Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY - HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF KENT

The role and place of Iran in the US and Russian Foreign Policies

Master Dissertation by

Master Programme `International Relations in Eurasia'

Field of Study 41.04.05 International Relations

iran russian foreign policy

ANNA PALAZZO

Supervisor: Prof. Maxim V. Bratersky

World count: 16,086

Moscow, Russia 2020

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. US Foreign Policy the Islamic Republic of IRAN

1.1 The US and Iran have an undoubtedly unstable and oscillating relationshi

1.2 Historical background of relations between the US and Iran: confrontation or collaboration?

1.3 Relevant factors for the US intervention in Iran

1.4 US Foreign policy goals and interests: continuity despite the changes

1.5 US Strategy towards Iran: doctrines and IR theories

1.6 Conclusion: US Foreign Policy towards Iran

2. Russian Foreign Policy and the Islamic Republic of Iran

2.1 Historical Background: confrontation or collaboration?

2.2 Factors and interests driving Russian Policy towards Iran: no significant changes

2.3 Russian Foreign policy goals towards Iran: reacquisition of role of Great Power in a multi-polar International System

2.4 Russian Foreign Policy towards Iran

3. US and Russian Foreign Policies towards IRAN: can they be matched?

3.1 Comparison of the goals and interests: controversial

3.2 Common areas between US and Russian Foreign Policies towards Iran

3.3 Iran's Nuclear Program

3.4 Consequences of the “Obama Deal”

3.5 Reasons behind Nuclear Iran

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Scope and Objective:

The purpose of my thesis is to analyse in detail the two foreign policies adopted towards Iran. Through the examination of the main factors of interests in the Middle East, the incentives for the intervention, the goals and their evolution over time, I will define the type of conduct engaged and the justification of this behaviour, in order to be able to define the nature of the bilateral relations with Iran and to identify the main obstacles and reasons for peaceful cooperation. The comparison of the American and Russian conducts, controversies and common issues lead me the definition of their Foreign Policies towards Iran and to main question. Despite the apparent contrast of objectives underlying the two conduct, can Russian and American policies towards Iran find a convergent point and match? The answer goes to the nuclear issue, with the JCPOA.

The reason why I decided to examine the place of Iran in American and Russian Foreign Policies is related to the relevance of the topic in the contemporary international politics, rapidly escalating in relation to the global issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons, one of the most debated topics that authors are facing. The US and Russia, despite their differences and conflict past not to be forgotten on the issue, managed to find in JCPOA a coincidence of objectives, a convergence that did not seem possible. My personal choice to select two great powers as the US and Russia as object of analysis is due to my desire to analyse the issue from two different perspectives, the Western approach, from one side, and the Russian one from the other one; despite many cultural and ideological differences and divergent national interests between Russia and America, I wanted to demonstrate that it was possible to find a meeting point by temporarily archiving national interests and focusing more specifically on an international security issue which, inevitably, it affects all states of the globe.

The paper is divided into three sections: in the first one I will analyse the fluctuating and discontinuous relations between the US and Iran. In order to understand the US strategy, to define it properly and to compare it to the Russian one, I will start by providing a historical framework and an analysis of the theories underlying the American conduct towards Iran. I will proceed by identifying the fundamental factors for the US intervention, the national interests and the objectives that the US want to purse as priority. In order to be able to define the nature of their relationship, I will be using the realist definition of cooperation, unanimously accepted by the international community, of cooperation. The stability in the region for national and international security issues, the fight against terrorism, the limitation and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the promotion and protection of human rights in Iran are only some of the most relative objectives that will justify US actions and increased the perception of Iran as threat. The change of American strategy, moving from a policy of isolationism to an active liberal interventionism and unilateral nationalism will be explained and will take me to the conclusion that the US and Iran are not in a cooperation, but in a serious confrontation and that the main reason for sustain that can be found in the American Hegemony and in the development of American Exceptionism. Malone D., M., Khong, F., Y.,”Unilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: International Perspectives,” Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, ed. 2003 In the second chapter, I will analyse the relations between the other great world superpower and Iran, investigating Russia's conduct in the Middle East. Analysing the historical events, the main factors of interest in Iran and the primary goals I will identify the reasons behind Russian strategy, who has engaged a less hostile and aggressive strategy compared to the American one, simply because Iran is not considered a threat nor a fundamental ally. Russia engages an “ambiguous diplomacy”, based on practical achievements of short-term interests in the area, such as supply of weapons or limitation of the US influence, in order to reach long-term goals, such as supply of weapons or limitation of the US influence.Simons., G., “Russian public diplomacy in the 21st century: Structure, means and message”, Public Relations Review Volume 40, Issue 3, September 2014, p. 445 Russia's primary goal from the collapse of the Soviet Union up to now is to regain the status of great power in a multilateral international system. Russia's behaviour ambiguous towards Iranian sanctions because she saw in the Iranian case the perfect opportunity for regaining prestige in the international system. Despite even their relation cannot be considered as cooperation, however, unlike the case of the US, due to the Iranian necessary dependence on Russia, there is the hope for a future collaboration.

