DOCSLIB.ORG

THE FUTURE of US-IRAN RELATIONS by Jenny Gan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE FUTURE of US-IRAN RELATIONS by Jenny Gan THE FUTURE OF US-IRAN RELATIONS By Jenny Gan INTRODUCTION Over the past fifty years, the United States and Iran have experienced a tumultuous relationship that has sometimes revealed itself as a close international partnership and other times a contentious rivalry. Since 1953, the United States has helped conduct President Trump a coup d’état in 1953 to overthrow Iran’s prime minister, navigated imposing sanctions the US Embassy hostage crisis, and dealt with the Iran-Contra on Iran following scandal (“US-Iran Relations”). Despite a rocky end to the 20th the dissolution of century, following sanctions in the early 2000s, the US and Iran the US-Iran Nuclear entered a state of peace following the rising global concerns over the Deal. development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal (“US-Iran Relations”). Saul Loeb/AFP via However, the United States’ relationship with Iran took a sharp Getty Images turn following rising tensions in the Gulf, including new economic sanctions, explosions targeting oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, and US military drone surveillance over the Strait of Hormuz (“US-Iran Relations”). Tensions rose to a fever pitch after the assassination of Coup d’état – the General Qasem Soleimani by a US drone and resulted in Iran pulling forcible removal of an out of the nuclear agreement while also promising revenge against existing government the United States (Ward). from power through Best described as tumultuous, the relationship between Iran and violent means. the United States has major implications for global peace, as Iran has nuclear capabilities and is a key player in the Middle East, a region where the United States has vested economic and political interests. What is the future of US-Iran relations? Will the relationship be able to recover? HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS EXPLANATION OF THE ISSUE Historical Development The US and Iran have a long, roughly 70-year long history filled with international scandal, open war, and covert operations. In 1953, the US and British intelligence agencies implemented Operation Ajax to overthrow democratically-elected leftist Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who strongly opposed foreign influence; the US then went on to support a brutalist dictatorship led by Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (Ward). Anti-American sentiments began to rise in Iran, as Americans were seen as propping up a government that committed human rights violations against its people (McTighe). However, in 1979, the Iranian people revolted and installed a staunchly anti-American theocracy led by Ruhollah Khomeini, who described America as the “Great Satan.” In addition, the 1979 US-Iran Hostage Crisis lasted for over a year, included a failed helicopter rescue mission, and involved 52 American hostages, further cementing the perception of Iran as an American enemy (Ward). Because the young nation focused on expanding their influence in the Middle East, they attempted to incite revolution in American- allied countries like Saudi Arabia and Lebanon (National Foreign Assessment Center). Identifying Iran as a force directly threatening American interests, the US lent frequent indirect aid to countries like Iraq following their invasion of Iran, which led to the Iran-Contra Scandal, and engaging in direct military combat in the Tanker War, which resulted in the subsequent shooting down of an Iranian Airbus A300, killing all 290 Iranians on board (“US-Iran Relations”). Then, tempers began to cool, only to be re-ignited by 9/11 as President Bush began invasions into Iraq (Ward). Fearing they would be next, Iran began expanding their influence and supporting Iraqi militants; following the de-escalation of American presence in Iraq, Iran began to capitalize and exert their influence over the region, putting Americans on edge (Ward). Scope of the Problem The scope of US-Iran relations is both broad and deeply complex. The US-Iran In order to shed light into the future of US-Iran relationships, a number of considerations must be made, including politics within Hostage crisis has the country, economic forces influencing decision-making, and major implications international concerns about nuclear weapons. on foreign policy in Political Unrest and Instability in Iran Iran, even today. Iran has been shaken by political unrest and instability in recent years. Following a highly contentious election in 2009, people took © HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2021 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 2 HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS to the streets in protest, claiming that hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had rigged the election against the more moderate Mir Hussein Moussavi (Worth and Fathi). Thousands – mostly women, young people, intellectuals, and moderates – took to the streets; the government moved to shut down streets, pursue protestors, and shut down text-messaging and social media sites – 72 people died over a 10-month protest period (Worth and Fathi). Vote-rigging is a common complaint raised during elections and points to the lack of faith Iranian citizens have in the democratic process. More recently, in November 2019, Iranians once again rose