Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography Iran

121. 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

122. A Path Forward with Iran: Pressure through Engagement

Author:
Andy Johnson and Kyle Spector
Publication Date:
02-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
If the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is the most dangerous place in the world at the moment, Afghanistan's neighbor to the West, Iran, is making a strong play for number two. It is alarming the world community, rattling its saber loudly at Israel and the West, and brutally suppressing internal dissent. Iran's regime, yet again, is showing why it remains a major threat to America n national security interests.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, America, Iran, Middle East, and Israel

123. The Iran Stalemate and the Need for Strategic Patience

Author:
Barbara Slavin
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Seventeen months after disputed presidential elections, the Iranian government has forced opposition protestors off the streets but continues to face an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy that is undermining its capacity to implement effective domestic and foreign policies.
Topic:
Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East

124. U.S.-Iran Relations: Policy Compendium

Author:
Kenneth Katzman
Publication Date:
03-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
This chapter contains major policy statements and documents on Iran primarily from the current and previous U.S. Administrations. The statements and documents presented here are intended to be illustrative of themes in U.S. policy toward Iran. Statements on specifi c aspects of U.S. policy toward Iran, such as U.S. interpretations of Iran's disputed June 12, 2009 presidential election, Iran's positions on multilateral meetings on its nuclear program, its holding of dual U.S.-Iranian nationals periodically, are a frequent feature of daily State Department and White House press briefi ngs on U.S. foreign policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and United Nations

125. A Place in the Sun or Fifteen Minutes of Fame? Understanding Turkey's New Foreign Policy

Author:
Sinan Ülgen
Publication Date:
12-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Turkey's vote against additional UN Security Council sanctions on Iran this year was viewed by many observers as a sign that Turkey is drifting away from the West. In reality, Ankara's relationship with the United States and the EU is much more complicated. Turkey's ambitious foreign policy and growing influence present the West with an opportunity to demand that Turkey play a more constructive role in the international community.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Power Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Iran, Central Asia, and Turkey

126. The Russian Handicap to U.S. Iran Policy

Publication Date:
04-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Abstract:
There are voices in the Obama Administration who believe that the Kremlin is able and willing to exert pressure on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, perceived geopolitical and economic benefits in the unstable Persian Gulf, in which American influence is on the wane, outweigh Russia's concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran. The Kremlin sees Iran not as a threat but as a partner or an ad-hoc ally to challenge U.S. influence. Today, both Russia and Iran favor a strategy of "multipolarity," both in the Middle East and worldwide. This strategy seeks to dilute American power, revise current international financial institutions, and weaken or neuter NATO and the OSCE, while forging a counterbalance to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Russian technological aid is evident throughout the Iranian missile and space programs. Russian scientists and expertise have played a direct and indirect role in these programs for years. According to some reports, Russian specialists are helping to develop the longer-range Shahab-5, and Russia has exported missile production facilities to Iran. Moscow has signed a contract to sell advanced long-range S-300 air-defense systems to Iran. Once Iran has air defenses to repel Israeli or American air strikes and nuclear warheads for its ballistic missiles, it will possess the capacity to destroy Israel (an openly stated goal of the regime) and strike targets throughout the Middle East, in Europe, and the Indian subcontinent. Beyond that, if and when an ICBM capability is achieved, Tehran will be able to threaten the U.S. homeland directly. Given the substantial Russian interests and ambitions, any grand bargain would almost certainly require an excessively high price paid by the United States to the detriment of its friends and allies. Russia simply does not view the situation through the same lens as the U.S.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Economics, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, and Middle East

