Maria Salman and Uzair Zahid Siddiqui

Maria Salman and Uzair Zahid Siddiqui2013

Introduction:What is the most complex American problem in Middle East? The writing is on the wall, IRAN. The country from being the police man of the Gulf for America drifted to opposite end, naming America the biggest Satan.Both countries have conflicting regional interests, and both are unwilling to meet at a middle ground. They are pitched against each other in all arenas, be it international politics, Middle Eastern peace process, international oil market or nuclear proliferation. The relationship was not always this antognistic; Iran was considered an invaluable American ally. In return Iran had American support, but the Shah benefitted more from this relation then Iran. After 1979 revolution the relationship went downhill as a new antiAmerican supreme leader made reform that opposed the modern, westrenised culture and were leaning more towards Islamization. After the Iranian attack on U.S. embassy, America severed all diplomatic ties with Iran. American who had a vested interest in the region felt the loss of such a staunch political ally strongly.Since then a lot of major conflicts have rose between the two, that havent been come to any satisfactory conclusion. Mainly because U.S. now sees Iran as a security threat to itself and to internation system, and tries to prevent any social and economical developments in Iran. Iran on the other hand, strongly anti-American, is determined to establish itself as an independent state, free of U.S. intervention. On and off half hearted negotiations have occoured in the last 3 decades, but have yielded no significant results yet. The facts above seen in the light of realist frame work prove the realist claim that states are essentially selfish actors, safe guarding their own interests. Both Iran and America have vested interests in the region, but can a compromised be reaced? and is peace a possibility? are the big questions under realist frame work.The one step forward, two steps back relationIranian state sponsorship ofinternational terrorismIran is a key player in the regional politics of Middle East. Allegedly, Iran has been involved in various acts of terrorism, and has backed numerous terrorist groups and activities. Its political influence and the U.S charge of Iranian affinity towards terrorism in the region are of uttmost importance in contributing towards their strained relations.a) The political IslamizationWhat is political Islamization? In today world, a new concept of Islam is emerging, where Islam is infiltrating the secular realm of politics. Scholars belive that Political Islamization is when Islam over-steps the traditional boundries of religion and slips into politics. (Hirschkind n.d.) Basically political Islam is the use of a modern version of Islam by political leader to achive their own goals in the political arena. In this context we see that Islam is a tool to further selfish objectives.In 1953, Shahs restoration to power had garnered resentment in the masses as he had surpressed the Islamic practices in Iran. (Bruno 2008) Iran, under the rule of Shah had become a modern, moderately Islamic state. Shah introduced the White Revolution, through which he pushed forward many economic, political and majorly social reforms. (Ansari 2001) The idea behind the White Revolution was to liberate the society and to adopt Western values and culture, pushing aside the Islamic norms. Any opposition on the publics part was brutally trampled by Shahs secret police SAVAK. The oppression led to a simmering resentment in the public until it became unbearable and the revolution was triggered. (BAHRAMITASH 2003)In 1979, after the revolution, the Shah was ousted, and in came the popular leader Ayatollah Khomeini. A note worthy thing here is that though the revolution is claimed to be Islamic it wasnt exactly so, the revolution came in reaction to the years of opperssion that the Iranian people had suffered at the hands of Shah and SAVAK. (Aslan 2012) In the after math of revolution a void had been created and Khomeini, a theocratic leader saw the opportunity to establish a more Islamic and less westernized, fundamentalist government. In the wake of revolution, Khomeini returned from exile and formed the Council of the Islamic Revolution, which took control of the country. Both the Iranian leaders had in their own ways used Islam as a tool. But where Shah had used a moderate version of Islam to remain in power, Khomeini used Islam to establish control in time of anarchy and revive traditional practices. Irans influence on the regional politics:Iran has considerable influence in the regional politics as it is on of the largest oil producers, and also because it is challenging the regional hegemons to their positions and is collecting allies in Middle East. a) Afghanistan:The U.S. presence in Afghanistan has become a major factor in Iranian behavior towards Afghanistan. Irans relation with the Afghani government has always been that of a helpful neighbor. In the beginging, despite the anti-American stance, Iran saw Afghanistan as neutral meeting ground for Iran and U.S., but America rejected every overture of a friendly relation. (Christensen 2011) So now Iran seems to be Pursuing Contradictory Objectives in terms of the fact that on one hand Iran supports the Afghan government, while other hand iran in interest of its anti U.S stance Iran also provides a measure of support to Taliban, which ironically champions an anti-shia ideology. (Laha and Nader 2011)b) Iraq:After Iraqs attempt to seize control of Irans oil reseverse and the consequential war, diplomatic relations between the two ceased. In post-Saddam era Iran has developed a new strategy of reviving relations and supporting the new Iraqi government. Despite the bad blood between the two countries over the 1980-88 war, in this new era the main ambition now is to prevent the Sunni from regaining power in Iraq. Also, Iran is developing ties with shia militants in Iraq to support them againt the American in an attempt to thwart them. Over this America repeatedly accuses Iran of supporting terrorism in the region. (BAHGAT 2009)c) Saudi Arabia:Since the fall of Saddam, the Middle Eastern Political situation is drastically changing. Israel and Saudia Arabia, the previous U.S.