Deciphering The Direction Of Iran's New Foreign Policy share Print After the limited nuclear deal Iran reached with the United States and other world powers in Geneva, the quintessential question is whether Tehran is ready to make a major change in its foreign policy and put aside its traditional anti-U.
Navy cruiser in The memory of the history of foreign intervention in Iran casts a long shadow on its current relationship with the United States.
Since the Iranian Revolution inand the taking of American hostages that year, Americans have tended to see the Iranian regime as dangerous, reckless and irrational. This month historian Annie Tracy Samuel looks at American-Iranian relations from the Iranian point of view, and adds some complexity to the simplified story often told.
Read more on Iran and the Middle East: While Americans understand relations with Iran in terms of its nuclear program and incendiary anti-Israel homilies, Iranians see the relationship as part of a long and troubling history of foreign intervention and exploitation that reaches back into the nineteenth century.
Iranian leaders argue that if interactions between Iran and the United States are to improve, this history will have to be addressed and rectified.
The past is very much part of the present in Iran. The Legacies of European Imperialism Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, Great Britain and Russia fell upon the country then known as Persia in their contest for imperial and economic domination.
Though Persia promised different things to the different powers—control of the Caspian Sea and the long-sought warm water port for Russia; security of India for Britain—they sought to achieve their goals by weakening and controlling the country.
In some of the earliest instances of successful popular protests in the Middle East, Iranians rallied against the measures and eventually forced their cancellation.
The movements united the Iranian nation and paved the way for the Constitutional Revolution of In Iran, then, the history of foreign intervention is bound together with a tradition of popular protest and defense of the nation.
And this pattern repeated several times in the twentieth century. During World War I, Iran declared neutrality but became a battlefield for the European belligerents nonetheless.
Following the ceasefire, Great Britain took advantage of the weakened and sundered country to impose a highly unfavorable treaty that essentially turned Iran into a British protectorate.
Once more, however, the increase in foreign intervention generated a movement for national independence, which culminated in the suspension of the agreement, the ouster of the Qajar dynasty, and the establishment of the Pahlavi monarchy in During the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavioutside interference in Iran became much less direct.
In particular, the coronation of the second and last Pahlavi Shah was accompanied by the appearance of the United States as an important player in Iranian affairs. Together these crises generated demands for political and economic change and a powerful nationalist movement in the Majlis parliament.
The nationalization efforts in the Majlis were led by Mohammad Mosaddeqa veteran politician committed to freeing Iran from imperial domination. As premier, Mosaddeq worked to curb the power of the shah, particularly over the armed forces.
In the context of the Cold War, Mosaddeq was portrayed in the Western countries as moving dangerously close to the Soviet Union.
His legacy is commemorated annually on 29 Isfand and on 28 Murdadthe dates on the Iranian calendar that correspond to the nationalization of the oil industry in and the overthrow of Mosaddeq inrespectively.
A monograph published by a government agency in the early s illustrates how Iranians view the role of the United States at this turning point in their modern history. There followed a dictatorial monarchy which would repress and oppress the nation for the twenty-five years to come.
The Shah had no chance to return without the coup; he had also no chance of sustaining his faltering regime without military and financial support from America. The shah equated modernization with Westernization and secularization, and to make Iran modern he sought support from American officials and advisors, encouraged American investment, imported American goods, and purchased loads of American weaponry.
In subsequent years, the shah ruled through repression and violence and employed his internal security organization, SAVAK, which received aid from the CIA, to jail, torture, or kill those who opposed his rule.
He enriched and empowered a small, Westernized elite, which became increasingly alienated from the rest of Iranian society. As the vast majority of Iranians grew more anti-shah, therefore, they also grew more anti-American.The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran do not have diplomatic relations.
Switzerland is the U.S. protecting power and provides limited consular services to U.S. citizens in Iran. Iran has no embassy in Washington, D.C. The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran do not have diplomatic relations.
Switzerland is the U.S. protecting power and provides limited consular services to U.S. citizens in Iran. More information about the Islamic Republic of Iran is available from the Department of State and other sources, some of which are listed here.
U.S. Policy Toward Iran: Missed Opportunities and Paths Forward Suzanne Maloney In the opening weeks of , the turbulent politics of the Islamic The United States also touted. After the limited nuclear deal Iran reached with the United States and other world powers in Geneva, the quintessential question is whether Tehran is ready to make a major change in its foreign.
In a more pessimistic view of current regional realities, Iran’s revolutionary leaders have put themselves in a box of their own making since seizing U.S. diplomats in Tehran in November and declaring the United States an enemy of Iran.
Jun 22, · Syria's Civil War and Bashar al-Assad's Viewpoint on Russia, Iran, Israel and the United States and the Syrian Army is fighting its way towards the southern front, and has liberated a number of areas within the limits of its capabilities.
So, with or without its approval, the decision is a Syrian one, and this is a national duty Author: A Political Junkie.