U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Iranian Nuclear Threat from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump Administration

Insignia Journal of International Relations Vol. 7, No.1, April 2020, 17-44 P-ISSN: 2089-1962; E-ISSN: 2597-9868

Anak Agung Banyu Perwita Program Studi Hubungan Internasional, President University Email: [email protected]

Muhammad Ilham Razak Program Studi Hubungan Internasional, President University Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Iranian nuclear threat remains one of the most pressing issue throughout the history of US foreign policy. Ever since the Islamic revolution occured in Iran in 1979, Iran hostile activities in Middle East has been a major threat for US security interest, in particular when Iran started to build its ambition to build its nuclear weapon. Having said that, this article aims to discuss US foreign policy toward the threat of Iranian nuclear program from Bill Clinton administration until Trump Administration. By using qualitative method specifically on thematic analysis from Braun and Clarke, this article would scrutinize the internal and external factors of US foreign policy toward Iran and then seeks to understand the change and continuity of US foreign policy from Bill Clinton until Trump administration. From the analysis, it was found that US foreign policy has been influenced a lot by its internal and external factors, resulting in different responses of US foreign policy in each administration. Moreover, US foreign policy has been consistent to put Iranian nuclear threat as its major security threat despite differ in its foreign policy. However, the withdrawal of US under Trump in Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) deal has provided an inconsistency of US foreign policy with its previous administration.

Keywords: change and continuity, internal and external factors, Iranian nuclear threat, US foreign policy

Abstrak

Ancaman nuklir Iran tetap menjadi salah satu isu yang paling mendesak dalam sejarah kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat. Sejak revolusi islam terjadi di tahun 1979, aktivitas berbahaya Iran di Timur Tengah telah menjadi ancaman besar bagi kepentingan keamanan US, terutama saat Iran mulai membangun ambisinya untuk membuat senjata nuklir. Oleh karena itu, artikel ini bertujuan untuk mendiskusikan kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat terhadap ancaman nuklir Iran mulai dari kepemimpinan Bill Clinton sampai kepemimpinan Donald Trump. Dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif spesifiknya pada analisis tematik dari Braun dan Clarke, artikel ini akan meneliti secara mendalam faktor-faktor internal dan external kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat terhadap Iran dan kemudian memahami perubahan-perubahan dan kontinuitas kebijakan Amerika Serikat dari kepemimpinan Bill Clinton sampai kepemimpinan Donald Trump. Dari analisa artikel ini, ditermukan bahwa kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat banyak banyak dipengaruhi oleh faktor-faktor internal dan external Amerika Serikat, sehingga menghasilkan respon yang berbeda-beda di setiap periode. Lebih jauh lagi, kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat telah konsisten dalam menempatkan ancaman nuklir Iran sebagai ancaman besar terhadap kepentingan keamanan Amerika Serikat meskipun memiliki perbedaaan dalam menjalankan kebijakannya. Namun, mundurnya Amerika Serikat di perjanjian Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) telah membuat adanya inkonsistensi pada kebijakan luar negeri Amerika dalam kepemimpinan yang sebelumnya.

Kata kunci: ancaman nuklir Iran, faktor internal dan eksternal, kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat, perubahan dan kontinuitas

INTRODUCTION across the regions (Department of Defense In the world where anarchical system United States of America, 2017). and unequal distribution of power exists, Among all issues faced by United the ultimate aim of states is to attain States on weapons of mass destruction, the security (Waltz, 1979). As the most pressing one lies at Iran nuclear consequences, states will seek to maximize development program (White House, its security by gaining more power and will 2017). Robert Einhorn (2019), believed that respond to any threats that could jeopardize the effort to prevent Iran from acquiring its security. Particularly for global powers, nuclear weapons has been the US national achieving security requires them to aspire security priority for over three decades. The to be a global hegemonic and will take hostile relationship between US and Iran necessary actions in responding to any also contributed to this issue. As their states that reject their hegemony diplomatic relation broke off in 1979 (Marsheimer J. J., 2001). following the Iranian Revolution, Iran since Deemed as the major power over the then saw US as the “Great Satan who last century, United States has been actively shouted and gathered all devils that has engaging in many parts of the world to started a ruckus against Iran” (Iran Data maintain its global hegemony (Pass, 2019). Portal, 1979). In the speech of Ayatollah Especially after the Cold War era—as Khomeini on November 1979, the supreme written in its national defense strategy year leader confidently stated that “We must go 1994—U.S. planned to remain globally forward with power. If we show weakness, engaged in shaping the international they will be emboldened and will attack.” security environment (Department of (Iran Data Portal, 1979). Since then, Iran Defense United States of America, 1994). started to advance its nuclear weapon These strategic objectives have been particularly when the state built its P-1 consistent if we look upon security centrifuge in 1989 (Arms Control strategies over the last decades up until Association, 2019). now. In response to the hostile behavior of One of the US biggest agenda in Iran, United States has intensely engaged in shaping the global security environment series of efforts to stop Iran nuclear lies on deterrence on proliferation of program (Robert Einhorn, 2019). From Bill weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Clinton administration until Donald Trump United States is in the forefront of asserting administration, each of the president has this objective. Jonathan Hunt (2017) on his employed a series of foreign policy that are works “Nuclear Arms Control in U.S. Foreign intended to stop Iran’s nuclear weapon Policy” stated that US particularly started to ambition, ranging from economic sanctions, center its attention toward the nuclear international pressure, diplomatic solution, proliferation after the Soviet Union even military intervention. These were all collapsed in 1991 in which also where the available as an option in curbing Iranian regional disputes, non-state actors, and nuclear weapon program. failed states grew even more prominent.” As The discourse on US foreign policy I observed in US national security strategy towards Iran is abundant in the current since 1993 until the latest one in 2017, US literature of international relations study. foreign policy objective has been However, the US foreign policy study that consistently put great interest to limit, specifically discussing on individual level in reduce, and prevent the spread of, or considering their states domestic and eliminating weapons of mass destruction external environment in a comprehensive and other dangerous weapon in other states manner remains understudied. As echoed by Rosati (1995), despite the value of

individual level analysis should be obvious; which later will contribute on how states the study on this level has not always will employ its foreign policy (Hill, The received the attention it deserves in the Changing Politics of Foreign Policy, 2003). study of foreign policy. However, individual From this point of view, we can understand level of analysis has played a more that foreign policy was heavily influenced prominent role in foreign policy research in by states internal environment and its the last decades, considering its strength to external environment. The combination of analyze the micro-level of decision making these factors would later contribute to the process within a state (Rosati, 1995). Not to employment of states foreign policy. mention that there is not much literature on However, as many of the current US foreign policy study that specifically literature suggested, the domestic talking about Iranian nuclear threat in each consideration on US foreign policy in administration in historical perspective. particular to Iranian nuclear weapon is still Therefore, this article aims to analyze understudied. As Homan & Lantis pointed the US foreign policy towards Iranian out that domestic politics such as political nuclear threat from Bill Clinton until Donald parties in US Congress representing the Trump administration. Firstly, this article most interesting discussion on how it could will begin by exploring US strategic challenge the authority, encouraging environment encompassing its internal innovative ideas, and changing the foreign (domestic) and external (international) policy environment, yet, they are still environment from Bill Clinton until Donald lacking of presence in the US foreign policy Trump administration. Secondly, this article study (Hoffman & Lantis, 2019). This analyzes the employment of U.S. foreign particular study will benefit from the policy towards Iran from Bill Clinton exclusivity of understanding the domestic administration until Trump administration. politics of US in shaping its foreign policy. From this section, the writers scrutinize the Interestingly, it is not only encompassing change and continuity of each the political parties interaction but also administration and understand the coming from other essential element in the differences of each administration. internal politics of US that specifically significant to the US foreign policy towards Literature Review Iran such as the concern of interest groups. Terry Deibel (2007) posits that This argument is validated by Helen Milner successful strategy in the foreign policy & Dustin Tingley (2015) in which they does not only end in the real world of found that there are two things that international relations, but it also begins significantly trigger U.S. Presidents to from that reality. Therefore, the success of formulate their foreign policy, they are foreign policy is determined by whether or domestic politics and the concern of interest not the outcome can influence the changing group. of the reality of international strategic Moreover, the US strategic external environment according to the states’ consideration that specifically discussing on interest. In order to do so, as Deibel argued, Iranian nuclear weapon has also being state must begin by drawing accurate understudied. As Moritz Pieper argued, mental picture of its domestic and despite becoming fundamental to international reality (Deibel, 2007). This is understand US foreign policy, the important since according to Hill (2003), understudied of states’ external “foreign policy is the hinge of domestic and considerations in seeing Iran as a threat international politics.” Put it in other words, remains to be vital point to understand Iran foreign policy serves as an intersection foreign policy in pursuing its nuclear point of domestic and international politics weapon (Pieper, 2017). The discourse on

the literature of external environment is “the scope and ambition of a country’s important in order to understand the bigger foreign policy is driven first and foremost by picture of how states interact to specific its place in the international system and issue. Unlike other studies that usually focus specifically by its relative material power on the relation between US-Iranian capabilities”. Put it in other words, in order relations to understand Iranian nuclear to be able to understand the states foreign ambition. There is an urgency for th e writer policy, it is imperative to understand first to discuss other external environment that how states positioned itself in the contribute to the US action to stop Iranian international system and how its external nuclear weapons aside from merely its environment creating stimulus for states to relation with Iran. act and respond to it. Based on U.S. National Moreover, it is argued that external Security Strategy in 1994-2017, there are environment is the very reason why foreign two most important external environments policy was employed (Bojang, 2018). that U.S. often consider in regard to Iranian External environment here is defined as the nuclear threat. First is the international reality perceived by states on the pressure on Iran and second is the U.S. international system, in which, trigger commitment to protect Israel in the Middle states to act and respond to the situation in East. order to survive (Ripsman, Taliaferro, & Having said that, we can understand Lobell, Neoclassical Realist Theory of that U.S. foreign policy on Iran is influenced International Politics, 2016). Many by its domestic and international factors. international scholars often assess the For domestic factors, it encompasses international system as the starting point in domestic politics and interest group understanding how states act in its foreign whereas external factors encompass policy (Ripsman, Taliaferro, & Lobell, international pressure on Iran and U.S. Neoclassical Realist Theory of International commitment to protection Israel in the Politics, 2016). Middle East. For simplicity, the literature As pointed out by Gideon Rose (1998) review on U.S. foreign policy toward Iranian in his article Neoclassical Realism and nuclear threat can be visualized by the Theories of Foreign Policy, it is stated that figure below:

