US-Iran Relations Research Articles

Continuity and change in US–Iran relations: Analyzing the Iranian nuclear deal from Obama to Biden

AbstractIran's pursuit of a civilian nuclear program raises concerns over the potential security threat it poses to the United States and its Middle East allies. The US suspects that Tehran's lack of compliance with the Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty signifies its intention to build atomic weapons. This article aims to examine the strategies implemented during the presidencies of Obama, Trump, and Biden to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arsenals. Employing a constructivist theory, the study examines how each administration constructed identities, perceptions, and norms regarding Iran, and how these shaped their diplomatic approaches. Drawing on a comprehensive data of primary and secondary sources, this research sheds light on the identities, perceptions, and power dynamics shaping US–Iran relations.

America's Iran Policy Pendulum from Obama and Trump to Biden (2009-2022): Between Diplomatic Engagement and Maximum Pressure

Objectives: This study examines US policy towards Iran from 2009 to 2022, focusing on the challenges and tools utilized by successive US administrations. Methods: The study adopts a descriptive and analytical approach, drawing on official US documents, presidential statements, relevant articles, reports, and research. Results: US-Iranian relations faced significant obstacles due to Iran's regional behavior and interference in other countries' affairs, leading to political instability. Different administrations employed varying strategies, with Obama pursuing a mix of diplomacy and economic sanctions, while the Trump administration opted for a strict approach, including withdrawing from the nuclear agreement and re-imposing economic sanctions. The Biden administration has continued the pressure by reinstating sanctions and expressing a desire to negotiate a new comprehensive agreement. Conclusion: Despite inconsistencies, the overarching goal of US policy remains influencing Iran to alter its regional policies. However, these efforts have not produced a notable change in Iranian behavior, impeding the improvement of US-Iranian relations.

Afghanistan in US-Iran Relations in the 1990s

In the rising new world order, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, confrontation and partnership alternated between US and Iranian policies on the situation in Afghanistan. It was viewed by both US and Iranian governments as a tricky, delicate and potentially turbulent zone of international relations. The present study examines the relations between the administrations of G. Bush, Bill Clinton and G. W. Bush and Iranian Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami during the Afghan Civil War, the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent operation to overthrow the Taliban. In the light of the American troops withdrawal from Afghanistan announced by the US State Department earlier this year, the article offers a review of the US and Iranian policies in Afghanistan in the 1990s.

US-IRAN: Between Confrontation and Reconciliation

The US policy towards Iran is a part and parcel of its broader policy towards the Middle East and the Arabian (Persian) Gulf in particular. Most of the American targets, whether in the Middle East or Asia, are related to Iran, due to its possession of the military and geostrategic location that qualifies it to be an influential regional power in the future. Iran represents one of the challenges facing the United States, prompted the latter to deal with it according to constants and determinants, regardless the various US administration, which aimed at containing Iran and eliminating the threat that it could impose on its interests in the region.The paper aims to identify the position that Iran occupies in the strategy of the United States of America and to clarify the determinants of American foreign policy, which highlight the points of convergence and divergence in the US-Iranian relations. A special attention is given to the nuclear file and sanctions that are considered as the factors affecting the domestic political and economic situation, as well as Iran’s foreign policy. The authors adhere to the theories of the balance of power and regional security complexes, the principle that the foreign policy of a state is dictated by the logic of the international system and the distribution of force among states. The structural and systemic approach, as well as the historical methodology are used in order to formulate idea about the past and present of Iranian-American relations.

Relations between the United States and Iran under the Presidency of Mahmud Ahmadinejad

This study examines how the shifting dynamics of geopolitical circumstances have impacted US-Iran relations to defend their national interests and regional dominance. The US strategy towards Iran has been focused on achieving non-proliferation goals and ending Iranian support of armed forces in the Israel-Arab conflict, which used violence to support Palestine's cause. Throughout the 2000s, Iran was labeled as an "axis of the evil state." However, the Obama administration has been actively encouraging talks between the US and Iran to lessen tensions between the two countries. Under the administration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, relations between the United States and Iran centered on a change in the regional and global balance of power and alliances, highlighted the two countries desire for mutual security through a variety of measures and continued to focus on the core vital goals in the regional set-up.

