U S Iran Tensions And Implications For U S Policy

In the spring of 2019, U.S.-Iran tensions have escalated. The Trump Administration, following its 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA), has taken several steps in its campaign of applying "maximum pressure" on Iran. Iran or Iran-linked forces have targeted commercial ships and infrastructure in U.S. partner countries. U.S. officials have stated that Iran-linked threats to U.S. forces and interests, and attacks on several commercial ships in May and June 2019, have prompted the Administration to send additional military assets to the region to deter future Iranian actions. President Donald Trump, while warning Iran not to take action against the United States, has said he prefers a diplomatic solution over moving toward military confrontation. The Administration has expanded U.S. sanctions against Iran, including sanctioning its mineral and petrochemical exports during May-June 2019, placing further pressure on Iran's economy. Iranian leaders have refused to talk directly with the Administration, and they have announced an intent to no longer comply with some aspects of the JCPOA. U.S. allies and other countries such as Russia and China have expressed a preference to reduce tensions. Several countries, including Japan, Germany, Oman, Qatar, and Iraq, have sought to de-escalate U.S.-Iran tensions by sending high-level officials to Tehran for talks. An expanding action-reaction dynamic between the United States and Iran has the potential to escalate into significant conflict. The United States military has the capability to undertake a large range of options against Iran in the event of conflict, both against Iran directly and against its regional allies and proxies. However, Iran's alliances with and armed support for armed factions throughout the region, and its network of agents in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere, give Iran the potential to expand any confrontation into areas where U.S. response options might be limited.

Since May 2019, U.S.-Iran tensions have heightened significantly, especially since U.S. military forces killed Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard CorpsQuds Force (IRGC-QF) and one of Iran's most important military commanders, in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad on January 2, 2020. The Trump Administration, following its 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA), has taken several steps in its campaign of applying "maximum pressure" on Iran. Iran and Iran-linked forces have attacked and seized commercial ships, caused destruction of some critical infrastructure in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and posed threats to U.S. forces and interests, including downing a U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle. Iran has reduced its compliance with the provisions of the JCPOA. The Administration has been deploying additional military assets to the region to try to deter future Iranian actions. President Donald Trump has said he wants a diplomatic solution that would not only ease tensions but resolve broader disputes with Iran, centered on a revised JCPOA that encompasses not only nuclear issues but also Iran's ballistic missile program and Iran's support for regional armed factions. High-ranking officials from several countries have sought to mediate to try to de-escalate U.S.-Iran tensions by encouraging direct talks between Iranian and U.S. leaders. President Trump has stated that he welcomes talks with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani without preconditions, but no direct talks have been known to take place to date or are scheduled. The U.S.-Iran tensions have the potential to escalate into significant conflict in the wake of Soleimani's killing. Iran's materiel support for armed factions throughout the region, including its provision of short-range ballistic missiles to these factions, and Iran's network of agents in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere, give Iran the potential to expand confrontation into areas where U.S. response options might be limited. The United States military has the capability to undertake a range of options against Iran, both against Iran directly and against its regional allies and proxies. A September 14, 2019, attack on critical energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia demonstrated that Iran and/or its allies have the capability to cause significant damage to U.S. allies and to U.S. regional and global economic and strategic interests, and raised questions about the effectiveness of U.S. defense relations with the Gulf states in preventing future such Iranian attacks. Members of Congress have received additional information from the Administration about the causes of the U.S.-Iran tensions and Administration responses. They have responded in a number of ways; some Members have sought to pass legislation requiring congressional approval for any decision by the President to take military action against Iran.

Relations between Iran and the US have been strained for over 30 years. This book provides unbiased discussions of issues such as historical relations, the Iranian nuclear program and their support for 'terrorist' organizations. It also identifies a wide range of possible US policy solutions to improve relations.