Internal Environment •Domestic Politics •Interest Groups External Environment •International Pressure •Commitment to Protect Israel

Employment of US Foreign Policy to Iranian Nuclear Threat - Bill Clinton Administration - George Bush Administration - Barrack Obama Administration - Donald Trump Administration

Source: Visualization of Strategic Environment Consideration in States’ Decision Making Process made by the authors. Figure 1 Internal and External US Strategic Environment that Contributed to US Foreign Policy toward Iran

Research Methods RESULT AND DISCUSSION In order to gain a comprehensive In this section, the writer divides the insight about the change and continuity of analysis based on the three subsections. U.S. foreign policy towards Iran throughout Firstly, the writer discusses U.S. internal the history, this article uses the qualitative environment in regard to Iranian nuclear research by describing, interpreting, and threat. Secondly, the writer discusses U.S. contextualizing U.S. foreign policy on each external environment in regard to Iranian administration. The method to gather data nuclear threat. Last but not least, the change for this research will be relying on primary and continuity on U.S. Foreign Policy from data which can be obtained from Bill Clinton administration until Donald government official documents, books, Trump administration. academic journals, and the reliable official news website. In analyzing the data, the Internal Environment writer uses thematic analysis, which is used The Constraints of Domestic Politics to analyze data in order to identify the ideas Republican and Democrats—the and patterns of meaning in the data (Braun leading political parties both in public and & Clarke, 2006). According to Braun & congress— play a significant contribution Clarke (2006) this method is an effective when it comes to the constraint of U.S. tool to make the linkage between patterns domestic politics. As both of these parties in certain phenomena and understand how typically are divided by ideologies such as far the phenomenon happens in the writer’s liberals and conservatives, Democrats and perspective. Republicans have been disagreed on many

aspects of foreign policy. They disagree on challenge from a single country than from which countries can be trusted and they feel Iran ... if necessary, under long-standing close to, disagree on which foreign policy principles of self defense, we do not rule out instruments and policies are best to employ, the use of force before attacks occur” (The disagree on utility of foreign aids, benefits of White House, 2006, p. 20) This was also trade and usefulness of diplomacy, or reinforced by the U.S. National Strategy whether to use international organization President Directive entitled “National and multilateral agreement in general Strategy to Combat Weapon of Mass (Milner & Tingley, 2015). Destruction (WMD)” stated that “U.S. In particular to Iran nuclear threat, military forces and domestic law both of political parties has been long enforcement agencies as appropriate must known to have different view on how U.S. stand ready to respond against the source of should employ its foreign policy. When Bill any WMD attack ...including in appropriate Clinton administration initiated a dual cases through preemptive measures” (Bush, containment policy against Iran, Clinton 2002, p. 3) Dick Cheney, a former vice asserted that U.S. focus is to change Iran president at that time even insisted that behavior due to its quest for nuclear military solution is not just a viable option, weapons (Brzezinski, 1997). However this but the best option available (Borger, objective began to harden as soon as Cheney pushes Bush to Act on Iran, 2007). Republican Party dominated the congress in However, this policy option was 1994. Under the pressure of congressional heavily pressured by the congress republicans, Bill Clinton then signed the particularly on Democrat party, believing Iran Sanctions Act which mandated that military strike against Iran would only sanctions against any foreign firm in energy worsen the objective and too costly for U.S. sector that invest more than $40 million to (Plesch & Buthcer, 2007). Joe Biden, a Iran (Brzezinski, 1997). In addition, there senator of democrat at that time even was also an intention of Bill Clinton himself threatens the President to be impeached if to normalize the relationship with Iran the Bush Administration pursued this kind through Khatami, a newly elected moderate of policy (Memoli, 2019). Lack of domestic President in 1996. However, this intention support to strike a military force against was so unpopular in the congress, believing Iran had left Bush no choice but to fully that Khatami could not control the radicals engage Iran in diplomatic way along with in Iran and believed that Khatami was economic sanctions. In fact, under the pretending to be moderate to put Iran’s pressure of congress, Bush signed a bill that enemies off guard while trying to acquire sanctioned oil and gas companies who nuclear weapon (Freedman, 1999). As the involved doing business with Iran (Plesch & consequences, throughout his presidency, Buthcer, 2007). Bill Clinton did not really fully employ his Meanwhile under Obama leadership, policy he imagined because of the constraint the republican-led congress also had shown in domestic politics. a big challenge for Obama in pursuing his The constraint of domestic politics policy towards Iran. Obama pursued to also happened during George Bush era. At engage in a more constructive and this time, the constraint was coming from diplomatic manner to Iran by initiating the Democratic Party. During this period, under JCPOA deal, in which a deal that would Bush leadership, the U.S. had considered to restrict limited Iran’s nuclear development strike a military attack against Iran or so in return for the lifting economic sanctions called as the pre-emptive attack. Under U.S. (Obama, 2016). However, the deal as what National Security Strategies 2006, it was Obama imagined to be a treaty was not fully stated that “We may face no greater envisioned since majority of the congress

opposed the deal. Hence, the deal was not chairman of the U.S. House of becoming a treaty nor an executive Representatives Foreign Affairs committee agreement, but rather a political Ed. Royce stated firmly that the deal should commitment from U.S. (Marcos, 2015). be strictly enforced by U.S. rather than However, despite of the internal dispute in abandon it (Gould & III, 2017). Moreover, a U.S., the international community such as group filled with both republican and UN and other P-5 countries use this as the democrats affiliated of more than 100 U.S. foundation to make an international deal national security experts and more than 30 which strengthened through UNSC former U.S. ambassadors issued a joint resolution in 2015 (UNSC, 2015). statement urging Trump to remain in the When Donald Trump administration Iran Nuclear deal (Cohen, 2018) . took into place, the president also did not Based on the four administrations run the foreign policy smoothly without above, we can clearly see how both of constraints. When Donald Trump promised parties have significant differences on how in his campaigned that he will withdraw U.S. should deal with Iranian nuclear threat. from JCPOA deal, the reaction from U.S. In Republican side, they pursue more on an domestic were filled with major aggressive stance towards Iran nuclear disagreement. According to the poll threat which included but not limited to conducted by SSRS, 63% of Americans or regime changes, maximum pressure, and almost two-thirds of them believed that U.S. even military strike. However in Democratic should not withdraw from the JCOPA deal perspective, they believe more on the (SSRS, 2017). Not only from public, internal diplomatic approach and multilateral administration of the current government agreement by believing that pressure can such as National Security Adviser H.R. only be effective through multilateral McMsster, Secretary of Defense James approach and diplomatic manner. In order Mattis, and even Secretary of State Rex to make it easier to understand, we provide Tillerson also in support to maintain the the matrix below to understand the deal (Crowley, 2017). challenges from each U.S. Presidents in The pressure also was coming from facing the congress particularly the Donald Trump’s political party, Republican. Republican and Democrat party in the Moreover, according to the poll, 48% of the process of foreign policy making towards republicans are supporting U.S. to remain to Iran nuclear threat: the deal (SSRS, 2017). In fact, Republican

Table 1 The Summary of the Constraints of Domestic Politics within Congress in US Foreign Policy Administration Republican Party Democrat Party Pressure to take a harder Support Clinton for Bill Clinton economic sanctions toward Iran engagement with Khatami Pressure Bush to pursue a Discourage Bush to take George Bush regime change for Iran military action toward Iran Oppose the JCPOA deal. Support the JCPOA deal and Barrack Obama Cancelling the JCPOA deal to be support the deal to be a treaty a treaty. 52% Support the withdrawal. Oppose the withdrawal Donald Trump 48% want to remain in the deal Sources: All these statements were quoted from various sources explained in the previous explanations. See bibliography.

The Concern of Domestic Interest Groups groups played a critical role in shaping U.S. In particular to Iran nuclear threat, policy towards Iran to transform to be domestic groups have been contributed a democratic country. lot to consideration of US decision makers. On May 2003, the congress planned to Amongst all interest groups that reside in introduce a bill to fund opposition groups U.S., the domestic interest groups that and promote democracy in Iran, which significantly contribute to the U.S. foreign backed by AIPA, Coalition for Democracy in policy is American Israel Public Affairs Iran, and Jewish Institute for National Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC has been Security of America (JINSA). Later on July, working more than 20 years to lobby the the bill was passed by congress and Bill U.S. executive branch and the U.S. congress. Clinton signed the legislation. In addition, According to AIPAC itself, its primary goal is Marsheimers & Waltz argued that these to work with the U.S. government to domestic Israel groups have been strengthen U.S.-Israel relationship and successfully convincing Bush that “Iran is pursue economic, political and diplomatic unacceptable threat to Israel and that it is measures to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. the responsibility of the U.S. to prevent the It is claimed itself by AIPAC, that the AIPAC threat from increasing.” It was not even rare organization highly encourage the to see such as AIPAC in their publication and construction of a tough broad sanctions lobby to the American politician leaders to towards Iran to prevent them for acquiring support the argument of U.S. executives to nuclear weapon (AIPAC, 2019). employ military strike towards Iran in the As for example, during Clinton hope for Iranian regime change (Shuel, Administration, AIPAC drafted and 2006) (Guttman, 2007). circulated 74-pages paper in Washington When Obama stepped up as the arguing that Iran was not only a threat to President and began to initiate the JCPOA Israel, but also for the U.S. and its allies deal, the domestic interest groups were (Pollack K. M., 2004). In its paper increasingly becoming more active than conclusion, AIPAC suggested U.S. to put before (Shank, 2015). It was reported that higher economic sanctions towards Iran. the American Israel Public Affairs This influence of course contributed to the Committee (AIPAC) spent about $1.67 Iran Libya Sanctions Act 1996 particularly millions in to lobby the Congress to enact when AIPAC was given privileged to revise legislation giving senators the ability to the bill in prior (Marsheimers & Waltz, The review an Iran nuclear deal (Ho, 2015). Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 2007). AIPAC also spent $20 million dollars to form When the newly elected moderate Iranian a group so-called as Citizens for a Nuclear President Khatami was in charge, there was Free Iran to educate the public about the an intention for both U.S. and Iran to dangers of the Iran deal (Davis, 2017). improve its relations. However, AIPAC However, AIPAC was not alone, the other stepped up to act intensively in Congress to interest group such as New Security Action prevent this approach (Yerah, 1997). and J Streets also made an effort to do During George Bush administration, counter narrative the effort of AIPAC to the AIPAC tried to convince the government support the deal to the public (Toosi, 2016). about strategic environment in the Middle In particular for Donald Trump East, believing that U.S. targets should be administration, the intention to withdraw focusing on Israel’s foes to apply maximum from JCPOA deal surely triggers many pressures on Iran and even should change interest groups to participate to the U.S. the regime. Moreover, according to potential foreign policy outcome. At this Marsheimers & Waltz (2007), the lobby time, Jewish groups are divided into two

