IranUnited States relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged

since December 2008.

Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since March 2008. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since March 2008.

It needs to be updated. Tagged since July 2010. It has been suggested that Diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since November 2011. Iranian - American relations

Iran

United States

Political relations between Iran and the United States began in the mid-to-late 19th century. Initially, while Iran was very wary of British and Russian colonial interests during the Great Game, the United States was seen as a more trustworthy Western power, and the Americans Arthur Millspaugh and Morgan Shuster were even appointed treasurers-general by the Shahs of the time. During World War II, Iran was invaded by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, both US allies, but relations continued to be positive after the war until the later years of the government of Mohammad Mossadeq, who was overthrown by a coup organized by the CIA. This was followed by an era of close alliance between Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's regime and the American government, which was in turn followed by a dramatic reversal and hostility between the two countries after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Opinions differ over what has caused the decades of poor relations. Iranian explanations include everything from the natural and unavoidable conflict between the Islamic Revolution on the one hand, and American arrogance[1] and desire for global hegemony on the other.[2] Other explanations include the Iranian government's need for an external bogeyman to furnish a pretext for domestic repression against pro-democratic forces and to bind the government to its loyal constituency.[3]

American fears that Iran is developing nuclear weapons have been a major militating factor in relations since shortly after the revolution. Since 1995, the United States has had an embargo on trade with Iran.[4]

Contents
[hide]

1 Early relations o 1.1 Current relations 2 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi reign o 2.1 Premier Mossadeq and his overthrow 2.1.1 1953 Iranian coup d'tat 2.1.2 Post-coup o 2.2 Cultural relations o 2.3 Growth of oil revenues o 2.4 1977-1979: Carter administration 3 The 1979 revolution o 3.1 The 1979 Iran hostage crisis o 3.2 Economic consequences of the Iran hostage crisis 4 1980s: Reagan administration o 4.1 IranIraq War o 4.2 1983: Hezbollah bombings o 4.3 Iran-Contra Affair o 4.4 United States attack of 1988 o 4.5 1988: Iran Air Flight 655 tragedy 5 1990s: Clinton administration o 5.1 Khatami and Iranian reformers o 5.2 Inter-Parliamentary (Congress-to-Majlis) informal talks 6 2001-2004 o 6.1 Concerns of Iranian and American governments o 6.2 Bush administration, first term 6.2.1 "Axis of evil" speech 6.2.2 "Grand Bargain" proposal 6.2.3 2003: Border incursions begin 6.2.4 Divide between public opinion and state policy 7 2005-2009: Bush administration, second term o 7.1 U.S. military revises plans o 7.2 Iran's nuclear program o 7.3 Bush's "wave of democracy" o 7.4 Iran fears of attack by the U.S. o 7.5 U.S. military operations inside Iran o 7.6 2006 sanctions against Iranian institutions o 7.7 2007 US raids Iran Consulate General

7.8 IRGC terrorist designation 7.9 2008 Naval dispute 7.10 Covert action against Iran 7.11 Other events (2007 - 2008) 7.12 Panel's message to Obama 8 Obama Administration o 8.1 Roxana Saberi and detained diplomats o 8.2 Iranian presidential elections 2009 o 8.3 Detention of U.S. Hikers over Kurdish Border o 8.4 Al-Qaeda Prisoners o 8.5 Strict enforcement of currency embargo o 8.6 Disappearance of Shahram Amiri 9 Economic relations 10 See also 11 References 12 Bibliography
o o o o o

13 External links

[edit] Early relations

Political relations between Persia and the United States "began when the Shah of Persia, Nassereddin Shah Qajar, officially dispatched Persia's first ambassador, Mirza Abolhasan Shirazi, to Washington D.C. in 1856."[5] In 1883, Samuel Benjamin was appointed by the United States as the first official diplomatic envoy to Iran, however; Ambassadorial relations were not established until 1944.[5] The first Persian Ambassador to the United States of America was Mirza Albohassan Khan Ilchi Kabir. Americans had been traveling to Iran since the early-to-mid 1880s, even before political relations existed between the two. Justin Perkins and Asahel Grant were the first missionaries to be dispatched to Persia in 1834 via the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Amir Kabir, Prime Minister under Nasereddin Shah, also initiated direct contacts with the American government in Washington. By the end of the 19th century, negotiations were underway for an American company to establish a railway system from the Persian Gulf to Tehran. Until World War II, relations between Iran and the United States remained cordial. As a result, many Iranians sympathetic to the Persian Constitutional Revolution came to view the U.S. as a "third force" in their struggle to break free of British and Russian dominance in Persian affairs. American industrial and business leaders were supportive of Persia's drive to modernize its economy and free itself from British and Russian influence.

The U.S. Consulate at Arg e Tabriz sits in the line of fire during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution. While the city was being attacked and bombed by 4,000 Russian troops in December 1911, some Americans, like Howard Baskerville, took to arms, helping the people of Iran.

Americans wearing jobbeh va kolah (traditional Persian clothes) at the opening of The Majles, January 29, 1924. Mr. McCaskey, Dr. Arthur Millspaugh, and Colonel MacCormack are seen in the photo.

Morgan Shuster and US officials at Atabak Palace, Tehran, 1911. Their group was appointed by Iran's parliament to reform and modernize Iran's Department of Treasury and Finances.

McCormick Hall, American College of Tehran, circa 1930, chartered by the State University of New York in 1932. Americans also founded Iran's first modern College of Medicine in the 1870s.

Joseph Plumb Cochran, American Presbyterian missionary. He is credited as the founder of Iran's first modern Medical School.

American Memorial School in Tabriz, established in 1881. In 1909, during the Persian Constitutional Revolution, Howard Baskerville, an American, died in Tabriz while trying to help the constitutionalists in a battle against royalist forces. After the Iranian parliament appointed American financial consultant Morgan Shuster as appointed Treasurer General of Persia in 1911, an American was killed in Tehran by henchmen thought to be affiliated with Russian or British interests. Shuster became even more active in supporting the Constitutional revolution of Persia financially.[6] When Iran's government ordered Shu'a al-Saltaneh ( ,) the Shah's brother who was aligned with the goals of Imperial Russia in Persia, to surrender his assets, Shuster moved to execute the seizure. Imperial Russia immediately landed troops in Bandar Anzali, demanding a recourse and apology from the Persian government. Russia's General Liakhoff shelled Iran's parliament in Tehran, and Morgan Shuster was forced to resign under British and Russian pressure. Shuster's book The Strangling of Persia is a recount of the details of these events and is critical of Britain and Imperial Russia. The American Embassy first reported to the Iran desk at the Foreign Office in London about the popular view of Britain's involvement in the 1921 coup that brought Reza Shah to power.[7][8] A British Embassy report from 1932 admits that the British put Reza Shah "on the throne". At that time, Persia did not view the United States as an ally of Britain. Morgan Shuster was soon followed by Arthur Millspaugh, who was appointed Treasurer General by Reza Shah, and Arthur Pope, who was a main driving force behind the Persian Empire revivalist policies of Reza Shah. The friendly relations between the United States and Iran lasted until the 1950s.

