U.S. Foreign Policy and Sanctions: the Case of Iran
Mohsen
Eslami
Tarbiat Modares University
author
Farzaneh
Naghdi
Tarbiat Modares University
author
text
article
2016
eng
The Islamic Republic of Iran has always faced sanctions and its foreign policy and relationswith other countries, especially the United States and the European Union, were practicedunder the impact of the sanctions. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, 2015),reached after successive years of sanctions, has proponents and opponents inside thecountry, who have different views about its effects on the Iranian and American foreignpolicy. The proponents believe that the JCPOA will put an end to the U.S. sanctions policyagainst the I.R.I. While the authors of this article believe that due to the Middle East’scomplex situation, growth of terrorism, as well as the transitional circumstances of theregion’s geopolitical condition, the occurrence of such theory seems unlikely. The mainquestion of this paper is: What is the impact of the JCPOA on the U.S. foreign policy,especially sanctions policy, against the Islamic Republic of Iran (I.R.I.) in post-JCPOA?According to our hypothesis, financial, economic, military, and defence sanctions have beeninstitutionalized in the U.S. strategic document as an effective, tested policy to contain theI.R.I. military and economic power and would not be wiped out from the U.S. foreign policy.Sanction theories have successfully secured the interests of the U.S. and its regional allies,such as the Zionist regime and Saudi Arabia. They are, therefore, opposed to the release ofthe Iranian financial energy or a dramatic increase in the I.R.I. power in the region as it,prompting the success of the resistance axis and facilitating the dominance of the IslamicRepublic in the region will be against their objectives. Considering the U.S. political elitementality, the existing discourse against I.R.I. nuclear agreement as well as the U.S.achievements, through imposed sanctions against I.R.I., adoption of new sanctions by theU.S. politicians in post-JCPOA would be very likely.
Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
Institute for Strategic Research, Department of Foreign Affairs
20088221
7
v.
24
no.
2016
5
34
https://irfajournal.csr.ir/article_125136_01a596abfdca4eac5b0d17cebd7c56d4.pdf
Beijing Consensus vs. Washington Consensus: A Comparative Analysis for Iran
Mokhtar
Salehi
Political Sciences and International Relations Department at Mazandaran University
author
Framarz
Hassanzadeh
Mazandaran University
author
text
article
2016
eng
Adopting an appropriate approach to development has been a matter of debate in developing countries including Iran. Within these debates, a lot of attention is paid to the Chinese model of development or what is generally known as the Beijing consensus. These debates center on the applicability of the Beijing Consensus to Iran’s development. Here in this research we tend to answer the following questions: what are the similarities and differences between Beijing and Washington consensus? And, to what degrees the Beijing model of development can be pursued by countries like Iran? According to our hypothesis, it turns out that the two schools are similar in being export-orientated, their insistence on free trade and politico-economic development models. They, however, differ on what the Beijing school sees necessary in state centrism, authoritarian development, combination of political and economic geography and the technology-based economy; these are ignored in the Washington consensus. Both schools have elements that can be learned from in the course of Iran’s development. This is while the determinant factor in Iran’s development is not pursing a particular model but rather achievement of a national consensus. This national consensus may be reached after a close look at the two existing models. The theoretical framework that informs this study is the state-centric polit
Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
Institute for Strategic Research, Department of Foreign Affairs
20088221
7
v.
24
no.
2016
35
56
https://irfajournal.csr.ir/article_125138_2a88d87619b8f7ac3069ce7bb318cbf5.pdf
Turkish Strategy in the Iraqi Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdish Region and Iran
Seyed Shamseddin
Sadeghi
Razi University
author
text
article
2016
eng
The role played by the Kurdish communities and Kurdish regions of Iraq, Syria and Turkey may not be underestimated in the complex, speedy trend of political developments occurring in the Middle East. The Kurdish communities in the Middle East are characterized by ethnic, cultural and geopolitical cohesion, conflict and confrontation with the central governments, and their willingness to unification and integration of the Kurdish nation. Significant political developments that have highlighted the conditions of the Kurdish regions in Iraq, Syria and Turkey include challenges between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Iraqi government, a new round of violence between the Workers Party of Kurdistan (PKK) and the Turkish government, the role played by Syrian Kurds in the of Syrian crisis and the quality of the relationship among other transregional actors and this region. A glance at the current political trends would reveal that Turkey’s approach to the Kurdish communities of the region is double-sided; the Turkish government seeks to establish strategic ties with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), whereas it has adopted a security policy towards the Syrian Kurds. This has in turn resulted in Islamic Republic of Iran’s response due to a similar condition. This research searches for an answer to the following question: What is the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards Turkey’s strategy in the Iraqi Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdish region? The hypothesis indicates that due to geopolitical considerations, the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken the position of protecting territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria vis-à-vis Turkey’s strategy regarding the Kurdish communities. The author uses a descriptive-analytical research method, drawing upon bibliographical data. The role played by the Kurdish communities and Kurdish regions of Iraq, Syria and Turkey may not be underestimated in the complex, speedy trend of political developments occurring in the Middle East. The Kurdish communities in the Middle East are characterized by ethnic, cultural and geopolitical cohesion, conflict and confrontation with the central governments, and their willingness to unification and integration of the Kurdish nation. Significant political developments that have highlighted the conditions of the Kurdish regions in Iraq, Syria and Turkey include challenges between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Iraqi government, a new round of violence between the Workers Party of Kurdistan (PKK) and the Turkish government, the role played by Syrian Kurds in the of Syrian crisis and the quality of the relationship among other transregional actors and this region. A glance at the current political trends would reveal that Turkey’s approach to the Kurdish communities of the region is double-sided; the Turkish government seeks to establish strategic ties with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), whereas it has adopted a security policy towards the Syrian Kurds. This has in turn resulted in Islamic Republic of Iran’s response due to a similar condition. This research searches for an answer to the following question: What is the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards Turkey’s strategy in the Iraqi Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdish region? The hypothesis indicates that due to geopolitical considerations, the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken the position of protecting territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria vis-à-vis Turkey’s strategy regarding the Kurdish communities. The author uses a descriptive-analytical research method, drawing upon bibliographical data.
Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
Institute for Strategic Research, Department of Foreign Affairs
20088221
7
v.
24
no.
2016
57
84
https://irfajournal.csr.ir/article_125139_d0e93545791ab305dc48435aa576e76b.pdf
The Continental Shelf in the Southern Neighborhood
Ali
Omidi
University of Isfahan
author
Arefeh
Mohammadi
University of Isfahan
author
text
article
2016
eng
The Persian Gulf has an outstanding place in global geopolitics and is regarded as the most important source of consumed oil and natural gas on a global scale. Until today, the marine borders of Iran with the three countries of Kuwait, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates are undetermined. This has resulted in procrastination of materialization of the economic potentials and non-extraction of hydrocarbon resources from the four countries continental shelf resources and their exposure to political tensions. The aim of this study is to explain the most important legal challenge facing the Persian Gulf continental shelf and the role played by the political and territorial disagreements in hindering the establishment of the outer limits of this continental shelf. The primary question is: what are the main factors contributing to indetermination of the continental shelf borders between Iran and the three countries of Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab emirates? The methodology is descriptive and analytical using internet and archival resources. We concluded that the continental shelf legal system prescribes the bisecting line to determine the boundaries and in case of its non-viability common exploitation is advised. In case of the Iranian continental shelf, the geopolitical differences as well as tense political history of relations between Iran and the three states of Kuwait, Iraq and UAE has postponed the determination outer lines. This is in part a consequence of the failure to agree on the borders’ base lines by the four countries which is in turn a political rather than legal issue. The time period that the research covers is from the early days of the Islamic revolution in 1979 until 2017.
Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
Institute for Strategic Research, Department of Foreign Affairs
20088221
7
v.
24
no.
2016
85
110
https://irfajournal.csr.ir/article_125140_7f0ac08a869f70c2e3d490c3a7e4c8d3.pdf
American Foreign Immunities Act and Iran
Manuchehr
Tavassoli Naini
University of Isfahan
author
Nadia
Attaran
Shahid Ashrafi Esfahani University
author
text
article
2016
eng
In 1996, the United States of America rectified the Foreign States Immunities Act (ratified in 1976). According to this law, Americans injured in terrorist attacks anywhere in the world, or their survivors, can sue the state sponsors of terrorist actions in U.S courts. The U.S Department of State determines what countries are state sponsors of terrorism. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been on the U.S.’s list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, and in recent years, many lawsuits have been filed against Iran in American courts. These courts, contrary to the basics of international law, have so far ruled against Iran in expanse of tens of billions of dollars. So what can Iran do against this law? What has been done so far is that Iran has chosen not to partake in these proceedings so that it would not condone the violation of the sovereignty of other countries. It is now known, that contrary to what is said in the media, the rulings in the United States against Iran have greatly surpassed two billion dollars, and any move by Iran to confront this law has so far had little effect in practice. However, diplomatic talks, bringing the issue forward in the UN General Assembly or in the International Court of Justice, are among the number of politico-legislative moves Iran can attempt to confront this law.
Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
Institute for Strategic Research, Department of Foreign Affairs
20088221
7
v.
24
no.
2016
111
132
https://irfajournal.csr.ir/article_125142_efa3563c08f2e227c030f4bbe1d27b6d.pdf
The New Silk Road as China’s Foreign Policy Strategy and Iran
Fariborz
Arghavani Pirsalami
Shiraz University
author
Sahar
Pirankhou
Shiraz University
author
text
article
2016
eng
Today, the People's Republic of China is one of the rising powers that seeks to enhance its power and play a unique part in the international system by basing its foreign policy on economic development. In this direction, it has implemented several plans for realizing this objective in the world’s political geography. The New Silk Road plan as China's foreign policy strategy was announced in Fall 2013 when Xi Jinping became president. Significant roles have been contemplated for countries such as Iran in the plan, in China's political and economic objectives. This article addresses the question on the opportunities and threats of the New Silk Road as China's foreign policy strategy for Iran. Drawing upon a descriptive-explanatory research method, the authors suggest that the initiative might entail implications for Iran as it contemplates a significant role for the country. The research findings demonstrate that the initiative would unveil opportunities including deepening Iran-China relations, building capacity for Iran's regional superiority, protection and enhancement of national security and domestic stability, and exploitation of the opportunity to interact with the East and the West simultaneously. It would also result in such threats as Chinese hegemony on Iran's geoeconomy, growing securitization of Iran in U.S. policy-making, and encouragement of rivalry with geopolitically significant rivals like Russia, India and the United States, as well as expansion of Chinese ties with Arabs particularly Saudi Arabia.
Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
Institute for Strategic Research, Department of Foreign Affairs
20088221
7
v.
24
no.
2016
133
156
https://irfajournal.csr.ir/article_125144_8cfec1afaf3a0cedc85170554eaf0efb.pdf