The third chapter is dedicated to the comparison of the two policies. Despite their differences in interests, goals and mode of actions towards Iran, it will be demonstrated that the American and Russian foreign policies can match on the nuclear issue. Despite the controversies even with the same interests on the agenda, the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” demonstrates how, unlike bilateral relations, where often conflicting national interests are sought, an agreement for a common goal at international level overshadows the priorities of individual states, making cooperation possible. What emerges from the Obama deal, in fact, is that this incompatibility given by the "exceptionalism" of the United States and the "scarce interest" of Russia towards Iran may disappear if Iran constitutes a necessary area for achieving of a common goal, such as nuclear disarmament. In this case, in fact, national interests are overshadowed to achieve a greater balance, hoping for further successful agreements in the future.

Literature Review:

The first chapter is dedicated to US-Iranian historical relations and to the definition of their relationship. Many authors tried to explain US behaviour under theories however, due to the very complex nature of American Foreign Policy, it is difficult to identify the conduct under one approach. The interesting literature I selected regards the relation between hegemony and positive cooperation between US and Iran. Realists, such as Keohane, sustain that “hegemony facilitates cooperation.” Keohane, R., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Ikenberry, on the other side, argues that US hegemony is not negative in relations with other states and has not aimed at absolute domination but, on the contrary, the US leader has laid the foundations for a liberal order world. Prifti, an offensive realism approach supporter for US aggressive behaviour, sees the US as an offshore balancing of the Middle East and, as sustained by the realist theory of the Hegemonic balance, tries to prevent any power from becoming a potential hegemon in the Middle East as threat for stability and US interests in the region. Prifti, B. Putting US Foreign Policy in a Theoretical Perspective. US Foreign Policy in the Middle East. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 9 Feb 2017. However, as very explained by the author reviewer Akram, I.M. US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The case for continuity. Insight Turkey. 2018, Vol. 20 Issue 4, p 289-290. , the US interests in the region are secondary to US interests. Moreover, the intervention of US in the Middle East as hegemonic power, rises Iranian insecurity, favouring development of nuclear programs and measures for security and the consequent hostility.

The second chapter regards the Russian-Iranian interactions and the nature of their bilateral relations. Despite the huge literature regarding the relations between the two counties, there are many divergent opinions between the scholars, who base they definition on the diversity or similarities of the interests shared by Russia and Iran.

Indeed, their relationship is defined as strategic cooperation, or as pragmatic cooperation Dinpajouh M., Russian Foreign Policy Towards Iran Under Vladimir Putin: 2000-2008, Master Dissertation, July 2009 p. 3-4.. According to Aras and Цzbay, “strategic alliance is a kind of broad security relationship that may involve, among other things, cooperation for the attainment of common goals” Bьlent Aras and Fatih Цzbay. The Limits of the Russian-Iranian Strategic Alliance: Its History and Geopolitics, and the Nuclear Issue,? Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2008, 56. . Other authors, such as Jalali, agree on the strategic partnership, despite “conflict of interests”. Ali A. Jalali. ЇThe Strategic Partnership of Russia and Iran,? Parameters: US Army War College, Vol. 31, No. 4, Winter 2001/2002, 98.

An interesting author who changed the perspective is Mark Katz, focusing the analysis on Putin' era. In his two papers the explains how Russia and Iran were in a cooperation, however, because of serious disputes on the Caspian Sea Mark N. Katz. ЇRussian-Iranian Relations in the Putin Era,? Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 10, No. 1, Winter 2002, 69. and other and other quarrels, their relation started assuming pragmatic characteristics. Putin's conduct, indeed, seems assume the conduct defined by Nathan L. Burns and Houman A. Sadri of the tactical cooperation, a cooperation based on short-term mutual, often in pursuit of an objective that serves a larger foreign policy goal of a state. However, despite some relevant strategic elements in Russian strategy, I believe that the debate on the Russian-Iranian relation should not be focused on convergence or divergence of interests, but on Iran's relevance for Russia. As confirmed by the Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, “Cooperation with Moscow is a strategic preference of Iran”. Cited in Bьlent Aras and Fatih Цzbay. ЇThe limits of the Russian-Iranian strategic alliance: its history and geopolitics, and the nuclear issue,? Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2008, 56. Russia does not consider Iran as a priority. As it will be demonstrating in the paper, I believe that there is a lack of cooperation between them.

