American and Iranian Perspectives on the Tensions Between Both Countries - Movie Review Example

Showdown with Iran: Video Review and Analysis Do you agree that the US efforts to install democracy in Iraq have served Iranian interests? The Frontline video “showdown with Iran” provides unprecedented access to Iranian government policy makers and suggests that the Middle East conflict and recent role of the US in Iraq have only operated to further serve Iranian interests. The video provides access to both American and Iranian perspectives on the tensions between both countries. On the one hand, the immediate aftermath of September 11 and the Bush administration’s foreign policy initiatives moved the US foreign policy towards unilateralism where national security was of prime importance over a multilateral approach. The events of September 11 triggered a shift in US focus towards Iraq where Bush brandished Iraq as one of the three states that “axis of evil” and that Iraq posed a “grave and growing danger”. Not only did this rhetoric provide a significant trigger for the US military action in Iraq; Operation Iraqi Freedom was further distinct in signalling US unilateralist behaviour in contemporary execution of foreign policy objectives. When considered against the backdrop of US relations with Iran, it is evident since Reagan’s administration in the 1980s, there has been growing resentment in Iran against US since its role in the Iraq/Iran war. For example, during the 1980s, US policy was distinctly supportive of Iraq, particularly with regard to the Iran and Iraq war. For instance, during the Iran/Iraq war the Reagan Administration secured the passing of UN resolution 598, which from the Iranian perspective feel short in respect of their demands for the end of the war and UN resolution 598 required Iran to withdraw first from Iraqi territory before any steps would be taken by the UN Security Council to address any potentially legitimate Iranian concerns under international law. However, Iranian inability to comply resulted in UN Security Council sanctions to prevent an Iraqi defeat. Therefore, this clearly catalysed a growing tension in the relations between US and Iran. This is further highlighted in the video and the video footage of the Ayatollah’s sermon and his reference to hatred of US interference in Iranian affairs and the Middle East. The video also suggests that the Iranian view has become symptomatic of a wider growing unrest in the region towards American activity in the Middle East, which is reinforced by the Ayatollah’s palpable anger towards the US action in Iraq under Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition to the growing national Iranian hatred of the US, the video also provides access to policy makers and footage which highlights the growing influence and military capabilities of Iran. This in turn has fuelled debate as to whether the US diplomatic efforts in Iraq have served to further Iranian interests. On the one hand, the growing unease of the Middle East at US presence clearly lends itself to support of the Iranian rhetoric in the region and has contributed to increased support for the national regime. Additionally, from a tactical perspective the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime coupled with the growing resentment in the region towards US presence in Iraq also has provided Iran with the perfect opportunity to ensure that Iraq is no longer a threat to Iran, which clearly operates to serve Iran’s interests. Furthermore, Iran has sought to exploit investment opportunities in Iraq with a growing market for Iranian products. There are also reports that Iran is furthering its interested by supporting pro-Iranian factions in Iraq and creating divides between political leaders in order to increase power and build economic ties. In particular, the US is concerned about the Iran’s support for the Shiite factions in Iraq and therefore there is clearly a risk of increasing Iran power that has arguably been facilitated by Operation Iraqi freedom. This is further supported by the fact that many of Iraq’s current leaders were in exile in Iran and whilst in the March 2010 elections the Iranian campaign suffered setbacks, there is still significant Iranian influence on political blocs in Iraq, which again has significant long term repercussions for the US in terms of increasing Iranian power after the US forces leave in 2011. 2) With respect to the current war in Iraq, what roles does Iran play in this conflict? The video highlights how growing unrest in the region towards US interference has not only served to further Iran’s influence in the region, but with regard to Iraq there is clearly evidence that Iran has been furthering its interests through trying to shape political developments and increase economic interests in the area. As such, Iran’s role and objective has been to further its interests through destabilising Iraq. Additionally, with its support for the Shiite factions in Iraq, this has served to increase ethnic divides in Iraq, which in turn has fuelled in fighting. As a result, the complex socio-cultural backdrop of Iraq has provided a significant challenge for conventional military strategy and led to a US presence in the country far longer than originally planned. 