Iran began its nuclear program in 1960, during the Mohammad Reza Shah regime, and signed a trade agreement with France in 1974, based on the notion that oil is a finite resource. In the last decade, as Iran’s nuclear program has become more prominent, mostly the West, under the leadership of the United States has adopted challenging approaches in this regard which subsequently turned into threats that have to be dealt with; they claim that Iran is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, and this is in sharp contrast to the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the peaceful nuclear program.
Claiming that Iran aims at acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States has begun to oppose Iran. however, it seems that this is an excuse to counter the Islamic Republic’s sources of power, (which could pose a serious threat to the United States interests). Because, the United States, as the only regional hegemon, prevents other countries from gaining such a position.
At the same time, the existence of multiple sources of power in the structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the effects that they have had on the expansion of Iran’s regional power can make this country a regional hegemon in the strategic region of the Middle East. Therefore, the United States has confronted Iran’s peaceful nuclear program with seemingly technical excuses and, of course, with a political approach to counter the growing expansion of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s power. Thus, the United States prevents Iran from gaining peaceful nuclear technology solely because it has concerns about its hegemonic position in the international system.
Given the above-mentioned points and that foreign policy is one of the most important aspects of the socio-political life of nations and countries, the survival of countries depends on foreign policy and the orientations that govern it. Therefore, understanding the nature and behaviour of a foreign policy is one of the intellectual and mental preoccupations of scientific and academic circles. In this regard, the present study, considering the importance of approaches to United States foreign policy concerning the peaceful activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, aims to analyze the United States’ foreign policy towards Iran’s nuclear case.
The Approaches of the United States’ Elites to Iran’s Nuclear Program
By conceptualizing, making scenarios, and providing the power centers with intellectual nourishment, the elites play an influential role in the orientation of the United States foreign and security policy. Observing the researches, annual reports and comments of senior researchers in the United States think tanks illustrates the following four approaches with respect to Iran:
Carrying out a comprehensive dialogue known as the macro-transaction
Some political elites in the United States think tanks want to resolve the tensions between Iran and the United States through an Incentives and Disincentives Package in which four categories of human rights, regional arrangements, the Middle East peace process and disarmament are being pursued through diplomatic negotiations.
This group sees incentive actions as more effective than sanctions pointing to the disarmament of the former Soviet republics by giving them loans for nuclear disarmament as an example of their view. For instance, George Perkovich a prominent expert in Carnegie think tank states in his article “Changing Iran’s Nuclear Interests,” that to bring about positive changes in Iran, the United States must accept that its policy toward Iran has not worked in recent years calling for providing Iran with the following incentives:
- Respecting Iran’s national security and sovereignty;
- Helping Iran become nuclear in a way that it would import nuclear technology instead of making it an indigenous accomplishment;
- Giving Iran a role in regional security arrangements;
- Releasing Iran’s frozen assets in the United States;
- Lifting the unilateral sanctions gradually;
- Supporting the construction of a peace pipeline between Iran, Pakistan and India.
The main idea of this approach, which was proposed during the Bush administration and pursued by Brooklyn’s think tank, was that the United States should use Iran’s nuclear program as a good opportunity to open a dialogue with the Iranian government, given the involvement of its forces in Iraq. This approach sees a military confrontation with Iran as a big mistake that will cause the United States to get involved in much harder fronts than Iraq. They even oppose carrying out limited military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, believing that the Bush administration can rely on soft power to better manage Iran’s nuclear program, which it happens, it will gain two major achievements:
Controlling Iran’s nuclear power by the means of soft power and consequently paying the lowest price
Dr. Sir John Thomson, a prominent researcher in the British-American Council and former British Ambassador to India and the Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in a final report on the Iran nuclear case study project submitted to the White House in March 2007 emphasizes that there are many different ways to control Iran’s nuclear program, but the important thing is that many of these ways lead to heavy costs for the United States. According to Thomson, the best way to control Iran’s nuclear capability is to encourage this country to start negotiation and dialogue, through which the United States government will gain the best results at the lowest possible cost.
Achieving Great Success and Reviving American Prestige
In his research on Iran’s nuclear program, the prominent researchers at the Brookings Institution’s think tank, Ive Dolder, Michael and Michael Lui, while addressing the need for United States cooperation with the European Union in dealing with Iran state that Iran’s threats are more likely to be posed against Europe than the United States; hence, the United States must work with Europe to solve this problem. They described the military confrontation with Iran as a factor that exacerbates the country’s need to increase the arms security coefficient believing that if the United States government succeeds in resolving the Iranian nuclear issue peacefully, it would restore the United States’ damaged political prestige caused by its unilateralism and failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Adopting the Approach of Exerting Pressure Domestically
Another approach adopted by some prominent American institutions and personalities is casing the country to face internal pressure or creating public dissatisfaction regarding the Iranian government’s nuclear policy. One of the most prominent theorists of this approach is Richard Armitage, a former Deputy Secretary of State and a prominent figure in the movement affiliated with the United States Department of State.