factions; those who support Trump to The engagement with international withdraw from the deal such as AIPAC and community has always been a reliable tool Orthodox Union, and those who oppose for U.S. strategic decision in handling Iran Trumps’ deal such as J Street and the Jewish nuclear threat since Bill Clinton Democratic Council of America (Tibon, administration. As for example, Bill Clinton 2018). Both of these factions have believed that “U.S. leadership has been demonstrated their activities in lobbying crucial to the success of negotiations that many stakeholders in U.S. government to produced a wide range of treaties that have persuade them to choose the policy they made the world safer and more secure by prefer, mainly through congress, public limiting, reducing, preventing the spread of, campaign, and of course to Trump himself or eliminating weapons of mass destruction (Tibon, 2018). The executives of Republican (WMD) and other dangerous weapons. Jewish Coalition even set the meeting with Without our leadership and engagement, Donald Trump to encourage Trump to threats would multiply and our withdraw the deal for the best interest of opportunities would narrow. (The White U.S. and its allies. In fact, it was reported that House, 1994)” Jewish groups and donors spent more than George Bush also stated that “Our $22my on lobbying and campaign to response [on WMD] must take full encourage Trump to withdraw the deal in advantage of strengthened alliances, the 2018 (Perkins, 2019). establishment of new partnerships with Based on the explanation above, we former adversaries, innovation in the use of can understand that domestic interest military forces, modern technologies, groups have proven to contribute to the U.S. including the development of an effective foreign policy making. Particularly for the missile defense system, and increased leader as the pinnacle of decision maker, emphasis on intelligence collection and domestic group cannot be denied their analysis” (The White House, 2002). With the existence and contribution to shape the same spirit, Obama also reiterated that “if reality and contextualize the potential Iran meets its international obligations on response of U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. its nuclear program, they will be able to Of course, there is no exact point to what proceed on a path to greater political and extend does domestic interest group can economic integration with the international influence leaders’ decision. But what we can community. If they ignore their understand from this point is that domestic international obligations, we will pursue interest groups can be either a constraint or multiple means to increase their isolation a support that leaders can use to execute and bring them into compliance with their foreign policy. international nonproliferation norms” (The White House, 2010). External Environment The importance of International International Pressure on Iran over Nuclear community engagement to counter against Threat Iran nuclear threat has given a door open Iran nuclear development has been for under Bush administration to make an long known to be suspicious in the eyes of international deal with Iran which later international community (Karakir, 2008). completed in the Obama administration, Despite yet to be officially armed with which is the comprehensive Joint nuclear weapons, Iran nuclear activities has Comprehensive Plan of Action Deal (JCPOA) been a huge concern for not only U.S. but (Rogers, 2005). Under the support from also for Gulf countries in the Middle East, IAEA, EU, and UNSC, JCPOA was further European Union and United Nations (The become U.S. foreign policy in responding to White House, 2002).

Iran nuclear threat in 2015 (The White U.S. Commitment to protect Israel in Middle House President Obama, 2016). East In contrast with Trump If we observe carefully, U.S. strategic administration, U.S. intention to withdraw interest towards Middle East has been from JCPOA deal were not supported at all consistent over the period since the Bill by international community such as EU and Clinton administration until Trump United Nations (EU, 2018) (United Nations, administration. What really highlight the 2018). President Donald Trump met a lot of interest of U.S. in Middle East over the years resistance from international community lies on its commitment to protect Israel. for U.S. to employ its new foreign policy Thus, letting Iran possessing nuclear towards Iran. It was notably that China, weapons could provide a huge security Russia and European leaders roundly concern for U.S. most important ally, which condemned Donald Trump’s intention to is Israel. withdraw from the deal believing that it U.S. strong bond with the Israel has would only reflected the growing isolation always been vital interest for U.S. strategic of U.S. and threatened to destabilize the security interest (US Congressional Middle East (Castle & Erdbrink, 2017). Research Service, 2018). It needs to be United Nations through its Secretary taken into note that Israel is U.S. closest General also expressed its deep concern allies since the post world war II. Both that U.S. withdrawal would only create countries have been close for decades based more problems for the stability in the on the common democratic values, religious Middle East (UN, 2018). This is where affinities, and security interests. In addition, Donald Trump, as the leaders will play a key Israel is a leading recipient of U.S. foreign role in U.S. decision making process to aid and largest trading partner (US extend whether or not the leaders will Congressional Research Service, 2018). In respond to the international pressure to not fact, according to Jim Zenotti (2018), a withdraw from JCPOA deal while at best specialist in Middle Eastern affairs of U.S. continue to stop Iran to develop its nuclear congressional research service, U.S. officials weapon. and lawmakers often consider Israel’s Nevertheless, in general, the stances of security as part of U.S. foreign policy. international community against Iran We can actually see the proof from suspicious nuclear activity and its potential many of the speeches from Israeli prime pursuit of nuclear weapons still stand the ministers and requests to the U.S. same way U.S. perceive to be a threat government from Bill Clinton until Trump (Karacasulu & Karakir, 2008). In the administration. In early July 1996, Prime perspective of U.S. itself, under Trump Minister Netanyahu spoke in the congress administration, the strategic environment attended by U.S. Vice Presidents and other in the Middle East provided a huge concern executives stated that: for U.S. national interest, believing that Iran “The most dangerous of these regimes is “support terrorist groups and openly calls Iran that has wed a cruel despotism to a for U.S. destruction. (The White House, fanatic militancy. If this regime, or its 2017)” Thus, despite the current time U.S. despotic neighbor Iraq, were to acquire having different perspective on how the nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for world should deal with Iran nuclear my country, and not only for the Middle development, both U.S. and International East, but for all mankind. I believe the community believe that pressure against international community must Iran to stop its nuclear development still reinvigorate its efforts to isolate these relevant to stabilize the Middle East and to regimes, and prevent them from acquiring achieve Non-Proliferation Treaty objective. atomic power.” (Netanyahu, 1996)

remain unwavering in our commitment to Following the Netanyahu speech, in Israel’s security. And the United States September 1996, the congress and Clinton will never ask Israel to take any steps that signed Iran Libya Sanction Act, which would undermine their security interests... prohibited any companies to have business We have instituted through the U.N. Security Council the toughest sanctions with Iran in energy sector (US Deparment ever directed at an Iranian of Treasury, 2019). government. In addition, last week I In Bush administration, the Israel signed our own set of sanctions, coming pressure to act seriously on Iran nuclear out of the United States Congress, as threat and put more tough sanctions also robust as any that we've ever seen. Other can be demonstrated in the then Prime countries are following suit. And so we Minister (PM) Speech Ohud Olmet in the intend to continue to put pressure on Iran Joint Meeting of U.S. Congress and to meet its international obligations and Executives in late May 2006. During his to cease the kinds of provocative behavior speech, PM Olmet reiterated that: that has made it a threat to its neighbors “Iran, the world's leading sponsor of and the international community.” terror, and a notorious violator of (Obama, 2010) fundamental human rights, stands on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. With In the response, the PM Netanyahu these weapons, the security of the entire responded Obama statement by saying that world is put in jeopardy ... If we don't take “I urge other leaders to follow the Iran's bellicose rhetoric seriously now, we President’s lead, and other countries to will be forced to take its nuclear follow the U.S. lead, to adopt much tougher aggression seriously later.” (Olmet, 2006) sanctions against Iran, primarily those directed against its energy sector. The strong encouragement from (Netanyahu, 2010)”. Howver, when Obama Israel to U.S. to take serious measures made a JCPOA deal with Iran in 2015, PM toward Iran along with international Netanyahu was not in favor with it and has community was demonstrated in the series asked the U.S. government publicly that of sanctions implemented in the Bush era that Israel regrets the decision made by such as but not limited to UNSC resolution U.S.. Netanyahu then came to the U.S. 1803, 1747, 1835, which have been done in congress and made a speech about the deal, the span of Bush era (US Deparment of saying that: Treasury, 2019). “Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back In the Obama administration, PM well-beyond the current proposal [JCPOA Netanyahu had been in the forefront to deal] by insisting on a better deal and keep pressure U.S. to not ease the sanctions keeping up the pressure on a very against Iran. In July 2010, after President vulnerable regime, especially given the Obama and PM Netanyahu discusses issues recent collapse in the price of oil. My regarding defense cooperation and friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that security concerns in the Middle East, both no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this of the leaders have shown their is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it” (Netanyahu, commitment to put tough sanctions to Iran. Transcript of Netanyahu Remarks to In the press conference, Obama stated that: Congress, 2015). “I reiterated to the Prime Minister Israel that there is no change in U.S. policy when As soon as Donald Trump stepped up it comes to these issues. We strongly believe that Israel has unique security as the President of United States in 2016, requirements. It’s got to be able to Benjamin Netanyahu congratulate him and respond to threats or any combination of believe that Trump is a the “true friend of threats in the region. And that's why we Israel” (Zion & Winer, 2016) Donald Trump