US-Iran Relations and its Implications on International Peace and Security

This piece analyses stages of friendly as well as ferocious relationships between United States of America (US) and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The paper identified unhealthy struggle for dominance and the attendant use of surrogates by the countries to achieve their aims. The paper objective centres on ascertaining the causes of the multi-decade sour relations between the states. With the aid of descriptive approach, data obtained from text books, journals, mass media (of international repute), and internet resources were sourced and analysed. Theoretically, Morgenthau’s political realism, with emphasis on interest defined in terms of (political, economic, military and other corollaries) of power was adopted to unravel the relation between the variables. Findings show that US and Iran were allies before a military coup that unseat the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and restored full political powers to the Shah in 1953. There was a trilateral relation amongst Iran, US and Israel; the relationship, necessitated by the fear of Soviet expansion into Middle East by all parties and amplified by Iran’s strategic position between Far-East and Indian Ocean and the need to protect multiple US economic interests in Iran, instilled fears and suspicion among Sunni majority of the region. The paper, also, traces the non-Arab cultural, linguistic, and historic Judeo and Persian national identities distinct in an otherwise predominantly Sunni-Arab region. Also that a US-Iran war portent the ability to suspend the fragile peace in the Middle East and further wreck the relations between US and host of Iranian super allies. Thus, the paper recommends among others that, there is need for the two sides to maintain their border of influence to allow peace and stability of the international political system though anarchically laden.

Representation, Recognition and Respect in World Politics. The Case of US-Iran Relations, written by Constance Duncombe

Representation, Recognition and Respect in World Politics. The Case of US-Iran Relations, written by Constance Duncombe

The Iranian-American Intelligentsia in U.S. Foreign Affairs: Ahistoricism, Anti-Structuralism, and the Production of Idealism

This article challenges the anti-structural and ahistorical turn in recent histories of the Iranian Revolution. Tracing the genealogy of this anti-structural turn to the publication of Foucault’s writings on Iran, the author argues that the continued decline of US-Iran relations, coupled with hostility toward anti-imperialist scholarship in US academia, has created the conditions for an ahistoricism in US-based scholarship on Iran. This turn is further exacerbated by the lack of accessible archives to enable rigorous analyses of the Revolution. The article concludes by distinguishing between an intellectual, one who challenges the status quo to create a more just world, and a functionary, whose scholarly contributions are guided by the precepts of foundation funding and the State Department. Ultimately the article calls for a transformation in Iranian Studies toward radical intellectualism.

The power of coalitions: lobbying success in US sanctions policy toward Iran from 2007 to 2016

This paper focuses on the role of interest groups in US sanctions policy toward Iran from 2007 to 2016. The aim of this work is to explain what changed in regard to the role of interest groups in the most significant shift in US-Iranian relations under President Barack Obama before and after the vote on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was intended to halt Iran’s non-peaceful nuclear program in return for an easing of sanctions by the US Congress. This study contributes to our knowledge about how structural variables, issue salience, and actor strategies work together to produce outcomes. In addition, it provides a better understanding of interest group influence by identifying conditions under which interest groups can be successful in changing the policy status quo. This research proposes that the once firm stands of the Democrat legislators on supporting Iran sanctions changed due to support of President Obama’s strategy of engagement by Pro-Diplomacy groups and the international community, which he used as legislative subsidy. In addition, favorable policy windows opened up opportunities that pushed for diplomacy instead of confrontation.