up; triggered by a nearly 50% fuel price hike, angry protestors took to the streets to call for an end to the current leadership, which lead to at least 180 protestors killed by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, with 2,000 wounded and 7,000 detained (Fassihi and Gladstone). The government instituted a two-week Internet blackout and used force to suppress the protestors, most of whom were young, unemployed men and working class families (Fassihi and Gladstone). Following a violent period of protests not seen since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, this unrest has marked a growing divide between the increasingly poor, restless, and jobless population and Iranian leadership (Fassihi and Gladstone). Shah Mohammed The protests at the end of 2019 only crippled moderate President Reza Pahlavi, Hassan Rouhani and polarize the country—the February 2020 President John F. elections were marked by the lowest turnout since 1979 and led to a Kennedy, and conservative win for Parliament (Tabaar). The low voter turnout Defense Secretary might be partially due to more than 7,000 moderate and reformist Robert McNamara candidates being prohibited from running in the election for in Washington DC. “insufficient ideological loyalty” (Tabaar). This only points to the Universal History disillusionment and frustration felt by Iranians when it comes to an Archive/Getty Images already limited voting mechanism. Global Sanctions Global sanctions have played a major role in the unrest within the country, as multiple American administrations have attempted to use sanctions to pressure Iran into acquiescing to the American agenda. Though critics have debated the effectiveness of the sanctions, the measures have undoubtedly shrunk the Iranian economy and prevented the Iranian government from achieving many of their policy goals, including exerting military influence in the Middle East and trade abroad (Katzman). Largely in order to pressure Iran into a nuclear deal following the stalling of negotiations after 2009, a US law allowed President Obama to impose new sanctions on Iran’s banks, including central banks of foreign governments who imported Iranian oil (Katzman). As a result of this strategic move by President Obama, Iran saw their crude oil exports fall by over half and, as a result, accepted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that lifted most of the US, © HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2021 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 3 HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS United Nations, and European Union sanctions against Iran (Katzman). However, soon after taking office, President Donald Trump Trump cited the announced his intention to no longer uphold the JCPOA, and he imposed sanctions on Iran, with the stated goal of applying Congressional maximum pressure on Iran (Ekmanis). As a result, Iran’s economy 2002 military force fell into a deep recession, leading Iran to start their counter-pressure authorization as campaign by instigating conflict in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and legal basis for his ramping up their nuclear program again (Katzman). attack. Nuclear Arsenal & Nuclear Deal Iran’s nuclear program originated with American support in the late 1950s as a part of the Atoms for Peace program, where the US gave Iran human resources, uranium, and reactors (Ward). Providing the basis for decades of nuclear research in Iran, the Atoms for Peace program has led to the development of covert nuclear research facilities that have alarmed the international community because of their potential to build nuclear weapons (Ward). Though the Bush administration imposed a number of economic sanctions on Iraq, Obama’s added diplomatic approach eventually led to the signing of the JCPOA and Iran’s agreement to reduce their stockpile of uranium, nuclear centrifuge production, use of their Arak facility, and oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Ward). A controversial move, the JCPOA allowed for the lessening of the restrictions over time and was seen by some critics as simply letting Iran off the hook (Vaez). However, the IAEA repeatedly confirmed through inspections that Iran was complying with the guidelines imposed in the JCPOA, and the US lifted their sanctions (Beauchamp). As a result, Iran’s economy began to bounce back—only for President Trump to be elected. Rising Tensions with the US President Trump imposed his maximum pressure campaign on Iran following his election and withdrew from the JCPOA; as detailed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hezbollah's Syrian Quagmire