also has strong admiration toward In 1992, the U.S. intelligence reports Benjamin Netanyahu and both of them have concluded that Iran has worrying agenda similar stances on how U.S. should address about its nuclear weapon ambition (Joint Iranian nuclear threat (Maital, 2018). In Atomic Energy Intelligence, 1993). This is fact, it was Benjamin Netanyahu who also supported by the comment of Iran’s support and convinced Donald Trump to Defense minister, saying that a non- withdraw from the JCPOA deal. According to conventional solution was needed to deal the Israeli television broadcaster Kan, with the U.S. threat (Muray, 2010). The U.S. Netanyahu stated that “We convinced the concern that Iran might pursue its nuclear U.S. president [to exit the deal] and I had to development more ambitious than before stand up against the whole world and come were also supported by Iran’s breaching to out against this agreement ... and we didn’t UN sanctions, blocking the Peace Process, give up” (Netanyahu Cited in Middle East and acquiring missiles from North Korea Monitor, 2018) In May 2018, Donald Trump (Myers, 1997) . U.S. state department officially withdrew from JCPOA deal and labeled Iran as “the world’s most terroristic Israel was the one who defend the deal to state,” believing that Iran has funded many international community despite its rebel groups in the Middle East to create controversies. . chaos in many states in the region (The Based on the explanation above, it is White House, 1994). plausible to say protecting Israel security Concerned by Iran situation, U.S. interest has become huge consideration of foreign policy under Bill Clinton U.S. to employ its foreign policy towards administration employed a strategy so Iran. The pressure from Israel to keep called as “Dual Containment” in 1993. Dual pushing Iran in hard-line approach is also Containment was a policy which seeks to become the huge consideration of U.S. to be deal with both Iran and Iraq threats by sterner on Iran foreign policy. isolating both countries regionally, cutting them off from the world economic and U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Iranian trading system (Myers, 1997). This strategy, Nuclear Threat: Change and Continuity according to U.S. National Security Strategy Bill Clinton Administration (1993-2001) in 1994 has an aim as follows: The early years of post-cold war era in “As for Iran, our policy is aimed at United States foreign policy was led by Bill changing the behavior of the Iranian Clinton administration. Throughout his government in several key areas, tenure, U.S. foreign policies towards Iran including its efforts to obtain weapons of were heavily dominated by series of mass destruction and missiles, its support for terrorism and groups that oppose the economic sanctions (Muray, 2010). Despite peace process, its attempts to undermine of that, Bill Clinton had several efforts to friendly governments in the region, and its engage with Iran diplomatically in his development of offensive military second term despite it was failed in the end. capabilities which threaten our Gulf Moreover, in his early years, Bill Clinton Cooperation Council (GCC) partners and stated that “I put our effort to stop the the flow of oil. Pending changes in Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass behavior, our goal is to contain and reduce destruction at very top of our national its ability to threaten our interests. We security agenda” (Clinton B. , Remarks by also seek to coordinate with key allies to President Bill Clinton On National Missile maximize pressures on Iran to change its Defense, 2000). Based on this statement, it course.” can be said that preventing nuclear proliferation was U.S. top priority foreign Donette Murray (2010) in his book policy at that time. “U.S. Foreign Policy on Iran” observed that Clinton administration embrace the idea

that economics would be the main strength relationship. In October 1997, Clinton of U.S. to change states’ behavior. Thus, as administration sent one message through Murray emphasizes, Iran would be engaged Swiss Embassy in Teheran, which invited economically in a bid to influence its regime Iran to meet with U.S. officials without behavior towards U.S. and other countries preconditions. However, Iran rejected the in the Middle East. This Dual Containment offer (Riedel, 2016). There was also another strategy toward encompasses several attempt in 1998 when U.S. vice president Al actions such U.S. military deterrent based in Gore asked Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to the Gulf States to contain Iran militarily, be a broker for direct dialogue between two targeted economic sanctions to discourage countries, however Iran once again rejected foreign investment in Iran, as well as the offer (Muray, 2010). In May 1999, U.S. several diplomatic actions to discourage officials no longer put Iran as the world’s Iran support from developing nuclear leading state sponsor of terrorism in a hope weapons. that officials can ease relations with Iran In 1997, a more moderate and along with several relaxed sanctions on sale progressive clerics, Mohammad Khatami of food and medicine (Muray, 2010). was elected as Iran’s new president. There According to the observation found by was a hope from the White House that the Riedel (2016), the special assistant to the relationship between the two governments President and the senior director for Near can be improved under Khatami and hoping East and South Asian Affairs at the National also that Iran can ease its stance to stop its Security Council during Clinton nuclear weapon ambition. In his press Administration, he found that “despite the conference as a new president, he despite the rebuffs, Khatami and Clinton announced that the failure to improve continued to make public statements about relation with U.S. was a “source of sorrow” the need to reconcile Iran and the United to him and he promised that Iran would no States” (Riedel, 2016). Moreover, the failure acts against any effort to build peace in the of both U.S. and Iran to engage in diplomatic Middle East (Muray, 2010). He even actions was heavily influenced by both suggested that he was interested in having a domestic politics in respected countries dialogue with American people. Bill Clinton (Riedel, 2016). In Iran side, the constraint of responded it with open arms; he made a its political structure hampered Khatami’s speech to address Iranian people: willingness to improve the relation with “To the people of Iran, I would like to say U.S.. It comes out from the reason that in that the United States regrets the Iran’s political structure, the Supreme estrangement of our two nations. Iran is an Leader has the final say on ever decision of important country with a rich and ancient Iran, in which, every President’s decision cultural heritage of which Iranians are need the Supreme Leader’s decision, which justifiably proud. We have real differences is coming from Khameini (Riedel, 2016). It with some Iranian policies, but I believe these are not insurmountable... I hope that was stated that CIA reported to U.S. the day will soon come when we can enjoy policymakers that: “even if Khatami wanted once again good relations with Iran” to change Tehran’s policy, the president (Clinton B. , Public Papers of the probably lacked the authority to make the Presidents, 1997) change without Khameini’s approval.” (CIA, 1997) In the side of U.S., the congress led by The new elected President Khatami Republican and interest groups were has given U.S. hope to engage with Iran in a pessimistic by Bill Clinton approach to more diplomatic ways (Muray, 2010). engage with Iran, believing that Iran should During Clinton’s second term, there were be handled with hard line approach to make several efforts made by U.S. to improve the

them unable to pursue nuclear weapon believed that “the sanctions were ineffective (Muray, 2010). and unnecessarily antagonistic towards Based on the explanation above, we America’s allies” (Muray, 2010). In the can understand that Bill Clinton Iranian side, there was also discussion by administration foreign policy toward Iran Iranian Majilis (congress) to set up direct nuclear threat were heavily filled with talks with U.S., along with the support of economic measures There was also several Khatami (Muray, 2010). diplomatic approach to improve When the incident of 9/11 happened, relationship between two countries and George Bush asked Iran to have cooperation engage Iran’s nuclear power on the table, with U.S. to destroy Taliban. As Iran also but it Bill Clinton administration were have historical hostility relations with Iraq constraint by internal politics in Iran and and considering the Iraq’s threat to Iran, U.S. itself. Iran helped U.S. with open arms (Nader, Scotten, Rahmani, Stewart, & Manhad, George Bush Administration (2001-2008) 2014). The U.S. made a foreign policy to As the successor of Bill Clinton create a diplomatic strategy helped by Iran Administration, U.S. foreign policy towards to destroy Taliban. The diplomacy started to Iran under George Bush provided a mixture be initiated in the Afghanistan 6+2 talks at of series of diplomatic engagements as well the UN, Iranian made a promise to provide a as economic sanctions (Muray, 2010). search-and-rescue help, as well as Under Bush administration, Iran remains to assistance with planning, targeting, be a dangerous threat to U.S. interest due to intelligence and cultural information its intention to pursue a nuclear weapons (Muray, 2010). As the result, Iran helped and sponsoring terrorism in the Middle U.S. to give information about hundreds of East, despite Mohammad Khatami’s Al Qaeda suspects and forwarded copies of moderate and diplomatic approach to U.S. almost 300 of terrorist passports to U.S.. (The White House, 2002). Based on George Satisfied with Iran help, U.S. foreign policy Bush Speech, it was stated that: started to focus on offering Iran a deal “The Iranian issue is the strategic involving specific concessions in exchange threat right now facing a generation of for cooperation (Leverett, 2008). It was Americans, because Iran is promoting found that State Department officials began an extreme form of religion… And to draft the National Security Presidential instability in that part of the world has Decision which contained a proposal for deeply adverse consequences, like diplomatic engagement (Parsi, 2008). energy falling into the hands of However, a sudden moment happened extremist people that would use it to at the beginning of 2002, the Palestine blackmail the West.” (Bush, 2007) freighter, MV Karine was intercepted by Israeli force carrying a huge cargo of arms. The persona of Khatami as the It was informed that Iran is the main moderate and progressive Iranian sponsor of the Ship and had sent the large President at first had given a hope for Bush amount of weapons. The intention to administration to pursue diplomatic propose a diplomatic engagement then approach (Muray, 2010). Secretary of State delayed due to this event (Flyn, 2006). In Powell believed that “it was time to try to re- 2002, through Bush speech, Iran was named set the clock in U.S.-Iranian relations” as the Axis of Evil, along with North Korea (Clinton B. , 2004) Moreover, it was also and Iraq, believing that these states have believed that sanctions alone were not given grave threat to the security and enough to change Iran’s behavior. The stability of international community assessment coming from U.S. officials (Heradstveit & Bonham, 2007).

Despite having an intention to have speech in Iran that he would like to “wipe diplomatic engagement, U.S. official Israel off the map” (Fathi, 2005) concluded that Khatami as the Iranian The hostile rhetoric brought up by the President was too weak to engage new elected Iranian President, diplomatically with U.S. in accordance to Ahmadinejad, have made Iran-U.S. ties U.S. interest, due to the pressure from started to crack once again. The fact that Iranian hardliners in the congress and its Iran was not committed to IAEA regulation, Supreme leader (Muray, 2010). Moreover, its hostile activities by supporting terrorist there is also intention that through Bush’ groups and its rhetoric to attack Israel have speeches, the U.S. can further trigger the brought U.S. nothing to but to consider more civilian in Iran particularly the reformers, serious actions to handle Iran. George Bush students, and liberators in the favor of U.S. through his book entitled “Decision Points,” to pressure Iran government for the change described Ahmadinejad as follow: regime (Muray, 2010). Iranian government “Ahmadinejad steered Iran in an was shock hearing U.S. speeches about the aggressive new direction. The regime Axis of Evil, considering Iranian became more repressive at home, more government has given U.S. unprecedented belligerent in Iraq, and more proactive cooperation in the war against Iraq and in destabilizing Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and Afghanistan… (Bush, Afghanistan, believing that U.S. speech is 2010) crude, simplistic, and unfair to them (BBC News, 2002). In fact, military strike was an option in In 2003, Iranian opposition group in Bush administration. Former CIA and exile held a press conference informed the National Security Agency (NSA) chief Gen. world that Iran had a covert nuclear Michael Hayden reported that George Bush weapon programmed (IAEA, 2003). As the and his inner circle were planning to response, there was a consideration by develop a list of up to 2,000 bombing to Bush administration to put Military nuclear facilities in Iran (Hayden, 2012). In Operation on the table. However, this option the book entitled “Decision Points” written was heavily unpopular in the U.S. domestic by Bush himself, he acknowledged that he politics particularly from Democratic Party, had military option in plan to “stop the despite Interest groups such as AIPAC bomb clock, at least temporarily.” However, endorse the option to strike Iran according to his confession, he was (Marsheimers & Waltz, The Israel Lobby influenced by domestic pressure believing and US Foreign Policy, 2007). that “destroying regime’s prized project In 2006, the new Iranian president, would embolden the opposition and would Mohammad Ahmadinejad was elected. In stir up Iranian nationalism and unite the contrast with Khatami, Ahmadinejad was people against U.S.” (Bush, 2010) In coming from conservative groups in Iran addition, the military option was also and have negative perception towards U.S. heavily constrained by U.S. domestic and the West (Haji-Yousefi, 2010). In his politics and the fact that most of the Iranian first speech in the UN, Ahmadinejad warned people according to the poll were in favor of that In his first UN address, Ahmadinejad U.S. government to have better relations warned the U.S. and its allies that ‘if some with U.S. (Steven Kull, 2007). try to impose their will on the Iranian After discussion with his national people through resort to a language of force security team and consulted with Vladimir and threat with Iran, we will reconsider our Putin, Angela Merkel, and Tony Blair, Bush entire approach to the nuclear issue’ concluded that a series of international (Ahmadinejad, 2005). In addition, economic sanctions along with the proposal Ahmadinejad even publicly stated in his to have a grand deal will work to contain