[edit] Current relations

Iran maintains an interests section at the Pakistani embassy in Washington, D.C.,[9] while the United States since 1980[citation needed] maintains an interests section at the Swiss embassy in Tehran.[10]

[edit] Mohammad Reza Pahlavi reign

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi maintained close ties with the United States during most of his reign, which lasted from 1941 until he was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution in 1979. He pursued a Westernizing, modernizing economic policy, and a strongly proWestern foreign policy; he also made a number of visits to America, where he was regarded as a friend.[citation needed] Iran's long border with America's Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, and its position as the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, made Iran a "pillar" of US foreign policy in the Middle East.[11] Prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, many Iranian students resided in the United States.

[edit] Premier Mossadeq and his overthrow

In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq was overthrown by a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-organized coup, in what has been called "a crucial turning point both in Iran's modern history and in U.S. Iran relations." Many Iranians argue that "the 1953 coup and the extensive U.S. support for the shah in subsequent years were largely responsible for the shah's arbitrary rule," which led to the "deeply anti-American character" of the 1979 revolution.[12] Until the outbreak of World War II, the United States had no active policy toward Iran.[13] When the Cold War began, the United States was alarmed by the attempt by the Soviet Union to set up separatist states in Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, as well as its demand for military rights to the Dardanelles in 1946. This fear was enhanced by the "loss of China" to communism, the uncovering of Soviet spy rings, and the start of the Korean War.[14] In 1952 and 1953, the Abadan Crisis took place when Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq began nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Established by the British in the early 20th century, the company shared profits (85% for Britain, and 15% for Iran), but the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. By 1951, Iranians supported nationalization of the AIOC, and Parliament unanimously agreed to nationalize its holding of, what was at the time, the British Empires largest company. The British retaliated with an embargo on Iranian oil, which was supported by international oil companies. Over the following months, negotiations over control and compensation for the oil were deadlocked, and Iran's economy deteriorated. American President Truman pressed Britain to moderate its position in the negotiations and to not invade Iran. American policies created a feeling in Iran that the United States

was on Mosaddeq's side and optimism that the oil dispute would soon be settled with "a series of innovative proposals to settle" the dispute, giving Iran "significant amounts of economic aid". Mosaddeq visited Washington, and the American government made "frequent statements expressing support for him." [15] At the same time, the United States honored the British embargo and, without Truman's knowledge, the CIA station in Tehran had been "carrying out covert activities" against Mosaddeq and the National Front "at least since the summer of 1952".[16] [edit] 1953 Iranian coup d'tat As the cold war intensified, oil negotiations stalled, and the Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower replaced Democratic President Harry S. Truman, the United States helped destabilize Mosaddeq on the theory that "rising internal tensions and continued deterioration ... might lead to a breakdown of government authority and open the way for at least a gradual assumption of control" Iran's well organized Tudeh communist party.[17] In spring and summer 1953, the United States and Britain, through a covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from the American Embassy in Tehran, helped organize a coup d'tat to overthrow the Mossadeq government. The operation initially failed, and the Shah fled to Italy, but a second attempt succeeded, and Mosaddeq was imprisoned. According to a study of the coup headed by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, intended "to resolve" the "controversy" over who and what were responsible, "it was geostrategic considerations, rather than a desire to destroy Mosaddeq's movement, to establish a dictatorship in Iran or to gain control over Iran's oil, that persuaded U.S. officials to undertake the coup." [18] [edit] Post-coup Following the coup, the United States helped build up the Shah's regime. In the first three weeks, the American government gave Iran $68 million in emergency aid, and an additional $1.2 billion over the next decade.[19] During his reign, the Shah received significant American support, frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American presidents. The Shah's close ties to Washington and his Westernization policies soon angered some Iranians, especially the hardline Islamic conservatives. In America, the coup was originally considered a triumph of covert action but is now considered by many to have left "a haunting and terrible legacy."[20] In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, called it a "setback for democratic government" in Iran.[21] Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei condemned the admission as "deceitful", complaining that it "did not even include an apology".[22]

[edit] Cultural relations

Relations in the cultural sphere remained cordial. Pahlavi University, Sharif University of Technology, and Isfahan University of Technology, three of Iran's top academic universities were all directly modeled on American institutions, such as the University of Chicago, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania.[23][23][24][24] The Shah was generous in awarding American universities with financial gifts. For example, the University of Southern California received an endowed chair of petroleum engineering, and a million dollar donation was given to the George Washington University to create an Iranian Studies program.[23]

[edit] Growth of oil revenues

In the 1960s and 1970s, Iran's oil revenues grew considerably. Starting in the mid-1960s, this "weakened U.S. influence in Iranian politics" while strengthening the power of the Iranian state vis-a-vis the Iranian public. According to scholar Homa Katouzian, this put the United States "in the contradictory position of being regarded" by the Iranian public because of the 1953 coup "as the chief architect and instructor of the regime," while "its real influence" in domestic Iranian politics and policies "declined considerably".[25]

[edit] 1977-1979: Carter administration

The Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi meeting with Alfred Atherton, William H. Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, President Jimmy Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1977.

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, shakes hands with a US Air Force general officer prior to his departure from the United States. In the late 1970s, American President Jimmy Carter emphasized human rights in his foreign policy, including the Shah's regime, which by 1977 had garnered unfavorable publicity in the West for its human rights record.[26] That year, the Shah responded to Carter's "polite reminder" by granting amnesty to some prisoners and allowing the Red Cross to visit prisons. Through 1977, liberal opposition formed organizations and issued open letters denouncing the Shah's regime.[27] [28] At the same time, Carter angered anti-Shah Iranians with a New Years Eve 1978 toast to the Shah in which he said:

'Under the Shahs brilliant leadership Iran is an island of stability in one of the most troublesome regions of the world. There is no other state figure whom I could appreciate and like more.'[29] Observers disagree over the nature of United States policy toward Iran under Carter as the Shah's regime crumbled. According to historian Nikki Keddie, the Carter administration followed "no clear policy" on Iran.[5] The American ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalled that the U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully". On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." At the same time, high-level officials in the State Department believed the revolution was unstoppable.[30] After visiting the Shah in summer of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury W. Michael Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[31] Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support. Another scholar, sociologist Charles Kurzman, argues that, rather than being indecisive or sympathetic to the revolution, the Carter administration was consistently supportive of the Shah and urged the Iranian military to stage a "last-resort coup d'etat" even after the regime's cause was hopeless.[32] In addition, some Iranian supporters of the Shah believe Carter betrayed the Shah.[33][34]