The last chapter regards the Nuclear Issue and weapons proliferation. The literature I decided to analyse regards the nuclear proliferation considers two different approaches. Academics from the rational deterrence theory and realist theory sustain that a low spread of nuclear weapons could be made compatible with international peace and stability Cimbala, Stephen J. “Nuclear Proliferation in the Twenty-First Century: Realism, Rationality, or Uncertainty?” Strategic Studies Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, 2017, pp. 129-146. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26271593. Accessed 22 May 2020.. The realist Mearsheimer indeed, considers “nuclear power as fundamental driver of a state” Against this argument, authors sustain that proliferation of weapons is a dangerous threat to stability. Alireza Jafarzadeh considers the envelopment of the nuclear program under the president Ahmadinejad as dangerous threat. Jafarzadeh, Alireza. “The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis”. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. While Neorealists believe that “states seek nuclear weapons technology in order to promote security through active means of deterrence”, the liberals, moving to a discussion on the dialogue, as very well explained by Fadaie in his article “Contending theories: realism and liberalism in the nuclear twenty-first century,” he stresses the importance of international treaties and diplomatic processes, as the JCPOA. Regarding this deal, despite many divergent opinions on the successful of the deal, Mehdi Fakheri, in his article, highlights the implications of the agreement and the explains how this deal has been “a success story” for multilateralism, rising hopes for future processes. Fakheri M. Iran nuclear deal: from nationalism to diplomacy Asian Education and Development Studies Vol 6 Issue 1, 3 January 2017.

Methodology

The method used in my research is a qualitative method of analysis, based on my personal elaboration of the US and Russian Foreign Policies of academic journals and reviewed articles. My study resulted in an inductive approach aimed at the identification, through the recognition of the main goals and interests of American and Russian administrations, of the underlying factors and assumption on which of American and Russian in international politics. My descriptive and narrative study mainly uses a realist approach to explain American and Russian interventionism and the evolution of their foreign policies; I used realist concepts and assumptions of cooperation, and hegemony and realist IR theory of the Hegemonic Stability to justify the conflictual relationship between the US and Russia with Iran; However, despite the two great powers seem to behave in a realistic in their foreign policy, however, their evolution has demonstrated that it would be reductive to justify their conduct with one approach only, simply because different administrations will adopt different strategies.

The research study of my thesis consisted in three phases. The first one concerned the study of American and Russian Relations and resorted to the book “A world of nations. The international order after 1945, by Keylor, and A history of the modern Middle East by Cleveland and Bunton from which I relied for a greater understanding of the international and regional middle eastern dynamics.

The second phase of the research process consisted in the identification of the main factors of American and Russian Foreign Policies; I consulted a different academic journals and papers by American and Russian authors, in order to have two different point of views. To cite some of them, “Russia's Foreign Policy toward Iran: A Critical Geopolitics Perspective” by Mariya Y. Omelicheva and the “U.S. Middle East Strategy: Back to Balancing” by Waltz.

The last part of my research regarding the Nuclear Issue and to the JCPOA as convergent element of the two Foreign Policies, has been based on the consultation official documents, such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and on academic Journals.

Chapter 1

1. US Foreign Policy the Islamic Republic of IRAN

1.1 The US and Iran have an undoubtedly unstable and oscillating relationship

The historical context of the two countries, the main reasons for US intervention in the Middle East, the interests and objectives, the evolution from an initial “containment” policy to a concrete interventionism, evidence an undeniable deterioration of the relations. The sudden increased interest in the Middle East for the possession of mineral resources, for the important geostrategic position and for the instability related to the nationalist movements, together with the growing growth of the US as “super” power acted as first incentives for the intervention. The potential threats from the other great power, the Soviet Union and the interests in national and global security adopted the US foreign policy on Truman and Eisenhower Doctrines, strategies aimed at defeating the USSR in the Middle East. Crabb, Cecil, V., “Doctrines of the American foreign policy”, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1982, p. 29. The support to the Iranian shah, promoter of pro-western policies, evidence the interest of the United States in having a role in the region, which it will obtain thanks to this strategic alliance. The relations will worsen dramatically with the 1978 Islamic revolution and the resulting exclusion of the US from the region. The engagements in support of many states of the region and the strengthening ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia, strategic American allies, will show once again the importance for the USA to maintain a role in Middle East. The relations will reach the worst moment when Iran decided to support some terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah or Hamas, especially after the 9/11, and when they developed the nuclear program, as perceived by the US as dangerous threat who wanted the supremacy in the area. Even if there are some authors, sustaining that hegemonic US behaviour is not an obstacle to cooperation, but it is simply aimed at international peace, the examination of all these elements, compared to the definition of “cooperation” and “non-cooperation” formulated by the American academic Keohane internationally accepted, result in an underlying incompatibility with Iran.