    Hezbollah’s Syrian Quagmire BY MATTHEW LEVITT ezbollah – Lebanon’s Party of God – is many things. It is one of the dominant political parties in Lebanon, as well as a social and religious movement catering first and fore- Hmost (though not exclusively) to Lebanon’s Shi’a community. Hezbollah is also Lebanon’s largest militia, the only one to maintain its weapons and rebrand its armed elements as an “Islamic resistance” in response to the terms of the Taif Accord, which ended Lebanon’s civil war and called for all militias to disarm.1 While the various wings of the group are intended to complement one another, the reality is often messier. In part, that has to do with compartmen- talization of the group’s covert activities. But it is also a factor of the group’s multiple identities – Lebanese, pan-Shi’a, pro-Iranian – and the group’s multiple and sometimes competing goals tied to these different identities. Hezbollah insists that it is Lebanese first, but in fact, it is an organization that always acts out of its self-interests above its purported Lebanese interests. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, Hezbollah also has an “expansive global network” that “is sending money and operatives to carry out terrorist attacks around the world.”2 Over the past few years, a series of events has exposed some of Hezbollah’s covert and militant enterprises in the region and around the world, challenging the group’s standing at home and abroad. Hezbollah operatives have been indicted for the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri by the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) in The Hague,3 arrested on charges of plotting attacks in Nigeria,4 and convicted on similar charges in Thailand and Cyprus.5 Hezbollah’s criminal enterprises, including drug running and money laundering from South America to Africa to the Middle East, have been targeted by law enforcement and regulatory agen- cies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Iran's Nuclear Program
    Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs Volume 2 Issue 2 November 2013 The Prohibition on the Use of Force for Arms Control: The Case of Iran’s Nuclear Program Mary Ellen O'Connell University of Notre Dame Law School Reyam El Molla Follow this and additional works at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia Part of the Diplomatic History Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Political Science Commons, Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Rule of Law Commons, Social History Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons ISSN: 2168-7951 Custom Citation The Prohibition on the Use of Force for Arms Control: The Case of Iran’s Nuclear Program, 2 Penn. St. J.L. & Int’l Aff. 315 (2013). The Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs is a joint publication of Penn State’s School of Law and School of International Affairs. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 2013 VOLUME 2 NO. 2 THE PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FORCE FOR ARMS CONTROL: THE CASE OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM Mary Ellen O’Connell and Reyam El Molla* In many discussions of Iran’s nuclear program, there seems to be an implicit assumption that states have a right to use military force to end the program. For example, the Institute for National Security Studies,1 an Israeli think tank, in an article titled, The Legality of an Attack against Iranian Nuclear Facilities, places emphasis on proving the necessity of an attack as a last resort but fails to indicate any accepted legal basis for resort to military force as an initial matter.2 In fact, international law does not permit the use of military force without United Nations Security Council authorization for arms control of any kind, whether to end a nuclear program, to end a chemical weapons program, or to prevent missile shipments.
    [Show full text]
  • Focus On: Sanctions Against Iran, Libya and Syria July 2011
    Focus on: sanctions against Iran, Libya and Syria July 2011 The worsening situation in Libya and Syria and the need to prevent sanction busting by Iran have provoked further tight- ening of international sanctions. The main measures approved by the EU, UN and US in recent months will have im- pacts on the economies and diplomatic relations of the above-mentioned countries. Iran . Iran’s efforts to bypass international sanctions by using foreign companies and other countries (a practice known as sanction busting) have resulted in the EU and US tightening sanctions and adding more institutions and indi- viduals to their blacklists. The aim of the sanctions, which target Iran’s finances, is to force Tehran to re-open ne- gotiations on its nuclear development programme and resolve the stalemate. Having adopted Regulation 961/2010 in October 2010, in May 2011 the European Council approved Council Im- plementing Regulation (EU) No. 503/2011 adding more people and entities to its blacklist. Among theme is the Iranian Europäisch-Iranisch Handelsbank (EIH) bank based in Hamburg, Germany, accused of breaching EC regulations and UN Security Council resolutions. In a move to raise pressure on Iran, at the beginning of June the US also decided to apply the principle of extra- territoriality. Having imposed sanctions against seven foreign companies (including the PDVSA and an Israeli group) for supplying fuel to Iranian companies, the US has continued to revise its blacklist, which includes the Iranian state-owned Bank of Industry and Mine accused of providing services to Bank Mellat and EIH already subject to US sanctions.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia and Iran in Syria— a Random Partnership Or an Enduring Alliance? an Interim Report