[edit] The 1979 revolution

The 1979 Iranian Revolution, which ousted the pro-American Shah and replaced him with the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, surprised the United States government, its State Department and intelligence services, which "consistently underestimated the magnitude and long-term implications of this unrest".[35] Six months before the revolution culminated, the CIA had produced a report, stating that Persia is not in a revolutionary or even a "prerevolutionary" situation[36] The Islamic revolutionaries wished to extradite and execute the ousted Shah, and Carter refused to give him any further support or help return him to power. The Shah, suffering from cancer, requested entry into the United States for treatment. The American embassy in Tehran opposed the request, as they were intent on stabilizing relations between the new interim revolutionary government of Iran and the United States.[28] Despite agreeing with the staff of the American embassy, Carter agreed after pressure from Kissinger, Rockefeller, and other pro-Shah political figures. The move was used by the Iranian revolutionaries to justify their claims that the former monarch was an American puppet, and this led to the storming of the American embassy by radical students allied with the Khomeini faction.[28]

[edit] The 1979 Iran hostage crisis

Main article: Iran hostage crisis See also: Interests Section of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the United States

Walls of the American embassy covered in anti-American mural

Vice President George H. W. Bush and other VIPs wait to welcome the former hostages to Iran home

Families wait for the former hostages to disembark the plane. On November 4, 1979, the revolutionary group Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, angered that the recently deposed Shah had been allowed into the United States, occupied the American embassy in Tehran and took American diplomats hostage. The 52 American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days. In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against American influence in Iran and the liberal-moderate interim government of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, who opposed the hostage taking and resigned soon after. The hostage takers felt that their action was connected to the 1953 American-backed coup against the government of Prime Minister Mosaddeq. "You have no right to complain, because you took our whole country hostage in 1953.

said one of the hostage takers to Bruce Laingen, chief U.S. diplomat in Iran at the time.[37] Some Iranians were concerned that the United States may have been plotting another coup against their country in 1979 from the American embassy.[37] In the United States, the hostage-taking was seen as a violation of a centuries-old principle of international law that granted diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds sovereignty in the territory of the host country they occupy.[38] The United States military attempted a rescue operation, Operation Eagle Claw, on April 24, 1980, which resulted in an aborted mission and the deaths of eight American military men. The crisis ended with the signing of the Algiers Accords in Algeria on January 19, 1981. On January 20, 1981, the date the treaty was signed, the hostages were released. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (located in The Hague, Netherlands) was established for the purpose of handling claims of American nationals against Iran and of Iranian nationals against the United States. American contact with Iran through The Hague covers only legal matters. The crisis led to lasting economic and diplomatic damage. On April 7, 1980, the United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran, a break which has yet to be restored. On April 24, 1981, the Swiss Government assumed representation of American interests in Tehran via an interests section. Iranian interests in the United States are represented by the Iranian Interests Section of the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C.

[edit] Economic consequences of the Iran hostage crisis

See also: Sanctions against Iran Before the Revolution, the United States was Iran's foremost economic and military partner. This facilitated the modernization of Iran's infrastructure and industry, with as many as 30,000 American expatriates residing in the country in a technical, consulting, or teaching capacity. Some analysts argue that the transformation may have been too rapid, fueling unrest and discontent among an important part of the population in the country and leading to the Revolution in 1979. After the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran, the United States froze about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. According to American officials, most of those were released in 1981 as part of the deal to release the hostages. Some assetsIranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much lessremain frozen, pending resolution of legal claims arising from the Revolution. Commercial relations between Iran and the United States are restricted by American sanctions and consist mainly of Iranian purchases of food, spare parts, and medical products as well as American purchases of carpets and food. Sanctions originally imposed in 1995 by President Bill Clinton were renewed by President Bush, who cited the "unusual and extraordinary threat" to American national security posed by Iran. The

1995 executive orders prohibit American companies and their foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with Iran, while banning any "contract for the financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran". In addition, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (ILSA) imposed mandatory and discretionary sanctions on nonAmerican companies investing more than $20 million annually in the Iranian oil and natural gas sectors. The ILSA was renewed for five more years in 2001. Congressional bills signed in 2006 extended and added provisions to the act; on September 30, 2006, the act was renamed the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), as it no longer applied to Libya, and extended until December 31, 2011.

[edit] 1980s: Reagan administration

[edit] IranIraq War
See United States support for Iraq during the IranIraq war Then-American Secretary of State Alexander Haig may have stated that the United States gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein approval to attack Iran: "It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Prince Fahd" of Jordan." [39] When Iraq invaded Iran, Carter called Iranian charges of American complicity "patently false". Carter's memoir, Keeping Faith, briefly mentioned this accusation: Typically, the Iranians accused me of planning and supporting the invasion."[40] Journalist Said K. Aburish claimed that Hussein visited to Amman, Jordan before the war, where he may have met with King Hussein three CIA agents. Aburish believes that there is "considerable evidence that he discussed his plans to invade Iran with the CIA agents". The records of the meeting that occurred on this date between American officials and King Hussein suggest that Saddam Hussein was not present and that the border disputes between Baghdad and Tehran were not discussed, but that joint efforts between Jordan and the United States to oppose Iran were discussed.[41] Others have opposed this view; Eric Alterman in The Nation has called the charge a slander and argued there is no credible evidence to back it up.[42] Adam Tomkins wrote: "There were no diplomatic relations between the US and Iraq for seventeen years, until president Reagan restored them in 1984".[43] American intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in arming Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, although Bob Woodward states that the United States gave information to both sides, hoping "to engineer a stalemate.[44][45] According to the American Senate Banking Committee, the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous dual use items, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.[46]

According to senior military officers, the United States provided battle planning assistance to Iraq at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the war.[citation needed] American officials publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, especially after Iraq attacked Kurdish villagers in Halabja in March 1988. Sixty Defense Intelligence Agency officers were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq, however. In contrast, Secretary of Defence Frank C. Carlucci said: "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence". "I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred." He added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons." Secretary of State Colin Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it.[47] According to reports of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the U.S. Senate, the United States sold chemical weapons, including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever and botulism to Iraq until March 1992. The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: "The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licences for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think its a devastating record."[48] In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed regret for that support.[49]