127. The Obama Administration Reaches Out to Syria: Implications for Israel

Author:
David Schenker
Publication Date:
03-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Abstract:
In early March, two senior U.S. officials traveled to Damascus for the highest-level bilateral meeting in years, part of the new administration's policy of "engagement." Washington seeks to test Damascus' intentions to distance itself from Iran. While a "strategic realignment" of Damascus is unlikely, in the short term the diplomatic opening is sure to alleviate international pressure on Damascus. The Assad regime made no secret of its preference for Barack Obama last November. At the same time, Syrian regime spokesmen appear to be setting preconditions for an effective dialogue, saying Washington would first have to drop the Syria Accountability Act sanctions and remove Syria from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. U.S. diplomatic engagement with Syria comes at a particularly sensitive time, just a few months before the Lebanese elections, where the "March 14" ruling coalition faces a stiff challenge from the Hizbullah-led "March 8" opposition, and Washington has taken steps to shore up support for its allies. Should the U.S. dialogue with Damascus progress, Washington might consent to take on an enhanced role in resumed Israeli-Syrian negotiations. However, U.S. participation on the Syria track could conceivably result in additional pressure for Israeli concessions in advance of any discernible modifications in Syria's posture toward Hizbullah and Hamas. Based on Syria's track record, there is little reason to be optimistic that the Obama administration will succeed where others have failed. Washington should not necessarily be faulted for trying, as long as the administration remains cognizant of the nature of the regime. Damascus today remains a brutal dictatorship, which derives its regional influence almost exclusively through its support for terrorism in neighboring states and, by extension, through its 30-year strategic alliance with Tehran.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution and Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Washington, Middle East, and Syria

128. Averting Iranian Influence in Post-War Gaza: The Rehabilitation Issue

Author:
Shimon Shapira
Publication Date:
01-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Abstract:
Immediately upon the end of the fighting in Gaza, the international community will enlist on behalf of an extensive rehabilitation project to enable the Palestinian population to return to their homes and get on with their civil and economic lives. It is of prime importance to prevent Iran from acquiring influence in post-war Gaza through any assistance programs. Following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Iran and Hizbullah grasped the political and economic significance of the rehabilitation project in the Shiite areas of southern Lebanon damaged during the war. Hizbullah directed the rehabilitation work, while totally ignoring the central Lebanese government, and in this manner regained and even reinforced its influence within the Shiite community. Iran is already positioning itself for influence in post-war Gaza. On January 14, 2009, the Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, arrived in Lebanon heading a 40-man delegation in order to direct Iranian support for Hamas. The main objective for Israel and the international community should be to deny Iran the attainment of this objective and to transform the Palestinian Authority, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, into the principal factor, along with Egypt, entrusted with the rehabilitation work in Gaza.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, War, and Power Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Middle East, Palestine, Gaza, and Lebanon

129. "Power without Influence: The Bush Administration's Foreign Policy Failure in the Middle East"

Author:
Jeremy Pressman
Publication Date:
04-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Security
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The administration of President George W. Bush was deeply involved in the Middle East, but its efforts did not advance U.S. national security. In the realms of counterterrorism, democracy promotion, and nonconventional proliferation, the Bush administration failed to achieve its objectives. Although the United States did not suffer a second direct attack after September 11, 2001, the terrorism situation worsened as many other countries came under attack and a new generation of terrorists trained in Iraq. Large regional powers such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia did not become more democratic, with no new leaders subject to popular mandate. The model used in Iraq of democratization by military force is risky, costly, and not replicable. Bush's policy exacerbated the problem of nuclear proliferation, expending tremendous resources on a nonexistent program in Iraq while bolstering Iran's geopolitical position. The administration failed because it relied too heavily on military force and too little on diplomacy, disregarded empiricism, and did not address long-standing policy contradictions. The case of the Bush administration makes clear that material power does not automatically translate into international influence.
Topic:
Security and Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt

130. U.S.-Iranian Engagement Toward A Grand Agenda?

Author:
Daniel Brumberg and Eriks Berzins
Publication Date:
06-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United States Institute of Peace
Abstract:
On February 23, 2009, the Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), together with the United Nations Association-USA and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, held a roundtable discussion among top Middle East experts and former United States Government officials. Held at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, the meeting's purpose was to discuss prospects for creating a diplomatic framework through which the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran can address issues of common concern in the Middle East and South Asia, and in so doing, advance an engagement dynamic that might eventually open the doors for rapprochement between the two countries.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Peace Studies, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Middle East, Asia, and United Nations