The Consequences of 9/11 on American Relations with the Muslim World - Coursework Example

Introduction US relations with the countries of the Muslim world have been characterized by a long history of hostilities, conflict and perhaps misperceptions most of which emanate from US policies in respect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Telhami, 47-48) The events of September 11 only served to foster a preexisting atmoshpere of mistrust and suspicions between the Muslim world and Americans. (Telhami,47-48) By declaring global war against terrorism the Muslim world perceived itself as a target. (Rabasa, 51) The US position against terrorism strained relations with Iran in particular when in 2002, President George Bush publicly identified Iran together with Iraq and North Korea as representative of an “axis of evil” claiming that the development of nuclear weapons by these three regions was a threat to the safety and security of the United States in the global war agianst terrorism.(Amuzwgar, p.1) There are two sides to the current US/Iran relations. Publicly each country refused to legitimize the other, but privately there is evidence that both countries are not averse to rapproachment. (Ansari p. 109) The US policy in respect of Iran is characterized by threats and isolation both on an economic and military basis. Iran on the other hand has developed a policy toward the US that is characterized by anti-American rhetoric.(Ansari, p. 111) It is obvious that the key to US/Iran rapproachment is a change of policy on both sides. Overview of History of US/Iran Relations: From the Carter Administration to the Clinton Adminsitration Until 1979 US/Iran political relations was best described as cordial. In fact once Jimmy Carter became president of the United States tensions were created as a result of the presidents open comments against the Shah’ s history of human rights infringements. Carter pressed the Shah of Iran to permit freedom of speech particularly among his political opposers.(Warren, p. 3) While key figures in US politics such as David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger were opposed to Carter’s open condemnation of Iran’s imperialistic government, Carter took significant steps toward the development of the US isolation policy toward Iran. He commenced a series of sanctions which blocked the export of rubber bullets and tear gas to Iran.(Warrant, p. 5) By 1979 Iran suffered its own internal political unrest with a revolution that resulted in the ousting of the Shah who was replaced by Ayatollah Khomeni and the mutual distruct between the US and Iran commenced.(Warren, p. 11) Khomeni’s attitude toward the US was characterized by public statements in which he described the United States as the “Great Satan” and country consisting of “infidels.”(Houghton, p, 22) When the deposed Shah of Iran contracted cancer and asked permision to enter the United States for treatment, Carter reluctantly agreed. This move caused further outrage against the US on the part of Iranian revolutionaries who claimed that the Shah was nothing more than a US puppet. Moreover, Carter’s permission for the deposed Shah to enter the US for cancer treatment was used as a means of justification on the part of students associated with the Khomeini faction when on November 4, 1979 they entered the US embassy in Iran and held 52 US hostages for 444 days.(Houghton, p. 46) On April 7, 1980 the US officially severed diplomatic relations with Iran permitting the Swiss Government to represent the US interests in Iran. Likewise Pakistan commenced representation of Iranian interests in the US.(Houghton, p. 130) On January 19, 1981 an Iran-United States Claims Tribunal was established at The Hague in the Netherlands and on January 20, 1981 a treaty was signed following which the US hostages were released.(Houghton, p. 146) The systematic break down of US/Irani relations followed culminating in a series of economic sanctions.(Houghton) Under the Reagan administration US/Irani relations continued to remain tense and amidst the tension a political scandal, the Iran-Contra Affair tested the credibility of both nations. The Affair involved the clandestine sale and supply of arms to Iran despite the US position in 1984 that Iran was a “sponsor of international terrorism”.(Walsh, p. 4) The US commenced with what has come to be known as “operation staunch” which was predicated on the isolationist policy and encouraged US allies not to supply Iran with arms.(Walsh, p.4) This operation stemmed from the 1983 Hezbollah bombings which Armericans attributed to anti-American terrorist attacks.. The attacks include the US Embassy bombing in April 1983 which killed 17 Americans, 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut killing 214 US peace keeping missionaries. (Walsh, p. 5) In 1988 more tensions grew between Iran and the US when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 killing approximately 290 civilians from at least six countries. Although the US paid reparations to Iran in the sum of $61.8 Million, they never apologized.(Walsh, p.7) By 1995, under President Bill Clinton the US placed a total embargo against Iran and in 1996 Congress enacted the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act which makes the following policy declaration: “Policy With Respect to Iran: The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to deny Iran the ability to support acts of international terrorism and to fund the development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them by limiting the development of Irans ability to explore for, extract, refine, or transport by pipeline petroleum resources of Iran.”