Armitage and other like-minded people at research institutes affiliated with the State Department believe that the Iranian government views nuclear technology as a key element in maintaining national security presenting it to people as an accepted notion. Emphasizing the role of the mass belief in the governmental policy, Armitage argues that the United States government should do its utmost to neutralize the Iranian government’s propaganda regarding nuclear energy so that Iran’s nuclear case loses domestic support. In this way, the Iranian government will be forced to comply with the demands of Europe and the United States.
The strategy of Armitage for implementing this general plan is launching internal discussions about the dangers of acquiring nuclear technology and Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium. He believes that by launching these debates, the Iranian government will try to take advantage of national feelings and the unawareness of people. Furthermore, Armitage addresses proving the public with scientific awareness through pro-Western domestic intellectuals and foreign tools such as the media including Voice of the United States, Radio Farda, etc., as factors for thwarting the actions of the Iranian government.
Adopting the approach of containment through expanding the scope of sanctions
By calling the negotiations with Iran ineffective, some United States think tanks have pointed to the expansion of the scope of sanctions as the only option to change Tehran’s behaviour. For example, Patrick Clawson, deputy director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs, a senior expert on the Middle East Quarterly and the author of “Iran Under Khatami”:
A political, economic, and military assessment believes that the United States in addition to increasing the sanctions should support the domestic political currents as its priority in political-security plans. Clawson does not consider the nuclear talks with Iran useful for the following reasons:
Its negative impact on the United States-allied moderate Arab states in the region and its inconsistency with the United States’ goals of presenting the Greater Middle East Plan;
Creating the impression in the Iranian government that seeking to produce nuclear weapons, would increase their maneuverability and bargaining power in negotiations.
In the view of Clawson, the Security Council sanctions are insufficient to seize Iran’s nuclear program calling for strengthening the security options by focusing on two tactics of isolation, and containment and deterrence. Clawson believes that the United States should form an effective coalition instead of imposing economic sanctions because Iran’s internal and external conditions are such that it is concerned about political isolation, but the problem is that an effective coalition is not going to be achieved very soon.
The sanctions-based approach is the most common approach in think tanks and study centers of the United States. Examining the annual reports and numerous reports of important think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Carnegie Institution, a general conclusion is drawn which shows the need for gradual, not severe, and short-term pressure. These pressures, which are reflected in the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council and the West, as well as in the reduction of political relations, are designed with two general goals:
First, putting pressure on Iran to increase the inefficiency of the government to the extent of making the government face bankruptcy.
One of the goals of the sanctions is to put pressure on the Iranian government, keep Iran engaged in conflicts and problems and eventually show the inefficiency of the government in managing the affairs of the country. Gary Sick who has served as a senior adviser to the United States National Security Council for many years and is currently one of the leading researchers in the United States Council on Foreign Relations believes that the best way to defeat Iran and making it submit to the West’s demands and most importantly control its nuclear program is creating public discontent inside the country through long-term and intermittent sanctions. In the view of Gary Sick, sanctions and severe and intermittent pressure will create unity within the country and encourage public sentiment against the United States and the West. Hence, by focusing on long-term and intermittent sanctions and without inciting the nationalistic sentiments it is possible to create problems for the Iranian government thereby showing its inefficiency.
In this way, the Iranian government gradually lost its popular base and the internal discontent will make it very vulnerable thereby providing the ground for its submission.
Second: Isolating Iran and laying the groundwork for creating the image of a disruptive actor
The security experiences in the United States have shown that one of the most important prerequisites for designing a successful offensive strategy against a state is to isolate that state and then presenting it as an image of an isolated actor which disrupts international security. In this case, it is possible to provoke the international and domestic public opinion of the United States in order to put more pressure on that government. Proponents of this theory in the influential think tanks which deal with the United States’ foreign policy toward Iran believe that putting pressure on Iran without considering the public opinion of the United States and the world is a kind of simplistic thinking. Pressure on Iran, on the other hand, is effective when Iran will not be able to form alliances with other governments and face a real siege. In this way, by imposing intermittent sanctions in the form of United Nations sanctions and the sanctions of the Council of Europe, etc., Iran would be gradually isolated, and at the same time, it would be seen as an actor disrupting international security. This will pave the way for possible further actions against Iran.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments