial obstacles to their bilateral communications/negotiations. Recommendations for more effective communications/negotiations are provided and avenues for future research are pointed out. Research limitations/implications – Both Iran and the USA are diverse societies and obviously cannot be considered as monolithic cultures. Moreover, any generalization about the national culture is inherently approximate and does not take into account the intra-country variations. Another major limitation of this study is that it considers culture as static and unchangeable, however, every culture is in constant transformation. Practical implications – By bringing insights into the American and Iranian cultures, this study provides a better understanding of cross cultural differences and thus it may lead to effective bilateral communications/negotiations. Originality/value – While this paper provides valuable insights into the Iranian-American communication patterns, its main originality resides in offering a cross cultural approach to understanding international affairs. Moreover, the results can be extrapolated to other similar situations when Eastern/Islamic and Western cultures are involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the relationship between Russia and Iran, and how that relationship affects both countries' relations with the U.S. Russia's confusing policies in dealing with Iran is outlined including sending weapons to the Iranian government while joining in Western-placed sanctions on the country. The U.S. failure of using economic pressure on Iran is explored, as well as Europe's reluctance to have a confrontation that could anger Iran leading to higher oil prices. The possibility that Iran may choose to partner with China, which is in need of oil, is detailed.

The article discusses the foreign policy of China towards Iran, emphasizing China's varying stances toward the proliferation of nuclear arms and technology in Iran. The author also emphasizes the importance of China's relations with the U.S. in forming its stance on this issue. Emphasis is given to China's attitude towards the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). China's relationship with the United Nations (UN) security council is detailed. The importance of Iran's oil and gas resources in its relationship with China is analyzed.

The withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq marks a new era for Iraq's people and neighbors. The United States, by leaving the country with ill-prepared Iraqi army and armed factions struggling to expand their influence, left a country that is insecure for its citizens and full of problems for its neighbors. Demonstrating all-known attributes of a failed state Iraq has become a safe haven for various terrorist groups, using its territory to launch cross-border terrorist attacks to Turkey and Iran. Under these circumstances Turkish-Iranian rapprochement vis-à-vis Iraq can be expected. This article analyzes the strategic underpinnings of this bilateral cooperation ranging from counter-terrorism collaboration to joint steps toward preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whether or not President Ahmadinejad of Iran has been successful in implementing his strategy of forming alliances with the leaders of certain countries of Latin America in the backyard of the United States can be adduced from this article, which examines the state of such relationships in a comprehensive way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay examines the evolution of Iranian foreign policy on the 30th anniversary of the revolution. Iranian foreign policy operates on two levels: domestic politics and international politics. Statements offered for domestic consumption can be given less attention than those remarks and actions at the international level. While religious rhetoric often billowed from Friday sermons, pragmatic policies driven by a basic understanding of realism generally determined foreign policy over the last thirty years. The United States and other countries dealing with Iran should understand Iran's national interests and find some common interests upon which to cooperate and reduce tensions, or they will face continued hostilities and failed policies. Any calls for a grand bargain should be rejected because this would be inconsistent with Iran's approach to foreign policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The behavior and the policies pursued by Iran's current leadership pose profound and wide-ranging challenges to U.S. interests, the interests of its friends and allies, and the international community as a whole. Particularly concerning is Iran's ability to foment instability through the use of terrorism. Recognizing this, the authors participated in a series of roundtables, discussions, and forums on Iranian Malign Influence. Participants included military and civilian experts from a number of Middle Eastern, European, and Central Asian countries, U.S. think tanks, and U.S. intelligence and interagency subject matter experts. This paper is a reflection of the insightful dialogue that took place during these engagements, and also incorporates newly declassified U.S. government information on Iran's support for terrorism. This review revealed a need for a regional response to Iran's malign activities in the region. Regional governments must take action to neutralize Iranian intelligence networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the possible new dialogue between U.S. and Iranian governments. He points out the possible outcome of the discussion whether it would improve U.S. foreign policy objectives for better stability in the Middle East and minimize nuclear weapons. He also points out the benefit from the dialogue to Iran and its revolutionary leadership.

The article discusses Iran, examining the threat Iran poses to regional peace in the Middle East. Beginning with the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran-U.S. relations have never been as bad as they have been during the years 2003-2009, the author states. Topics include revelations about Iran's ambitions for its nuclear power program, an Iranian threat that is poorly understood and often exaggerated, and Iran's active and effective diplomacy in the Middle East. Also discussed is the emergence of a permissive regional environment regarding Iran's diplomatic activities.