1.2 Historical background of relations between the US and Iran: confrontation or collaboration?

The relations between the US and Iran are relatively recent, especially when compared to those of other European powers. They have started to take a significant turn in the world scenario since the end of the Second World War. This because, unlike other European powers, such as England and France, the United States had never shown a real interest in the Middle East before then. Persia at that time (present-day Iran) constituted a buffer state between the United Kingdom and Russia, two powers that had already begun to develop real influence in the area, driven by long-term interests for the Middle East. British colonialism, in fact, had increased over the centuries a strong role in the commercial and political relations of the region; In 1941 Iran was divided into spheres of Soviet and British influences. With the end of the Second World War the United States grew exponentially, especially economically, strengthening its status as “world superpower”. The US will start to play an active role in the area and to intensify relations with Iran, putting itself at stake as "defenders" of Iran against the Soviet Union, a feature that will accompany every US intervention throughout the period of the Cold War. Keylor, W.R. “Un mondo di nazioni, L'ordine Internazionale dal 1945.” Ed. Guerini Scientifica, 2014. Transl. A world of nations, The international world order after the 1945. Ed. Guerini Scientifica, 2014. P. 405.

US: Trustworthy foreign power for Iran.

The first phase of their relationship is one of the few moments of positive relations between them, since the US was seen as trustworthy anti-Soviet and anti-British foreign power. The Truman Administration embraced Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as fundamental partner in the informal anti-Soviet alliance that was emerging in the Middle East.Jenkins, R. Churchill: A biography. New York, NY: Plume. 2001. It was the beginning of the containment, a strategy used by Kennan to achieve a “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies” The Editors of Enciclopaedia Britannica, Containment, Enciclopaedia Britannica inc. 26 March 2020, [available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/containment-foreign-policy,][ access: 12 April 2020], a theory that will mark the first part of the relations and the American worldwide involvement. Huge economic and military aid was sent to the Iranian shah, a proponent of social, economic and political and cultural reforms aimed at the westernization of Iran, which in a very short time became a faithful ally of the USA and a pillar of American conduct in the 50-60s.

Mossadegh: beginning of the confrontation

In 1953 the CIA helped restore the shah, who had fled into exile during a political dispute with the nationalist exponent Mohammed Mossadegh, who had tried to nationalize the British and U.S. oil companies that exploited the huge oil reserves of the country W.R. Keylor, A world of nations, The international world order after the 1945. Ed. Guerini Scientifica, 2014. P. 405.. In the 1950s, US companies had acquired control over Iranian oil production similar to that of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) through an agreement that guaranteed substantial oil royalties to the shah coffers. The United States intervened, along with Britain, with an embargo on Iranian oil exports, concerned about the consequences for the Middle East oil flow.

Iran under US orbit.

Iran played a key role in the US campaign to contain the Soviet expansion in South Asia, joining the Baghdad Pact (CTO) in 1955 and offering US services important bases for electronic surveillance of the Soviet border. ibidem With the elimination of the URSS and Great Britain and with the provision of sophisticated weapons and militaries to Iran, the United States ensured the status of “only Western power in the region”. ibidem The extraordinary increase in the world oil price, after the 1973 embargo, flooded Iran with petrodollars that the shah spent on expensive public works programs that generated hyperinflation, leading the impoverished population to bitterly oppose, disgusted by the rampant corruption and lifestyle of the shah court.

The revolution and the Khomeinism: the end of good relations.

In 1979 this mixture of popular grudge resulted in massive demonstrations. The anti-Western activist Khomeini became a spokesman for the dissent. He denounced the "white revolution" of the shah as an affront to the Muslim tradition and, using Islam as a political tool to mobilize the population against the regime, he transformed Iran's monarchy into an Islamic Republic. The anti-Western resentment accrued by the Iranian population led to the development of Khomeinism, the political religion on which the Islamic Republic of Iran is based, defined by political expert Huntington as an “identity response to a violent US intrusion into internal affairs”. The United States will be defined by Khomeini as the “Great Satan” and symbol of the “corruption of Western civilization.”

Critical degeneration of the Iranian-US relationship.

A significant event that will show the confrontation between Iran and the United States is the 1979 hostage crisis: Iranian militants suspected a US conspiracy and took diplomatic staff of the US embassy in Tehran hostage. This was followed by a ban on all US trade with Iran and the freezing of Iranian assets in U.S. banks. These events caused the international isolation of Khomeini's regime.

In the 1980s the Middle East was involved in a bloody predominantly religious war between Iran-Iraq, the worst period of US-Iranian relations; The frictions with Iran, the hostage crisis and the Iranian support to alleged terrorist organisations led the US to take sides with Iraq; However, in order to resume contacts with moderate factions, the US supplied Iran with American weapons.

