Making Sense of The Iran-U.S. Relations
Making Sense of The Iran-U.S. Relations
Making Sense of The Iran-U.S. Relations
Relations
Introduction
The relationship between the United States and Iran is best characterized by looking at
specific events in the past like the Iran’s Islamic revolution and hostage crisis in the early 80s,
the Iran-Iraq War, the 9/11 attack, the Iraq invasion among others. However, students of
international relations can recognize the way in which America’s behavior towards Iran fits well
to the pattern of American international relations and diplomacy. Such were products of
geopolitics, domestic politics, and history. Moreover, the United States’ way of engaging with
Iran for the past several decades is ostensibly consistent with the ways that they employed in
However, on another level it is arguable that the relationship between Iran and the United
States of America transcend rational interests like political power, regional influence, or control
of natural and other economic resources. In lieu, such relationship, characterized with hostility
and mistrust, is shaped by the more rooted and profound institution that is religion—the single
most powerful determinant of cultural and civilizational development in the Middle East.
This literature review will discuss a few works that explains and makes sense of (1) the
behavior of the United States towards Iran and vice versa, and (2) how these attitudes are
explicable, not just in terms of realpolitik, but also in terms of differences that penetrates
identity, culture, and civilization. In this sense, the relationship of the United States and Iran
ought to be understood with layers of perspective and analyses, in lieu of just one theory in
international relations.
It is only when we understand this crucial background, can we make sense of Iran’s role
in the proliferation of armed groups and militias throughout the region that serve as embodiments
of the nature of actors in the conflicts in the Middle East, that are also exported in different parts
of the world through the current character of terrorism that is extremist, anti-Western, anti-
The Americans’ attitude towards the importance of international relations is said to have
been shaped by its unique geographical location, and its experiences with its border neighbors.
Simply put, the geographic characteristics of the New World—a place of both abundance and
wilderness, where civilization was created from the ground up. The “harsh natural environment
in some ways represented an ideal opportunity for a people who manifestly believe that it was
their duty to carve civilization out of wilderness… (it) provided a unique environment for living
out the ideas of the Enlightenment” [ CITATION Rya18 \l 1033 ]. Therefore, wild American claims
of exceptionalism and white man’s burden was reinforced by the premises of the American
nation.
They were convinced that the things that they were able to do to their lands at the onset of
their colonialism in the New World, they can do elsewhere. It was not surprising therefore, that
by the nineteenth century, as the United States of America consolidate itself as a relatively young
nation, it would start hoisting itself among the powers that vie for power and dominance in Latin
For more than a century, the belief that the great American nation is obliged to ensure
that the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the
earth” mobilized American foreign policy. From the days when the U.S. congress and the
American public debated American occupation of Pacific territories after the Spanish-American
War in 1898, to the debates that surrounded the invasion of Iraq and the U.S. War on Terror after
9/11, American exceptionalism informed the paradigm of the American foreign policy
[ CITATION Hil12 \l 1033 ]. Within this century, such justification was observable in the way the
The manifestations just vary from one historical context to the next. From civilizing the
savage peoples of Asia and Africa in the 19th and early 20th century, fighting for freedom against
the fascist powers during the Second World War, to containing the authoritarian socialist
ideologies in the decades of the Cold War, to subduing terrorists during the War on Terror, the
United States has always positioned itself as the defender of liberalism. As Ryan (2018) puts it,
“(t)hroughout their history, Americans have tended to frame their conflicts as righteous crusades
of universal significance
Corollary to this, the United States tend to perceive another nation as monolithic.
that they happen to deal with. In looking at post-1949 China for example, the United States
simply saw the most populous nation on earth as communist and hence as something that is in
diametric opposition to them in terms of ideology. Such perception informed the actions that
they undertook in dealing with China and consequently made them neglect certain particularities
and cracks that they can utilize in crafting a more strategic and nuanced approach their
diplomatic relations [ CITATION Rya18 \l 1033 ]. The United States is always inclined to look at
Nevertheless, for all of the American ideals, the reality would catch up with them in no
time. Hence, while hard selling their profound commitment to democracy as the main reason
behind these crusades, America would see itself becoming a giant walking contradiction. In
many instances, as America endeavors to hoist itself as the strongest nation in the world and
subvert dissidence from smaller and less powerful societies, it forged alliances with the most
brutal despots and dictators whose regimes go in direct opposition to American values
[ CITATION McC17 \l 1033 ]. These contradictions haunt American foreign policy until the
present.
