Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Tehran

21. Türkiye'nin İran Politikası 2010

Author:
Kemal İnat
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Abstract:
Turkey's relations with its Eastern neighbor Iran have constituted a larger portion in Ankara's foreign policy agenda, comparing to recent years. Turkey's increasing efforts in helping to resolve Iran's nuclear problems by peaceful means have caused enormous effects in Ankara's relations with Western countries. Against the opposition by the USA and other Western states Turkey has tried, by mediating, to avoid the problem to turn into conflict. Turkey's foreign policy objectives such as 'zero problems with neighbors' and 'resolving conflicts by increasing interdependency', were also in place in its policies vis-à-vis Iran. In addition to that, Ankara has put particular emphasis on increasing economic ties with Iran in 2010.
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Turkey, and Tehran

22. Iran: A View From Moscow

Author:
Dmitri V. Trenin and Alexey Malashenko
Publication Date:
10-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Iran's emergence as a rising power is straining its relations with Russia. While many outside observers assume the two countries enjoy a close relationship, in reality it is highly complex. Although Iran and Russia have strong economic and military ties, Moscow is increasingly wary of Tehran's growing ambitions.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Bilateral Relations, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Russia, Iran, Tehran, and Moscow

23. U.S.-Iranian Engagement: The View from Tehran

Publication Date:
06-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
For perhaps the first time since Iran and the U.S. broke ties in 1980, there are real prospects for fundamental change. The new U.S. president, Barack Obama, stated willingness to talk unconditionally. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, implicitly blessed dialogue, and presidential candidates are vying to prove they would be the most effective interlocutor. Yet, while U.S. objectives and tactics are relatively familiar, little is known of Iran's thinking, even as much is assumed. Western interaction with its opaque political system and decision-making has both shrivelled and been narrowly focused on the nuclear file. Under-standing Iran's perspective is critical if engagement is to succeed. This briefing, based on meetings with officials and analysts, seeks to shed light on what Tehran thinks about dialogue, its goals and visions of a future relationship. It concludes that while full normalisation might be out of reach for now, there is a chance to achieve a more realistic objective: the start of a long-term dialogue that minimises risks of confrontation and advances areas of mutual interest.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Tehran

24. Tehran's Take

Author:
Mohsen M. Milani
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Summary -- Iran's foreign policy is often portrayed in sensationalistic terms, but in reality it is a rational strategy meant to ensure the survival of the Islamic Republic against what Tehran thinks is an existential threat posed by the United States.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Tehran

25. An Israeli Strike on Iran

Author:
Steven Simon
Publication Date:
11-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Successive Israeli governments have held that a nuclear weapons capability in the region, other than Israel's own, would pose an intolerable threat to Israel's survival as a state and society. Iran's nuclear program—widely regarded as an effort to obtain a nuclear weapon, or put Tehran a “turn of a screw” away from it—has triggered serious concern in Israel. Within the coming year, the Israeli government could decide, much as it did twenty-eight years ago with respect to Iraq and two years ago with respect to Syria, to attack Iran's nuclear installations in order to delay its acquisition of a weapons capability.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Power Politics
Political Geography:
Iraq, Iran, Middle East, Israel, Tehran, and Syria

26. Containing Iran?: Avoiding a Two-Dimensional Strategy in a Four-Dimensional Region

Author:
Dalia Dassa Kaye and Frederic M. Wehrey
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Washington Quarterly
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
One of the most significant effects of the Iraq war is Iran's seemingly unprecedented influence and freedom of action in regional affairs, presenting new strategic challenges for the United States and its regional allies. Although Middle Eastern governments and the United States are in general agreement about diagnosing Tehran's activism as the war's most alarming consequence, they disagree on how to respond. The conventional U.S. view suggests that a new Arab consensus has been prompted to neutralize and counter Tehran's rising influence across the region in Gaza, the Gulf, Iraq, and Lebanon. Parallels to Cold War containment are clear. Indeed, whether consciously or unwittingly, U.S. policy has been replicating features of the Cold War model by trying to build a ''moderate'' Sunni Arab front to bolster U.S. efforts to counter Iranian influence. Despite signals that the Obama administration intends to expand U.S. engagement with Iran, the foundations of containment are deeply rooted and engender bipartisan backing from Congress. Even if the Obama administration desires to shift U.S. policy toward Iran, containment policies will be difficult to overturn quickly; if engagement with Iran fails, reliance on containment will only increase.
Topic:
Cold War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, Tehran, Arabia, Gaza, and Lebanon