Japan-Iran relations in the post-war era: The Middle Eastern dilemma for Japan

After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran did not change its policy towards Japan, which was not only perceived separately from the West, but was also a major customer of its raw resources and a potential economic donor. In turn, Japan had to pursue the policy of unstable balancing towards Iran, by coordinating its Middle Eastern policy with its strategic ally, the United States, and simultaneously trying to preserve close ties with Iran, which were important from the point of view of maintaining energy security. The article shows how Japan tried to maneuver between these two countries: it took steps to realize large-scale economic projects in Iran’s energy sector, to limit sanctions, which were minimal on its side, etc., and simultaneously participated in the anti-Iran campaign pursued by Western countries under the pressure of the US, or under the influence of major crises in the region (for example, the Iran-Iraq War). Japan continues to face this “Middle Eastern dilemma” in present times as well. It could partly have been solved by the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program in 2015, were it not for the fact that, two years later, under the US administration of Donald Trump, the US-Iran relations worsened significantly. Nevertheless, in this period, Japan successfully tried its mediatory potential, making use of its good relations with both parties of the conflict: on the one hand, it refused to participate in the US operation in the Strait of Hormuz, on the other, it halted the unfreezing of Iran’s funds in its banks, which had been blocked after the introduction of sanctions by the US administration of Donald Trump. Recently, the activization of China in the region has become a factor of risk for Japan’s Middle Eastern policy, as China tries to use the weaking positions of the US and to occupy the vacuum that was left in its wake, which is illustrated by the signing of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement between Beijing and Tehran in March 2021. This forces Japan to deliberately strengthen its positions and expand its presence in Iran. It appears that Japan’s approaches to solving the “Middle Eastern dilemma” deserve special attention in the future as well.

Gender differences in the professional experiences of Iran specialists in American academia.

The work on gender differences in academic life spans a wide array of colleges and universities, scholarly disciplines, and countries. Using a survey conducted in 2016 to capture "the state of the field" in Iranian Studies as US-Iran relations were in a brief thaw, this paper draws on some of these perspectives and explores gender differences in the professional experiences of Iranian Studies scholars working in the USA. Iranian Studies has grown and diversified in the USA since the 1960s. This expansion occurred despite disruptions in Iran itself and in US-Iranian relations since 1979, with many US-based Iran specialists having heritage connections to Iran. The survey, which is the first of its kind conducted among this particular academic community, covered a range of topics related to respondents' academic and professional experiences, career outlook, and political activities. The results spotlight some notable differences-statistically significant differences in several cases-in the professional experiences of men and women in this academic field. Women respondents were more likely to be of junior rank or graduate students and were more likely than men to feel that gender identity influenced their professional milestones. Women were more likely to list the desire for social impact as a professional motivation than men. Women tended to feel less sanguine about the state of their careers, their professional environment, their career prospects, and the state of the Iranian Studies field as a whole. Some of these attitudes varied depending on their self-identification as Iranian, Iranian-American or American, while some held true across self-identification. These results mostlyconfirmed expectations based on similar research discussed in our literature review.

Binary Role Theory and Levels of Role Change in World Politics: When Do Leaders Make a Difference?

The problem of understanding when and how change happens in world politics is under-conceptualized. One potential source of change for further examination is the relationship between change and the leadership of states and international institutions. The decisions and actions of leaders are an immediate source of both peaceful and violent change. A change of leaders may simply be an endogenous marker for a shift in historical forces that explain change in world politics, or leaders may be indispensable in explaining change at state and systemic levels of analysis. Are leaders the pilots or simply passengers on states caught in the tides of history? Binary role theory offers a coherent account of “role change”specified by the interactions and outcomes between leaders and historical situations, which is a more nuanced “both/and”account than a simple “either/or”answer to this question. The interactions and outcomes that model role change are first presented in the abstract terms of role theory and then illustrated with two case studies of UK-Iran and US-Iran relations.