The place of Iran in the Middle East has always been volatile because of its persisting
religious uniqueness. Hence, unlike the other troublesome foreign relationships of America
whose complications are rooted from ideology, the main issue that it had with Iran came from
religion. At the onset, the concern of the United States toward Iran was anchored on its conflict
with Russia. The Iranian Shah sovereign sought for the protection of the U.S. as Russian
invasion loomed, and U.S. wanted to establish influence in the region extended such assistance.
However, when the U.S.-allied, corrupt and unpopular Shah government was deposed and
replaced by a Shiite regime, the U.S. and Iran began deeply conflicted relationship.
In Ryan’s (2018) analysis, the failure of the U.S. to prevent the ouster of its allied Iranian
government was due to its negligence of actual diplomacy work. It failed to take a nuanced view
of the domestic condition in Iran, hence failed to assess the growing domestic discontent and the
rise of an Islamic movement. When the Islamic Republic of Iran was established after 1979, the
tune of the U.S.-Iran conflict changed to that of civilizational clash. As Iran tried to protect its
Islamic regime, it sponsored movements and militias throughout the region. Ironically, the initial
trainings of these militias and the artillery of Iraq (America’s main opponent during the War on
Terror), came from the U.S. It is not an exaggeration to say that the United States created its
popular Iranian leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown from power by a Shah,
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with the assistance and help of the United States. The significant
restrictions in the oil industry propagated by Mohammad Mossadegh led to Great Britain’s lost
of control over Iran’s oil reserves [ CITATION WuL19 \l 13321 ]. This economic restriction was
the main reason why the Great Britain needed to ask the U.S. for the latter’s help to overthrow
this leader. However, the regime of Pahlavi also ended through the assistance of the U.S
The civil war that broke down crippled Iran’s economy. However, it did not stop it from
developing its military capabilities and innovation. Iran’s influence over Middle East has
expanded through Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. There were various militias trained around the
region. One way that Iran did this was its aggressive and religious training and financing of
militias that fight U.S. troops. Two key examples of such effort was its effort for Lebanon in
1980’s and for Iraq in 2003 [ CITATION Kra20 \l 13321 ]. To get back against Iran, what the U.S.
did was to have facilitated significant economic restrictions that truly crippled Iran’s economy.
Iran and U.S. then came to an agreement they called the Iran Nuclear Deal which on the one
hand, stopped the U.S. from putting so much economic restrictions against Iran and on the other
hand, prevented Iran from further developing its nuclear weapons. This agreement has been
It is worthwhile to note that Iran’s strong sentiments against America was not anchored
solely on protecting their political interest and sovereignty. It was also largely anchored on their
strong resistance against Western attacks on Islam and passionate defense of the Islamic
character of their regime. Following Samuel Huntington’s theorizing, the present form of conflict
in the world, would no longer be between the nation-states, but between civilizations[ CITATION
Hun96 \l 1033 ]. The clash between the Western and the Islamic civilization has been
underscored after the 9/11, but the conflict between Iran and the United States for almost more
References
Gambrell, J. (2020, January 03). What we know about U.S. tensions with Iran. Retrieved from
tensions-with-iran
Hilfrich, F. (2012). Debating American Exceptionalism: Empire and Democracy in the Wake of
Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York:
Krauss, J. (2020, January 03). How Iran has created a network of powerful allies in the Middle
has-created-a-network-of-powerful-allies-in-the-middle-east
McCoy, A. (2017). In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S.
Ryan, G. (2018). US Foreign Policy towards China, Cuba, and Iran. New York: Routledge.
Wu, L., & Lanz, M. (2019, February 07). How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days.
overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days