Terrorism and the great pressure

There were two issues that intensified the conflict in the new millennium: Iran's financial support for radical Shia movements abroad and the alleged Iranian program for the development of nuclear weapons and proliferation; Despite the detachment from Khomeini's fundamentalist policies, with Khamenei and Rafsanjani first and Khatami after, and the consequent attempt to improve relations with Obama and Rouhani, these two issues will remain the basis of the Iran-US confrontation to the present day. The 2003 invasion of Iraq first and of Afghanistan after, marked active and aggressive conduct by President Bush, who granted preventive use of military force to target any suspected attacks on the United States. He referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil", nations pro-terrorist and committed to the development of weapons of mass destruction, the two points on the present-day US agenda.

The current president Trump has increased the aggressive conduct with sanctions and with a pressure strategy aimed at targeting not only the Islamic Republic of Iran directly, but also the Iranians in Syria. On May 18, 2018, Trump announced the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and on November of the same year he officially reinstated all sanctions against Iran that were previously lifted before the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA Remarks by president Trump on the Join Comprehensive Plan of Action, Foreign Policy, 8 May 2018. Available at: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-joint-comprehensive-plan-action/]. However, despite the continuation of American strategy of aggressiveness towards Iran and actions based on interventionist policies - as demonstrated by the murder of the general Soleimani - however, Trump has a different picture of America in the world; He is not interested in policies adopted by his predecessors, such as on democratisation but, aware of the decreasing role of the US in the Middle East, his primary focus is on internal affairs, repairing American economy, in order to maintain his supremacy and leadership towards his main technological competitor, China.

1.3 Relevant factors for the US intervention in Iran

After analysing the historical context, I will highlight the main factors that prompted US interest in Iran. These factors influenced the change of US foreign policy, leading from an isolationist policy to an active interventionism. These factors developed simultaneously with the increasing significance of the Middle East for oil resources. Iran has always played a very important role in the region and its oil and gas reserves make it a strategic country with an extremely significant weight in the world economy.

Weakening European powers in the Middle East

With the end of the Second World War, the major European powers, such as Great Britain and France, which had previously exercised their dominion over the Middle Eastern area - if we think of the importance of the Suez canal for trade and navigation - found themselves in critical economic conditions; for this reason, together with the growing growth of the nationalism of the Arab countries which led to the birth of new nations, the weight of the two European powers in the Middle East was decidedly reduced. In this context, the beginning of the growth of American influence began, replacing the European presence in the area, through doctrines and economic and military in the area, in order to obtain the role of hegemonic power of the area in the 1960s.

Increasing of the value of oil

Oil represents the true and authentic reason why the Middle East acts as centre of attraction for foreign power. Mueller, K., P., Wasser B., Jeffrey M., and Watts S., “U.S. Strategic Interests in the Middle East and Implications for the Army”. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2017. [https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE265.html] [access: 11 April 2020] The priceless value of oil had already been discovered in the industrial revolution, however, it assumed extraordinary importance for the fuel function in the twentieth century. Although the Americans had oil fields, the end of the Second World War and the increasing use of this priceless source of value meant that American oil companies set their sights on the Middle East. America had already influence through the "seven sisters", worldwide oil companies that dominated world political extraction. However, the ever-growing demand for industrial development made the United States move from being a producing country to an importer of oil. The reason for interest was for the immense quantities in the area with incredibly low production prices. The United States will always intervene decisively both directly and indirectly for oil issues, as it is considered to be a national interest; the embargo on Iranian oil exports after the nationalization by Mossadegh of the country's oil industry is a clear evidence. Iran's participation in OPEC as a member state will greatly increase Iranian value in the eyes of the US, as coordinator of the production and export of oil's policies. The oil and gas industry is Iran's main asset, making up 80% of the state's total revenue. The Heritage Foundation, Iran Economy, 2014 Index of Economic Freedom. [available at :http://www.heritage.org/index/country/iran] [access: 20 April 2020] Economic growth and regional superpower ambitions of Iran depends on oil and gas.

Birth of the State of Israel

Another fundamental issue for the intervention of the United States in the Middle East in Iran, is Israel. The bond between the United States and Israel dates back to the beginning of the twentieth century and was increasingly strengthened during the Nazi period. The role of the Jewish lobbies in the United States, which have always played a significant role in the American elections, makes the alliance between them strong and special. Janice J. T.,, US Foreign Policy in the Middle East the role of lobbies and special interest groups. Pluto Press 2005 p. 68. E-BOOK [https://www-theacademiclibrary-com.chain.kent.ac.uk/title_display.cfm?CFID=8058030&CFTOKEN=59922944] However important and decisive this presence in the region was, the other justification for the support was the need to have an ally in the region, fundamental in an anti-Soviet function. This alliance was crucial for having influence over the region, as following interventions in other Arab states in the region demonstrated.

Conflicts within the Arab World.