[edit] 1983: Hezbollah bombings

The United States contends that Hezbollah has been involved in several anti-American terrorist attacks, including the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing which killed 17 Americans, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. peace keepers in Lebanon, and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. An American district court judge ruled in 2003 that the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing was carried out with Iranian support.[50] United States District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack in a 2003 case brought by the victims' families. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983, and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation.[51] An American federal court has also found that the Khobar Towers bombing was authorized by Ali Khomeini, then ayatollah of Iran.[52]

[edit] Iran-Contra Affair

Further information: Iran-Contra Affair In 1986, members of the Reagan administration helped sell weapons to Iran, using the profits to fund anti-communist Contras militants in Nicaragua.[53][54] Documents relating to the affair were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration

officials.[55][56] In November 1986, President Ronald Reagan issued a televised statement that the arms sales did not occur.[57] One week later, Reagan confirmed that weapons had been transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.[53]

[edit] United States attack of 1988

In 1988, the United States launched Operation Praying Mantis against Iran, claiming that it was retaliation for the Iranian mining of areas of the Persian Gulf as part of the IranIraq war. The American attack was the largest American naval combat operation since World War II.[58] American action began with coordinated strikes by two surface groups that neutralized the Sassan oil platform and the Sirri oil platform of Iran. Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat. Damage to the oil platforms was eventually repaired.[59] Iran sued for reparations at the International Court of Justice, stating that the United States breached the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The court dismissed the claim but noted that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on October 19, 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and April 18, 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[60] The American attack helped pressure Iran to agree to a ceasefire with Iraq later that summer.[61]

[edit] 1988: Iran Air Flight 655 tragedy

Main article: Iran Air Flight 655 On July 3, 1988, near the end of the IranIraq War, the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iranian Airbus A300B2, which was on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. The attack killed 290 civilians from six nations, including 66 children. USS Vincennes was in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will. The United States initially contended that flight 655 was a warplane and then said that it was outside the civilian air corridor and did not respond to radio calls. Both statements were untrue, and the radio calls were made on military frequencies to which the airliner did not have access.[62] According to the Iranian government, the attack was an intentional and unlawful act. Iran refused to accept the idea of mistaken identification, arguing that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, because the aircraft was not on a trajectory that threatened the Vincennes and had not aimed radar at it.[63] The United States has expressed regret for the loss of innocent life but has not apologized to the Iranian government.[64]

[edit] 1990s: Clinton administration

In April 1995, a total embargo on dealings with Iran by American companies was imposed by Bill Clinton. This ended trade, which had been growing following the end of the IranIraq War.[65] The next year, the American Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions act, designed to prevent other countries from making large investments in

Iranian energy. The act was denounced by the European Union as invalid, but it blocked some investment for Iran.

[edit] Khatami and Iranian reformers

In January 1998, newly elected Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called for a "dialogue of civilizations" with the United States in a CNN interview. In the interview, Khatami invoked Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America to explain the similarities between American and Iranian quests for freedom. American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded positively, and the countries exchanged of wrestling teams. This also brought freer travel between the countries as well as an end to the American embargo of Iranian carpets and pistachios. Relations then stalled due to opposition from Iranian conservatives and American preconditions for discussions, including changes in Iranian policy on Israel, nuclear energy, and support for terrorism.[66]

[edit] Inter-Parliamentary (Congress-to-Majlis) informal talks

On August 31, 2000, four United States Congress members, Senator Arlen Specter, Representative Bob Ney, Representative Gary Ackerman, and Representative Eliot L. Engel held informal talks in New York City with several Iranian leaders. The Iranians included Mehdi Karroubi, speaker of the Majlis of Iran (Iranian Parliament); Maurice Motamed, a Jewish member of the Majlis; and three other Iranian parliamentarians.[67]

[edit] 2001-2004
[edit] Concerns of Iranian and American governments

Anti US mural, Tehran In 2003, Jahangir Amuzegaran, Finance Minister and Economic Ambassador in Iran's pre-1979 government, identified several obstacles to "resumption of relations" between the two countries from the American perspective:[68]

Iranian state sponsorship of international terrorism[69] Pursuit of weapons of mass destruction Threats to neighbors in the Persian Gulf Repeated statements by the Iran's highest government officials that they wish "Death to America" and for Israel to "Vanish from the pages of time" Opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process Violations of human rights[70]

He noted that "in recent years, the last two issues seem to have lost some of their potency and are now only infrequently raised. On the other hand, a new accusation of Iran's harboring of al Qaeda operatives has recently been added to the list". Iran's original post-revolutionary list of demands required the United States to :

Accept the legitimacy of the 1979 revolution Not interfere in Iran's internal affairs Deal with the Iranian regime on the basis of "respect and equality"

Amuzegaran noted subsequent demands by Iran:

Lifting American economic sanctions, Releasing frozen Iranian assets in the United States Ending the American military presence in the neighboring countries of Iraq and Afghanistan Removing the U.S. Navy from the Persian Gulf Ending perceived one-sided support for Israel Formally apologizing for intervention in Iran, including the CIA-backed overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1950s[70] Paying reparations for: o American companies' assistance in developing Iraq's chemical weapons facilities during the Iran-Iraq war[citation needed] o American support for anti-Iranian organizations (i.e. the People's Mujahedin of Iran [MEK]);[71] o USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 o Economic damage caused by American sanctions and political pressure o American unmanned aerial vehicle flights over Iran violating Iranian airspace since 2003[72] o America's human rights record

[edit] Bush administration, first term

[edit] "Axis of evil" speech On January 29, 2002, American President George W. Bush gave his "Axis of evil" speech, describing Iran, along with North Korea and Iraq, as an axis of evil and warning that the proliferation of long-range missiles developed by these countries constituted terrorism and threatened the United States. The speech caused outrage in Iran and was condemned by reformists and conservatives.[73] Since 2003, the United States has been flying unmanned aerial vehicles, launched from Iraq, over Iran to obtain intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, reportedly providing little new information.[74] The Iranian government has described the surveillance as illegal.[75] In January 2006, James Risen, a New York Times reporter, stated in his book State of War that the CIA carried out a Clinton-approved operation in 2000 (Operation Merlin) intended to delay Iran's nuclear energy program. According to Risen, the United States fed Iran flawed blueprints missing key components, but the plan backfired and may have aided Iran, as the flaw was likely corrected by the former Soviet nuclear scientist who headed the delivery operation. [edit] "Grand Bargain" proposal

A tractor-trailer from Virginia's Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team loaded aboard a C-5 Galaxy heading for Bam, Iran In 2003, prior to the Iraq War, the Bush administration reportedly received overtures from the Iranian government. With help from the American Iranian Council, Iran purportedly proposed a "grand bargain", which would have resolved outstanding issues between the United States and Iran, including Iran's nuclear program and support for Hamas and Hezbollah.[76] Bush administration officials, including Richard Armitage, thought the Khatami government and the Swiss ambassador in Tehran were "promising more than it could deliver". Others, such as Vali Nasr and Gary Sick consider the lack of an American response to be a missed opportunity.[76][77] According to Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States,[78]