    Atlantic Council RAFIK HARIRI CENTER FOR THE MIDDLE EAST ISSUE BRIEF Russia and Iran in Syria— a Random Partnership or an Enduring Alliance? An interim report JUNE 2019 AMBASSADOR MICHEL DUCLOS Russia and Iran are allies in Syria not out of mutual sympathy, but for pragmatic reasons. According to many reports, Iranian leaders—nota- bly including Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Al-Quds force of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC)—were instrumental in convinc- ing Vladimir Putin to send his air force to Syria and save Bashar al-As- sad’s skin in September 2015.1 However, various episodes highlight the limits of what looks like a circumstantial alliance. On February 26, 2019, Assad was received in Tehran by Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a setting evidently designed to showcase the Syrian dictator’s per- sonal allegiance to the supreme leader and his debt of gratitude to the IRGC.2 On the very same day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was once again in Moscow, where he met with President Putin.3 The asymmetric priorities in Tehran and Moscow could not seem clearer. A few months earlier, on May 9, 2018, Netanyahu attended the parade on Red Square, alongside Putin, on the anniversary of the end of World War Two ( the “Great Patriotic War” in Russian parlance).4 The follow- 1 Laila Bassam and Tom Perry, “‘Send Qassem Soleimani’: Here’s how Putin and Iran Plotted Out Their New Assault in Syria,” Reuters, October 6, 2015, https:// www.businessinsider.fr/us/r-how-iranian-general-plotted-out-syrian-assault-in- moscow-2015-10.
    [Show full text]
  • PETITIONERS V
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ET AL., PETITIONERS v. STATE OF HAWAII, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General JEFFREY B. WALL EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitors General HASHIM M. MOOPPAN Deputy Assistant Attorney General JONATHAN C. BOND MICHAEL R. HUSTON Assistants to the Solicitor General SHARON SWINGLE H. THOMAS BYRON III Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prohibit or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in the Nation’s interest. Exercising that authority after a worldwide review by multiple government agencies of whether foreign governments provide sufficient infor- mation to screen their nationals, the President issued Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (Sept. 27, 2017). In accordance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security following the multi-agency review, the Proclamation suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of cer- tain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors. The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforce- ment of the Proclamation’s entry suspensions world- wide, except as to nationals of two countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Us Policy Towards the Islamic Republic of Iran Hearing
    S. HRG. 111–746 U.S. POLICY TOWARDS THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 14, 2010 Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62–667 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. VerDate Aug 31 2005 13:35 Dec 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\62667.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JACK REED, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia BILL NELSON, Florida LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska JOHN THUNE, South Dakota EVAN BAYH, Indiana ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi JIM WEBB, Virginia GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts MARK UDALL, Colorado RICHARD BURR, North Carolina KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina DAVID VITTER, Louisiana MARK BEGICH, Alaska SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director JOSEPH W. BOWAB, Republican Staff Director (II) VerDate Aug 31 2005 13:35 Dec 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\62667.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB C O N T E N T S CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Foreign and Defense Policies
    Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies Updated May 8, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44017 SUMMARY R44017 Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies May 8, 2019 Iran’s national security policy is the product of many overlapping and sometimes competing factors such as the ideology of Iran’s Islamic revolution, perception of threats Kenneth Katzman to the regime and to the country, long-standing national interests, and the interaction of Specialist in Middle the Iranian regime’s factions and constituencies. Iran’s leadership: Eastern Affairs x Seeks to deter or thwart U.S. or other efforts to invade or intimidate Iran or to bring about a change of regime. x Has sought to take advantage of opportunities of regional conflicts to overturn a power structure in the Middle East that it asserts favors the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Muslim Arab regimes. x Seeks to enhance its international prestige and restore a sense of “greatness” reminiscent of ancient Persian empires. x Advances its foreign policy goals, in part by providing material support to regional allied governments and armed factions. Iranian officials characterize the support as helping the region’s “oppressed” and assert that Saudi Arabia, in particular, is instigating sectarian tensions and trying to exclude Iran from regional affairs. x Sometimes disagrees on tactics and strategies. Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i and key hardline institutions, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), oppose any compromises of Iran’s national security core goals. Iran’s elected president, Hassan Rouhani, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif support Iran’s integration into regional and international diplomacy.