What led to the calamitous drop in Iran's oil revenues in January 1977? Politics, religion, culture, and economics have been identified as factors contributing to the collapse of Iran's monarchy in 1979. But until now scholars have been unable to access documents that could shed light on the inner workings of the relationship between senior US officials and the Shah of Iran, whom Henry Kissinger lauded as "that rarest of leaders, an unconditional ally, and one whose understanding of the world enhanced our own." The declassification of the papers of Brent Scowcroft, who worked in the Nixon and Ford Administrations, marks a significant milestone in our understanding of the origins of the Iranian Revolution. They reveal that in 1976 the US and Saudi Arabia colluded to force down oil prices, inadvertently triggering a financial crisis that destabilized Iran's economy and weakened the Shah's hold on power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pakistan-Iran relations have been complex and paradoxical. The United States has tried to influence this relationship on various counts, given that Iran is an important foreign policy concern for the United States and Pakistan is an important neighbour of Iran and has been a United States ally in the global war on terrorism. This article explores Pakistan's policy towards Iran and the extent to which the United States has been an influencing factor in this regard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article tests three theories of state behavior with reference to Iran’s interactions with the United States between 1990 and the end of 2004. The study evaluates whether the Iranians alter their foreign policy in response to domestic instability, as proposed by the Diversionary Theory of War, whether the Iranians become more cooperative with the United States when the U.S. President is unpopular or the U.S. economy is underperforming, as proposed by the theory of Strategic Conflict Avoidance and finally whether the European Union, Russia and China can influence Iranian behavior toward the United States through either coercion or engagement. These theories are tested on two time-series of data pre and post the invasion of Iraq in order to assess whether Iranian behavior toward the United States has been affected by the ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq. The analysis suggests that domestic instability decreases rather than increases Iranian aggression toward the United States, as the regime in Tehran tries to deal with internal difficulties. The results also suggest that the Iranians become more cooperative with the U.S. when the U.S. economy is performing badly supporting the theory of Strategic Conflict Avoidance. The study indicates that the United States, China, and the European Union are able to influence the behavior of the Iranian regime. Finally, the study suggests that the Iranians have tended to exploit the difficulties that the United States is facing in Iraq becoming more hostile toward the United States when President George Bush is unpopular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After nearly three decades of antagonistic rhetoric and diplomatic estrangement between the United States and Iran, the next president has the opportunity to set a new course for relations between the two countries. When the next president takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Iranian officials will be listening. The president must implement a policy of engagement that encourages moderates in Iran without implying tolerance for Tehran's historic support of terrorist activities. This strategy will require patience and sensitivity to the complex political realities inside Iran. To successfully chart a new course for U.S-Iranian relations, the next president must (1) tone down rhetoric; (2) establish a direct dialogue with Tehran, including comprehensive, private discussions and deployment of a special envoy; (3) encourage greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system; and (4) offer carrots in addition to sticks, including consideration of legitimate Iranian concerns on regional security issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US invasion of Iraq has revolutionized the strategic architecture of the Persian Gulf in a manner that is still difficult to fully appreciate. Among the relationships that have been dramatically altered by America's move are the ties between Iran and Iraq. A critical examination reveals that more than territorial disputes or contending hegemonic aspirations, it was ideology that caused tension and ultimately war between these two states from 1980-88. While the earlier monarchical governments managed to contain their disputes, the ideological regimes of Saddam Husayn and the Iranian mullahs ultimately waged a devastating war against each other. Today, for the first time, ideology does not seem to be a source of friction between the two states, portending a more favorable relationship. The question then becomes, can the United States transcend its visceral suspicions of Iran and recognize that its long-term nemesis may be a source of stability? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades, the regional order in the Gulf was shaped by a triangle formed by Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. If one of them gained too much weight, the other two tried to compensate. Yet the 2003 Iraq War has created an entirely new situation since the indefinite US presence has virtually transformed the triangle into a square. Yet in reality this impression is misleading because Iraq's role has actually been usurped by the United States. This has resulted in a new, artificial triangle comprised of the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Strangely enough, within this new triangle, external, or at least non-Arab powers, i.e. the US and Iran, are the most powerful actors, even hinting at the emergence of a bilateral system. Nevertheless, history, tradition, and geography would suppose a renaissance of the traditional triangle. Washington would probably not object to an Iraq acting as its strategic partner in the region as imperial Iran did in the 1970s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the importance of the U.S. oil market power in dealing with Iran. The scheme will anticipate for some changes on the oil market as the U.S. achieved potential influence over the prices of oil. The U.S. could also raise its leverage with Iran and with other oil-rich countries and start the cultivation of the significant new source of the national power. The large oil consumption of the economy of the U.S. can be used in advancing and protecting the U.S. and the global welfare.

The article focuses on the extent to which India can expand its bilateral relationship with Iran while strengthening its relations with the U.S. and the world community. Iran and India are interested in advancing commercial and energy ties. India has been reliant on Iran for its energy needs. However, the U.S. has been wary of Iran's nuclear program and has been regularly opposing it. This resulted in India voting for the resolution in September 2005 finding Iran to be in noncompliance. It also voted to refer Iran to the UN Security Council in February 2006. It is suggested that the U.S. should recognize India's potential influence in Iran and encourage India to work with the international community to offer a solution.

In this article, the author suggests that the U.S. should rediscover containment about its relation with Iran. The author argues that the U.S. government needs a new strategy to deal with the question of Iran, one that includes an understanding of its actions toward and reactions to U.S. policy. He also emphasizes the necessity for the two powers to look inward for a solution to this conflict.

The article calls for a paradigm shift in U.S.-Iranian relations. The author notes that sanctions and other forms of pressure are contributing to an environment of escalation and insecurity and warns that the imaginary threat might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Looking forward to future relations of Iran with the U.S. and other nations, the author proposes that they focus on mutual interests, such as regional stability, rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks.

This article examines Iranian foreign policy towards the new Iraq, discussing Iranian perceptions of the U.S. invasion, the policies that resulted from those perceptions and how those perceptions and policies have reformed in response to developments in Iraq, as of December 2005. Iranian foreign policy towards its Iraq for the first two years after the U.S. invasion was driven by fear of the intentions of the U.S., not only toward Iraq but also toward Iran. This was the reason of Iran for condemning the U.S. invasion and the subsequent occupation. This was also one of the main causes of poor relations between Iran and the U.S.-imposed administrations that ran Iraq until March 2004.

The article analyzes the importance of international legitimacy in international politics discussing Iran's hostage crisis and its impact on U.S.-Iran relations. A quarter century ago revolutionary Iran took over the American Embassy in Tehran and held fifty-two Americans hostage for 444 days--a crisis that has cast a long shadow on Iranian foreign policy behavior. A quarter century later U.S. hostility toward Iran continues. Legitimacy is an intrinsic aspect of national power, and balance of power alone fails to explain the dynamics of international politics. A nation may lose legitimacy in international politics when it dismisses the relevance of world public opinion.