Tensions within the Arab world have always been the pretext for great powers to exercise their power over the region, constituting a real instrument of the political struggle for domination; The US is not an exception, as the active intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, despite the geographical distance, demonstrate. Although there has always been the will to create a pan-Arab state, this has never been possible due to strong rivalries and difference between them, leading foreign powers to intervene for the stability of the area. Benli Altunэs?эk, M., The Middle East in the Aftermath of September 11 Attacks, Foreign Policy, Vol. 27, No. 3-4, 2001.

1.4 US Foreign policy goals and interests: continuity despite the changes

After describing the historical context in which Iran and the US had developed their relations, I will continue my analysis of American foreign policy to understand the nature of their relationship; in this regard, it is necessary to look at US interests and goals and the consequent change of the conduct.

During their analysis, I will explain the evolution of US foreign policy and the change in objectives set for military interventions and strategic actions. they will justify the evolution of US strategy and take me to a significant conclusion: despite the fact that United States' national interests towards Iran have changed over years, they have not changed in substance Akram, I., M. US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The case for continuity. Insight Turkey. 2018, Vol. 20 Issue 4. http://library.kent.ac.uk.chain.kent.ac.uk/cgi [access: 16 April 2020]; all changes are related to the evolution of international events, aimed at achieving the same long-term US national interests: obtaining an hegemonic role in the area, democratization and security in the Middle East for promoting peace and international security. The achievement of all these objectives finds a common factor, developed from this idea of "American exceptionalism Hodgson, G., The Myth of American Exceptionalism, Yale University Press, 1 December 2009. P. 62", supported by his hegemonic increase after the II World War.

Attempt to decrease Russian influence in the region.

The primary objective of the US conduct in the Middle East and symbol of the US strategy from 1945 to the end of the Cold War is to limit the expansion of his primary rival and great power, the Soviet Union. The US, isolated, intervened for the dismantling of Soviet troops in 1946, marking the official intervention of the United States on the world level. All US aid provided to the shah, in order to become Iranian's best ally, was sent to prevent the Soviet Union from dominate the area. The second change in foreign policy came with the Eisenhower doctrine, which more concretely provided for the security of any territory that required help for a communist aggression. Crabb, C., V., “Doctrines of the American foreign policy”, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1982, pp. 27-38 The removal of the Soviet Union would result in US hegemony.

Weakening Iran's effort of supremacy in the region

The United States managed to obtain a significant place in the Middle East thanks to the alliances and to interventionist actions. The close collaboration with the shah after the II World War has certainly strengthened the US power in the area, managing to remain the only western power in the Middle East. However, the Iranian revolution and the growing growth of the Islamic Republic, Iranian support to terrorist organizations and the 9/11 events caused a radical change in the American interventionist strategy. Their goal was to try to limit Iranian hegemony in the area. This is because the perception of Iran changed completely: Iran was now perceived as dangerous threat. He aimed at hegemony in the area, using every means to become a reference point for the Islamic World, harnessing his ability to promote cross-border alliances with Shiite believers from the nations alongside. A hegemonic Islamic republic, according to the US, would mean not only a loss of American position in the Middle East, but also regional instability. For this reasons, they used the tool of sanctions to weaken Iran: introduced by Clinton and subsequently renewed during the presidencies of Bush, Obama and Trump, the aim was to punish support for international terrorism, for the efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process, for the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and for the violation of human rights.Beall, Christopher. "The Emerging Investment Landscape of Post-Sanctions Iran: Opportunities, Risks, and Implications on US Foreign Policy." Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 39, no. 4, April 2016, p. 839-1022. HeinOnline.

Encouraging Regime Change for the protection of human Right in Iran.

The United States has tried to pursue regime-change in Iran, safeguard protection of human rights, regional counter-terrorism and regional cooperation. The radical differences in the American and Islamic cultural, historical, ideological and political systems represent inability to achieve dialogue and cooperationGerson, M., To gain leverage in Iran, the U.S. Needs to Go Green, Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2009, [available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/ 12/01 /AR2009120103283.html] [access: 15 April 2020]. The advance to a moderate regime would to lead, according to the US, to the possibility to cooperate and to easily work on common goals, which would be impossible with opposite values and contrasting regimes. Supporting democracy is a strategy that the US has always tried to adopt because confident of the fact that, how sustained by the theory of the democratic peace, not only democratic states are less inclined to fight each other, but they would bring a better stability in the region. The US behaved as defender of human dignity and human rights, the rule of law, and on democratic ideologies. However, as demonstrated by many states, democratisation is not always successful. It is a process which requires time and which cannot be imposed; His imposition would cause the opposite reaction, as demonstrated by the Iranian revolution in 1978 for the reforms of the shah. The population, indeed, rebelled simply because of the influence of a foreign power. However, the process of democratisation didn't work because of the failure to provide a viable alternative but US principles, by imposing its own values targeting youth populations. Walt, S., M., Our Myopic Approach to Iran, Foreign Policy, 26 March 2013, [available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/26/our-myopic-approach-to-iran/] [ access: 3 April 2020] After the 9/11 the US adopted policies aimed at democratisation in the Middle East but, despite some progresses such as several moderate reforms implemented by Rohani, there is still a lot to be done. Milani, M. Rouhani 's Foreign Policy: How to Work with Iran's Pragmatic New President. Foreign aff., 25 June 2013, [ available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/ 2013-06-25/rouhanis-foreign-policy; ][ access: 3 April 2020]

Strengthening regional counter-terrorism and fighting the Islamic state.