-backed hegemons, are no long the only key players in the region. Iran is coming a front runner to challenge them to their leading positions. The clashing ideologies about the regional politics, the race to rule the region and the shia sunni conflict are the factors that have put a strain on the relation of the countries. But the most important is their respective relation with the U.S. with Iran being anti-American and Saudis being pro-Americans. And also their stances about the Isreal-Palestine conflict, where Iran is firmly in Palestines camp and supports all actions against Isreal. Saudi Arabia on the other hand cant act as assertively because of iss U.S. alliance. This rather passive attitude towards Isreal hanst endeared Saudi arab to Iran. (Wehrey, et al. 2011)US Affinity towards Irans regional rival, Israela) Pro-Jewish lobbyUS has long been a supporter of Israel. US support has come in every form: military, political, economic. Since the World War II, Israel has received nearly $115 billion from the US alone in form of bilateral assistance. The Congress has always rendered its support to Israel, providing favors to Israel that other states do not have access to (Sharp, March 12, 2012 ). Although, other forms of assistances have been extended to Israel, military assistance sits on the top shelf of the US-Israel relationship. With the access to the US military technology, Israel has a dependable resource for the latest weaponry against all the threats, especially Iran.Both Iran and Israel have competed for influence in the region, though the aggressiveness between the two seemed non-existent before 1979, even to the extent that Iran would purchase hi-tech weapons from Israel, given that they had a common enemy in Egypt and Iraq (Oliai, 2011). However, the cooperation saw its end in 1979 after the advent of Khomeini and the theocracy.Since then, Israel has had unrelenting support in this matter from the US, b) A call by Irans President for Israel to be wiped off the mapThe Iranian President Ahmadinejad has been unequivocal in his stance against Israel. He has repeatedly called for the world to see that the Jews have unrightfully occupied Palestine and this occupation needs to be eliminated. On October 25th, 2005 Ahmadinejad spoke at a conference The World Without Zionism in which he called for the Jewish state Israel to be completely wiped off the face of the earth (Times, 2005):Our dear Imam (Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.With a resolute stance against Israel, Iran stands the opposite the US, a supporter of Israel. It seems unlikely that either of the parties will change their position on the legitimacy of existence of the Jewish state on Muslim lands, hence, a constant bone of contention between the two parties will subsist in the form of Israel.Irans black gold trade a) U.S. economic interest in the Iranian oil resourcesAnother reason of USs efforts to maintain good relations with Iran were its interests in Iranian oil fields. This was evident when Iranian oil fields were safeguarded by appointment of favorable person by US into power in Iran, in order to prevent these from going into Russian furnish, followed by allocation of millions of dollars of grants to keep the region flourished and to keep the interests met. This also built a relationship of trust and harmony between the two countries. (Lenczowski may 1972)Creation of oil weapon was another reason of Americas interest in Irans oil reserves, initially in creation of such technology which drew them closer and later by restriction of such assets which distant them apart. One of the reasons why America closely monitored Iranian oil reserves was to avoid a possible threat by disguising oil export decline as a voluntary cut, causing an increase in oil weapon creation and also an increase in premium attached to international oil prices by decrease in supply of oil in international market. (Stern 2007)b) SanctionSanctions imposed against Iranian shipping companies and Iranian vessels by the United States parted its shipping sector from contributing in national income. Moreover, the embargoes on Iranian trade left Iran with a limited amount of trade mostly with the Asian countries, it gave Iran to design good terms with neighboring countries but at the same time weakened the relationship with America and the west. Also in 2005 restrictions were made on Iranian nationals entry in United Sates. These along with several other sanctions imposed on Iran by US restricted its growth and consequently distant apart the two countries. What Washington called as neo-liberalization of the sector had a discriminated meaning for every part of the world which leads to distortion of the relationships between the two countries. (Ilias, Iran's Economic Conditions: U.S. Policy Issues 2009) (Davis, et al. 2011)

