Iran: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy

---

The strategy of fighting global terrorism also aims at maintaining global and regional security. This started in Iraq and Afghanistan, based on the ideological framework of a zero-sum decisive war with an emphasis on the absolute victory of the United States and the West. Today, these wars — which have no winner or loser — continue mainly due to the ideological resistance of regional opponents, such as the Taliban, who mobilize local forces to fight against the foreign occupiers.

Therefore, Iran believes that emphasis on the concept of interdependent security can pose a severe threat to Tehran. The United States could use this pretext to convince the international community, including the EU, China and Russia, that Iran's nuclear program is a grave threat to global security. The major challenge here is the manner of convening the nuclear conferences in Washington and Seoul. In the past, such coalitions were cemented on the threat from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As long as tension continues in Iran-U. Iran does not oppose the nature of the coalition or even its leadership.

Tehran's problem is that the coalition has been forged against Iran because of its independent nuclear program. From Iran's perspective, the United States and the West are seeking four major objectives regarding nuclear terrorism. First, superpowers have a right to monopolize the use of force. Some Western opinion holds that the United States is forging a campaign against nuclear terrorism under the auspices of the five major powers to divert world attention from global nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile, Iran believes that the West, particularly the United States, spotlights the risk of nuclear proliferation in an attempt to monopolize the use of peaceful nuclear energy.

This runs counter to the fair use of nuclear energy for the achievement of sustainable development. Iran believes that there should be a balance among the three major pillars of the NPT: Second, there is a maximalist definition of supervision of nuclear issues. One may argue that the United States and the West are exaggerating the threat of nuclear terrorism in an attempt to control, manipulate and define nuclear trends.

By portraying the threat as imminent and grave — and assuming that Iran is part of it — the West legitimizes its full supervision of Iran's nuclear activities. At present, one of Iran's major challenges with the IAEA is the agency's maximal definition of its responsibilities and supervisory role under Western pressure. This approach is not applied to the other member states. Iran believes that the IAEA has gone beyond internationally accepted regulations by exerting tight control over Tehran's nuclear activities.

Iran even claims that the agency and its inspectors are not safeguarding Iran's nuclear information adequately; the information has sometimes been used by Western countries to exert political pressure on Tehran. Third, the West dominates and controls the technical and political trends within the IAEA, particularly through monopolizing nuclear fuel.

Even Russia, which has different views from those of the West on some nuclear and global issues, shares the view of the United States on this matter and is not completely in favor of Iran's independent uranium enrichment. It would deprive Moscow of a monopoly over the economic benefit of selling nuclear fuel to Tehran. One of the major problems between Iran and the IAEA is Iran's independent model for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This model, which has some advocates in the international community, especially among the members of the nonaligned movement NAM , is a new phenomenon for the IAEA.

One may argue here that the agency's problem is how to find a way to adapt this new model to Western expectations. Last but not least, there is the double standard regarding the West's nuclear cooperation with the Arab states in the region. Over the past years, Iran's nuclear policies, aimed at establishing sustainable development and technological advancement as well as acquiring international prestige, has attracted the attention of some of the Arab countries of the region.

This issue will indirectly endanger the interests of Western powers.

Regional Perspectives on US Policy in the Middle East

At present, the West is providing technological know-how and nuclear materials for the reactors under construction in Arab states in the region. In other words, while the West is exerting a great deal of political pressure on Iran through sanctions, it is helping the Arab countries achieve nuclear technology.

This paradox imposes a fundamental challenge to the campaign against nuclear terrorism. One of the reasons for the so-called imminence of the threat of nuclear terrorism is the issue of "nuclear deterrence. One may argue that a major objective behind this strategy is to maintain a grip on the political and security trends in the Middle East and to control the development of its nuclear programs, especially in Iran. Some American strategists even believe that controlling the world means holding on to the Middle East — an impossibility without controlling Iran.

Another point with regard to deterrence, as discussed earlier, is the argument about a possible transference of nuclear weapons to resistance movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which Washington regards as terrorist entities. One of the key U. The United States has always viewed Tehran's support for these resistance movements as a serious obstacle in the peace process.

From the perspective of U. Meanwhile, as far as nuclear deterrence is concerned, maintaining the regional balance of power and ensuring Israel's security are among the strategic objectives of the United States. Relying on tacit support from the West and a stockpile of to nuclear warheads, 40 Israel has managed to maintain its traditional nuclear deterrence in the region.

Iran's independent nuclear-energy program is considered a serious challenge to Israel's monopoly. Israel describes Iran's nuclear program as an "existential threat" because Tel Aviv directly links the issue to its security. Here, the paradoxical U. While the United States exerts excessive pressure on Iran and emphasizes a military and deterrent nature for Tehran's nuclear program, Washington continues to support Israel by turning a blind eye to Tel Aviv's nuclear arsenals, which are considered a serious threat to the entire region.

In other words, the West unfairly associates Iran's nuclear program with the issue of deterrence and describes it as a threat to regional and global security. Nuclear terrorism can be viewed as an opportunity to create trust between Iran and the West. If the United States and the West recognize Iran as a nuclear state and Iran assumes a role in some global nuclear issues, Tehran's pessimistic view about the imminence of nuclear terrorism is likely to change. Under such circumstances, Iran, as a nuclear state, surrounded by active terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda operating in areas including the Caucasus, Central and South Asia, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula can offer bilateral, multilateral and international cooperation within a framework regulated by the United States and the West to help prevent the access of terrorists to nuclear materials and maintain the security of nuclear facilities.

By involving Iran in tackling the issue of nuclear terrorism, Tehran will offer the opportunity to optimize the rules on nuclear security. This will also prompt Iranian decision-making bodies to exert further supervision over nuclear materials in line with international rules and standards.