    [Show full text]
  • KILLING QASEM SOLEIMANI International Lawyers Divided and Conquered
    GRILI WORKING PAPER NO.2 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law vol. 53 (forthcoming in 2021) KILLING QASEM SOLEIMANI International Lawyers Divided and Conquered October/2020 Luca Ferro Ghent Rolin-Jaequemyns International Law Institute (GRILI), Ghent University Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 53 (forthcoming in 2021) KILLING QASEM SOLEIMANI International Lawyers Divided and Conquered by Luca Ferro1 Keywords Jus ad bellum, jus in bello, international human rights law, international legal theory and methodology 1 Introduction In an influential piece published by the American Journal of International Law in 1908, Oppenheim opined that the chief task for the science of international law was “the exposition of the existing recognized rules.”2 He further explained that “[w]hatever we think of the value of a recognized rule – whether we approve or condemn it, whether we want to retain, abolish, or replace it – we must first of all know whether it is really a recognized rule of law at all, and what are its commands.”3 Writing in that same journal 75 years later, Weil strictly distinguished between the prelegal and the legal, and noted that “on one side of the line, there is born a legal obligation that can be relied on before a court or arbitrator, the flouting of which constitutes an internationally unlawful act giving rise to international responsibility; on the other side, there is nothing of the kind.”4 Then, in 2001, the International Law Commission (ILC) released its (Draft) Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) with a truism at its core: “Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.”5 That wrongfulness flows from an act (or omission) that is attributable to the State and constitutes a breach of its international obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran, Israel, the Persian Gulf, and the United States: a Conflict Resolution Perspective
    Iran, Israel, the Persian Gulf, and the United States: A Conflict Resolution Perspective By Simon Tanios Abstract Where the Middle East is often described as a battleground between “chosen peoples”, Johan Galtung, the principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies, preferred to see it as a conflict between “persecuted peoples”. Iran, Israel, the Persian Gulf, and the United States have been in various conflicts through history shaking peace in the Middle East, with a prevailing tense atmosphere in relations between many parties, despite some periods of relatively eased tensions or even strategic alliances. Nowadays, Iran considers the United States an arrogant superpower exploiting oppressed nations, while the United States sees Iran as irresponsible supporting terrorism. In sync with this conflict dynamic, on one hand, the conflict between Iran and many Gulf countries delineates important ideological, geopolitical, military, and economic concerns, and on the other hand, the conflict between Iran and Israel takes a great geopolitical importance in a turbulent Middle East. In this paper, we expose the main actors, attitudes, and behaviors conflicting in the Middle East region, particularly with regard to Iran, Israel, the Gulf countries, and the United States, describing the evolution of their relations, positions, and underlying interests and needs. Then, while building our work on the Galtung’s transcend theory for peace, we expose some measures that may be helpful for peace-making in the Middle East. Keywords: Iran; Israel; Gulf countries; the United States; conflict resolution. I. Introduction of Israel in the Muslim World, and the mutual animosity between Iran and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Easing US Sanctions on Iran JUNE 2014
