Strategic Options for Iran: Balancing Pressure with Diplomacy

This third report from The Iran Project, considers the successes, shortfalls, and risks of strategies designed to pressure the Iranian government into changing its policies. It explores some of the advantages and disadvantages for U.S. interests in the Middle East that might flow from bilateral negotiations with Iran to achieve a nuclear deal, and propose steps that the President might take to establish a framework for direct talks with Iran's leadership that would build on the latest round of multilateral negotiations and proposals. Iran's actions -- particularly with regard to its nuclear program -- pose complex and dangerous challenges to U.S. interests and security, as well as to the security of Israel and possibly to stability in the Middle East. This paper sets out a response to these serious challenges. A strengthened U.S. diplomatic initiative would not replace the pressure track; rather, it would build on pressure already applied. Some measure of sanctions relief will have to be offered as part of a negotiated settlement; but pressure should not be eased without firm and verifiable Iranian commitments to greater transparency and agreed limits on Iran's nuclear program. The proposed bilateral discussions between the U.S. and Iran would not replace the multilateral negotiations that are now underway. Bilateral talks would have to proceed on a basis understood and ideally supported by the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) and U.S. allies. This paper differs from earlier Iran Project publications in that it takes policy positions and makes recommendations for government action. The authors have sought to base these suggestions on factual, objective, nonpartisan analyses, consulting with nearly 20 former government officials and experts and seeking advice from a larger group of signatories

Thank You for Considering Me Such a Huge Threat: A Critical Analysis of Iran\u27s Foreign Policy

The United States has long held the idea that Iran poses a threat to our interests as well as global stability, implying that Iran is irrational and makes decisions rooted purely in ideology. After creating an independent framework based on rational choice theory, descriptive decision theory, and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I determined four possible ways to describe Iran’s foreign policy: rational-constitutional, irrational-constitutional, rational-unconstitutional, and irrational-unconstitutional. I then apply this framework to six cases which I have identified to be vital to understanding Iran’s foreign policy: Iraq, Israel, United States of America, China, the nuclear program, and proxy groups, and in doing so, I attempt to answer the question of to what extent does Iranian Foreign Policy reflect the goals outlined by the Iranian constitution ratified in 1979 (with its subsequent amendments); and how does a constitutional reading of foreign policy illuminate our understanding of the drivers of Iranian Foreign Policy? The following sub-questions will also be considered: Is an ideological foreign policy exclusive from a practical foreign policy? If Iran does not act within the goals of the Constitution, why not? In considering these cases, I found that Iran’s foreign policy is quite nuanced depending on the case at hand, with three cases being determined as rational-constitutional, two as irrational-constitutional, one as rational-unconstitutional, and zero as irrational-unconstitutional

United States Policy to Undermine Iran’s Regional and Global Strategy

This paper aims to understand the way in which Iran uses proxy groups to implement its regional foreign policy strategy while increasing relationships with foreign actors to implement its global foreign policy strategy. I will dive into the intricacies of Iran’s strategy on a country-by-country basis while outlining the goals of the regime. I will analyze the way in which the United States has dealt with Iran and its proxy groups in the past as well as provide suggestions on the steps the Biden administration and the United States as a whole must implement in order to contain Iran’s influence in the region and on the world stage

Circumventing Sanctions: The Impact of Sino-Iranian Relations On Iran Within The Middle-East Power Constellation (Case Study of Iran-Israel Proxy War in Syria)

Due to its hostile behavior in the Middle East, Iran has been sanctioned severely by the international community. Despite isolation attempts by the international community, Iran is nevertheless regarded as a powerhouse in the regional power constellation, owing to its actions in the Middle-Eastern proxy wars. Acknowledging the anomaly of Iran’s capabilities in spite of heavy sanctions, this research arguably shows how Sino-Iranian relations paves the way for Iran to circumvent sanctions. Subsequent to learning about China’s support for Iran, this research questions if the aforementioned support has an impact on Iran’s actions and status within the regional power constellation. Furthermore, this research also questions the influence of Iran and China’s relations towards the former’s ability in pursuing its aims through the Syrian proxy war against Israel in the account of international sanctions and condemnations. Guided by the concept of balancing by Stephen M. Walt and  an exploitative model of proxy warfare theory, this research finds the Sino-Iranian relations as having a significant effect towards improving Tehran’s capabilities and acquisition of power in the Middle-East power constellation. Moreover, concerning the Iran-Israel proxy war, China’s actions are proven to mainly affect Iran and the Syrian civil war within the political sphere.Akibat perilaku agresifnya di Timur Tengah, Iran telah dikenakan sanksi berat oleh komunitas internasional. Namun, meski sudah terdapat berbagai upaya yang dilakukan oleh komunitas internasional untuk mengisolasinya, Iran tetap dianggap sebagai kekuatan besar dalam konstelasi kekuatan regional karena keterlibatannya dalam perang proksi di Timur Tengah. Menyadari sebuah anomali pada kemampuan Iran meski telah diberikan berbagai sanksi, penelitian ini menunjukkan bagaimana hubungan Tiongkok-Iran membuka jalan bagi Iran untuk mengelakkan beberapa sanksi tersebut. Setelah mengetahui tentang dukungan Tiongkok untuk Iran, penelitian ini mempertanyakan apakah dukungan tersebut memiliki dampak pada tindakan dan status Iran dalam konstelasi kekuatan regional. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga mempertanyakan pengaruh hubungan Iran dan Tiongkok terhadap kemampuan Iran dalam mengejar tujuannya melawan Israel melalui perang proksi di Suriah dibawah sanksi dan kecaman internasional. Dipandu oleh konsep balancing karya Stephen M. Walt dan model eksploitatif dari teori perang proksi, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa hubungan Tiongkok-Iran memiliki pengaruh yang signifikan pada peningkatan kemampuan serta perolehan kekuasaan Iran dalam konstelasi kekuatan di Timur Tengah. Ditambah lagi, terkait perang proksi Iran dan Israel, tindakan Tiongkok terbukti cenderung  mempengaruhi perang sipil Suriah di ranah politik

