Number of results to display per page
Search Results
92. 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
93. The Obama Administration and Iran: Towards a Constructive Dialogue
- Author:
- Ramin Jahanbegloo
- Publication Date:
- 06-2009
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Centre for International Governance Innovation
- Abstract:
- For much of the last 30 years, official relations between the United States and Iran have been strained. The most visible indication of this was US President George W. Bush's labeling of Iran as a member of the "axis of evil" in 2002. Breaking with the past, the new US administration is taking a more conciliatory tone. President Barack Obama has demonstrated that Washington is willing to open the lines of communication with Iran. This paper seeks to locate the Obama administration's efforts within the history of US-Iranian relations while also highlighting the contemporary issues that would inform a constructive dialogue, such as the upcoming Iranian presidential elections. Improved dialogue between the two countries could help to improve the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, demonstrating how overlapping areas of interest may provide a new path for US-Iran relations.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Affairs, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, and Washington
94. PolicyWatch #1354: Cheney's Middle East Trip: Iran Tops a Weighty Agenda
- Author:
- Simon Henderson
- Publication Date:
- 03-2008
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- On March 16, Vice President Cheney departs on a Middle East trip that will take him to Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, and Turkey. Coming less than two months after President Bush's trip to the region, the vice president's itinerary is intriguing. His undisclosed agenda with "key partners," in the words of the White House announcement, is likely to include the peace process, the price of oil, Iraq, and Iran. And among those issues, Iran will likely be the most mentioned, especially given this week's controversial resignation of Adm. William Fallon as the top U.S. commander in the Middle East -- a move attributed in part to differences on Iran between him and the White House.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, and Middle East
95. Ahmedinejad's Visit to Turkey: Two Neighbors Oscillate between Threat and Friendship
- Author:
- Nasuhi Gungor
- Publication Date:
- 09-2008
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research
- Abstract:
- This article considers the August 2008 visit to Turkey by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and analyzes relations between Turkey and Iran in general. The tensions and crises that followed the 1979 Iranian Revolution are briefly presented in order to provide a better understanding of the present state of relations. Then we draw a picture of the situation after the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002, bringing widespread changes to Turkish foreign policy. We also call attention to Turkey's changing role in the regional balance of power, and to the significance of that role both in Turkey's relations with Iran and with the United States.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and International Political Economy
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, Turkey, and Middle East
96. Dealing with Damascus: Seeking a Greater Return on U.S.-Syria Relations
- Author:
- Mona Yacoubian and Scott Lasensky
- Publication Date:
- 06-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Punctuated by conflict in Iraq, an ascendant ran, and continued instability in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, rising volatility in the Middle East threatens U.S. interests in the region. Meanwhile, sectarianism, al-Qaeda–inspired terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) all serve as troubling overlays to this complex mix. Mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has yet to develop a comprehensive strategic framework that addresses these interrelated challenges. Instead, U.S. policy has been largely crisis-driven, attempting to put out fires by confronting issues on an ad hoc basis rather than seeking to respond to the underlying forces and tensions that catalyze conflict and instability in the Middle East.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, United States, Iran, Middle East, North Korea, Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria
97. Sharing the Burden in the Middle East
- Author:
- Marina Ottaway
- Publication Date:
- 12-2008
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- The Obama administration will face a Middle East where the problems are enormous, U.S. interests have shifted eastward, and solutions are elusive. Major conflicts appear deadlocked: the peace process, political reconciliation in Iraq, and negotiations with Iran. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is deteriorating rapidly. The new administration promises to bring to all these issues a welcome change from its predecessor's attitudes: during the election campaign, President-elect Barack Obama made it clear that he would resuscitate the idea that diplomacy, not force, is the weapon of first resort, and that diplomatic progress requires a willingness to talk to hostile, even rogue, regimes. While this promised return to diplomatic normality is encouraging, it will not be enough. The United States cannot break the deadlock on most issues without the help of countries of the region, sharing with them the burden and the responsibility. This would not be abdicating the United States' great power role, but rather recognizing changing realities in the Middle East.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, and Arab Countries
98. PolicyWatch #1426: The Problems of Engaging with Iran's Supreme Leader
- Author:
- Mehdi Khalaji
- Publication Date:
- 11-2008
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad's congratulatory letter to U.S. president-elect Barack Obama was the first of its kind in the history of the Islamic Republic. In his letter, Ahmadinezhad expressed his hope for fundamental change in U.S. domestic and foreign policies. Although some observers speculate that the letter suggests a transformation in the mindset of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, about normalizing relations between Iran and the United States, this is unlikely. Majlis speaker Ali Larijani expressed the widespread attitude of Iranian leaders on November 9, saying, "Whoever thinks that Obama will change the U.S. foreign policy is naive."