Bane of U.S. existence, Iranian Nuclear program The relation between the two countries was smooth initially and US was taking interest in Irans nuclear program, technology from France and other part of the world was provided by US for the program, however due to revolution and fall of Shah, the power changed which no more regarded the interests of US, people became anti-American and so were the polices. This was the time when the two countries started to distant apart(Kibaroglu 2006) (J. D. Davis 2005)

But then Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty with other nuclear possessing nations to ensure that Iran is using the nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only and IAEA started monitoring Irans nuclear facilities in 2003. This bridged the gap between the US and Iran as US now felt secure. US policy towards Iran in this regard started becoming neutral. However, the Natanz facility enrichment was a violation to NPT and called for an immediate action from US, UN and IAEA. (Babaei 2008) Irans perspective of development of nuclear assets was for energy development and other peaceful practices, however after this event US did not trust Iran in this regard and an immediate shift of nuclear program to Russia was demanded. Consequently, the relationships were being consistently damaged, and the policies were designed in opposition. (Blechman and Moore 2012)Analysis of the Iranian relation from the Realist persectivea) Peace is not a possibility in the anarchic international state system.Realist framework says that states are rational actor which defend their own interest. The nuclear issue in Iran was an act of self-interest of rational actor, which was manipulated according to self esteem from time to time, initially in favor of Iran and against the opposing colonial powers of United States and later against Iran and in favor of United states itself and other United Nations members. As long as America had the interest for oil, its dollar value being added, dollar in terms of oil being demanded and oil-based weapons made to break Russia, America was totally in favor of how things went along with Iran. Later with the evolution of Terrorism and Iran being declared as a threat against America due to revolution, Americas interest has flipped its face and is now heading against those of Irans.The pursuing of national interests in a realist framework also lead to uncertain policies and decisions as the interests of selfish states are changing with the circumstances. This was observed in the relationship between Iran and United States where there has always been an uncertainty, uncertainty because of change of their self interest or uncertainty due to intervention or protection of other states, evident by the uncertainty in the United States policy of granting loan to Iran only to keep Russia out of reach of Irans oil reserves and not to let Iran to seek help from Britain, a colonial power of the time. (Jordet 2009)

b) Some practical cooperation can be attained but only for short spells of time.One of the princilples of realism is that the no permenant cooperation can be achived, and all countries are essentially selfish, but if the states have some common goal and can be brought under one umberella on some issue then there is a possibility of peace. But it may be noted that the peace is short lived, because it is motivated by self interests, rather then a desire for peace.Iran and U.S. must have cooperated on some level, because they share some material and strategic interests in the Middle East. From 1953 to 1976, because of their common interest the two states were able to live in harmony, as long as both had something to gain from it. Since Shah was working for U.S. and looking after their geo-political concerns in the region the Americans were happy, in return Shah had full backing from U.S. in lording over the region. As long as Iran was under U.S. thumb, and Shah was putting U.S. interest before Irans they had cooperation. But when in 1976 Shah put Irans interest in forefront and refused Americas request to lower oil prices in the international market, the American interest was no longer being catered to and so they colluded with Saudia Arabia to lower the oil prices. The consequence of this was that the Iranian economy went into decline. c) Rational actors or not?The realist claims that all states are rational actors. If the state were rational actors, then they would think objectively over then national interests and would not react rashly toward day to day happenings. But can we claim that the state actors in our political system are rational? That all personal judgement of the state leaders is put aside, and they logically think over all matter before taking any decision.In 1986, Robert McFarlane, former security adviser of President Reagan, took a shipment of spare part to Iran as a token of reconciliation. He expected Iran to weild its influence over Lebenon to free the U.S hostages held in Lebenon. Necaragua was funded the profits from this transaction. The Iranian radicals sabotaged this secret arrangement, by leaking the story, which resulted in Iran-Contra sacandal, with associated repercussion for Americans.10 In 2008, Iran opened doors to negotiations, with the permeneant members of Security Council, on various issues issues including nuclear program, peace in Mid East, international terrorism. The Security Council members, led by U.S., preconditioned these talks with the closure of Irans uranium enrichment program. Iran refused to even concsider the option. Another stalemate was reached.More examples of missed opportunities at peace can found in the Apendix B.Analyzing the fluctuations in the relations, we see that though both parties desire to have a better working relationship, their irrational behavior keep them from achieving effective results. In 1986 America went against its own embargo by dealing with Iran, when according to the realist they should have had no relations what so ever due to the conflicting agendas. They would precisely be called rational while acting in this manner. The same can be said for Iran who belive the nuclear program to be set in stone, not even considering the possibility of any other way.Then we have the Isreals claim to declare war against Iran, with U.S. backing. The actual possibility of this war is very slim because the norms of international system would not allow it to be executed.From all this we see that though the realist clain to have states as rational actors in all actuality that is not true. Looking at the history we see repeated irrational behavior which shows great eveidence of personal biases coming into play. Considering this the possibility of peace is very slim, between the two countries, as both are irrational and cant be objective enough to have civilized talks. Iran the regional hegemon:Iran has been a major player in the regional politics and is emerging as a threat tp the regional super powers. Iran is using significant influence in the regions political and economic arena and has a huge role in defing the future of the region. But with direct opposition from U.S. would it be able to reach the level of a regional hegemon and sustain it? The answer is yes. Even though Iran is economically weak in the recent time Iran has been gaining soft power in the region and is now at a point where it can openly challage the previous leader, Isreal and Saudia Arab to the position as hegemons. Iran is one of the largest oil suppliers in the international market and has the power to influence the world oil market. Iran is also trying to develop a nuclear power plant and maybe weapons too, also Irans defy America stance and the Iranian anti-Isreal stance is for all to see as Iran make it know that the wipe Isreal from face of the earth this action gains Iran considerable respect from the Muslim world, particularly the region. What remains to be seen is that will Iran compromise at any point or would it stand stong against its opposers and also because it is challenging the regional hegemons to their positions and is collecting allies in Middle East.