Essay: Iran and the Military Option

When politicians, pundits, and prognosticators discuss the military option for Iran it is important to understand that it will in all likelihood result in a full scale international armed conflict. If the military option mission is to eliminate Iran\u27s nuclear capabilities, there is no one target to destroy, bomb, or obliterate that will render Iran\u27s nuclear program dead therefore making such an option unlikely to be quick or efficient. A conflict with Iran would involve an extensive air campaign and probably result in Iran launching missiles at Israel and Eastern Europe. The Persian Gulf would effectively be closed off as a result of maritime combat and the worldwide threat of terrorist attacks would have far reaching consequences. The cost of armed conflict with Iran is incalculable with the potential to further destabilize the region as well as the global economy

Utilizing Strategic Culture as a Tool to Tailor U.S. Deterrence Policy Towards Iran

The geostrategic environment since the end of the Cold War has drastically changed the way United States (U.S.) policymakers develop strategies to combat a wide range of hostile threats facing the country, especially in the field of the deterrence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Iran is such an actor, who poses one of the greater proliferation threats in the world and continues to commit hostile actions in the Middle East. In this post-Cold War environment, it is imperative that the United States develop a tailored deterrence strategy to meet this challenge. Past deterrence strategies popular during the bipolar era of the Cold War focused on the idea of a “rational actor,” one in which an adversary theoretically would similarly make decisions to how U.S. leadership thinks about the values of a cost-benefit analysis of any strategic action. However, with the emergence of new and asymmetric threats, it has become apparent that not all actors in the world think in the same way as U.S. leaders. Starting in the Cold War era, the concept of strategic culture emerged, which sought to understand the cultural drivers behind state behavior. Strategic culture is a field of research which gives insight into another culture, and how their values, norms, and perceptions shape the way that they view rational decision making on a cost-benefit analysis. This field of study can provide explanations for decisions that others might make; how/when to go to war, what constitutes the rationality to pursue or use WMDs, and what values they hold which are exploitable. By using strategic culture as a tool to tailor a deterrence strategy, the United States will be better able to formulate policy to contain, deter, and defeat adversaries. This report will use the Islamic Republic of Iran as a case study to present its threat to U.S. strategic objectives, explain how strategic culture can be used to understand threats from Iran, and then assess its strategic culture to use in the formulation of a tailored deterrence policy against the Islamic Republic

Iran as a Strategic Threat to the U.S. in the Middle East and Its Impact on U.S. Policy in the Region

This essay will examine Iran\u27s nuclear program and foreign and defense policy and how these threats shape U.S. defense and foreign policy in the region. Iran\u27s advanced nuclear program is only one aspect of its goal to reaching regional hegemony in the Middle East. Iran looks to establish itself as a dominant power in the region by employing non-military tools such as promoting Shiism and Iranian ideology and supporting Arab and non-Arab political leaders and groups friendly toward Iran. Meanwhile, the United States and other world powers are concerned about Iran\u27s enrichment program being diverted to develop nuclear weapons, which may further destabilize the region. In addition to maintaining an advanced nuclear program, Iran has also taken courses of action to expand its influence and preserve its interests in the Middle East by providing direct material support to terrorist groups and developing military capabilities that threaten the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region. Because of Iran\u27s destabilizing role in the region, such as its support of terrorist proxy groups in Iraq and Syria, and Iran\u27s development of missile and naval capabilities directed at countering the defenses of Israel and U.S.-allied Gulf states, the U.S. may have to modify its Middle East policy that reflects Iran\u27s larger and potentially more destructive role in the region while also gradually expecting greater burden-sharing from its regional partners

AGAINST THE GRAIN: SAUDI ARABIA AND ISRAEL'S WARMING RELATIONS

Saudi Arabia and Israel have never had formal diplomatic relations. The Arab-Israeli issue of Palestinian self-determination, above all else, has kept these two Middle East states apart and at times in adversarial tension. However, the 21st century has witnessed thawing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, despite the continued unpopularity of Israel within Saudi society. Scholars have largely isolated one or two of the primary drivers that promote or inhibit Saudi's desire to cooperate with Israel—mutual concern with Iran, Saudi reform initiatives, and U.S. influence—without analyzing how the factors work in tandem to promote or inhibit cooperation as a whole. This thesis examines how those drivers interact to provide a more holistic understanding of why Saudi Arabia would cooperate with Israel, and the implications of those drivers on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. This thesis concludes that in the present configuration, the drivers of Saudi's cooperation initiatives with Israel collectively have not stimulated a viable path to normalization of relations that circumvents the barrier of Palestinian self-determination. This thesis also concludes that this barrier is predominantly the result of Saudi Arab tradition and not borne out of religion. Saudi Arabia and Israel will continue to cooperate towards mutually beneficial opportunities short of normalization for as long as the strategic context of their relationship endures.Lieutenant Commander, United States NavyApproved for public release. Distribution is unlimited

Identity, affective attachments, and US-Iranian nuclear politics

No abstract available