Adjustments and Constraints: Biden Administration’s Iran Policy

This article provides an overview of the recent US Iran policies by comparing the US Middle East strategy under the Biden administration to the Trump administration’s approach. Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign adopted various aggressive policies including withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement and escalating sanction measures against Iran. However, the campaign has proven a failure as it was impeded by Iran’s countermeasures and has damaged the US international reputations. The Biden administration has incentives to improve the US-Iran relations and restore the Iran nuclear deal. However, it faces constraints from both domestic politics and distrust of US alliances. Domestic hardliners have pressured the Biden administration to keep a tough stance on Iran and opposed the US to make concessions as it renegotiates the nuclear deal. Other related countries including the US allies are hesitant to comply with US. In terms of its Middle East strategy, Trump’s betrayal of the previous deal has brought credibility crisis to the US. Though the Iran nuclear talks have restarted, the future of Iran’s nuclear program remains bleak. Divergence is brewing among the US, Iran, and other related powers due to different national interests. Also, the newly elected Iranian presidency, led by ultra conservative leader Ebrahim Raisi’s, makes a new Iran nuclear deal more difficult to obtain. To revive the Iran nuclear agreement, this article suggests that the Biden administration ensure Iran’s interests through cooperation and pay more attention to the social development and people’s livelihood in Iran.

Problems and prospects of US-Iranian relations under the administration of Joseph Biden

Problems and prospects of US-Iranian relations under the administration of Joseph Biden

The Establishment of Biden Administration’s Iranian Nuclear Policy: Motivation, Content and Prospects

The Iran policy is an important part of the US Middle East policy, and the key to the US handling of its relations with Iran. After the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the US and Iran continued to dispute over the Iranian nuclear issue. In the last 20 years of the twentieth century, the US invested a lot in the Middle East in response to possible security threats from the Iranian nuclear issue. Since the unfolding of the twenty-first century, with the intensified changes in the power balance among the major powers, the Obama administration has proposed to ‘pivot to Asia-Pacific’ by adopting a series of policies to ease and engage with Iran, and finally promoted the conclusion of the Iranian nuclear agreement. However, the subsequent restoration of Iran’s regional influence and the dissatisfaction of Saudi Arabia and other allies have also brought into questions to the Obama administration’s Iranian nuclear policy. In order to contain Iran’s expanding regional power and reshape the image of the US leadership among its allies, the Trump administration had adopted a compulsory policy towards Iran that focuses on economic sanctions and military threats. However, the Trump administration continued the Obama administration’s strategy of contraction in the Middle East, the US investment in the Middle East was relatively reduced, and its Iranian nuclear policy had limited results. Anyway, under the premise of ‘pivot to Asia-Pacific region and contraction in the Middle East’, the previous two US governments’ either ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ Iranian nuclear policies have their limitations. After the Biden administration came to power, it still values the importance of US-Iranian relations and the Iranian nuclear issue in US policy in the Middle East. At the same time, it faces a regional situation different from the previous two administrations. The Biden administration hopes to maintain the relative balance of powers in the Middle East through the Iranian nuclear policy of both soft and hard, while relying on Saudi Arabia, Israel and other allies to contain Iran. Avoid or reduce the possibility of US direct military confrontation with Iran, thus creating possible conditions for it to fully implement Asia-Pacific deployment and contain the rise of emerging Asian powers.

Athletics, Exhibitions and Exchanges: American Sport Diplomacy in Iran, 1955–1959

This article examines the short-lived 1950s American sport diplomacy campaign in Iran. It analyses the motives behind this policy, the initiatives employed and the extent to which US policymakers regarded them as a success. The piece illustrates how these sport diplomacy initiatives - centred on track, field and other Olympic events - comprised a key facet of a broader public diplomacy campaign aimed at countering negative popular perceptions of the United States in the wake of its involvement in the August 1953 coup. Notable initiatives included the sending of former high-jumper David Albritton to coach Iranian athletes, inviting several US athletes to perform exhibitions and the creation of a newspaper sports supplement. This sport diplomacy campaign, however, was fleeting. With no figure willing to replace Albritton after his 1957 return to Ohio, USIS figures in Iran increasingly relied on cultural initiatives to engage with the general public. The analysis here highlights four key points: first, sport diplomacy’s pivotal function as a tool to strengthen and develop US-Iran relations; second, the role of certain individuals in making and shaping these initiatives; third, the Iranian government’s conduct in facilitating these policies; and finally, that USIS sport diplomacy in Iran was a short-term endeavour.