The biggest goal change, covering the US agenda in 2000, after the end of soviet containment, is the fight against terrorism and the prevention of its growth. The attack suffered by the United States on 9/11 by the terrorist group Al-Qaeda led to a radical change in US foreign policy, establishing a regime aimed at the immediate attack of any terrorist, ally of terrorism, terrorist financiers or alleged states terrorists. The Iran's support for terrorist movements, such as Hezbollah or Hamas, resulted in the introduction of the Islamic Republic as member of the “Axis of Evil”, together with Iraq and South Korea, increasing tensions with the US. The most likely reason for this support is deterrence, as they are the only capable of inflicting direct damages on Israel. Walt, S., M., On Iran ,Try Back scratching ,Not Blackmail, Foreign Policy, 22 February 2013., [available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/ 2013/02/22/on-iran-try-backscratching-not-blackmail/] [access: 3 April 2020] On the other hand, the US, made the mistake of making no distinction between terrorist groups. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad all conceive themselves as legitimate resistance movements combating Israeli occupation. The same cannot be said for movements like Al Qaeda and ISIS. Furthermore, US relationship with Israel and the policies adopted in the area have put the US in the sights of the terrorist organisations of the Sunni Arabs, another relevant reason to consider terrorism a concrete danger and imminent threat to be defeated.

Safeguarding relations with allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia

The US have two historic allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, the former for the historic alliance previously mentioned and for the Jewish lobbies in America, the latter for the dependence on oil and Iran's antagonist for regional supremacy. The US foreign policy aims at strengthening relations with them for maintaining a strong position in the area, safeguarding their interest against Iran. Saudi Arabia and Israel, Iran's historic regional rivals, want to prevent an ascent of Iran, which could bring power to absolute dominance in the Middle East and regional instability. Iran's geo-strategical position and strong military forces, makes it a constant threat that must be kept under control and limited if necessary. Ben Piven, Iran and Israel: Comparing military machines, Al Jazeera, Apr. 24, 2012, available at: [https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/03/2012326131343853636.html ][access: 20 April 2020] Moreover, Iran's ability to promote cross-border alliances with Shiites represents an even more serious threat. However, this rivalry between Saudi-Arabia and Iran causes instability in the region Eksi, Muharrem Regional Hegemony Quests in the Middle East from the Balance of Power System to the Balance of Proxy Wars: Turkey as Balancing Power for the Iran - Saudi Rivalry, Journal of Gazi, Academic View. Winter2017, Vol. 11 Issue 21, p133-156. 24p. available at: [http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsEieprJSrqe4TbGWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGptEy1qbJPuePfgeyx43zx1%2B6B&T=P&P=AN&S=R&D=a9h&K=126873459] [access: 28 March 2020]. It should also be noted that the United States, due to the necessary dependence on Saudi oil and the desire to play a role in the region, is passive to Saudi misconduct, such as, for example, the links with Wahhabi extremism.

Limiting Iranian nuclear capacity and regional non-proliferation.

The main interests of US foreign policy from Bush to Trump is related to Iranian nuclear capacity. The deep concern from all countries made them impose a limitation in quantity production -for peaceful and defensive purposes only - and the possibility of periodic checks. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran-P5+1, July 14, 2015, https://assets. documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf An armed Iran is a serious concern for US national security and for the regional and international stability. A nuclear Iran means the necessary development of Saudi Arabia's program for self-defence. This would create further instability in an already unstable area. The United States, together with other world powers, consider a limitation of nuclear material necessary and the use of sanctions essential for potential violations.

US Economic interests in the Middle East.

Economic interests are the reason that has shaped American foreign policy in every phase of its evolution, from the Second World War to today. They represent the first US interests in the Middle East and the reason why they will never renounce. The whole issue is related to mineral resources, especially gas and oil. Oil, the primary national interest of the United States, especially after the Second World War, represented a need and source of great enrichment for the US economy, which has the possibility of importing it at low prices and in large quantities.

1.5 US Strategy towards Iran: doctrines and IR theories

After the analysis of the historical context and of the main American factors of interests and goals in Iran and in the Middle East, in order to complete the study of the relationship between, I will reference to the definition of cooperation universality adopted by the international community and I will compare it with the concept of hegemony. Despite the various definitions of hegemonies, I will use the realist and liberal concepts, the most suitable ones, to justify US conduct.

