The relationship between the United States and Iran has been acrimonious in recent decades. That is why the United States must reconsider its policy toward Iran, owing to its vast oil resources and critical role in defining regional and global political and nuclear stability. A little historical context is essential to obtain an accurate impression of the topic at hand. Furthermore, the principal aim of US policy toward Iran must be identified and stated and the course of action required to achieve it. Ultimately, owing to the problem’s complexity, an accurate assessment of the success rate of these activities is required.
In recent decades, the Iranian state has undergone numerous necessary political transformations, the most excellent notable being the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The domestic and international policy was shifted due to the Islamic Revolution (Jansen et al., 2020). On the one hand, the nation became a proponent of revolutions as a strategy of transforming and consolidating power; on the other, it paved the ground for the formation of a revolutionary and autocratic foreign policy, culminating in the 1981 hostage crisis. Notwithstanding the backing it received throughout the Iran-Iraq conflict, Tehran maintained its antagonistic attitude regarding the West. Since the conclusion of the Cold War, it grew increasingly averse to the democratic rule of law, denying collaboration and oversight from the international society.
The United States’ principal priority in its foreign policy with Iran
Considering that Iran is the globe’s second oil vendor after Saudi Arabia, it is reasonable to conclude that the United States’ most important objective in foreign policy toward Iran is to maintain a stable partnership with a democratic Iranian nation that will allow the United States as well as the rest of the world to profit from an appropriate and adequate flow of energy resources. Currently, the global community is reconsidering Iran as a danger to global security due to the circumstances produced by the Iranian need for nuclear power. As a result, the current situation of discussions in this sector is a source of tremendous anxiety and attention for the United States.
Such political realities necessitate a variety of other viewpoints. To begin, a committed relationship necessitates the reduction and enhancement of the two states’ communication channels and the Iranian administration’s metamorphosis into something less antagonistic negotiation and debate partner. Furthermore, if Iran is considered a legitimate conversation participant, the democracy spirit inside the Iranian regime must be reconsidered. Finally, the United States should use all available tools to secure and encourage a larger sense of collaboration between Iran and the international community.
Actions needed in the US-Iran relations
To accomplish most of this and enhance the present state of things among the two countries, the US should take two steps. On the one hand, incentives to reassure the Iranian administration of its readiness to engage in the spirit of good growth, and on the other, coercive actions to send a clear message to Tehran that they must participate in international and the US demands in order to restore ties. As a result, steps should be made at both the diplomatic and political levels and the economic and military levels.
Every international relationship’s most excellent valuable resource is the diplomatic channel. As a result, the US must concentrate its efforts on helping to find a peaceful resolution to the present situation surrounding Nuclear activities (Mastro, 2019). Undoubtedly, there are differing viewpoints on the best course of action. The conservatives believe that Iran’s national nuclear program is legitimate. On the other hand, the opponents see it as a danger to world security.
On a political level, the US administration would have to participate in discussions involving internal decision-makers, including the government’s moderate elements and Iran’s partners and neighbors. This might be accomplished by engaging with regional officials and pushing political projects critical to the region’s growth. This would increase confidence between regional parties and the US, resulting in greater collaboration in the area and forcing Iran to cooperate in return.
Although studies have proven Iran is in persistent violation of the nonproliferation pact, the Americans must implement the treaty more effectively. The United States’ privileged status as the market’s most crucial trading player allows it to implement trade restrictions that significantly impact the Iranian government’s trade balance. The US may continue to apply import restrictions with the help of other friendly governments, which will eventually dissuade Iran from becoming more cooperative. Nevertheless, to avert a development comparable to North Korea’s, this policy must incorporate a reasonable ratio among the expenses and advantages of such efforts. It is doubtful that the scenario will deteriorate in that direction if the US takes military action, particularly given the massive deployments of soldiers in neighboring Iraq and the adverse reactions it sparked (Mastro, 2019). While there have numerous voices considering a future war, either in support or opposition, such a scenario would be both logistically unfeasible as well as politically unacceptable. The fundamental reason for this would be the impending deterioration of any diplomatic possibilities of achieving a deal, as well as an inevitable loss of Arab backing for any future American attempts.
Challenges facing the US
Particular problems may impede the US from attaining its objectives due to the issue’s complexities. First, there would have been a political roadblock. Meanwhile, the Iranian leadership is focused on strengthening diplomatic and economic connections with other nuclear-armed states, such as North Korea, which would be equally hesitant to resolve its issues with the international community on the subject. Furthermore, the different cultures amongst the Islamic country and the United States might be an essential aspect in the relationships involving the two countries at times(Indyk, 2021). Because the term “democracy” has varied connotations, efforts must be taken to create common ground.
Furthermore, considering the United States lacks trustworthiness in the Arab community, mainly owing to its violent adventures in the past few decades, there may be difficulty executing American policies due to a low level of public support and collaboration, particularly among radicals. Ultimately, any effort that interferes with the Iranian administration’s predetermined objective is likely to elicit unfavorable responses from the Tehran authorities, which might manifest as oil supply boycotts. Given Iran’s role in the global oil flow and the requirement and growing demand for energy all through the globe, any responses in these terms may constrain or at least modify the American policy.
Ultimately, the United States, as one of the greatest leading players in the world arena as well as as the only state with both the political and practical capacity to influence the Iranian government, must pursue a strategy that will improve both bilateral relations with Iran and the country’s international standing. In order to accomplish so, the US must use a combination of stick and carrot methods, including diplomatic and political initiatives on the one hand, as well as economic and military penalties if required. Still, it is essential to remember that several obstacles stand in the way of the US attaining its objectives, including North Korea, a lack of credibility in the Middle East, and a pressing need for oil.
Indyk, M. (2021). Order before Peace: Kissinger’s Middle East Diplomacy and Its Lessons for Today. Foreign Aff., 100, 153.
Jansen, W. E., Fazzi, D., & Douwes, D. (2020). Achieving A Nuclear Deal: A Track II Diplomacy Analysis of the US-Iran Nuclear Relations.
Mastro, O. S. (2019). Diplomacy and War: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations. In The Costs of Conversation (pp. 126-142). Cornell University Press.