3) Tracking the tension between US and Iran what are the best/worse case scenarios facing the two countries against each other? It is evident from the footage in the video and the current state of relations between Iran and the US that the best case scenario would be to attempt to open the channels of communication with a view towards rational and diplomatic talks. This would clearly be beneficial in bringing issues into the open and avoid the pitfalls of the cat and mouse “dangerous game” referred to in the frontline video. Alternatively, the worst case scenario would be instability in the oil industry as the frontline video demonstrates the presence of US military in the area to help ensure safe and secure passage of oil supplies to the West. The area covered is very close to Iranian waters and therefore clearly there is a risk of destabilisation if matters escalated between the US and Iran. Additionally, another worst case scenario is the potential nuclear risk. For example, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had “failed to meet its obligations under its safeguards agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the subsequent processing and use of that nuclear material, the subsequent processing and use of that material and the declaration of facilities where the material was stored and processed” (www.iaea.org accessed December 2010). The 2003 report highlighted the fact that Iran has concealed or failed to declare examples of nuclear activity, which clearly raises concerns at international level, particularly in light of Iran’s alleged increasing role in global terrorism (Potemski, 2007). Whilst Iran’s nuclear programme was theoretically suspended in 1979, since the Iran/Iraq war, the efforts to advance nuclear capabilities have redoubled and many argue that alongside ostensibly “legitimate” efforts to expand Iran’s nuclear power generation industry, there has been a parallel development of a covert nuclear weapons proliferation programme (Walton & Gray, 2007). The central problem however lies in ascertaining the extent of Iran’s nuclear capabilities due to lack of cogent evidence (Potemski, 2007; Walton & Gray, 2007). The uncertainty regarding the extent of Iran’s nuclear capabilities further fuels concerns regarding Iran’s funding of Hamas and other alleged terrorist groups (Potemski, 2007). Moreover, in “Deterring a Nuclear Iran”, Zaborski proposes a hypothetical scenario in the Gulf where American, Russian and Iranian interests conflict and asserts that “a rogue state that actually has a nuclear capability commits an act of aggression in a key region, and then threatens to employ its nuclear weapons to deter retaliation by the United States, Russia or other external actors” (Zaborski, 2005). The potential ramifications to international relations remain cogent as Iran has never acknowledged Israel as a state. Whilst Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has resumed development of uranium enrichment program as part of its civilian nuclear energy program. Whilst this is permitted under Article IV of the NPT in 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement in an unusual non-consensus decision, after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment (www.iaea.org). However, this appears to politically driven by US controlled UN drive to maintain the international security order (Potemski, 2007). Notwithstanding the 2003 report and temporary standoff from Iran, the country resumed its enrichment program in 2007 with the US concluding that Iran was in violation of Article III of the NPT (www.iaea.org). Therefore, Iran’s actions suggest a distinct national objective towards increasing its power and role on the international stage, which clearly has long term implications for stability in international affairs in the long term, particularly in light of Iran’s ability to exploit the destabilisation of Iraq in order to increase its power in the Middle East. Question 4: Do you think the themes in the video are still relevant now? Would you recommend the video to others? The frontline showdown video was broadcast in 2007 and many of the themes covered in the program are just as relevant now as they were in 2007. It was hoped that the Iran election of 2009 would herald a new era in Iranian politics and its relations with the US. However, the controversial result and ensuing national protests only served to leave US and Iran relations on the same footing. With the same regime in place and a US withdrawal on the horizon, this only serves to further Iranian interests with its influence still being strong. Additionally, since 2007 there has been growing unrest and resentment towards US presence in Iraq in the region as a whole, which has been perpetuated by leaked reports of civilian torture and record civilian deaths as highlighted by the October 2010 wiki leaks report. Additionally, whilst the Obama administration remains committed to removal of US troops by 2011, Iraq’s top army Officer General Zebari suggested has suggested that Iraqi troops will not be fully trained or equipped until at least 2020. Therefore, this leaves the conundrum whereby continued US presence in Iraq serves Iranian interests, whereas withdrawal could also increase the current instability thereby enabling exploitation by Iran to increase its power in the region. Accordingly, it is submitted that the central issues discussed in the video regarding the relationship between Iran and the US are still just as relevant. Furthermore, it is recommended that anyone interested in ascertaining a balanced view of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the state of relations between US and Iran should watch the video. Many other media outlets have been instrumental in influencing public opinion on this contentious issue, whereas the Frontline showdown video doesn’t seek to impose an opinion on the viewer. Additionally, the video provides unprecedented insider access to both the US military and Iranian government footage and provides a balanced portrayal of both sides interests in explaining the risks posed to the region and the international framework by the poor diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. References Frontline: Showdown with Iran 23 October 2007 Potemski, P. “State Sponsored Nuclear Terrorism: A new deterrence challenge?” (2007) Online at www.ndc.nato.int/download/publications accessed December 2010 Walton, C.D. & Gray, C.S. The Second Nuclear Age: Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-First Century. In Strategy and Contemporary World, edited by John Baylis, (2007) Zaborski, J. “Deterring a Nuclear Iran”, (2005), The Washington Quarterly: 153-167. Websites The International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Data centre at www.iaea.org accessed December 2010. Read More