(Iran and Libya Sanctions Act 1996, Section 3(a)) The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act 1996 included a number of sanctions against US companies and allies that traded with both Iran and Libya.(Iran and Libya Sanctions Act 1996 Section 6) By 1998 Khatami was elected president of Iran and there was a glimmer of hope that US/Iran relations would improve particularly after Khatami made a plea for a dialogue between the two countries. US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded and talks commenced with a view to negotiating an end to embargoes specifically on Carpet and pistachio exports to the US.(Keddie, p. 265) Further informal talks were conducted at the Inter-Parliamentary (Congress-to-Majiis) meetings when four Members of the Iranian Parliament met with four Members of the US Congress on August 31, 2000.(Keddie, p. 266) At this stage it looked as though US/Iran relations were on the road to recovery. The Bush Administration/Post 9/11 Since taking office in late 2000 President George W. Bush and his administration has taken a confrontational approach to Iran. This approach came to the forefront following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on US soil. Even before the terrorist attacks Congress reenacted the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act 1996 by a senate majority of 96-2.(Sullivan, 2002) Even prior to September 11, Iranian citizens were required to be finger printed upon arrival in the US.(Sullivan, 2002) It is therefore not surprising that in George Bush’s State of Union Address he referred to Iran as a part of the axis of evil.(Sullivan, 2002) Historically, or at least since 1979 the US has viewed Iran as a state that sponsored terrorism and subscribed to it. Academics claim that this grouping of Iran as a rogue nation only served to heighten Iran and Iranians’ dim view of the US. By and large Iran had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the US and in fact, Iran was instrumental in assisting the US with its dismantling of the Taliban. Moreover, Iran was pleased to see Saddam Hussein’s capture and destruction.(Lennon, p. 284) Despite Iran’s position and its willingness to stay away from US operations they soon find out that: “Washington would speed up efforts for regime change in, and spend more money on, covert operations against Iran.” .(Lennon, p. 284) Further compromising any chance of US/Iran diplomatic relations came as a result of concerns over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. These concerns only fostered greater fear and disdain for Iran particularly since President Bush has openly commented on the threat to world peace posed by permitting rogue nations to possess weapons of mass destruction. In a report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency in June 2003 it was announced that Iran was not approved. This announcement only served to heighten global fear of Iran’s “nuclear intentions.”(Lennon, p. 246) As a result of the International Atomic Energy Agency, international pressure particularly from the US, the European Union and Russia urges Iran to comply with the commitments contained in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Specifically the Treaty calls for transparency and permits non-nuclear members to develop nuclear energy facilities.(Lennon, p. 246) Iran, a non-nuclear member state maintains that its nuclear program is solely for the purpose of facilitating electricity and blames the US for the global concern and initially adapted a position of belligerence and adamancy. Academics and authors, Alexander Lennon and Camille Eiss observe that Iran’s justification for its hard stand: “…the regime has played the political trump card of Iranian nationalism and has cast its defiance as principled resistance to a discriminatory effort inspired by the United States to deny advanced technology to Iran.” .(Lennon, p. 246) Current US/Iran Relations Iran maintains that its nuclear enrichment program is legitimate and the United States maintains otherwise declaring that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons or the capacity to make nuclear weapons is totally “unacceptable.”(Lennon, p. 247) The United States has obviously taken a strong position against Iran’s engagement in any nuclear weapons programs. In fact, the United States was instrumental in securing the United Nations’ Security Council’s condemnation of Iran’s nuclear program R. Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary for Political Affairs in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 29, 2007 explained the reason for the US’s position against Iran’s nuclear abilities. The reasons are associated with Iran’s pattern of anti-Americanism in the past as well as its “confrontational ideology.”(Burns, 2007) Obviously the United States views Iran as a threat not only to its own national security agenda, but as a threat to its plans for democratic reform in the Middle East. Iran’s geographical position alone gives rise to its importance to Middle East democracy. One author notes that: “Iran’s location has for centuries been important to international trade and strategy. It border on Azerbaijan and Armenia to the North, Iraq and Turkey to the West, the Persian Gulf to the South and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East.”