Iran nuclear program Moreover, the U.S. to U.S. National Security Strategy, can be the also involving EU, Russia, and China to talk best effort to stop the spread of nuclear with Iran in a hope that Iran can halt its weapons and nuclear materials based on nuclear enrichment program (Bush, 2010). the respect to the global common interest The end goal of this talk was to ensure Iran (The White House, 2010). halt is nuclear enrichment program and Based on that principle, U.S. foreign ensure that Iranian nuclear activity can be policy under Obama Administration had inspected by IAEA regularly in exchange for been using the Non-Proliferation Treaty as several relaxations from UNSC and U.S. its channel to engage with Iran accountable sanctions (European Union, 2006). Despite for its suspicious nuclear activity. of it, the talk had yet to achieve any Therefore, Obama administration strongly significant deal during Bush Administration relies on the diplomatic actions, as it is (Muray, 2010). However, the initiation to believed that it is fundamental to U.S. talk represented an important moment for national security as U.S. defense capability the historical progress on the later Joint (The White House, 2010). Specifically for Comprehensive Plan of Action deal done by preventing Iranian pursuit of nuclear President Obama in 2015. weapons, it was stated in U.S. national security strategy 2010, Barrack Obama Administration (2008- “The United States will pursue to prevent 2016) Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. If Barrack Obama entered the White Iran meets its international obligations on House replacing George Bush leadership in its nuclear program, they will be able to U.S. foreign policy on November 2008. proceed on a path to greater political and economic integration with the During his early years, U.S. stances on Iran international community. If they ignore remains the same, which still become U.S. their international obligations, we will top priority to its foreign policy. Based on pursue multiple means to increase their the U.S. National Security Strategy 2010, U.S. isolation and bring them into compliance emphasized that “there is no greater threat with international nonproliferation to the American people than weapons of norms. At the same time, our engagement mass destruction, particularly the danger must be both comprehensive and posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by strategic. It should extend beyond near- violent extremists and their proliferation to term threats by appealing to peoples’ additional states” (The White House, 2010) aspirations for justice, education, and Moreover, U.S. foreign policy under Obama opportunity and by pursuing a positive and sustainable vision of U.S. partnership Administration continued the legacy of its with the region.” previous administrations, which is to pressure Iran through economic sanctions, Based on the explanation above, we but in the same time offer the country a can clearly see that U.S. foreign policy under series of diplomatic engagements in a hope Obama administration really emphasizing that Iran could stop its ambition over the the international norms and collective nuclear weapon (Jahanbegloo, 2009). action to curb Iran from pursuing its nuclear However, under Obama weapons. These kinds of actions actually Administration, U.S. foreign policy have been similar from what we see in the emphasizes its commitment to build previous administrations in the Clinton and stronger foundation for U.S. leadership Bush era. However, this time, Obama really through several means; Engaging had clear plan in mind and not merely a international community, respecting reactionary policy as what the other international law, and galvanizing the previous administrations done. collective actions. These means, according

At the initial steps, Obama started to the more moderate and pragmatic politician use sanctions against Iran as a part to push was elected as Iranian President in June Iran to get in the deal offered by U.S. in the 2013, the new President responded the earlier proposal under Bush Administration intention with U.S. in a serious way along with EU, Russia and China (Rouhani Should Give Priority to Religious (McCormick, 2011). In early June 2010, Freedom in Iran, 2013). On September UNSC passed a resolution to impose 2013, for the first time ever since the sanctions including expanding arms Iranian revolution, Obama and Rouhani had embargo and tightening restriction on a telephone conversation talking about the financial and shipping enterprises related serious negotiations with the West on the to “proliferation-sensitive activities” (UNSC, Iranian Nuclear programmed (Mason & 2010). Moreover, U.S. also imposed Charbonneau, 2013). economic sanctions through congressional The interim agreement was signed on legislation which entail to restrict foreign November 2013 after several rounds of banks that deal with Iranian banks and any negotiations. In this interim agreement, financial access to the U.S. financial system. seven actors were involved in the deal, In addition, the sanction also including which are United States, Great Britain, restriction on gasoline suppliers that used France, Russia, China, and European Union to have business with Iran (US Department along with Iran (Arms Control Association, of State, 2019). Not only U.S. and UNSC, 2019). The agreement, so called as Joint European Union also added several Plan of Action called Iran to suspend its sanctions towards Iran which encompasses nuclear program in a short time in exchange dual-use goods and technology, restrictions for lifting several economic sanctions with on trade in technology nuclear related, the intention that Iran also willingly to restriction on investment in Iranian oil and continue to work in a long-term agreement. gas, transfer of funds, insurances, and ships In addition, IAEA will employ to inspect and cargo aircraft (European Union, 2010). Iranian nuclear facility a more intrusive and All of these actions were part of U.S. strategy frequent manner. The agreement was to push Iran to have a deal with formally implemented on January 2014 international community regarding its (Arms Control Association, 2019). On nuclear development (McCormick, 2011). February 2014, it was reported that Iran The result gave an enormous impact was complying with the deal. The deal towards Iran Economy. Based on the report reported by IAEA inspection stated that Iran from U.S. Government Accountability Office was implementing the agreed terms by in 2013, it was reported that U.S. and halting its enrichment program 20 percent, International Sanctions have adversely blending down half of its stockpile for 20 affected the Iranian economy (US percent to only 3.5, as well as halting the Government Accountability Office, 2013). work in its Arak Heavy Water Reactor. This report has give a great result from Satisfied with Iran’s compliance, U.S. and Obama administration as leverage and European Union waive specific sanctions in initial step to begin bilateral and Iranian Oil business (Arms Control multilateral talk with Iran over the grand Association, 2019). Moreover, it was bargain of the nuclear deal. reported that all parties agreed to continue In March 2013, it was reported that their talks into more comprehensive one, U.S. began to hold series of bilateral talks which later called as The Joint with Iranian officials in Oman concerning Comprehensive Plan of Action (Arms about the possibility to have a grand deal Control Association, 2019). about Iranian nuclear development Under this agreement, it was stated (McCormick, 2011). When Hassan Rouhani, Iran must limit its nuclear development in

several ways. First, Iran has to decrease its and growing its network through proxies low-enriched uranium stockpile by 98 per and pursuing missile program in any cent. Second, the agreement will remain for possible means and they have increased fifteen years. Third, during the time period, their efforts to hostility by expanding Iran will only use its enriching uranium only coercion, violating states’ sovereignty, for 3, 67% enough for the civilian purposes exploiting ambiguity, and “deliberately (The White House, 2015). The Joint blurring the lines between civil and military Comprehensive Plan of Action was goals” (Department of Defense, 2018). remarkably agreed by Iran and supported In fact, U.S. believes that Iran by United Nations, EU, IAEA and major aggression still continues as they see them countries such as Russia, China, UK, and sponsoring and giving assistance to the France (UN, 2015). The agreement was terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, reached on April 2015 in Switzerland. In Hezbollah, Hamas, and Taliban. The return, several of UNSC sanctions as well as development, deployment, and EU and U.S. economic sanctions will be proliferation of missiles are also seen as the gradually lifted if Iran obeys the agreement. grave threat to U.S. security interests. Iran Despite of that, several sanctions will be harasses U.S. ships and threatens the remained uphold such as sanctions on freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and missile technologies and conventional Arabian Gulf. Iran is deemed to launch weapons, terror list sanctions, and ballistic cyberattack against U.S. critical missiles (Arms Control Association, 2019). infrastructure system and imprisons many In addition, Iran should also need to American citizens on false charges submit its report nuclear development to (Department of Defense, 2018). the IAEA for the inspection program (The Based on the National Security White House, 2015). In July 2015, the all Strategy (2017), U.S. strategy to counter relevant parties signed the agreement and Iran nuclear threat is focusing on two parts: become the first official deal with Iran about (1) Neutralizing Iran’s destabilizing nuclear development since Iranian influence, and (2) constraining its revolution in 1979 (Arms Control aggression particularly for Iran support in Association, 2019). Despite having big terrorism. The way U.S. do its strategy is constraint in the internal politics such as the through using economy and military congress dominated by Republic and strong leverage to maximizing its pressure resistance from AIPAC, the deal become towards Iran (The White House, 2017). In Obama’s signature of U.S. foreign policy in addition, U.S. are also willingly to revitalize his era. its traditional alliances and regional partnerships in order to restore more Donald Trump Administration (2016-2018) balance in the favor of U.S. interest (The Since the beginning of the new White House, 2017). Despite U.S. is little bit administration, Donald Trump and the team unclear on what kind of measures that it will has been bold and firm towards its stance take to revitalize its allies partnership while on Iran, U.S. under Trump see Iran as the at the same time demand for reciprocity, it legitimate threat (The White House, 2017). is safe to assume that both U.S. and its allies U.S. perceive Iran as the rogue regimes has common interest to counter Iran threat whose action only provides instability to and thus cooperate together to counter Middle East. The Iranian government is Iran’s activity and its support for terrorist seen as the radical regime that creates proxies in the Middle East. The last thing destruction, death, and chaos all around the that U.S. will do is to deny all paths of Iran’s world. Moreover, Iran is seen as the states chances in acquiring nuclear weapon by any who sponsored a lot of terrorist activities means even a slightest chance.