d) A security dilemma exists between the U.S. and Iran.

As the power of Iran is growing on an increasing pace in terms of its nuclear enrichment program over the last decade, United States is viewing it as a possible threat. One of the reasons being the arms race and increase in Iranian war heads which would later help Iran to gain control over other nations as the realist framework describes power and territory as the two golden tools for the existence of states. Another is the increase in terrorism, US accusing Iran of being a feeder of terrorism with unstable nuclear reactors that possess a possible threat to the world security. United States being endlessly threatened from Irans atomic project is endorsing all efforts in isolating Iran in the region. As the world increases the technology of nuclear weapons, Iran tries to match their technology or to beat them off, which in turn stimulates a non ending race of getting ahead in nuclear war heads. As the other state or non-state actor feels insecure it increases its power by either siding with other states as America is doing in terms of United Nations and NATO or through increasing its own power by creation of more war head via usage of advance technology. For the security dilemma to end and get ahead in this arms race, America took the help of United Nations to put economic and political sanctions on Iran and even tried to shift the Iranian nuclear reactors to Russia.Zero-sum conception: The theory states that when one states win the other automatically loses, the is no middle ground, nor any win win situation. Does it hold true for the Iran U.S. relation? Looking at the shared of the history of the region we are likely to belive that that it does. Both countries are serving their own self interest, with out a regard to the other and in some case going out of their way to maximum damage to eacho other as is the case of U.S. sanction. ConclusionUnder the realist framework the hostility between the two adversaries continues to holdUnder the realist framework, the hostility between the two adversaries continues to hold. As the theory suggests, states are hegemonic, They are the supreme authority, no other state is thought to be wiser than any other state, There is no non-state actor to hold talks between the two states. Although non-state actors like United nations and European Unioin do exist in todays world but their say is limited to what United States say as U.S is dominant among all the state and non-state actors as it has the hegemonic power, it acts like a rational actor at such forums and does what is best in its own interest or the interest of its allies against Iran. There is no other state as strong as U.S that is why the norms are created by United States depending upon its own interests, geopolitical, socio-political and global welfare to benefit itself in the long run and to safe guard its own territory, population, sovereignty and governance. United States is the hegemony in the unipolar world and its interest conflicts with those of Iran, it is difficult for the two states to come at peace with each other, and hence such unrest seems to continue in the future.

