The genesis of the strained relationship between these two countries dates back to the late 1940s. The creation of the Stare of Israel, in particular, contributed negatively towards smooth relations between the United States and Iran (Christ 13). Many diplomats and foreign relations analysts, including David Christ, only focus on the two countries relations from the period after the September 11th terrorist attack. However, the events of September 11th culminated as a result of long-standing disputes between the two countries. This paper analyses the US-Iran relationship in relation to the events of September 11th. Furthermore, the paper gives a synopsis of the background of the United States and Iran conflict. In this regard, the essay examines the role of neoconservatives in defining the US foreign policy towards Iran, the role of Israel and the realists, view of the conflict.
There are several theories that distinctively explain the reasons behind the war. Among other scholars and policy-makers, David Christ, and Joseph Nye have sought the answers to various pending questions, as to why the sour relationship has continued between the US and Iran and its effects to the globe. Although conflicts continue to occur year in year out, there is some progress in developing more sophisticated, and perhaps, more useful theories or models on the causes and prevention of wars. They entail realism theory, which explains how supremacy sharing can trigger wars, what are the motives related to national security, power and resources. In contrast, liberalism looks at the disparity of non-democracy and non-democracies as the main causes of hostilities. It highlights the significance of the rich holding power in society and the role of money in fuelling tensions. It is a reflection on how principles, beliefs, and worldviews contribute to wars. The latter perspective overlaps, to a certain extent, with the theories of personality and social psychology, which explain that attitudes and perceptions of individuals and groups play a fundamental role in a conflict (Christ 42).
At the beginning of the 19th century, Iran considered the United States as its major ally. The then-Persian state regarded the United States as a strong partner with genuine interests. On the other hand, Iran considered Britain and Russia as a threat to its sovereignty because it doubted the motives behind the colonial masters. However, the good relations between the two countries took a different turn in early 1940s. The then Iran government accused the united states of meddling in its affairs. The United States wanted to sponsor a friendly regime in Iran given the countries strategic location in the oil rich region. Since the collapse of the United States sponsored regime in Iran and the subsequent failure of the two countries diplomatic relations, the United States have been using all avenues that have the leverage on Iran to propagate its ideals in the region.
Get a price quote
For many years, the United States through underground negotiations and through the United Nations Security Council unanimously pushed for a resolution to stop conflicts in Iraq. The peace body demanded an immediate cease of fire in Iraq, including the termination of attacks on civilians. The UN Security Council banned all the flights within the country’s air space as well as sanctioned the Qadhafi regime. The Security Council pressurized Bagdad to unconditionally corporate with the weapons inspection team. A failure to observe the highlighted resolutions meant that Saddam would face unspecified actions from the international community.
From the chronological point of view, the emergence of animosity in 1980 was another factor that contributed significantly to the Middle East aggression. Saddam Hussein had his own interests in invading Iran based on ambitions and signs of weakness.Even, though, he had made significant steps in the formation of the Iraqi state, Saddam saw a threat from neighboring Iraq, the revolt leadership of which posed a danger on the vulnerable Sunni and Shia stability and would take advantage of porous borders, namely Iraq's minimal access to the Persian Gulf, in that case. In this respect, Saddam Hussein's decision to invade in Iran follows a historical pattern: the earliest rulers of Mesopotamia, during a dread domestic conflict and distant invasion, also connected in the recurrent fight with the inhabitants of the highlands.
Limited time offer!15% OFF on your 1st order
The U.S.Iraq relationship was quite heated during this era. There was hostility as the U.S. yearned to end the war between these two states. It also put a lot of effort to liberate Kuwait. The United Nations and the United States imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in a bid to compel the country to abide by limitations on weaponry, which had greatly affected its economical development. As a result of these economic sanctions, Iraq alleged that many children had succumbed death because of poor diet and health services. Reviews indicated that this war exploded into open rivalry, as Saddam and his government disobeyed economic sanctions presupposing military discipline without delay.
The liberalism theoretical perspective is also applicable here since the resolution on war originates from the domestic traits of the state, primarily their type of regime, and from the manipulation of the worldwide law (Nye 55). International security and success rely on the raise of democracy and trade, and on the conflict-guideline purposes of societies. Similar to pragmatism, "liberalism" includes a number of interrelated theories of global relations. Kantian/Wilsonian idealism means that democracy is a source of peace and that a closely interrelated perception of democratic (or liberal) peace stresses that democracies do not battle against each other.
- You choose font face
- 12 point font size
- Double-spaced pages
- Over 300 words/page
- Text aligned left
- One-inch margins
The epitome of the sour relations between the two countries culminated in a war, when the U.S invaded Iraq because of the failure of the Iraqi government to fully cooperate with the United Nations-sponsored weapons inspection team and comply with the provisions of the 1991 peace protocol as well as actively support international efforts against terrorism. The reason for ongoing aggression involving the United States and Iraq was a difference over the level and requirement for prolonged United Nations assessments. The U.S. and the UN maintained that Iraq did not conform to the stipulated contract and continued to increase the production of WOMDs. A statement, which Iraq continued to refute and allege, was that the U.S. attempted to sabotage their national independence and cripple it by imposing economic sanctions. Another point of disagreement is the prolongation of the no-fly zones to the north and south. Formerly intended to defend the unruly Kurdish community marginalized in the north and the exploited Shiite minority in the south, these regions were the Iraqi airspace. Iraqi aircrafts have been not allowed to fly yet.