In May 8 2018, U.S. officially withdrew Trump administration believed that the from JCPOA deal. U.S. perceive that there is deal should have given requirement for Iran a loophole in JCPOA deal that gives a chance to allow inspections anytime and anywhere for Iran to pursuing its nuclear weapon whenever international inspectors capability. As the U.S. administration under requested (The White House, 2018). Donald Trump firmly take a principled Third, U.S. under Trump realism approach, it is not hard to administration believe that the JCPOA understand the very reason U.S. would would only give access to Iranian regime in abandon the diplomatic deal that have been gaining a huge amount of money as the agreed just in 2015. The agreement can be result of lifted economic sanctions (The safely assumes that it does not represent the White House, 2018). As the result, U.S. current U.S. stances, which believes in that believed that Iran would increase its tangible power should be used to curb Iran’s economic and military advantage in the nuclear. It also has to taken into note that region just to get more leverage in dealing U.S. under Trump really emphasize the with the international community to current world as a competition, where acquire nuclear weapons once the deal states can only either be the loser or the exhausted. In fact, U.S. perceived that Iran winner. This idea of competition seems very used the money to fund military buildup familiar with what Donald Trump has in and terrorist proxies for Hezbollah and mind written in many of his previous book Hamas (Trump cited in the White House, in the America We Deserved (200), and 2018). Crippling America (2004), in which believes Fourth, U.S. believed that the JCPOA that the world is in competition and there is deal does not provide any requirements to either a winner or loser, and U.S. is currently the Iran’s ballistic missile program, in which “losing”. If we observed carefully, the idea of something that Iran has been developed for winner or loser also fits well with Donald decades (The White House, 2018). Hence, Trump’s tendency in binary thinking as JCPOA deal under U.S. perspective is not what I have explained before in the chapter adequate to counter Iran threat in Middle III. East. This is where U.S. under Donald Trump Moreover, according to The White administration believes that Iran is actually House (2017), there are four points that violate the spirit of the JCPOA deal by makes U.S. decide to withdraw from the developing its missile program and JCPOA deal. Firstly, the JCPOA deal is threatening Israel and other U.S. allies deemed fail to manage the other threat from through its support for Hezbollah and Iran as it is keep supporting the terrorist Hamas (Trump cited in the White House, proxies and being hostile to its neighbors. 2018). According to U.S., even when Iran signed the Last but not least, the JCPOA deal has JCPOA deal, it has continued its effort in limited time, which is only last for fifteen supporting the dictatorship of Basher al- years. This is where U.S. under Trump Assad in Syria, supporting the escalation of administration cannot accept the deal at all. civil war in Yemen as it use proxy to attack U.S. believed that the deal only delay Iran’s other nations, and enables Hezbollah to ambition to acquire nuclear weapon as U.S. build arsenal weapons that threaten U.S. skeptical about any agreement once the deal most important allies, which is Israel (The is expired (Trump cited in the White House, White House, 2018). 2018). After the expiration, U.S. believed Second, U.S. under Trump that Iran would pursue its nuclear once administration believed that the JCPOA deal again and that time will be easier since the did not provide enough strong mechanism economic condition of Iran will be relieved for inspections and verification. U.S. under due to the lifted economic sanctions by

International community (The White advance its nuclear capability (White House, 2018). Regardless, Donald Trump House, 2018). believed that Iran will always be U.S. enemy U.S. Foreign policy shift towards Iran as long as the “religion fanatic regime” is has been seen as an odd decision for the U.S. governing Iran. Thus, looking at the U.S. strategic interest (Allison, 2018). Dan Smith perspective, Iran will always be the enemy (2019), director of Stockholm International of United States when the Iran supreme Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) believed leader is still in the power (Trump cited in that the withdrawal will only undermine the White House, 2018). U.S. credibility and leadership in multilateral diplomacy. Moreover, the From Bill Clinton to Trump withdrawal also challenges the UNSC Administration: Change and Continuity authority in particular to its abiding U.S. foreign policies toward Iranian resolution to endorse the JCPOA deal. As the nuclear threat have revolved around global power who asserts leadership to unilateral economic sanctions, diplomatic shape the strategic interest around the engagements, and international world, it is a huge loss for the U.S. to be cooperation as a means to stop Iran from its inconsistent in historical Iran nuclear deal nuclear weapon ambition. If we observe it (Smith, 2019). carefully, we can understand that since the From the point above, it can be era of Bill Clinton until Obama understood that the inconsistency of U.S. Administration, there is a consistent pattern foreign policy under Trump administration that U.S. would use “stick and carrot” with U.S. foreign policy in previous approach towards Iran. It works in a way administrations could harm many of U.S. that U.S. would impose many economic interests. For example, it could damage the sanctions or pressure diplomatically but in U.S. image in the international community the same time U.S. would also ease its or it could discourage the trust from Iran sanctions and improve its relation with Iran and other major parties in making the if Iran has an effort to stop its nuclear significant deal to reduce the Iranian weapon development. nuclear weapon development. Social However, there is a significant change Scientist expert from Harvard University, of U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump, Graham Allison (2018) event stated that where he decided to wihtdraw from the deal “The decision will most likely lead to an and apply maximum pressure to stop outcome that is much worse not only for the Iranian deal. This era marked s a clear sign U.S. but also for Israel.” With being said, we that the foreign policy under Trump argue that U.S. foreign policy towards Iran administration has contrast view with its should be held consistent and create a clear previous administrations in particular to vision on how U.S. should engage Iran in the Obama administration in perceiving order to be able to provide the Iranian trust Iran. Under Obama, it is stated that U.S. clear to create a diplomatic deal as well as to gain preference is to deal with Iran issue is credibility from international community in through a peaceful diplomatic resolution regard to U.S. foreign policy. To make it (White House, 2015). In contrast with easier to understand, we provide the change Trump administration, Iran nuclear threat and continuity of U.S. foreign policy towards should be handled through economic Iran on the figure below: coercion in order to cripple its ability to

Table 2 Change and Continuity of US Foreign Policy toward Iran Nuclear Weapon Ambition

U.S. Foreign Policy to Iran Administration Note Nuclear Weapon Ambition Bill Clinton (1993-2001) Dual Containment (1st Isolating Iran economically and period), Normalize diplomatically to exhaust its Relationship (2nd Period) willingness to pursue nuclear development (1st period). When Khatami stepped up, there were serious efforts to engage Iran diplomatically (2nd period)

George Bush (2001- Stern of Economic Sanctions Aim to change Iranian regime 2008) (1st period) and Proposal of through crippling its economy International Deal (2nd initially, but then change plan to period) offer Iran a grand deal with EU, Russia, and China.

Barrack Obama (2008- International Pressure (1st Engage International Community to 2016) period), Diplomatic Pressure Iran economically but at engagement, and JCPOA deal the same time offer Iran the JCPOA (2nd period) deal (The continuance of Bush Proposal)

Donald Trump (2016- Maximum Pressure Withdraw from JCPOA Deal. Re- 2018) impose economic sanctions.

Source: Authors, 2020.

CONCLUSION encouraged by international community to U.S. foreign policy has experienced stop Iranian nuclear threat in a diplomatic changes and continuity since Bill Clinton manner. Administration to Trump Administration. In Since Bill Clinton until Obama making the decision, each administration administraiton, the U.S. foreign policy has faced its own unique strategic environment consistent pattern in the way that U.S. in the internal and international level. Most would push for economic sanctions towards of the times, the internal environment were Iran but at the same time try to engage Iran heavily influenced by the domestic politics in diplomatic manner to stop its nuclear in particular from Democrat and Republican weapon program. However, Donald Trump party as well as the lobby from interest administraiton provided significant groups in particular the israeli groups. changes of direction on where U.S. envision Meanwhile in the international level, there its means to Iran, which it has been proven are similiar patterns that U.S. tried to by its decision to withdraw from JCPOA deal maintain its commitment to protect key and applying maximum economic pressure allies in the Middle East such as Israel and towards Iran. Gulf Countries but at the same time being

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahmadinejad." Retrieved October 24, 2019, from United Nations: Ahmadinejad, M. (2005, September 17). https://www.un.org/webcast/ga/60/s "Address by H.E. Dr. Mahmood tatements/iran050917eng.pdf

AIPAC. (2019). What We Have Achieved. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ Retrieved November 5, 2019, from 2007/jul/16/usa.iran About: https://www.aipac.org/about- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic aipac2/what-weve-accomplished analysis in psychology. Qualitative Alexander George, A. B. (2005). Case Studies Research in Psychology , 77-101. and Theory Development in Social Brzezinski, Z. (1997). Differentiated Sciences. Massachussets: MIT Press. Containment: U.S. Policy Toward Iran Ali, I. (2017, September 7). Top U.S. general and Iraq. New York: Council on Foreign says exiting Iran nuclear pact would Relations Press. make future deals tough. Retrieved Bush cited in the White House. (2002, December 17, 2019, from September). The National Security https://www.reuters.com/article/us- Strategi of the United States of America. iran-nuclear-usa/top-u-s-general-says- Retrieved December 16, 2019, from exiting-iran-nuclear-pact-would-make- Historical Office: Office of the Secretary future-deals-tough-idUSKCN1C12OF of Defense: Arms Control Association. (2019). Timeline of https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70 Nuclear Diplomacy with Iran. Retrieved /Documents/nss/nss2002.pdf?ver=201 September 10, 2019, from Arms 4-06-25-121337-027 Control Association: Bush cited in the White House. (2006, March). https://www.armscontrol.org/factshee A National Security Strategy For A t/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy- Global Age. Retrieved December 16, With-Iran 2019, from Historical Office: Office of Arms Control Association. (2019). Timeline of the Secretary of Defense: Nuclear Diplomacy with Iran. Retrieved https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70 September 10, 2019, from Arms /Documents/nss/nss2006.pdf?ver=201 Control Association: 4-06-25-121325-543 https://www.armscontrol.org/factshee Bush, G. (2002, December). National Strategy to t/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy- Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. With-Iran Retrieved October 17, 2019, from Arms Control Association. (2019, November). Homeland Security Digital Library: Timeline of Nuclear Diplomacy with https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=860 Iran. Retrieved November 18, 2019, Bush, G. (2010). Decision Points. New York: from Crown Publishing Group. https://www.armscontrol.org/factshee Castle, S., & Erdbrink, T. (2017, October 13). t/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy- European Leaders Criticize Trump’s With-Iran Disavowal of Iran Deal. Retrieved BBC. (2017, September 20). Iran's leader October 24, 2019, from New York Hassan Rouhani slams Donald Trump in Times: UN speech. Retrieved November 25, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/1 2019, from 3/world/europe/trump-iran-nuclear- https://www.bbc.com/news/world- deal.html middle-east-41340294 CIA. (1997, December 22). Memorandum: BBC News. (2002, January 31). IIran Lashes out Hezbollah Reactions to Khatami's at Bush. Retrieved October 28, 2019, Election. CIA. Retrieved from CIA. from BBC News: CIA cited in Murray. (2010, December 22). US http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_ea Foreign Policy and Iran: American- st/1793856.stm Iranian Relations since the Islamic Bojang. (2018). The Study of Foreign Policy in Revolution. New York: Routledge. International Relations. Journal of Retrieved from CIA. Political Sciences & Public Affairs, 1-9. Clinton cited in The White House. (1994). A Borger, J. (2007, July 16). Cheney pushes Bush to National Security Strategy of Act on Iran. Retrieved October 17, Engagement and Enlargement. 2019, from The Guardian: Retrieved December 16, 2019, from Historical Office: Office of the Secretary