Appendix A

1900Timeline - Iran Us relations:1951: Oil nationalization crisisBefore the nationalization, the Iranian oil industry was controlled by Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, with overwhelming support of the parliament, nationalized the oil indusrty.1953:The coup d'tatOn 15 August 1953, US and British sponsored coup ousted Mosaddeq legitimate government, reinstating Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who had been forced into exile.1957:Szemn-e Ettel't va Amniyat-e KeshvarSzemn-e Ettel't va Amniyat-e Keshvar (SAVAK), a CIA sponsored and trained intelligence agency, operated form 1957 to 1979. Its was Shah secret police and was recognized as most hated and most feared institute.1976:Effect of oil related events on Iran.The oil prices in the internation market had been high since 1973 oil crisis.The United States and Saudi Arabia lowered the oil prices, but Shah Iran refused to do the same, stating it to be against Iranian interest. Consequentially, a financial crisis was triggered in Iran that weakened Shahs hold on the power. 1979:Iranian Revolution.The Iranian public, dissatisfied with their situation, took to streets against the unpopular Shahs regime. The U.S. stooge, Shah, was ousted from his office, forced to leave the country.Ayatollah Khomeini returns.Ayatollah Khomeini was exiled to Iraq in 1964. The anti-American leader made a triumphant return, in 1979, after 14 years of exile. Iran hostage crisis.Against the wishes of Iranian government, U.S. opened it doors to Shah to recive cancer treatment. In retailation, the Iranian embassy in Tehran was stormed by Iranian students, taking 52 American diplomats as hostage. The U.S. cut all diplomatic ties with Iran.1980:Failed rescue attempt.After the failed attempt at negociations, U.S. president, in a last ditch effort to recover the hostages, authorised a military rescue mission which was doomed to failure.Persian Gulf War. Iraq conducted a U.S. backed invasion of Iran. Iran was basically diplomatically isolated in the war. The war waged on for 8 years. U.S. backed Iran and launched its own military operations, like Operation Praying Mantis, to undermine Iran.1981: Hostages released.The 52 U.S. embassy hostages were released minutes after the U.S. president Jimmy Carter left the office and Ronald Reagan was sworn in. They had been hald as hostage for 444 days.1983-1984:Attacks on U.S. EmbassyTwo attacks were launched on the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebennon. Hezbullah, a political party and a militant group, was suspected to be behind the attackes. U.S had grounds to claim that Hezbullah was receiving its financial, military and poitical backing from Iran and Syria. 1985-1986:The Iran-Contra affair.The public learned of the American attempt at under the table dealings with Iran. U.S. were trying to sell weapons to Iran who was short of weapons supply at the time. The funds of the deal were to fuel U.S. backed contra (anti-communist) fight in Nicaragua.1988:Iranian airflight 655 shot down.Iranian airbus airflight 655 was shot down over the Persian Gulf by American Navy cruiser USS Vincennes. 290 people were killed.Iraq- Iran war ends.UN negotiated a ceasefire between the two gulf countries, after numerious failed attempts United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 582, which was accepted by both parties.1989:New Supreme LeaderSupreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini died on 3 of June. Khamenei succeeds Khomeini as supreme leader the following day.1990:Gulf WarIran chose to remail neutral in the U.S. intervention in Kuwait, and and war againt Iraq.1993:Dual Containment policyIn 1993, Dual Containment policy was practiced by America to isolate Iran and Iraq in order to pursue US interests in the region.(20045919)

1995Imposed Embargo on Iranian TradeIn 1995, Bill Clinton imposed complete embargo on the trade with Iran, the following year US advised other western countries to stop investing in Iranian Nuclear energy. European Union denounced it invalid.

2002Axis of EvilG.W. Bush described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as axis of evil and called the proliferation of long-range missiles enriched as an act of terrorism and a threat to US.(axis of evil metaphor)

2003Additional protocol signedAdditional protocol was signed between Iran and IAEA, Irans atomic functioning was now monitored.(40277097)2005Ahmadinejad became presidentMahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was religious and conservative as said by many, became the president of Iran.Iran restricted from meeting UNUS State department refused the visa of Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mousa Qorbani, who had to participate in a meeting conducted by UN.

Natanz nuclear enrichmentNatanz nuclear facility was made operational for nuclear weapon creation, a violation of non-proliferation treaty.

UN supports US interstThe same year, UN declared Iran as the greatest single threat which US faced, as Iran continued its uranium enrichment program to its full potential. (debating iran nuclear prog.)

Multiple sanctions imposed In 2005 US imposed Multiple sanctions on Iran through United Nations, restricting member states to transfer technology and much more.(Charge-kept)

2006Official detained, second aircraft-carrier battleUS detained several Iranian officials in Iraq and stimulated second aircraft-carrier battle into the Persian gulf.(40277097)

Holocast ConferenceIranian President gives a controversial interview, denying the presence of Holocaust.

2008Naval stand-offIn Jan 2008, naval stand-offs between Iranian and American navy took place.