After the September 11th massive attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon in 2011, the U.S. moved in swiftly to eradicate dangers that could jeopardize state security by being engaged in the first strike preventative war. The president saw it appropriate to invade in Iraq and act forcefully against it. The U.S. Congress endorsed and authorized military actions against Iraq, since it was believed to have weapons of mass destruction. The president Bush demanded the total end to claims that Iraq continued to manufacture weapons of mass detraction and violated absolute compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the UN weapons inspector unrestricted access to the alleged weapons production conveniences (Nye 73). In December that year, Iraq declared grudgingly that it did not possess biological and chemical weapons that could be destructive. This action did not serve any purpose, and was dismissed by the international community as a mere public relations exercise.
Despite, persistent opposition on the part of France, German and Russia, the U.S. and Britain continued with their martial upsurge in regions adjacent to Iraq and maintained that Bagdad was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. The base, which the allies planned to use as the base for the northern front, to their dismay was located in Turkey, and Iraq refused to allow the use of its territory, though most British- American troops were positioned in Kuwait and other neighboring locations. Therefore, failure of the approval to locate the US base served as the turning point to start the war conflict. The war started with an air strike against Iraq. Ground forces invaded in Iraq by the end of April 2003; the Iraqi army was resoundingly defeated and the government collapsed leading leaving allies to have full control over the major cities. The process of establishing new Iraq government was started. The conflict was well-known as operation for the Iraqi freedom, where joint troops from the U.S., UK, Australia and Poland attacked Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s rein was toppled. On May 1, 2003, the then American president, George Bush, proclaimed triumph in the invasion against the enemy. The United States and British leaders had expounded the Iraqnatural and chemical hazard in order to rationalize the war. Hussein was caught in December 2003.
The outcomes of the war were significant. The country experienced vast devastation. There was no security at hospitals, water plants and even the most prominent people, like ministers with very important information, were unsecure. The war was not yet over. Tension had been building up between the troops, and they really prepared to go for another war in order for the U.S. to gain full control over Iraq. The theoretical perspective that tends to explain the reason for this war is realism. From the realistic perspective, initiatives by governments to enter into war are outcomes of all states involuntary participating to get power over political vicinity, where states fear the actual potential fight back by other states. The expenses of these wars are worked on as well as benefits. The State International Council replicates the limitation forced on their proceedings in relation to power stakes. Looking upon this, the distribution of power during the war was made between several powers. The U.S. military authority caused the U.S. strategy to shift from policies of subjugation of threats to preventive warfare against aggressive states.
The US Iraq war started on 19th of March 2003. A coalition was created to stop Iraq from producing weapons of mass destruction, terminate Hussein dictatorial rule and set Iraq free. Despite the efforts of Bush administration and interest in setting Iraq free, verylittle proper progress was made until the 11th September 2001 attacks.
This was quite evident when the administration prepared the operation “Desert Badger” in order to respond to any air force. The pilot was shot when flying over Iraq. After the 11th of September, Bush announced his new war on terrorism accompanied by his doctrine. Accusations were made that Hussein had connection with the al-Qaeda. Some Bush advisers were for the direct assault of Iraq, while others routed for international acquiring United Nations approval.
President Bush was ultimately determined to seek the UN consent considering the alternative of attacking without any consultations. The terrorist attack had critical outcomes, including the blow to the U.S economy. Damages encountered loss of human lives, and massive property destruction of travel and shipping industries. But immediately after the attacks, worries also shifted to the possible harm on business. The social identity theory explains this that it deals with groups, which compete to look good leading to stereotyping and prejudice towards other states and cultures.This figurative or status intention could also clarify, why the Bush government besieged Iraq, but not North Korea, Iran, or Libya—which were also alleged to be manufacturing weapons of mass destruction considered more powerful than Iraqis threatening to the U.S. and its associates. Ideological perspective can also be applied in relation to other societies.
In conclusion, separate socio-political groups do not dispose resources to form their own states, but they strive for as much autonomy, political and economic power as possible. Wars in most cases occur because of attribution, ineffective communication, anxiety and tension and even the lack of commitment. The theory that best explains why wars occur is the realist theory. The theory provides details why wars and aspects of foreign policy remain consistent over time. The strained relations between the two countries is likely to persist and extent to future generations as polarization between realists and neoconservatives widens. The question of the Israel state will definitely continue to produce a negative impact on the relationships of both countries. As realists suggest, the United States must exert pressure on Israel and force it to agree establish two separate states of Palatine and Israel.