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff, said that "it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who made sure that Washington dismissed Iran's May 2003 offer to open up its nuclear program, rein in Hezbollah and cooperate against al-Qaeda".[79] [edit] 2003: Border incursions begin Several claims have been made that the US has violated Iranian territorial sovereignty since 2003, including drones,[72][80][81] soldiers,[82] and provocations and bombings by former or current members of the MEK[83] and the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK).[84] An American RQ-7 Shadow and a Hermes UAV have crashed in Iran.[80] In June 2005, Scott Ritter stated that American attacks on Iran had already begun through the use of drones.[81] Seymour Hersh stated that the United States has also been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground installations developing nuclear weapons.[82] [edit] Divide between public opinion and state policy An American Reuters/Zogby opinion poll published on September 28, 2006, found 70 percent of respondents opposed to any attack on Iran, 9 percent in favor of "air strikes on selected military targets", and 26 percent supportive of the use of ground forces. In a separate poll, 47 percent were opposed to Israeli intervention.[85] An opinion poll in 2003 asking Iranians if they supported resuming government dialogue with the United States found 75% in favor. The pollsters were jailed,[86] and at least one spent several years in prison.[87] Although anti-American billboards can be found in Iran and the slogan "death to America" is heard in Friday prayers, some have noted that Iran "just might" have the "least anti-American populace in the Muslim world".[88] Following the September 11 attacks, Iranians gathered in the Maidan-e-Mohseni shopping area in northern Tehran in a candlelit vigil for the victims of the attack. These vigils were violently broken up by Ansar-e-Hezbollah hardliners.[89]

[edit] 2005-2009: Bush administration, second term

American journalist Seymour Hersh stated in January 2005 that U.S. Central Command had been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. He said that the "hawks" in the American government wished to act if EU3 negotiations did not succeed. He stated that a former intelligence official told him, "It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're doing it."[82] Scott Ritter, former UN weapons of mass destruction inspector in Iraq, stated in June 2005 that The Pentagon was told to be ready to launch an aerial attack to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. He added that the American military was preparing a "massive military presence" in Azerbaijan that would foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran. He also claimed that the American attack on Iran had "already begun".[90]

In August 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president, giving Iran a religious and conservative president. The following month, the U.S. State Department was accused of refusing to issue visas for Irans parliamentary speaker, Mousa Qorbani, and a group of senior Iranian officials to participate in a meeting held by the United Nations (UN). According to UN rules, the United States must grant visas to senior officials from any UN member states to take part in UN meetings, irrespective of their political views.[citation
needed]

In 2006, the Pentagon created the Iranian Directorate to handle intelligence regarding Iran.[91] In March 2006, Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote that "some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran" and that there "may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran."[92] Stephen Zunes, Professor at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, also believes that a military attack on Iran is being planned.[93] On 8 May 2006, Ahmadinejad sent a personal letter to President Bush to propose "new ways" to end Iran's nuclear dispute.[94] U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley both dismissed it as a negotiating ploy and publicity stunt that did not address American concerns about Iran's nuclear program.[95] Ahmadinejad later said that "the letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets".[96] Bush insisted in August 2006 that "there must be consequences" for Iran's continued enrichment of uranium. He said that "the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran."[97] Ahmadinejad invited Bush to a debate at the UN General Assembly, which was to take place on September 18, 2006. The debate was to be about Iran's right to enrich uranium. The invitation was promptly rejected by White House spokesman Tony Snow, who said "There's not going to be a steel-cage grudge match between the President and Ahmadinejad".[98]

Columbia University students protesting against the university's decision to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the university campus

In November 2006, Ahmadinejad wrote an open letter to the American people,[99] stating that dialogue was urgently needed because of American activities in the Middle East and that the United States was concealing the truth about relations.[100] In April 2007, Michael T. Klare stated that President Bush had already taken the decision to attack Iran. He said that Bush's references to Iran in major televised speeches on January 10, January 23 and February 14, 2007, established that he "has already decided an attack is his only option and the rest is a charade he must go through to satisfy his European allies". Klare said that Bush had developed a casus belli in order to prepare public opinion for an attack, focused on claims that Iran supports attacks on American troops in Iraq, claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and claims that Iran could become a dominant power in the region and destabilise pro-American governments in Israel, Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, thereby endangering oil supplies.[101] Wikinews has related news: Iranian President Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University In September 2007, Ahmadinejad addressed the UN General Assembly. Prior to this, he gave a speech at Columbia University, where university president Lee Bollinger used his introduction to portray the Iranian leader as "astonishingly uneducated" and as a "cruel and petty dictator". Ahmadinejad answered a query about the treatment of gays in Iran by saying: "We don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon; I don't know who's told you we have it". An aide later stated that he was misrepresented and was actually saying that "compared to American society, we don't have many homosexuals".[102] Ahmadinejad was not permitted to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site. He stated, "Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens, obviously...We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations. Usually, you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents." When told that Americans believed that Iran exported terrorism and would be offended by the "photo op", he replied, "Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?...You are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there".[103] In an April 2008 speech, Ahmadinejad described the September 11 attacks as a "suspect event", saying that all that happened was that "a building collapsed". He stated that the death toll was never published, that the victims' names were never published, and that the attacks were used subsequently as pretext for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.[104] That October, he expressed happiness about the 2008 global economic crisis and what he called "collapse of liberalism". He said the West has been driven to a dead-end and that Iran was proud "to put an end to liberal economy".[105] The previous month, he had told the UN General Assembly, "The American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders".[106]

[edit] U.S. military revises plans

In March 2005, the United States revised its Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations to include preemptive or possibly preventive use on non-nuclear states.[citation needed] In August 2005, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, stated that American Vice President Dick Cheney had instructed STRATCOM to prepare "a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States...[including] a largescale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons...not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States". Tactical nuclear weapons were specified because the targets are "hardened or are deep underground" and would not be destroyed by non-nuclear warheads.[107] In 2006, Jorge Hirsch,[108][109] Michel Chossudovsky,[110] the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran[111] and Seymour M. Hersh[112] also stated that the United States planned to use nuclear weapons against Iran. On April 18, 2006, a journalist asked Bush, "Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about, how you have to have diplomatic efforts, you often say all options are on the table. Does that include, the possibility of a nuclear strike, is that something that your administration has plans about?" Bush replied, "All options are on the table".[113] The Iraq War has hurt American willingness to accept another war. A June 2006 CBS poll showed that 21 percent of Americans supported military action against Iran. 55 percent favored diplomacy, and 19 percent said Iran was not a threat to the United States. [114] Some groups have organized opposition to an attack on Iran.[115]