(Keddie, p.2) Be that as it may, Iran has its own interest to serve. Its attitude toward the US is fueled by its own desire to stand up against a nation that it views as purely imperialistic. Iran purportedly views its possession of nuclear capabilities in an entirely different light. It is more than a mere symbol of national security. It represents nationalism and independence. Sagan explains: “Nuclear weapons, like other weapons, are more than tools of national security; they are political objects of considerable importance in domestic debates and internal bureaucratic struggles and can also serve as international normative symbols of modernity and identity.”(Sagan, 1996-1997, pp 54-86) According to Sagan there are essentially three why countries like Iran are committed to their desire to matain their own secuirty by virtue of development of nuclear program. Sagan identifies these theories as the “security model”, the “domestic politics model” and the “norms model.” (Sagan, 1996-1997, pp 54-86) The security model dictates that the development of nuclear weapons programs is necessary for sustaining a balance of fear. Obviously, no country can feel particularly safe if it subscribes to a notion that other countries in their region can and does maintain nuclear weapons while they may not. (Sagan, 1996-1997, pp 54-86) The merits of this theory are quite clear. While it can be argued that it is possible for non-nuclear states to form alliances with nuclear states and thereby alleviate fears of attacks by nuclear states, this possibility takes on an entirely different meaning when a country, such as Iraq has been identified as part of an axis of evil. Moreover, the US led strategies in favor of isolation policies against Iran have further compromised its abilities to form alliances with nuclear states. It therefore follows that Iran’s only means of national security is the development of its own nuclear weapons’ program. Sagan bolsters his domestic politics’ theory as follows: “… efforts to encourage strict civilian control of the military, through educational and organizational reforms, could be productive, especially in states in which the military has the capability to create secret nuclear programs (like Brazil in the 1980s) to serve their parochial interests…”(Sagan, 1996-1997, pp 54-86) This theory adequately explains Iran’s position with respect to its insistence on developing its nuclear program, assuming that the US is right about what it means for Iran’s nuclear weapons’ capabilities. Obviously when world powers like the US put pressure on countries like Iran to comply with nuclear proliferation programs the manner in which it acts influences domestic preceptions within non-nuclear states like Iran. Sagan’s norm theory also adequately explains Iran’s attitude toward the US and its position with respect to possession of nuclear weapons’ programs. Sagan submits that: “According to this perspective, state behavior is determined not by leaders cold calculations about the national security interests or their parochial bureaucratic interests, but rather by deeper norms and shared beliefs about what actions are legitimate and appropriate in international relations.” (Sagan, 1996-1997, pp 54-86) Applying Sagan’s norms’ theory, Iran views its development of nuclear programs and its capacity to make nuclear weapons as a symbol of sovereignty and stature. According to Sagan: “From this sociological perspective, military organizations and their weapons can therefore be envisioned as serving functions similar to those of flags, airlines, and Olympic teams: they are part of what modern states believe they have to possess to be legitimate, modern states.” (Sagan, 1996-1997, pp 54-86) Bismas’ argument puts the current status of US/Iran relations in perspective in simpler terms. Bismas argues that the current trend whereby world powers have developed zero tolerance toward third world countries possessing nuclear programs on the grounds that they are too irresponsible to maintain them is strongly reminiscent of post colonial attitudes.(Bismas, pp 485-522) It therefore follows that the more the United States puts pressure on Iran to scrap its nuclear enrichment program the more important it is to Iran as a national symbol. It becomes increasingly important to Iran to distinguish itself from the post colonial-like image. Improving US/Iran Relations Both the US and Iran are required to take entirely different approaches to the tension between them. On the one hand the United States with its policy of zero tolerance and its belligerent attitude as demonstrated with its attack on Iraq and firm threats of pre-emptive strikes against Iran needs some toning down. The position taken so far has only served to increase Iran’s desire to develop its nuclear enrichment program. Noticeably absent in US relations with Iran is diplomacy. Rather the approach taken is confrontational. The current approach threatens Iran’s domestic policies, security and sovereignty with the result that it is justified in its resolve to defend itself. On the other hand Iran has adjusted to the US’s isolationist attitude toward it and has no real interest in breaking the barrier. Moreover, US pride continues to be crippled in the context of US/Iran relations ever since the US hostage crisis in 1979. (Sullivan) Many US citizens are unhappy with Iran’s role in interrupting the US’s peace making strategies in the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict. (Sullivan) Some members of the US Congress believe that Iran actively supplies some Palestinian and Lebanese factions with arms through Syria.(Sullivan) The US Government is steadfast in its beliefs that Iran maintains a military presence in Lebanon. There is evidence that Iran has been involved with a Shia group, the Hezbollah for quite some time now.