US–Taliban peace deal and regional powers as potential spoilers: Iran as a case study

There is a broad consensus that the US–Taliban peace deal does not augur peace and stability in Afghanistan. However, most of the experts have ignored the role of regional powers and their interests and their impact on the US–Taliban peace deal. This paper explores the case of Iran as a potential spoiler and exacerbating violence and instability in Afghanistan. It discusses three reasons for Iran’s intervention: the Taliban dominating the inclusive national unity government or trying to establish an Islamic Emirate through military force and Iran-Pakistan clash of interests, the continued persecution of Shias and Hazaras by the Taliban and worsening of US–Iran relations. It highlights the various tools especially the non-state actors at Iran’s disposal to achieve its political, economic and strategic objectives in Afghanistan. It also analyses the potential constraints that might limit/inhibit Iran in meeting its foreign policy and security objectives in Afghanistan and the broader region.

HAS THE US POLICY BEEN MORE ANTI-IRANIAN THAN PRO-ARAB WITH THE FALL OF THE SHAH? A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

AbstractSince the fall of the Shah, the US-Iran relations have changed significantly. During the Shah regime, US-Iran experience a warm relationship through economic and military partnerships, however, it changed since the Iran revolution until today. Iran turned out to be one of the axis of evil during the Bush administration. The fall of the Shah also changes the direction of the foreign policy of the US. It then led to the proposition of whether the US foreign policy has been more anti-Iranian than pro-Arab with the fall of the Shah. This paper seeks to answer this question through historical analysis. It examines the US policy during the Cold War era and the post-Cold War. Therefore, the US policy in the region is not always anti-Iranian than the pro-Arab case. The changed regional architecture influences the priorities of the President of the US at that time to put aside Iran's issue, as it happened on George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama administration. Thus, the characteristic of the leader also heavily influences US posture in Iran, as Bush and Trump's personality and policies are clearly against Iran. However, despite the dynamic relations of the US-Iran, Iran has always been one of the threats for the US interest in the Persian Gulf since the Shah has fallen.

“A spectacular irritant”: US–Iranian relations during the 1960s and the World’s Best Dressed Man

ABSTRACT In 1963, the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations received evidence alleging that US aid funds to Iran had been misappropriated and used to bribe prominent American and Iranian figures. Members of the Iranian royal family and high-profile American businessmen and diplomats were implicated in the emerging corruption scandal. The allegations were made by the Iranian businessman and self-proclaimed “World’s Best Dressed Man,” Khaibar Khan Gudarzian. While the US Senate would ultimately reject Gudarzian’s claims, the scandal amplified tensions between the United States and Iran. American efforts to strengthen ties with the Shah of Iran during the mid-1960s, who was becoming increasingly economically and politically independent, were hampered by the ongoing Gudarzian case. This case study demonstrates the delicate nature of US–Iranian relations and highlights how far the balance of power between the two countries had evolved since the beginning of the decade.

HAS THE US POLICY BEEN MORE ANTI-IRANIAN THAN PRO-ARAB WITH THE FALL OF THE SHAH? A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

AbstractSince the fall of the Shah, the US-Iran relations have changed significantly. During the Shah regime, US-Iran experience a warm relationship through economic and military partnerships, however, it changed since the Iran revolution until today. Iran turned out to be one of the axis of evil during the Bush administration. The fall of the Shah also changes the direction of the foreign policy of the US. It then led to the proposition of whether the US foreign policy has been more anti-Iranian than pro-Arab with the fall of the Shah. This paper seeks to answer this question through historical analysis. It examines the US policy during the Cold War era and the post-Cold War. Therefore, the US policy in the region is not always anti-Iranian than the pro-Arab case. The changed regional architecture influences the priorities of the President of the US at that time to put aside Iran's issue, as it happened on George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama administration. Thus, the characteristic of the leader also heavily influences US posture in Iran, as Bush and Trump's personality and policies are clearly against Iran. However, despite the dynamic relations of the US-Iran, Iran has always been one of the threats for the US interest in the Persian Gulf since the Shah has fallen.