of Defense: Department of Defense. (2019). Chairman of https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70 the Joint Chief of Staff. Retrieved /Documents/nss/nss1994.pdf?ver=201 December 17, 2019, from 4-06-25-121219-500 https://www.defense.gov/our- Cohen, Z. (2018, March 17). National security story/meet-the-team/chairman-of-the- veterans urge Trump not to scrap Iran joint-chiefs-of-staff/ nuclear deal. Retrieved October 17, Department of Defense. (2019). The Role: 2019, from CNN News: Secretary of Defense. Retrieved https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/27/ December 17, 2019, from politics/experts-trump-iran-nuclear- https://www.defense.gov/Our- letter/index.html Story/Meet-the-Team/Secretary-of- Congress.Gov. (2019). House Foreign Affairs Defense/ Committee. Retrieved December 16, Department of Defense United States of 2019, from Congress.Gov: America. (1994). National Security https://www.congress.gov/committee Strategy Archive. Retrieved September /house-foreign- 13, 2019, from National Security affairs/hsfa00?searchResultViewType= Strategy Reports 1992-2017: expanded http://nssarchive.us/ Congressional Research Service. (2018, May 8). Department of Defense United States of US Decision to Cease Implementing the America. (2017). National Security Iran Nuclear Agreement. Retrieved Strategy Archive. Retrieved September September 29, 2019, from 13, 2019, from National Security Congressional Research Service: Strategy Reports 1992-2017: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R44942. http://nssarchive.us/ pdf Department of State. (2019). About Department Crowley, M. (2017, 12 28). How Trump could of State. Retrieved December 17, 2019, kill the Iran nuclear deal in January. from Retrieved October 10, 2019, from https://www.state.gov/about/about- Politico: the-u-s-department-of-state/ https://www.politico.com/story/2017 EU. (2018, 08 05). Remarks by HR/VP /12/28/trump-kill-iran-nuclear-deal- Mogherini on the statement by US 260860 President Trump regarding the Iran Davis, J. (2017, Jult 17). Pro-Israel AIPAC nuclear deal (JCPOA). Retrieved October Creates Group to Lobby Against Iran 24, 2019, from European Union Deal. Retrieved October 17, 2019, from External Action: New York Times: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/ https://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs headquarters- t-draft/2015/07/17/pro-israel-aipac- homepage/44238/remarks-hrvp- creates-group-to-lobby-against-the- mogherini-statement-us-president- iran-deal/ trump-regarding-iran-nuclear-deal- Deibel, T. L. (2007). The International Strategic jcpoa_en Environment. Dalam T. L. Deibel, European Union. (2006). Elements of a proposal Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for to Iran as approved on 1 June 2006 at American Statecraft (hal. 35-76). the meeting in Vienna of China, France, Cambridge: Cambridge University Germany, the Russian Federation, he Press. United Kingdom, the Unites States of Department of Defense. (2018). Summary of the America and the European Union . 2018 National Defense Strategy of the Retrieved October 28, 2019, from United States of America. Retrieved Council Of the European Union: December 16, 2019, from Department https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueD of Defense: ocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/rep https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Do orts/90569.pdf cuments/pubs/2018-National-Defense- European Union. (2010, October 27). COUNCIL Strategy-Summary.pdf REGULATION (EU) No 961/2010 of 25

October 2010 on restrictive measures Haji-Yousefi, A. M. (2010). Iran's Foreign Policy against Iran and repealing Regulation during Ahmadinejad: From (EC) No 423/2007. Retrieved October Confrontation to Accommodation. 27, 2019, from Official Journal of the Annual Conference of the Canadian European Union: https://eur- Political Science Association (hal. 1-21). lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.d Montreal: Concordia University. o?uri=OJ:L:2010:281:0001:0077:EN:PD Hayden, M. (2012, January 12). Bush’s CIA F director: We determined attacking Iran Fathi, N. (2005, October 17). Wipe Israel 'off the was a bad idea. Retrieved November 05, map' Iranian says. Retrieved October 2019, from The Foreign Policy: 24, 2019, from The New York Times: https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/19 https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/2 /bushs-cia-director-we-determined- 7/world/africa/wipe-israel-off-the- attacking-iran-was-a-bad-idea/ map-iranian-says.html Heradstveit, D., & Bonham, G. M. (2007). What Flyn, L. (2006). Dealing with Tehran: Assessing the Axis of Evil Metaphor Did to Iran. US Diplomatic Options toward Iran. New MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL M Volume 61, York: A Century Foundation Report. No. 3, 421-439. Frank, D. J. (2018). Trump on the Couch: Inside Hill, C. (2003). The Changing Politics of Foreign the Mind of the President. New York: Policy. New York: Palgrave McMillian. Avery Press. Ho, C. (2015, July 21). AIPAC spent record $1.7 Frank, J. (2018, September 25). I used applied million as it lobbied Congress to review psychoanalysis to assess President Iran deal. Retrieved October 10, 2019, Trump. The diagnosis is frightening. from The Washington Post: Retrieved December 22, 2019, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/ne Stat News: ws/powerpost/wp/2015/07/20/aipac https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/ s-lobbying-spending-spikes-as-group- 25/donald-trump-applied- pushes-hard-to-oppose-iran-deal/ psychoanalysis-diagnosis/ Hoffman, P., & Lantis, J. (2019). The Battle for Gould, J., & III, L. S. (2017, October 7). Key U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress, Parties, Republicans, Dems blast Trump’s and Factions in the 21st Century. New surprise withdrawal from Syria. York: Springer Nature. Retrieved October 17, 2019, from Hunt, J. (2017). Nuclear Arms Control in US Defense News: Foreign Policy. Dalam J. Butler, Oxford https://www.defensenews.com/congre Research Encyclopedia of American ss/2019/10/07/key-republicans- History. Oxford: Oxford University dems-blast-trumps-surprise-syria- Press. withdrawal/ IAEA. (2003, June 19). Implementation of the Gulf Cooperation Council. (2019). Iranian Crisis. NPT safeguards agreement in the Retrieved November 5, 2019, from Islamic Republic of Iran. Retrieved Major achievements in the field of October 24, 2019, from IAEA Reports: foreign policy: https://www.gcc- https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/fil sg.org/en- es/gov2003-40.pdf us/CooperationAndAchievements/Achi IAEA. (2003). Report by the Director General. evements/PoliticalAffairs/Majorachiev Doc. GOV/2003/75. ementsinthefieldofforeignpolicy/Pages Iran Data Portal. (1979, November 5). Speech /Iransnuclearcrisis.aspx (On American Conspiracies). Retrieved Guttman. (2007). Iran's Pursuit of Nuclear September 9, 2019, from Iran Data Weapons. Retrieved October 17, 2019, Portal: from AIPAC: https://www.aipac.org/- http://irandataportal.syr.edu/speech- /media/publications/policy-and- on-american-conspiracies politics/aipac-analyses/issue- Jahanbegloo, R. (2009, June). The Obama memos/2007/01/irans_pursuit_of_nucl Administration and Iran:Towards a ear_weapons.pdf Constructive Dialogue. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from The Centre for

International Governance Innovation: rouhani-hold-historic-phone-call- https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/101207 idUSBRE98Q16S20130928 /WP_43-web_0.pdf Mattis Cited in The Hill. (2018, April 28). Mattis Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence. (1993). Lofty defends Iran deal as Trump considers Goals, meagre beginnings. Iran's nuclear withdrawal. Retrieved December 27, program: building a weapons 2019, from capability'. Director of Central https://thehill.com/policy/defense/38 Intelligence. 5094-mattis-defends-iran-deal-as- Karacasulu, Z. N., & Karakir, I. A. (2008). trump-considers-withdrawal Attitutes of International Community McCormick, J. M. (2011). The Obama Towards Iran's Nuclear Puzzle. Journal Presidency: A Foreign Policy of Change. of International and Area Studies, Vol. Transforming America: Barack Obama 15, Number 2, 1-19. in the White House, pp. 235- 266. Karakir, Z. N. (2008, December). Attitudes of Memoli, M. (2019, June 20). Biden once warned the International Community toward a president: War with Iran without Iran's Nuclear Puzzle. Journal of congressional approval is impeachable . International and Area Studies, 1-19. Retrieved October 17, 2019, from NBC Retrieved 2019, from Zehra Nilufer News: Karacasulu and Irem Askar Karakir. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20 Kodufayur, V. (2018, May 14). Ripples in the 20-election/biden-once-warned- Gulf: GCC States’ Reaction to Withdrawal president-war-iran-without- from Iran Deal Reflects Disunity. congressional-approval-impeachable- Retrieved 20, from Foundation for n1019041 Defense Democracy. Milner, H., & Tingley, D. (2015). Sailing the Leverett, H. M. (2008, October 7). Iran Gave US Water's Edge: The Domestic Politics of Help on Al-Qaeda after 9/11. Retrieved American Foreign Policy. New Jersey: October 28, 2019, from CBS News: Princeton University Press. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran- Muray, D. (2010). US Foreign Policy and Iran. gave-us-help-on-al-qaeda-after-9-11/ New York: Routledge. Maital, S. (2018, March 9). The Striking Myers, H. (1997). The US Policy of Dual Similarities between Trump and Containment Toward Iran and Iraq in Netanyahu. Retrieved from Jerusalem Theory and Practice. Alabama: Air War Post: College Air University. https://www.jpost.com/Jerusalem- Nader, A., Scotten, A. G., Rahmani, A. I., Stewart, Report/The-striking-similarities- R., & Manhad, L. (2014). Iran’s Influence between-Trump-and-Netanyahu- in Afghanistan: Implications for the U.S. 544468 Drawdown. California: RAND Marcos, C. (2015, November 9). House rejects Corporation. Obama's Iran deal. Retrieved October Netanyahu Cited in Middle East Monitor. (2018, 17, 2019, from The Hill: July 18). Netanyahu: Israel convinced https://thehill.com/blogs/floor- Trump to exit Iran nuclear deal. action/house/253370-house-rejects- Retrieved December 28, 2019, from iran-deal Middle East Monitor: Marsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of Great https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/ Power Politics. New York: Norton. 20180718-netanyahu-israel-convinced- Marsheimers, J., & Waltz, K. (2007). The Israel trump-to-exit-iran-nuclear-deal/ Lobby and US Foreign Policy. New York: Netanyahu, B. (1996, July 10). PM Netanyahu- Farrar, Straux & Giroux. Speech to US Congress- . Retrieved Mason, J., & Charbonneau, L. (2013, September November 5, 2019, from Israel Ministry 13). Obama, Iran's Rouhani hold historic of Foreign Affairs : phone call. Retrieved October 28, 2019, https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa- from Reuters: archive/1996/pages/pm%20netanyah https://www.reuters.com/article/us- u- un-assembly-iran/obama-irans-

%20speech%20to%20us%20congress- Olmet, O. (2006, May 24). Address by PM Olmert %20july%2010-%201996.aspx to a Joint Meeting of the US Congress. Netanyahu, B. (2010, July 6). Remarks by PM Retrieved November 5, 2019, from Netanyahu and US President Obama. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Retrieved November 5, 2019, from https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/S Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: peeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2006/Add https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/pressroo ress+by+PM+Olmert+to+a+joint+meeti m/2010/pages/remarks_pm_netanyah ng+of+US+Congress+24-May-2006.htm u_us_president_obama_6-jul-2010.aspx Parsi, T. (2008). Treacherous Alliance: The Netanyahu, B. (2015, March 4). Transcript of Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the Netanyahu Remarks to Congress. United States pp.249. Connecticut: Yale Retrieved November 05, 2019, from University Press. The New York Times: Pass, J. (2019). American Hegemony in the 21st https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/0 Century: A Neo Neo-Gramscian 4/us/politics/transcript-of- Perspective (Routledge Advances in netanyahus-remarks-to-congress.html International Relations and Global Obama cited in The White House. (2010, May). Politics). London: Routledge. National Security Strategy. Retrieved Perkins, T. (2019, Febuary 19). Pro-Israel December 16, 2019, from Obama White donors spent over $22m on lobbying and House: contributions in 2018. Retrieved https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov October 17, 2019, from The Guardian: /sites/default/files/rss_viewer/nationa https://www.theguardian.com/us- l_security_strategy.pdf news/2019/feb/15/pro-israel-donors- Obama cited in the White House. (2015, spent-over-22m-on-lobbying-and- February). National Security Strategy. contributions-in-2018 Retrieved December 16, 2019, from Pieper, M. (2017). Hegemony and Resistance Obama White House: Around the Iranian Nuclear Programme: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov Analysing Chinese, Russian and Turkish /sites/default/files/docs/2015_nationa Foreign Policies. Chicago: Taylor & l_security_strategy_2.pdf Francis. Obama, B. (2010, July 6). Remarks by PM Plesch, D. D., & Buthcer, M. (2007). Considering Netanyahu and US President Obama. a war with Iran: A discussion paper on Retrieved November 5, 2019, from WMD in the Middle East. London: SOAS. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Pollack, K. (2014). The Persian Puzzle: The https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/pressroo Conflict Between Iran and America. New m/2010/pages/remarks_pm_netanyah York: Random House. u_us_president_obama_6-jul-2010.aspx Riedel, B. O. (2016). The Clinton Administration. Obama, B. (2012, 03 04). Remarks President Retrieved October 28, 2019, from The Obama at AIPAC policy Conference. Iran Primer: Retrieved November 05, 2019, from https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/c The White House President Obama : linton-administration https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov Ripsman, N., Taliaferro, J., & Lobell, S. (2016). /the-press- Neoclassical Realist Theory of office/2012/03/04/remarks- International Politics. New York: Oxford president-aipac-policy-conference-0 University Press. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Robert Einhorn, R. N. (2019, March). (2019, January 29). Statement for the Constraining Iran's Future Nuclear Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of Capabilities. Retrieved September 30, the US Intelligence Community. 2019, from Brookings University: Retrieved September 30, 2019, from https://www.brookings.edu/wp- Office of the Director of National content/uploads/2019/03/FP_201903 Intelligence: 21_nuclear_capabilities_WEB.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/docu Rogers, P. (2005). The Second Bush ments/2019-ATA-SFR---SSCI.pdf Administration and US Policy Towards

Iran. J. Humanities Vol. 12 (1): (55-66) , The White House. (1994). A National Security 55-64. Strategy of Engagement and Rosati, J. A. (1995). A Cognitive Approach to the Enlargement. Retrieved October 24, Study of Foreign Policy. Dalam L. Neack, 2019, from Historial Office of the J. A. Hey, & P. J. Haney, Foreign Policy Secretary of Defense: Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its https://history.defense.gov/Historical- Second Generation (hal. 49-70). New Sources/National-Security-Strategy/ Jersey: Prentice Hall . The White House. (2002). National Security Rouhani Should Give Priority to Religious Strategy. Retrieved October 28, 2019, Freedom in Iran. (2013, September 18). from US Department of State Archive: Retrieved October 10, 2019, from US https://2009- Commision on International Religious 2017.state.gov/documents/organizatio freedom: n/63562.pdf https://www.uscirf.gov/reports- The White House. (2006). National Security briefs/perspectives/rouhani-should- Strategy. Retrieved October 24, 2019, give-priority-religious-freedom-in-iran from Historical Office of the Secretary Shank, G. (2015). Anatomy of a Done Deal: The of Defense: Fight over the Iran Nuclear Accord. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70 Social Justice, Vol. 14 No.1, 1-18. /Documents/nss/nss2006.pdf?ver=201 Shuel, R. (2006, March 7). AIPAC Conference 4-06-25-121325-543 Focuses on Hamas and Iran. Haaretz, The White House. (2010, May). National hal. 301-303. Security Strategy. Retrieved December SIPRI. (2019, April 29). World military 16, 2019, from Obama White House: expenditure grows to $1.8 trillion in https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov 2018. Retrieved December 17, 2019, /sites/default/files/rss_viewer/nationa from l_security_strategy.pdf https://www.sipri.org/media/press- The White House. (2015). The Historic Deal release/2019/world-military- that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a expenditure-grows-18-trillion-2018 Nuclear Weapon. Retrieved October 28, Smith, D. (2019, May 7). The US Withdrawal 2019, from The White House Barrack from the Iran Deal: One Year on. Obama: Retrieved September 30, 2019, from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov Stockholm International Peace /issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal Research Institute: The White House. (2016). The Iran Nuclear https://www.sipri.org/commentary/ex Deal: What You Need to Know about the pert-comment/2019/us-withdrawal- JCPOA. Retrieved December 17, 2019, iran-deal-one-year from Obama White House: SSRS. (2017, October). Two-thirds of Americans https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov want to stay in the deal. Retrieved /sites/default/files/docs/jcpoa_what_y October 17, 2019, from SSRS: ou_need_to_know.pdf http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/im The White House. (2017). Donald J Trump ages/10/20/rel10e.- Announces National Security Strategy .iran,.north.korea.pdf advances American Interests. Retrieved Steven Kull. (2007). Public Opinion in Iranand November 27, 2019, from America on Key International Issues. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings Maryland: The Program on -statements/president-donald-j-trump- International Policy Attitudes. announces-national-security-strategy- The White House. (2017, December 18). A New advance-americas-interests/ National Security Strategy for a New The White House. (2017, October 13). Remarks Era. Retrieved December 16, 2019, by President Trump on Iran Strategy. from Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings new-national-security-strategy-new- -statements/remarks-president-trump- era/ iran-strategy/

TThe White House. (2017). US National from United Nations: Security Strategy. Retrieved October 11, https://www.un.org/press/en/2010/s 2019, from The White House: c9948.doc.htm https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- UNSC. (2015, November 5). Resolution 2231 content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final- (2015) on Iran Nuclear Issue. Retrieved 12-18-2017-0905.pdf October 17, 2019, from UNSC: The White House. (2018, May 8). President https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/c Donald J. Trump is Ending United States ontent/2231/background Participation in an Unacceptable Iran US Congressional Research Service. (2018). Deal. Retrieved December 16, 2019, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations. from Congressional Research Service. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings US Deparment of Treasury. (2019). Iran -statements/president-donald-j-trump- Sanctions . Retrieved November 5, ending-united-states-participation- 2019, from Resource Center: unacceptable-iran-deal/ https://www.treasury.gov/resource- The White House. (2019). National Security center/sanctions/programs/pages/ira Council. Retrieved December 16, 2019, n.aspx from The White House: US Department of State. (2019). Iran. Retrieved https://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ September 30, 2019, from US Tibon, A. (2018, May 9). U.S. Jews Torn Over Department of State: Trump's Exit From Iran Nuclear Deal. https://www.state.gov/countries- Retrieved October 18, 2019, from areas/iran/ Haaretz: U.S. Jews Torn Over Trump's US Government Accountability Office. (2013, Exit From Iran Nuclear Deal February). Report to the Chairman, Toosi, N. (2016, 04 10). J Street spots push back Committee on Homeland Security and on GOP Iran deal advertising. Retrieved Governmental Affairs, US Senate. October 18, 2019, from Politico: Retrieved October 28, 2019, from US https://www.politico.com/story/2016 Government Accountability Office: /10/j-street-ad-iran-deal-229048 https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652 Truman cited in Bessette and Pitney. (2011). 314.pdf American Governmen and Politics: Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Deliberation, Democracy, and Politics. California: Addison-Wesley Citizenship. Massachusetts: Wadsworth Series. Cengage Learning. Yerah, T. (1997). US, Iran in Secret Talks. Tel UN. (2015, July 15). Security Council, Adopting Aviv: Haaretz. Resolution 2231 (2015), Endorses Joint Zion, I. B., & Winer, S. (2016, November 9). Comprehensive Agreement on Iran’s Netanyahu hails Donald Trump as a Nuclear Programme. Retrieved October ‘true friend’ of Israel. Retrieved 28, 2019, from UN News: December 18, 2019, from Times of https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/s Israel: c11974.doc.htm https://www.timesofisrael.com/netany UNSC. (2010, June 9). Security Council Imposes ahu-hails-trump-as-a-true-friend-of- Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 israel/ in Favour to 2 Against, with 1 Abstention. Retrieved October 28, 2019,