(Sullivan) Iranians are also replete with resentments toward the US. They hold the US responsible for many of their ongoing problems, primarily the current isolationist attitude of most of the free world. Iranians are also hold the US responsible for blocking their membership to the World Trade Organization, as well as loans from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.(Sullivan) Iranians are equally upset about US sanctions campaigns against them.(Sullivan) These opposing positions have generated a stagnant and unchanging state of affairs between the two countries. Seymour Hersh cites a senior Pentagon advisor as saying that: “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war…it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.”(Hersh, 2006) This is obviously not the way forward. As Hersh observes: “…a military conflict that destabilizes the region could also increase the risk of terror.”(Hersh, 2006) The only viable solution is for both countries to somehow find a peaceful solution to the differences that divide them. Before this can be accomplished both nations need to acknowledge and accept that most of the difficulties between them are deeply rooted in past resentments. Some measure of forgiveness is required and a desire to leave the past where it is and move on. While putting the past to rest will clear the way for better understanding and trust it will not build confidence. Obviously, Iran wants to continue to develop its nuclear program and the United States does not trust Iran’s motives. The US mistrust is not unreasonable in light of the fact that Iran has been cited by the International Atomic Energy Agency as contravening its commitments to transparency under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. This obviously true since Iran has been developing its nuclear program for at least twenty years in relative secrecy.(Lennon, p. 247) Iran’s claim that it merely wishes to develop nuclear energy for purely innocent reasons makes little sense when Iran has more than enough natural gas and oil reserves for like purposes. If Iran is developing its nuclear program for innocent reasons then it should have no difficulties placing a moratorium on it for at least ten years. This move would certainly go a long way in convincing the US of its pure motives. In turn the US can and should guarantee Iran security assurances and withdraw its threats and sanctions against Iran. In fact both countries should change their conduct toward one another. If Iran wants to be recognized as a serious role model in the region it will be required to break ranks with terrorist organizations and recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Iran’s human rights and civil liberties’ pattern is also in need of some reform. This can be accomplished by permitting freedom of the press to a greater degree. Iran’s ethnic minority also needs more attention. The US can help the relationship by recognizing Iran as a sovereign nation. This recognition would help to dispel fear that the US plans to reshape and remold Iran’s political regime. The US can also release Iran’s frozen assets as a means of providing economic incentives. Lifting sanctions can also achieve this aim. Conclusion Without question, the Middle East is riddled with conflict and instability. US relations with this area has only heightened the threat of greater conflict following the US homeland security policies following September, 11. Permitting Iran to enrich its nuclear program in the area under a cloud of suspicion is no more appealing than the US launching a military strike on Iran. Both countries are needed to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. Iran’s role is one of example and the US is one of leader and aide. In order to accomplish this task together both countries are required to break free of the past and to look to the future. A new and diplomatic relationship between both countries is the key to obtaining peace in the Middle East. Bibliography Amuzegar, Jahangir. “Iran’s Crumbling Revolution.” Foreign Affairs. Vol 82 No. 1 (Jan/Feb. 2003) p.1 Ansari, Ali, M. Confronting Iran. New York: Basic Books, 2006 Bismas, Shampa. “Nuclear Apartheid as Political Position: Race as a Postcolonial Recourse.” Alternatives vol 26 pp 485-522, 2001 Burns, R. Nicholas. “United States Policy Towards Iran.” Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Washington D.C. March 29, 2007 Hersh, Seymour. “Iran Plans: Would the United States Go to War with Iran to Stop Terhan getting the Bomb?” The New Yorker, March, 29 2006 Houghton, David, Patrick. US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act 1996 Keddie, Nikki. Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. US.:Yale University Press, 2003 Lennon, Alexander, T.J. and Eliss, Camille. Reshaping Rogue States. MIT Press, 2004 Rabasa, Angela. The Muslim World After 9/11. New York: Rand Corporation, 2004 Sagan, Scott. “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: In Search of a Bomb. International Security. Vol 21 No. 1 pp 54-86, Winter 1996-1997 Sullivan, Paul. “US Iran Relations Since 9-11: A Monologue of civilizations.” Turkish Journal of International Relations. Vol. 1. No. 2. (2002) p.1 Telhami, Shirley. "US Policy and the Arab and Muslim World: The Need for Public Diplomacy." The Brookings Review Vol. 20.No.3 (2002): pp 47-48. Walsh, Lawrence. Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-UP. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997 Warren, Christopher et al. American Hostages in Iran: The Conduct of a Crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985 Read More