Moreover, the international community will be able to exert control over Iran's nuclear program in line with the IAEA regulations. Meanwhile, such a positive gesture from the Western side is important in building confidence in Iran's domestic politics and consensus among the Iranian political elites in the process of the nuclear negotiations. Excluding Iran from the issue without giving the country any advantages in return will merely impose some commitments on Tehran.

This will likely constitute an obstacle to the campaign against nuclear terrorism on Iran's side. One way to facilitate the campaign against nuclear terrorism is to return to a realistic approach to conventional terrorism and its roots. Bush's new strategy against terrorism, in which fighting groups such as al-Qaeda was directly linked to U. In these wars, any victory over rival forces, including the terrorists, local warlords and opposing governments in the region, were considered the triumph of the international community and a step towards so-called global security.

As discussed earlier, the major challenge in this type of campaign is rooted in the idea of victory in wars that are unlikely to have a winner. President Obama's spotlighting of the concept of "nuclear terrorism" and linking it to the al-Qaeda threats in his "nuclear posture" is a reincarnation of Bush's policies.

The threat of al-Qaeda's access to nuclear weapons and materials has been defined as the key menace to the security of the United States and the world. At present, nuclear terrorism has presented the global community with an unidentified, complex and unpredictable threat requiring advanced tools and know-how. This view of nuclear terrorism has frayed the ties among nations, resulting in a more realistic attitude towards the campaign against conventional terrorism at the regional and international levels.

Follow Us:

Conferences on nuclear terrorism could provide a good start for enhancing regional cooperation. Involving Iran as a nuclear state in nuclear activities and discussions would encourage other regional countries to take part in such cooperation. The existing double standards on regional nuclear policies, supported by the West, could be phased out, and concerns over Iran's nuclear activities could be allayed. Obviously, the active participation of a nuclear state in nuclear-related activities, including the security of nuclear facilities and the campaign against nuclear terrorism, will lead to the country's positive contribution to global nuclear cooperation.

Furthermore, nuclear cooperation with Iran will lead to a kind of cooperation on comprehensive regional security. Due to the contradictions and ideological and political characteristics of the Middle East, one should argue that a political-strategic issue such as tackling nuclear terrorism could be a motivation for further regional political-security cooperation on the Arab-Israeli peace process or the idea of a NWFZ in the Middle East. A campaign against nuclear terrorism, including all regional countries, can be a point of regional consensus.

It is in this context that Iran supports the expansion of peaceful nuclear activities in the region and on different occasions has supported the nuclear activities of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Any nuclear cooperation offered by countries in the region can lead to collaboration in other areas, such as the fight against nuclear terrorism or regional peace and security. The issue of nuclear terrorism constitutes both challenges and opportunities for Iran. The first challenge is the concept of "interdependent security.

On the other hand, the connection of these two concepts with global and U. The second challenge is the formation of a U. From Iran's perspective, the formation of the coalition within the framework of nuclear conferences poses restrictions and challenges against Iran as it pursues a peaceful nuclear program.

Not only do such coalitions deny any opportunities to Iran; they present a series of threats to the country. The third challenge is the issue of nuclear deterrence and the balance of power in the region. The emphasis on the imminence of the threat of nuclear terrorism has diverted attention from the desirability of the comprehensive nuclear disarmament of the Middle East, particularly of Israel, and has intensified pressures on countries such as Iran. From this perspective, one of the U.

However, the issue of nuclear terrorism incorporates a number of opportunities, including the building of trust between Iran and the West, positing a realistic view of the issue of battling conventional terrorism and advancing regional cooperation. If the West adopts an accommodating approach and recognizes Iran as an independent nuclear state, the country, which is surrounded by terrorist organizations outside its borders, can offer constructive cooperation in regard to the campaign against terrorism. The collaboration will itself build further confidence between the two sides, serving as a promising start for further collaboration on regional peace and security.

This approach can also put an end to the traditional regional "balance of power" as a confrontation between countries such as Iran and Israel, shifting the situation towards a "balance of security" in the region. A realistic view of comprehensive nuclear disarmament and the "regional zero" is an urgent issue calling on all the regional countries, even Israel, to share in a long-term interest. Despite the likelihood of nuclear terrorism as a critical threat to the future that affects the issue of nuclear security, the imminence of such threats should not be exaggerated.

This approach will create a securitized and politicized atmosphere within the international community, as well as among states and nations. Unique identifying numbers for this report in the Digital Library or other systems. This legislative branch agency works exclusively for Members of Congress, their committees and their staff.

Account Options

This collection includes CRS reports from the mid's through the present--covering a variety of topics from agriculture to foreign policy to welfare. What responsibilities do I have when using this report?

Dates and time periods associated with this report. Geographical information about where this report originated or about its content. Regional Perspectives and U.

Iran: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy

Policy , report , January 13, ; Washington D. Description This report provides a description of Iran's neighbors' policies and interests, options for Congressional consideration, and an analysis of potential regional implications.

Physical Description 54 pages. Who People and organizations associated with either the creation of this report or its content. Authors Addis, Casey L. Publisher Library of Congress. About Browse this Partner. What Descriptive information to help identify this report. Foreign relations -- U. Identifier Unique identifying numbers for this report in the Digital Library or other systems. Collections This report is part of the following collection of related materials.

• TEEN FOODIE (TEEN FOODIE BOOK/MAG)
• Keeping it Curvy.Confident.Chic.
• Go Carefully, My Friend: a novel of South Africa
• Berkeley: Philosophy in an Hour
• Die asiatischeFrau - Der Schlüssel zum Partnerglück - EIn Ratgeber aus dem Leben (German Edition)
• Lessons on the Life of Peter (Bible Biographies Book 4)