[edit] Iran's nuclear program

Main article: Nuclear program of Iran Wikisource has original text related to this article: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Since 2003, the United States has alleged that Iran has a program to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity. The United States's position is that "a nuclear-armed Iran is not acceptable", [116] but officials have denied that the United States is preparing for an imminent strike. The United Kingdom (UK), France and Germany have also attempted to negotiate a cessation of nuclear enrichment activities by Iran.[117] In June 2005, Condoleezza Rice said that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamed ElBaradei should either "toughen his stance on Iran" or not be chosen for a third term as IAEA head.[118] Both the United States and Iran are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States and other countries were alleged during the May 2005 NPT meeting to be in violation of the NPT through Article VI, which requires them to disarm. The IAEA has stated that Iran is in violation of a Safeguards Agreement related to the NPT, due to insufficient reporting of nuclear

material, its processing and its use.[119] Under Article IV, the treaty gives non-nuclear states the right to develop civilian nuclear energy programs.[120] From 2003 to early 2006, tensions mounted between the United States and Iran while IAEA inspections of sensitive nuclear industry sites in Iran continued. On March 8, 2006, American and European representatives noted that Iran has enough unenriched uranium hexafluoride gas to make ten atomic bombs, adding that it was "time for the Security Council to act".[121] The unenriched uranium cannot be used either in the Bushehr reactor, which is a pressurized water reactor, nor in atomic bombs, unless it becomes enriched.

[edit] Bush's "wave of democracy"

George W. Bush has claimed that his administration's goal in Iraq was to bring democracy to countries in the Middle East and to oppose islamofascism. The anti-Iraq War World Tribunal on Iraq and others doubted the sincerity of this motive, pointing to what they believe to be an American campaign against academia in Iraq. Robert Dreyfuss, author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, stated that American actions in the region support islamofascism rather than oppose it.[122]

[edit] Iran fears of attack by the U.S.

Paul Pillar, the former CIA official who led the preparation of all National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on Iran from 2000 to 2005, told the InterPress Service that all NIEs on Iran during that period "addressed the Iranian fears of U.S. attack explicitly and related their desire for nuclear weapons to those fears". He added, "Iranian perceptions of threat, especially from the United States and Israel, were not the only factor, but were in our judgment part of what drove whatever effort they were making to build nuclear weapons". Another former CIA official, Ellen Laipson, said that "the Iranian fear of an attack by the United States has long been a standard element in NIEs on Iran".[123] In 2006, the United States passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which appropriated millions of dollars for human rights Non-governmental organization (NGOs) working in Iran. Several politicians in both countries have claimed the Act is a "stepping stone to war",[84] although the Act prohibits the use of force against Iran. In May 2007, Iran's top diplomat Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated that Iran is "ready to talk" to the United States.[124] That month, Iran announced willingness, under certain conditions, to improve its relations with the United States despite having passed up the opportunity for direct talks at the Iraq conference in Sharm El-Sheikh on May 3, 2007. The conference had been seen by the Americans as an opportunity to get closer to the Iranians and exchange gestures in a public forum.[125][dead link]

[edit] U.S. military operations inside Iran

See also: People's Mujahedin of Iran#Alleged MEK Activity In Iran, Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, and Jundullah Scott Ritter has stated that CIA-backed bombings had been undertaken in Iran by the MEK, an opposition group included in the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.[81] In April 2006, a blog called The Raw Story cited an unnamed UN source "close to" the UN Security Council, stating that the United States had used former MEK members as proxies in Iran for "roughly a year". The blog said that the proxies were made to "swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK" before being incorporated into American military units and trained for their operations in Iran.[83] In March 2006, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK), an opposition group closely linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) killed 24 members of the Iranian security forces. The PEJAK is linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is listed by the U.S. State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Dennis Kucinich stated in an April 18, 2006, letter to Bush that PEJAK was supported and coordinated by the United States, since it is based in Iraq, which is under the de facto control of American military forces.[84] In November 2006, journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker supported this claim, stating that the American military and the Israelis are giving the group equipment, training, and targeting information in order to create internal pressures in Iran.[126] Global intelligence company Stratfor stated that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was attacked in early 2007: "this latest attack against IRGC guards was likely carried out by armed Baloch nationalists who have received a boost in support from Western intelligence agencies".[127] On April 3, 2007, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) stated that the United States had supported Jundullah since 2005.[128] The Washington Times has described Jundullah as a militant Islamic organization based in Waziristan, Pakistan and affiliated with Al-Qaeda that has claimed to kill approximately 400 Iranian soldiers.[129] The United States has escalated its covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources.[130] They state that Bush sought up to $400,000,000 for these military operations, which were described in a secret Presidential Finding and are designed to destabilize Iran's religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since 2007. The scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have been significantly expanded in 2008.[130] The United States claims that Iran is backing Shiite militias in Iraq and supplying them with arms in order to wage a proxy war on America. The United States said that 170 Americans have died in this proxy war, but Iran denies these charges. Iraqi prime minister Nouri Maliki has praised Iran for its providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq.[131] In May 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that both American military

spokesmen and Iraqi officials backed off from some of the accusations against Iran when American experts examined weapons and munitions recovered from Shiite militias and found that they did not originate in Iran.[132] American and Iranian ambassadors in Iraq have engaged in direct talks,[citation needed] but tensions remain high over this issue.

[edit] 2006 sanctions against Iranian institutions

See also: Sanctions against Iran, Current international tensions with Iran, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 Pushing for international sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program, the United States accused Iran of providing logistical and financial support to Shi'a militias in Iraq. Iran denied this claim.[133] The American government imposed sanctions on an Iranian bank on September 8, 2006, barring it from direct or indirect dealings with American financial institutions. The move against Bank Saderat Iran was announced by the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the bank of transferring funds for terrorist groups, including $50,000,000 to Hezbollah. While Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the American financial system, they are permitted to do so indirectly through banks in other countries. He said the United States government would also persuade European financial institutions not to deal with Iran.[134]

[edit] 2007 US raids Iran Consulate General

Wikinews has related news: US raids Iran Consulate General, Russia says it is unacceptable In 2007, American armed forces raided the Iranian Consulate General located in Erbil, Iraq and arrested five staff members. Sources[who?] said that American forces landed their helicopters around the building, broke through the consulates gate, disarmed the guards, confiscated documents, arrested five staff members, and left for an undisclosed location. People living in the neighborhood were told they could not leave their homes. Three people who left their homes were arrested, and a wife of one of these men confirmed her husband's arrest. Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Kamynin said that the raid was an unacceptable violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Kurdistan Regional Government also expressed their disapproval. At a hearing on Iraq on January 11, 2007, United States Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Rice that the Bush Administration did not have the authority to send American troops on cross-border raids. Biden said, "I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that. I just want to set that marker". [135] Biden sent a follow-up letter to the White House asking for an explanation on the matter.