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Islam
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, and Middle East
99. A Strong Diplomacy for a Strong Country
- Author:
- K. Kosachev
- Publication Date:
- 04-2008
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
- Institution:
- East View Information Services
- Abstract:
- OUR LINE IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS is coming under strong pressure for several reasons at once. Number one reason is Russia's comeback to the world arena that Vladimir V. Putin declared in a most easy-to-understand way in Munich. Number two reason is that Russia, as seen by the West, is containing the creation of a new world order where international law will be subordinated to expedience (some countries can have nuclear programs, others not, etc.) and ideological criteria (countries acknowledged as democratic enjoy more extensive rights than the rest, including the right for violations of democracy itself), or, in effect, to the arbitrary division into "friends" and "foes." Russia clearly stands in the way, in the first place over Kosovo, but also Iran, Middle East, U.S. antimissile defenses in Europe, and much else.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, Middle East, and Kosovo
100. Negotiating with the Islamic Republic of Iran: Raising the Chances for Successs—Fifteen Points to Remember
- Author:
- John W. Limbert
- Publication Date:
- 01-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- United States Institute of Peace
- Abstract:
- Both Iranian and American sides come to the negotiating table burdened with years of accumulated grievances and suspicions. Their recent history has led both sides to assume the worst about the other and to see it as infinitely devious, hostile, and duplicitous. Yet, while talking to Iran may sometimes be difficult and unpleasant, it is also worth doing and may help both sides to find common interests lurking behind walls of hostility and distrust. To enhance the prospects of a fruitful encounter, American officials should pay attention to a variety of traits that their Iranian counterparts are likely to demonstrate. Although some of these characteristics might make productive negotiation difficult, American negotiators should remain patient and focused on the issues under discussion. Iranian negotiators may base their arguments on an abstract ideal of “justice” instead of defined legal obligations. This distrust of legalistic argument springs from the belief held by many Iranians that the great powers have long manipulated international law and the international system to take advantage of weaker countries. The American negotiator should, therefore, look for unambiguous, mutually agreeable criteria that both define ideals of justice and avoid legal jargon. The combination of Iran's great imperial past and its weakness in the last three hundred years has created a gap between rhetoric and reality. Yet, while history certainly matters to Iranians, they will on occasion bury the past to reach an agreement, especially if that agreement serves a larger interest. There are parallel governing structures within the Islamic Republic, making it difficult but also important for American negotiators to be sure they are talking to the right people. The factionalization of the Iranian political system can make Iranian negotiators reluctant to reach an agreement lest they become vulnerable to charges of “selling out” to foreigners. Grand gestures may overshadow the substance of issues under negotiation, and American negotiators need to be able to distinguish substance from political theater. Iranians feel that they have often been treated as fools in political contacts, and they will be very sensitive to American attitudes. If they sense that the American side considers them irrational and unreasonable, they are likely to react in exactly that way. American negotiators should thus treat their Iranian counterparts with professional respect and not lecture them on what is in Iran's national interest. The Islamic Republic believes itself surrounded by hostile American, Arab, Turkish, and Sunni forces, all determined to bring about its downfall. Conspiracy theories are very popular, and events such as the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War are often considered the outcome of great power plots. If an American negotiator senses that that the Iranians are overplaying a hand and pushing a momentary advantage beyond its value, the best response is to ask, “On what basis are you asking for that?” and to insist that the Iranian side come up with some understandable basis for its position. Mediation or arbitration by an impartial body can sometimes help to counter what appear to be unreasonable demands. What works in any negotiation—preparation, knowing each side's best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), building relationships, and understanding underlying interests—will work in negotiations with Iranians. What can undermine any negotiation—such as ill-advised public statements—can also compromise negotiations with Iranians.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- United States, America, Iran, and Middle East