Obama ElectedObama was elected as the new president of United States, a new approach to Iranian Nuclear Program.

Obama offers a solutionObama offered neutralizeation of Iranian atomic program by transferring the setup in safer hands, Russia. Deal not welcomed by Iranian President, Ahmadinejad.(BF 2010)

2009US Strengthens its stanceUS declared Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism as Iran enriched its nuclear program.(30 years)2010Iran clears its stance2010, Iran admits to building a uranium enrichment plant near Qom, but insists it is for peaceful purposes.

All the events and corrensponding dates have been taken from the following sources:"Timeline: US-Iran ties" BBC News. Last modified January 16, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3362443.stm "Chronology - U.s. Iran Relations, 1906-2002 " Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/etc/cron.html (accessed ).Sam Sasan Shoamanesh . "History Brief: Timeline Of UsIran Relations Until The Obama Administration." MIT International Review. 2009.

Appendix B

U.S. - Iran Relations: Catalog of Missed OpportunitiesU.S.-Iran Relations after the Revolution:A Catalog of Missed OpportunitiesPaper Prepared for the American Foreign Policy ProjectBarbara SlavinJune 12, 2008The most propitious time for reconciliation in the past 30 years was after 9-11 when Iran telegraphed in many ways its desire to improve relations and contributed to the U.S. victory in Afghanistan in both political and military terms . . . We could have made an ally of Iran instead of intensifying its enmity.The history of U.S.-Iran relations over the past three decades is a sad tale of mutual grievances and invective and of repeated missed opportunities sometimes on the Iranian side, more often lately on ours to reconcile. What engagement has occurred has been tactical, not strategic, plagued by concerns over exposure and how domestic political adversaries would react if they knew talks were taking place.Frequently, the two sides have been out of sync. When one side appeared ready for authoritative dialogue, the other was not. On the U.S. side, particularly under the Bush administration, there has been a pattern of offering to little, too late.The most propitious time for reconciliation in the past 30 years was after 9-11 when Iran telegraphed in many ways its desire to improve relations and contributed to the U.S. victory in Afghanistan in both political and military terms. President Bushs biggest strategic mistake after 9-11 and he made many -- was to think he could go after multiple enemies instead of focusing on al-Qaeda. We could have made an ally of Iran instead of intensifying its enmity.Obviously, things have gotten more complicated since Khatami left office. But engagement is possible even with Ahmadinejad in power.Missed Opportunities