The same day, Iran's foreign ministry sent a letter to Iraq's foreign ministry, asking Iraq to stop the United States from interfering with Iraq-Iran relations. The official said, "We expect the Iraqi government to take immediate measures to set the aforesaid individuals free and to condemn the US troopers for the measure. Following up on the case and releasing the arrestees is a responsibility of primarily the Iraqi government and then the local government and officials of the Iraqi Kurdistan".[citation needed] On November 9, American forces released two Iranian diplomats after 305 days,[136] as well as seven other Iranian citizens. The officials were captured in the raid, and the others had been picked up in different parts of the country and held for periods ranging from three months to three years.[137] American officials said, "The release followed a careful review of individual records to determine if they posed a security threat to Iraq, and if their detention was of continued intelligence value".[137] American forces still hold 11 Iranian diplomats and citizens.[citation needed]

[edit] IRGC terrorist designation

The United States has opposed the activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) based on "the group's growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East".[138] The United States branded the IRGC a terrorist organization,[139] and Iran responded by declaring the CIA and U.S. Army to be terrorist organizations.[140] The Iranian resolution cited American involvement in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, bombing and killing Iraqi civilians, and torturing terror suspects in prisons.[141] President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has argued that Iran is "a helper and a solution" for Afghanistan,[142] and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq stated that Iran has a "positive and constructive" role in helping the Iraqi government improve security in his wartorn nation.[143][dead link] When asked if Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban by Voice of America, a U.S.-funded outlet, Ahmadinejad said the United States does not want Iran to be friends with Afghanistan: "What is the reason they are saying such things?"[144] Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress, said that "the only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach".[145] Michael Rubin, a senior research fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, said he feared the IRGC designation "might exculpate the rest of the regime when, in reality, the IRGC's activities cannot be separated from the state leadership of Supreme Leader Khamenei or President Ahmadinejad".[146] The Iranian newspaper Kayhan quoted the commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards as threatening to deal heavier blows against the United States in response to the designation. [147] Mohammad Khatami, former Reforms Front Iranian President hoped to "remind those in the U.S. Congress or elsewhere working for the benefit of the American nation to stand against these measures or the wall between the two countries grow taller and thicker".[148]

This is the first time that official armed units of sovereign states are included in a list of banned terrorist groups.[149] Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, a former consultant to the UN's program of Dialogue Among Civilizations,[150] stated in Asia Times Online that the move has possible legal implications: "Under international law, it could be challenged as illegal, and untenable, by isolating a branch of the Iranian government for selective targeting. This is contrary to the 1981 Algiers Accord's pledge of non-interference in Iran's internal affairs by the US government".[151] News leaks about the prospective designation worried European governments and private sector firms, which could face prosecution in American courts for working with the IRGC.[152]

[edit] 2008 Naval dispute

Main article: 2008 US-Iranian naval dispute The American government has stated that naval stand-offs between Iranian speedboats and American warships occurred in the Strait of Hormuz in December 2007 and January 2008. American officials accused Iran of harassing and provoking their naval vessels, but Iran denied the claim. The United States presented audio and video footage of the incident, which included threats made to the Americans. Iranians have told The Washington Post that the accent in the recording does not sound Iranian. Iran has accused the United States of creating a "media fuss" and has released its own abridged video recording of the incident, which does not contain threats.[153][154] There has been significant confusion as to the source of the threatening radio transmissions. According to the newspaper Navy Times, the incident could have been caused by a locally famous heckler known as the "Filipino Monkey".[155][156][157]

[edit] Covert action against Iran

In 2008, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh detailed American covert action plans against Iran involving the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and Special Forces. [158] He also stated that the United States was supporting several groups that are performing acts of violence inside Iran. He wrote, "The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. 'The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,' Baer told me." He also states that the United States was supporting Jundallah, a Sunni and Salafi group; the People's Mujahedin of Iran; and the PJAK. Journalist David Ignatius of the Washington Post asserted that American covert action "appears to focus on political action and the collection of intelligence rather than on lethal operations".[159] Iranian commentator Ali Eftagh stated that the covert actions are being made public by the American government as a form of psychological warfare.[160]

[edit] Other events (2007 - 2008)

A meeting in Baghdad between Iranian and American diplomats was "the first formal direct contact after decades during which neither country has been willing to talk to the other."[161] Asia Times commentator Kaveh L Afrasiabi noted that success in United States-Iran nuclear negotiations depends on Iranian perception of American respect.[162] A former Iranian diplomat, Nosratollah Tajik, was arrested in the UK and accused by the United States of smuggling arms. He initially appeared in court on April 19, 2007, fighting extradition to the US.[163] The case is still ongoing. [164] Congressional Resolution 362[165] calls for a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. As of June 2, 2008, the resolution had 146 co-sponsors.[166] In January 2009, The New York Times reported that the United States had rejected a 2008 appeal from Israel to attack Iran's main nuclear complex.[167]

[edit] Panel's message to Obama

A panel of 20 Americans, who include academics and former ambassadors, warned against a military attack on Iran and called for unconditional negotiations, saying that dialogue was the only viable option to break "a cycle of threats and defiance". The panel included former special envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins, former ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering, and Middle East scholars from American universities. They called on the United States to replace calls for regime change with a long-term strategy, allow Iran a "place at the table" in shaping the future of Iraq and Afghanistan, offer security assurances in the nuclear talks, and re-energize the Arab-Israeli peace process.
[168]

[edit] Obama Administration

Two days after Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008, Ahmadinejad issued the first congratulatory message to a newly elected American president since 1979: "Iran welcomes basic and fair changes in U.S. policies and conducts. I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem".[169] In his inaugural speech, President Obama said: To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. Ahmadinejad issued a list of grievances, including the 1953 coup, support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, and the Iran Air Flight 655 incident.[170] In March 2009, an

official delegation of Hollywood actors and filmmakers met with their Iranian counterparts in Tehran as a symbol of United States-Iran relations, but Javad Shamghadri, the Arts Adviser to Ahmadinejad, rejected it and said, "Representatives of Irans film industry should only have an official meeting with representatives of the academy and Hollywood if they apologize for the insults and accusations against the Iranian nation during the past 30 years".[171] On March 19, 2009, the beginning of the festival of Nowruz, Obama spoke directly to the Iranian people in a video saying, "The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that rightbut it comes with real responsibilities".[172]