27. Iran, the United States, and the Gulf: The Elusive Regional Policy

Author:
Marina Ottaway
Publication Date:
11-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Any effective diplomatic approach to Iran must involve a regional strategy. While Iran's nuclear program is presently the most urgent dimension for the United States and the international community to confront, unless the country can be reintegrated into a normal web of international relations, any progress made on that front is likely to be short-lived. Iran's neighbors — particularly the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which share a concern for Gulf security — can be important players in that process of reintegration. These six states, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, are afraid of Iranian hegemony in the Gulf, but are too small or too timid to challenge their northern neighbor, so they seek to develop normal relations with Tehran while protecting their interests.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Kuwait, Tehran, Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman

28. PolicyWatch #1340: Who Was Imad Mughniyeh?

Author:
David Schenker
Publication Date:
02-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Yesterday's assassination of arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyeh was welcome news in Washington, Buenos Aires, Tel Aviv, and, albeit quietly, Beirut and Baghdad. For Hizballah and Damascus, however, the loss of Mughniyeh -- who was a brilliant military tactician, a key contact to Tehran, and a successful political leader -- is a severe blow to their ongoing activities and operations.
Topic:
Terrorism
Political Geography:
Washington, Middle East, Tehran, Baghdad, Lebanon, Syria, and Beirut

29. Iran: Is Productive Engagement Possible?

Author:
Karim Sadjadpour
Publication Date:
10-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Although Tehran and Washington appear hopelessly divided, issues of broad mutual concern reveal important overlapping interests. The United States can more effectively support democracy and human rights in Iran with policies that facilitate, rather than impede, Iran's modernization and reintegration in the global economy. The next U.S. president should not immediately seek comprehensive engagement with Tehran, as this might enhance Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chances of reelection in Iran's June 2009 presidential elections. The United States must deal with those who hold power in Tehran, namely Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Given the widespread mutual mistrust between Washington and Tehran, confidence should be built with negotiations on areas of common interest, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than those of little or no common interest, such as the Palestinian–Israeli conflict or the nuclear issue. When it comes to U.S.–Iranian interaction, the record shows that “secret” or “private” discussions out of public earshot have a greater success rate. Building confidence in the public realm will be difficult, as politicians on both sides will likely feel the need to use harsh rhetoric to maintain appearances. It is imperative that Washington maintain a multilateral approach toward Iran, especially regarding the nuclear issue. Tehran is highly adept at exploiting rifts in the international community and diplomatic efforts to check Iran's nuclear ambitions will unravel if key countries approach Iran with divergent redlines. Powerful spoilers—both within Iran and among Iran's Arab allies—have entrenched economic and political interests in preventing U.S.–Iranian reconciliation.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, Iran, Washington, Middle East, Israel, Tehran, and Palestine

30. PolicyWatch #1402: The Persian Gulf's 'Occupied Territory': The Three-Island Dispute

Author:
Simon Henderson
Publication Date:
09-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Last month, Tehran announced it was building maritime offices on the Persian Gulf island of Abu Musa, reigniting the long-standing territorial dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Since 1970, the disagreement over the island and the neighboring Greater and Lesser Tunbs has been mired in legal uncertainty and historical claims and counterclaims, hindering diplomatic relations between Iran and the Gulf Arab states. The recent diplomatic intensity surrounding the issue, however, including the UAE's August 21 formal protest to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, is a significant break from the past, and may be a forerunner to a future escalation. Considering the importance of the islands -- all three are strategically located near the Strait of Hormuz, where 20 percent of the world's oil passes daily -- the dispute's outcome is deeply tied to the interests of the United States and the international community.
Topic:
Sovereignty
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Middle East, Tehran, Arabia, Island, United Arab Emirates, and Persia