May 1986A delegation led by President Reagan's former national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, travels to Tehran to deliver spare parts for U.S. anti-aircraft missiles. McFarlane also carries a Bible and a chocolate cake in the shape of a key from a kosher bakery in Tel Aviv. Reagan hopes the scheme will free U.S. hostages in Lebanon and establish ties with Iranian moderates. Profits from the sale of the arms are used to fund anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua, in violation of a congressional ban. Iranian radicals leak the story to a Lebanese newspaper. The ensuing Iran-Contra scandal shakes the Reagan administration and leads to the execution of the son-in-law of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeinis designated successor, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri. The plan, wrote historian James Bill, "was poorly, clumsily and unprofessionally conceived. It involved the wrong people . . . advised by the wrong 'experts' . . . supported by the wrong allies."11989-90President George H.W. Bush declares in his Inaugural address that "goodwill begets goodwill," strongly implying that the United States will resume relations with Iran if it engineers the release of the last U.S. hostages in Lebanon. Iran ransoms the hostages and in 1990, agrees to meet with the United States in Switzerland. At the last moment, the Iranians pull out. Brent Scowcroft, then White House national security adviser, said later, "My judgment at the time was that the situation in Iran was delicate enough that nobody was prepared to stick his neck out and actually have a conversation with the Great Satan."21995-96The government of Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani offers a billion dollar contract to the Conoco oil company to develop two offshore oil fields in what is seen as an olive branch to the new Clinton administration. President Clinton responds by slapping a total embargo on U.S. involvement in Iran's petroleum sector and a year later signs into law the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, threatening punishment against foreign companies investing in Iranian or Libyan oil or gas production.1998-2000Iran's new president, Mohammad Khatami, calls for a "dialogue of civilizations" with the United States to "break down the bulky wall of mistrust" between the two countries.3 The Clinton administration responds by promoting exchanges of athletes and academics and sends a letter to Khatami via the Saudis offering to begin an authoritative dialogue. The Iranians do not reply. In 1999, the administration eases sanctions on the sale to Iran of U.S. food and medicine and then secretary of State Madeleine Albright outlines a "road map" for better relations. A year later, Albright gives a major speech in which she apologizes for the 1953 CIA coup that re-installed the Shah and for U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. However, she distinguishes in her remarks between the "elected" Khatami and the "unelected" supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Iranians reject the overture.4November 2001The Iranians inform a U.S. diplomat that Khatami, planning a visit to the United Nations for a delayed meeting of the General Assembly after the 9-11 attacks, would like to bring a large delegation with him, including experts on al-Qaeda. He also asks to visit Ground Zero to pay his respects to the victims. Neither offer is taken up by the Bush administration.5January 2002James Dobbins, U.S. envoy to Afghan talks, and then Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill are approached by Iranian diplomats at an Afghan donor conference in Tokyo and told that Iran would like to open a broad dialogue with the United States. Both men relay the message to Washington to no apparent effect. A week later, President Bush includes Iran on an "axis of Evil" with Iraq and North Korea.6March 2002On the fringes of a multilateral meeting on Afghanistan in Geneva, Dobbins is introduced to an Iranian general who had been in charge of Irans military aid to the Northern Alliance, an anti-Taliban Afghan militia. The general tells Dobbins that Iran is willing to contribute to a U.S.-led effort to build a new Afghan army and is prepared to train up to 20,000 troops. Dobbins mentions the offer to then secretary of state Colin Powell, then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Insofar as I am aware, the issue was never again discussed and the Iranians never received a response," Dobbins said.7November 2001-May 2003U.S. and Iranian diplomats meet secretly a dozen times in Europe in talks led by Ryan Crocker and Zalmay Khalilzad, then senior Bush administration officials. The talks initially focus on Afghanistan but later deal with al-Qaeda fugitives, Iranian opposition groups and U.S. preparations for the Iraq war. The talks end after they are publicized and bombings take place in Saudi Arabia that the Bush administration asserts are linked to al-Qaeda detainees in Iran. Iran denies any role.May 2003The Swiss transmit an Iranian agenda for talks including all issues of U.S. concern, among them: Iran's nuclear program, support for militant anti-Israel groups and rejection of a two-state solution to the Palestinian question. Powell and White House political aide Karl Rove see the document, authored by Iran's ambassador to France, Sadegh Kharrazi, with help from Swiss ambassador to Iran Tim Guldimann and Mohammad Javad Zarif, an Iranian deputy foreign minister. The Bush administration, feeling triumphant after the toppling of the Iraqi regime, does not reply.8February-March 2006Iranian national security adviser Ali Larijani authorizes a deputy, Mohammad Javad Jaffari, to begin backchannel talks with U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley. When the overture is unsuccessful, Larijani and Khamenei endorse a previous U.S. proposal for talks just on Iraq. The Bush administration rejects such talks until more than a year later.9May 2006Rice offers to join broad multinational negotiations with Iran but only if Iran first suspends its uranium enrichment program. Iran weighs the offer for three months and then rejects it.May 2008Iran offers to begin "constructive negotiations" with the United States, the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany on a range of issues, including the nuclear program, terrorism and Middle East peace but continues to refuse to suspend uranium enrichment.10 The Bush administration and the European powers reply by reiterating the standard demand that Iran must suspend enrichment before serious negotiations can commence.11Footnotes1. James A. Bill, The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American-Iranian Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988) pps. 312-313. [back]2. Barbara Slavin, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2007) p. 179. [back]3. Christiane Amanpour, CNN interview with Khatami, Jan. 7, 1998. [back]4. Slavin, pps. 175-177. [back]5. Slavin, p. 194. [back]6. James Dobbins, After the Taliban: Nation Building in Afghanistan (Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 2008) p. 103. [back]7. Dobbins testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, November 7, 2007. [back]8. Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S. New Haven, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007) p. 247. [back]9. Slavin, p. 218. [back]10. http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IranProposal20May2008.pdf [back]11. http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/Diplomatic_Offer_16June2008.pdf . [back]

BibliographyAnsari, Ali M. "The Myth of the White Revolution: Mohammad Reza Shah, 'Modernization' and the Consolidation of Power." Middle Eastern Studies, 2001.Aslan, Reza, interview by Toni Johnson. Political Islam in the Middle East (December 7, 2012).Babaei, Ahmad Reza. "Isreal's Concerns and Iran's Nuclear Programme." Economic & political weekly, 2008: 21-25.BAHGAT, GAWDAT. "United States-Iranian Relations: The Terrorism Challenge." 2009.BAHGAT, GAWDAT. "United States-Iranian Relations: The Terrorism Challenge." 2009.BAHRAMITASH, ROKSANA. "Revolution, Islamization, and Womens Employment in Iran." 2003.Bakhash, Shaul. "The U.S. and Iran in Historical Perspective." Newsletter of FPRI, September 2009.. "The U.S. and Iran in Historical Perspective." Newsletter of FPRI, September 2009.Blechman, Barry, and Taj R. Moore. "Iran in Perspective:Holding Iran to Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technology." Stimson, March 2012.bonakdarain, mansour. "U.S. - Iranian relations, 1911-1951." Iran Chamber Society. Bruno, Greg. "Religion and Politics in Iran." Council on Foreign Relations. June 2008.Christensen, Janne Bjerre. "STRAINED ALLIANCES: IRANs TROUBLED RELATIONS AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN." DIIS Report, march 2011.Christensen, Janne Bjerre. "STRAINED ALLIANCES IRANs TROUBLED RELATIONS TO AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN." DIIS REPORT, 2011.Cole, Juan. Engaging the Muslim World. 2010.Davis, Jimmy D. "IRANS NUCLEAR STRATEGY OPTIONS AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS." 2005.Davis, Lynn E., Jeffrey Martini, Alireza Nader, Dalia Dassa Kaye, James T. Quinlivan, and Paul Steinberg. "Irans Nuclear Future: Critical U.S. Policy Choices." RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE, 2011.DELOIA, MATTHEW A. "A NEW TACTIC FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH IRAN: FAITH-BASED DIPLOMACY." 2011.Hirschkind, Charles. "What is Political Islam." Middle East Reports. Ilias, Shayerah. "Irans Economic Conditions: U.S. Policy Issues." CRS Report for Congress, April 2010.Ilias, Shayerah. "Iran's Economic Conditions: U.S. Policy Issues." Congress Research Service, 2009: 1-40.Ioannides, Christos. "TURMOIL IN IRAN: THE DAWN OF THE POST-KHOMEINI ERA." In Depth, August 2009.Jordet, Nils. "Explaining the Long-term Hostility between the United States and Iran: A Historical, Theoretical and Methodological Framework." 2009.Katzman, Kenneth. "Iran: U.S. Policy and Options." CRS Report for Congress, JAN 2000 2000.Kaye, Dalia Dassa, Alireza Nader, and Parisa Roshan. "Israel and Iran." RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 2011.Kibaroglu, Mustafa. "Good for the Shah. Banned for the Mullahs: The west and Iran's Quest for Nuclear Power." The middle east Journal, 2006: 207-232.Laha, Joya, and Alireza Nader. "Irans Balancing Act in Afghanistan." RAND, 2011.Lenczowski, George. "United States' Support for Iran's Independence and intergrity, 1945-1959." SAGE, may 1972: 45-55.MOSHAVER, ZIBA. "REVOLUTION, THEOCRACY AND IRANS FOREIGN POLICY ." MIDDLE EAST FOREIGN POLICIES, 2003.Nader, Alireza, and Joya Laha. "Irans Balancing Act in Afghanistan." RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 2011.ODonnell., Thomas W. "The Political Economy of Oil in U.S.- Iran Crisis: U.S. globalized oil interests vs Iran's regional interests." 2009.SamSasanShoamanesh. "HISTORYBRIEF:TIMELINEOFUSIRANRELATIONSUNTILTHEOBAMAADMINISTRATION." MITInternationalReview. 2009.Saudi-Iranian Relations Since the Fall of Saddam. Stern, Roger. "The Iranian Petroleum Crisis and United States National Security." PNAS, 2007: 377-382.Wehrey, Frederic, Theodore W Karasik, Alireza Nader, and Jeremy Ghez. "Saudi-Iranian Relations Since the Fall of Saddam Rivalry, Cooperation, and Implications for U.S. Policy." RAND (2011), 2011.Wehrey, Frederic, Theodore W. Karasik, Alireza Nader, Jeremy Ghez, Lydia Hansell, and Robert A. Guffey. "Saudi-Iranian Relations Since the Fall of Saddam." RAND NATIONAL SECURITY RESEARCH DIVISION, 2009.

Oliai, S. (2011). The Past, Present and Future of Iranian-Israeli Relations. Michigan: Michigan State University.Sharp, J. M. (March 12, 2012 ). U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel. Washington D.C: Congressional Research Service.Times, N. Y. (2005, October 30). Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech. Retrieved January 1, 2013, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070&_r=0