Israeli and Iranian Use of the "War on Terror" to Articulate and Achieve Foreign Policy Goals (original) (raw)
Related papers
US War on Terror and Iranian Foreign Policy Objectives
ABSTRACT: This paper analyzes the ways in which Iranian political leaders responded to the events of 9/11 and rhetorically appropriated the U.S. “war on terror” in support of Iranian foreign policy objectives. From the Iranian point of view, US President George W. Bush’s uncompromising assertion that “you are either for us or against us” posed both dangers and opportunities. Ultimately, Iran would choose to reject both options. In the three and a half months between Sept. 11, 2001 and Bush’s State of the Union address on Jan 29, 2002, Iran was remarkably successful in taking advantage of the US “war on terror” in attaining several of its long-term foreign policy objectives. Bush’s denunciation of Iran as part of an “axis of evil” helped to undermine the domestic political positions of some Iranian political leaders who had been the strongest advocates of rapprochement with Europe and the US, but it strengthened the position of Iranian hardliners and ideologues and set the stage for the defeat of pragmatists and reformists during Iran’s 2005 election. Presented at the Middle East and Central Asia (MECA) Conference Univ. of Utah, Sept. 7-9, 2006
This paper discusses the significance of the cooperation between the United States and Iran for the Middle East region. It will be argued that despite the political and ideological conflicts between the U.S. and Iran, reaching a " point by point " agreement would best help to resolve Middle East predicaments, especially the Islamic terrorism. To achieve this, the following pages examine the historical background of issues such as terrorism in the Middle East. This paper also focuses on two main paths to support the better U.S.-Iran cooperation, if not talking about relations at all. First, the theory of " point by point " approach helps both countries to tackle tough agendas and overcome the predicaments in the Middle East. Second, to reach the desired cooperation between these two countries, both the U.S. and Iran need to overcome their own internal constraints as well as the external constrains imposed by other countries. This paper takes an historical and theoretical approach to reveal the two countries' common interests in the Middle East. The general thesis argues that the Middle East's security requires the United States and Iran to develop a diplomatic and military cooperation.
Deciphering Revisionism: Is Iranian Foreign Policy in the Middle East Offensive or Defensive?
Deciphering Revisionism: Is Iranian Foreign Policy in the Middle East Offensive or Defensive?, 2018
This research focuses on Iranian foreign policy. More specifically, it aims to discover whether Iranian foreign policy in the Middle East is offensive or defensive. Offensive foreign policy means that Iran would seek to dominate countries like Iraq and Yemen without the threat of U.S. intervention. Defensive foreign policy means that Iran is seeking to dominate countries like Iraq and Yemen because it fears that if these countries were to succumb to U.S. influence, the Iranian regime would be threatened. This research includes a literature review in the topics of international relations (IR) realism, constructivism, the history of the Middle East, the history of Iran, Middle Eastern geopolitics, Iranian foreign policy, and U.S. foreign policy. The research hypothesizes that Iranian foreign policy is offensive, seeking to dominate countries like Iraq and Yemen without the threat of U.S. intervention. Interviews were conducted with oral questionnaires distributed during the interviews. These interviews and questionnaires were given to experts on Iranian foreign policy, found at think tanks and universities like the Arab Institute for Security Studies, the Middle East Institute, and the University of Jordan. Because of Iranian foreign policy’s hypothesized offensiveness, U.S. policy toward the Middle East should invest in the Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese, and Yemeni economies to gain leverage over these countries and regions. If these places continue to be places from which Iran will support terrorists, the U.S. should sanction the countries in which these terrorists congregate and offer U.S. personnel to combat these terrorists. Terrorists include members of Hezbollah, Iranian-backed Shia militias, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. This study contributes qualitative perspectives from experts on Iranian foreign policy, Middle Eastern geopolitics, and U.S. foreign policy.
The U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East. The Evolution of the Strategic Partnership with Israel
Strategic impact, 2020
The background for this research is represented by the importance of the regional security complex of the Middle East in international relations. In this context, the article approaches the aspects of the United States of America’s security and foreign strategy in the Middle East, between 2016-2020. Through this study we want to highlight the main concepts that guided the foreign policy strategies implemented by Trump administration in the Middle East. Moreover, we want to highlight the characteristics of the strategic partnership between the United States of America and Israel and its importance for the Middle East’s stability. From a methodological point of view, we used the discourse analysis.
Permanent War, Elusive Peace: The Evolution of America's Compellence Policy Towards Iran
Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, 2021
Introduction In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq, a new fluid strategy has been emerging to guide American foreign policy well into the twenty-first century. This strategy has been largely the product of a group of influential neoconservative hawks, or, in the words of James Mann, the “Vulcans” inside and outside of the U.S. government.3 With their emphasis on regime change, the neoconservatives have continuously drafted grandiose plans to redraw the geostrategic map of the Middle East to Washington’s liking. For example,