    Atlantic Council SOUTH ASIA CENTER IRAN TASK FORCE BY KENNETH KATZMAN Easing US Sanctions on Iran JUNE 2014 Since the seizure of US hostages in Iran following the 1979 revolution, the US government has imposed a Atlantic Council Iran Task Force succession of economic penalties against the Islamic The Iran Task Force, launched in 2010 and chaired Republic. The complexity and severity of these by Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, performs a uranium enrichment program in 2006. However, there landscape, as well as its role in the region and the aresanctions a variety intensified of ways tofollowing provide Iran’s extensive resumption sanctions of a world,comprehensive to answer analysis the question of Iran’s of whetherinternal politicalthere are relief should there be a deal placing long-term elements within the country and region that can build the basis for an improved relationship with the West and how these elements, if they exist, restrictionsThe November on Iran’s24, 2013 nuclear Joint activities. Plan of Action (JPA) could be utilized by US policymakers. between Iran and the “P5+1” countries (United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China) pledges The Iran Task Force is a project of the Atlantic Iran comprehensive international sanctions relief if a 1 The generously by a grant from the Ploughshares Fund. JPA does not assert that the United States is the sole Council’s South Asia Center, and is supported final settlement is reached on its nuclear program. source of existing sanctions. However, US sanctions sanctions. Despite this JPA stipulation, the document are key to sanctions relief because many US sanctions implies that the administration does not necessarily penalize foreign countries and companies that conduct have the authority to commit to an outright lifting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Killing of Qasem Soleimani Is a Major Loss to Iran, but May Serve As an Opportunity to Reexamine Iran’S Modus Operandi in the Region
    רמה כ ז מל ו תשר מה ו ד י ע י ן ( למ מ" ) רמה כרמ כ ז ז מל מה ו י תשר עד מל מה ו ד ו י ד ע י י ע ן י ן ו ל ( למ( רט למ ו מ" )מ" ר ) כרמ ז מה י עד מל ו ד י ע י ן ול רט ו ר The Killing of Qasem Soleimani is a Major Loss to Iran, But May Serve as an Opportunity to Reexamine Iran’s Modus Operandi in the Region Dr. Raz Zimmt February 18, 2020 Executive Summary The killing of the Commander of the Qods Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Qasem Soleimani, in early 2020, dealt a serious blow to Iran’s ability to promote its strategic goals in the Middle East. The determination, operational capacities, military and political skills and proximity to the Supreme Leader of Iran made Soleimani into a “puppet master” and a central actor overseeing Iran’s expansionism and subversion in the region. It is doubtful that his replacement, Esmail Qa’ani, will be able to fill his shoes. However, Soleimani’s death raises the question not only whether Iran can find a proper replacement for him, but whether such a replacement is needed at the current stage. Undoubtedly, over the past decade, Soleimani was “the right man at the right time,” against the backdrop of regional upheavals that swept the Middle East in 2011. Soleimani wisely exploited the weakness of the regional system and used his skills to expand Iranian influence and promote Iran’s goals in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Testimony
    U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Testimony of Stephen J. Hadley January 14, 2020 Chairman Engel, Ranking Member McCaul, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. To provide context for today’s hearing, I would like, if I may, to describe briefly what appears to me to have been the underlying dynamic that led to the recent confrontation between the United States and Iran in Iraq. In the fall of last year, Iraqi citizens across their country demonstrated in massive numbers. They protested what they saw as the corruption, sectarianism, and ineffectiveness of their government. They protested the over-weaning influence that Iran exercises in Iraq, both directly and through Iranian-backed militias. At least two Iranian consulates in Iraq were attacked and burned. Demonstrators even in the Shia south called for Iran to leave Iraq, chanting “Out, out Iran!”. 2 Beginning last October, Kataib Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia, began an escalating series of attacks on Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. forces. I believe Kataib Hezbollah would not have acted without the approval of Iranian authorities in general and Qasem Soleimani in particular. And I believe this military campaign was a cynical effort to change the conversation within Iraq and to shift attention from the issue of Iranian influence to the issue of the U.S. force presence -- and ultimately to get U.S. forces thrown out of Iraq. The campaign escalated until a U.S. contractor was killed, at least 3 U.S. service personnel were wounded, and the U.S.
    [Show full text]