Cooperation and Hegemony: definitions and correlation

According to the realist Keohane, cooperation occurs when “actors adjust their behaviour to the actual or anticipated preferences of others through a process of coordination.” Consequently, the opposite concept, the non-cooperation, can be defined as “goal-seeking behaviour that strives to reduce the against available to the others to impede their want-satisfaction.” Keohane Robert, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Hegemony, according to the realists, hegemony is “ability to use an overwhelming power to dominate others” and the hegemonic state is “the most powerful state in the international system, with vastly superior military and economic capabilities.” Schmidt, B., C., The debate on American Hegemony, Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, 13 June 2019, [https://doc-research.org/2019/06/the-debate-on-american-hegemony/] [accessed: 12 May 2020/]

Liberal theory on hegemony introduces the concept of leadership, sustaining that military superiority is not enough in order to be a hegemony.

The realist school affirms not only the possibility of coexistence of cooperation and hegemony, but sustains also that hegemony, in an international system with anarchy, facilitates some types of cooperation, since it is not merely related to conflicting interests and matters of power, but, as defined by the theory of the hegemonic stability the hegemonic power establishes stability and enables good cooperation.

US-Iranian confrontation: American Hegemony as obstacle to cooperation.

However, the US hegemony contradicts this stability proven by the definitions used by the realis theory. Cooperation between the US and Iran, indeed, only worked for very short historical periods, when the US supported the shah; The growing increase of “super power” status after the second world war and the undisputed economic and military superiority an economic, not only incremented a new international world order based on US interests and American vision of the world, but increased US awareness of his status. This awareness developed “American Exceptionalism”, idea based on the US uniqueness and on the mission of transforming the world. If this ideology has proved to be useful for obtaining a role in the Middle East with the positive relationship with the shah, - as supported by liberal theory- the 1978 revolution and the instauration of the Islamic republic led to a conflictual crisis, due to deeply different interests and to their irreconcilability because of aspirations for regional hegemony. Not only US intervention in the area did not allow “mutual adjustment of interests and objectives”, it caused the escalation of the relations: The US, on one hand, pushed by the perception of Iran as a threat to national and international security, to the nuclear proliferation and to the support to terrorist movements in the Middle East adopted an aggressive and sanctioning policy, in order to limit Iran's power. On the other hand, Iran, pushed by a sense of insecurity on US intentions in the Middle East and on US support for Iranian's regional enemies - Israel and Saudi Arabia - developed a nuclear program and approached to Russia against the US. Trump's decision to withdraw from the JCPOA is the evidence of the conflictual relations among Iran and US.

However, there are authors, who have a different vision of the USA after World War II; the United States, according to his point of view, has built and maintained a hegemonic world order that has produced peace and prosperity for the world. Ikenberry, for instance, argues that US hegemony is not negative in relations with other states and has not aimed at absolute domination but, on the contrary, the US leader has been wisely used to make a big deal and has laid the foundations for a liberal order world. He believes that they have pursued democracy promotion, free trade, interdependence and multilateral institutions. Ikenberry, J. G., America's Liberal Grand Strategy: Democracy and National Security in the Post-War Era. 2000 In M. Cox, G. J. Ikenberry, and T. Inoguchi (Eds.), American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Another author, Prifti, with his offensive realist approach, sustains the offshore balancing role of American hegemony in the Middle East, following the theory of the Hegemonic Stability. Prifti, B. Putting US Foreign Policy in a Theoretical Perspective. US Foreign Policy in the Middle East. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 9 Feb 2017.

In response to this views, with all the elements in terms of interests, interventional factors, objectives and theories, let us redefine American Foreign Policy in Iran.

1.6 Conclusion: US Foreign Policy towards Iran

The Second World War will mark the real change in the American foreign policy in the Middle East: The ever-growing importance of oil and the geostrategic position of the Middle East area, together with the weakening of the European powers, the increasing strengthening of the status of great US power and regional instability due to the development of nationalist movements are the determining factors that mark US interventionism Ibidem . This "US exceptionalism" justifies all post-WWII anti-Soviet policies, which will end at the end of the Cold War with the presence of only one leader in the area.

The conception of the Truman doctrine, the first theory on which the US foreign policy strategy in the Middle East is based, aimed to curb Soviet expansion in Europe and in the world and presupposed economic and military aid to individual countries under communist pressure. The beginning of more active policies, such as the support for the pro-western Iranian Shah, will prove fundamental for US interests in obtaining an important role in the area and in creating a process of “Americanisation” and democratization. The Soviet opposition has immediately the specific meaning of being the only foreign hegemon in the area. In this regard, the Eisenhower doctrine first and the Nixon doctrine then, will be adopted, aiming at providing financial and military aid to countries facing Soviet threats.