The modern history of U.S.-Iran relations is a collection of iconic images: the Shah in regal glory on his throne; the Shah fleeing his country; the rapturous welcome of Ayatollah Khomeini; the parading of blindfolded American hostages; the burning wreckage of American rescue helicopters; Oliver North testifying on the Iran-Contra scandal; the volatile defiance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; the hope of the Green Movement; and the persistent gloom of Ali Khameini. Yet behind these images are decades worth of diplomatic efforts, policy statements, official speeches, and passionate opinion pieces written by politicians, policymakers, human rights activists, and engaged citizens. Readers who examine these disparate viewpoints will gain a deep understanding of the vital, urgent, strategic importance of this long fraught relationship.

U.S.-Iran relations continue to be an international security problem in the Middle East. These two countries could have been friends, but instead they have become enemies. Stating this thesis raises the following questions: Why are the United States and Iran enemies? How and when did this relationship come to be? When the relationship began to deteriorate, could it have been reversed? What lessons can be learned from an analysis of past U.S.-Iranian relations and what are the implications for their present and future relations? Akan Malici and Stephen G. Walker argue that the dynamics of U.S.-Iran relations are based on role conflicts. Iran has long desired to enact roles of active independence and national sovereignty in world politics. However, it continued to be cast by others into client or rebel roles of national inferiority. In this book the authors examine these role conflicts during three crucial episodes in U.S.-Iran relations: the oil nationalization crisis and the ensuing clandestine coup aided by the CIA to overthrow the Iranian regime in 1950 to 1953; the Iranian revolution followed by the hostage crisis in 1979 to 1981; the reformist years pre- and post- 9/11 under Mohammad Khatami from 1997 to 2002. Their application of role theory is theoretically and methodologically progressive and innovative in illuminating aspects of U.S.-Iran relations. It allows for a better understanding of the past, navigating the present, and anticipating the future in order to avoid foreign policy mistakes. Role Theory and Role Conflict in U.S.-Iran Relations is a useful resource for international relations and foreign policy scholars who want to learn more about progress in international relations theory and U.S. relations with Iran.

As the Administration and Congress move forward to pursue engagement, harsher sanctions, or both, regional actors are evaluating their policies and priorities with respect to Iran. Because Iran and other regional concerns ¿ the Arab-Israeli peace process, stability in Lebanon and Iraq, terrorism, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan ¿ have become increasingly intertwined, understanding the policies and perspectives of Iran¿s neighbors could be crucial during the consideration of options to address overall U.S. policy toward Iran. This report provides a description of Iran¿s neighbors¿ policies and interests, options for Congressional consideration, and an analysis of potential regional implications. Map.

Contents: (1) Intro.; (2) Historical Context; (3) Overview of Iran¿s Economy; (4) Econ. Policy and Reform Efforts; (5) Iran and the Recent Global Econ. Turndown; (6) Econ. Stakeholders: Bonyads; Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; Private Sector; (7) Econ. Sectors: Oil and Natural Gas; Ag.; Mfg.; Financial Sector; (8) Internat. Trade: Major Goods Traded; Key Trading Partners; U.S.-Iranian Trade; Internat. Sanctions and Internat. Trade; Trade Liberalization; (9) Internat. Financial Flows: Foreign Exchange Reserves; Foreign Invest. in Iran¿s Economy; Internat. Loans and Assistance; (10) Congress. Issues and Options: Unilateral and Multilateral Approaches to Sanctions; Impact of Sanctions on Iran¿s Economy and Policy; Action in the 110th and 111th Cong.

US Foreign Policy and Iran is a study of US foreign policy decision-making in relation to Iran and its implications for Middle Eastern relations. It offers a new assessment of US-Iranian relations by exploring the rationale, effectiveness and consequences of American policy towards Iran from the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution to the present day. As a key country in a turbulent region and the recipient of some of the most inconsistent treatment meted out during or after the Cold War, Iran has been both one of America's closest allies and an 'axis of evil' or 'rogue' state, targeted by covert action and contained by sanctions, diplomatic isolation and the threat of overt action. Moreover, since the attacks of 11 September 2001, Iran has played a significant role in the war on terror while also incurring American wrath for its links to international terror and its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapons programme. US Foreign Policy and Iran will be of interest to students of US foreign policy, Iran, Middle Eastern Politics and international security in general Donette Murray is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Defence and International Affairs at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. She was awarded a PhD in International History by the University of Ulster in 1997.