[edit] Roxana Saberi and detained diplomats

In April 2009, Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicting of spying for the United States. She was accused of possessing a classified document but denied the charge. After spending four months in prison, she was released in May, and the charge was dropped.[173][174] On July 9, 2009, the United States released five Iranian diplomats (Mohsen Bagheri, Mahmoud Farhadi, Majid Ghaemi, Majid Dagheri and Abbas Jami), who had been held since January 2007.[175] Some analysts[who?] believe this was a part of hostage exchange deal between the countries.[176] The U.S. State Department said the release was not part of a deal with Iran but was necessary under an American-Iraqi security pact.[177]

[edit] Iranian presidential elections 2009

Main article: Iranian presidential election, 2009 On June 12, 2009, Obama said of the Iranian presidential election: "We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran".[178] Ahmadinejad's landslide win, which led to fraud allegations and widespread protests, received little comment from the United States. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated, "Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities".[179] Vice President Joe Biden said, "It sure looks like the way they're suppressing speech, the way they're suppressing crowds, the way in which people are being treated, that there's some real doubt".[180] On June 15, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly declared that the US was "deeply troubled by the reports of violent arrests and possible voting irregularities".[181]

[edit] Detention of U.S. Hikers over Kurdish Border

Three American hikers were arrested on July 31, 2009, in Iran after they crossed into Iranian territory. Reports say the hikers accidentally crossed into Iran while hiking between Halabja and Ahmad Awa in the Kurdish Region of Iraq.[182]

[edit] Al-Qaeda Prisoners

Since the beginning of the War in Afghanistan, the United States believes that Al-Qaeda operatives have snuck into Iran. The United States has expressed concern about Iran possibly letting these prisoners leave the country, in violation of a UN treaty.[183]

[edit] Strict enforcement of currency embargo

In the case of United States v. Banki, on June 5, 2010, a U.S. citizen was convicted of violating the Iran Trade Embargo by failing to request Iranian currency transfer licenses in advance from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

[edit] Disappearance of Shahram Amiri

Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri disappeared in May 2009, and Iran accused the United States of abducting him. On the July 13, 2010, the BBC reported that Amiri had taken refuge in the Iranian interests section of Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C. and sought help to reach Iran.[184]

[edit] Economic relations

See also: Economy of the United States, Economy of Iran, Agriculture in Iran, and Healthcare in Iran Trade between Iran and the United States reached $623 million in 2008. According to the United States Census Bureau, American exports to Iran reached $93 million in 2007 and $537 million in 2008. American imports from Iran decreased from $148 million in 2007 to $86 million in 2008.[185][186] This data does not include trade conducted through third countries to circumvent the trade embargo. It has been reported that the United States Treasury Department has granted nearly 10,000 special licenses to American companies over the past decade to conduct business with Iran.[187] American exports to Iran include cigarettes ($73 million), corn ($68 million); chemical wood pulp, soda or sulphate ($64 million); soybeans ($43 million); medical equipment ($27 million); vitamins ($18 million); and vegetable seeds ($12 million).[186] In 2010, American exports to Iran dropped by 50% to $281.8 million.[185]

Is the US heading for war with Iran?

The Guardian With an election coming and the economy struggling, conflict may not appeal to Obama, but the drumbeat is getting louder

War with Iran is the last thing Barack Obama needs with the American economy in dire trouble and a tough White House election campaign looming next year, according to officials in Washington as well as political analysts. But while the Obama administration is desperate to avoid another conflict it would be America's fourth in a decade the drumbeat from Israel has been growing louder. The Israeli cabinet was reported on Wednesday to be debating whether to launch air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in the coming weeks. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the defence minister, Ehud Barak, are lobbying in favour of action, but other senior ministers are urging caution. In response, Iran has warned, as it has in the past, that any attack by Israel would result in retaliation against the US. The Iranian news agency ISNA quoted Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran's military chief, as saying: "The Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the US as well as the Zionist regime." The rhetoric from Tel Aviv and Tehran is making some within the Obama administration nervous. A Washington official familiar with the issue acknowledged the temperature has been rising and that Israel introduced an unpredictable element. He reiterated, however, that the policy of the Obama administration was to pursue all diplomatic channels, backed by tougher sanctions, and avoid military action. "I do not think the US has the stomach for it," Sam Gardiner, a retired air force colonel who taught strategy at the National War College and who has specialised in carrying out war games targeting Iran, said. But if Israel went ahead, it would be difficult for the US to stay out. "The US would have to be involved and finish it," he said. A congressional hearing on Iran last week was told that the Pentagon has a series of contingency plans for military action, ranging from all-out war to limited operations. Obama had signed off on these, the hearing was told. Retired general Jack Keane was hawkish, urging escalation. "We've got to put our hand around their throat now," he said. The hearing was told options included increased covert action, more cyberwarfare and sanctions that would target the Iranian central bank, a serious move that Iran might regard as tantamount to a declaration of war. But Keane and other military colleagues giving evidence on Capitol Hill all stopped short of advocating an air strike against Iran. That has been line for years from the Pentagon, which sees all-out war against Iran as the worst of options. The issue of a possible military attack on Iran was reignited in Israel by influential columnist Nahum Barnea last Friday. "Rumours are increasing about an Israeli offensive

that would change the face of the Middle East and perhaps seal the fate of the Jewish state for the coming generations," he wrote. Members of the inner cabinet swiftly tried to put a lid on conjecture. The intelligence affairs minister and deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor, said the issue should not be a matter of public debate. "A public debate about this is nothing less than a scandal The public elected a government to make decisions about things like this in secret. The public's right to know does not include the debate about classified matters like this," he said. Israel test-fired a "rocket propulsion system" capable of striking Iran on Wednesday, adding to speculation over its intentions regarding military action. However, defence officials said the exercise had been planned for a long time. With the next White House election 13 months away, an Israeli attack on Iran is Obama's nightmare. It would be hard for a president to sell another conflict to a war-weary American public on top of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. There might be a temporary rallying round the flag but Obama would lose the Democratic left, the base he needs to get out and campaign for him. That would be problematic for a president facing a tight election. But there is an even bigger problem: the impact of rising oil prices an almost certain consequence of conflict on the faltering US recovery. Karim Sadjadpour, one of the leading analysts in the US on relations with Iran, based at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is sceptical about the chances of war with Iran. "A US military attack on Iran is not going to happen during Obama's presidency. If you're Obama, and your priority is to resuscitate the American economy and decrease the US footprint in the Middle East, bombing Iran would defeat those two objectives. Oil prices would skyrocket." Larry Sabato, a widely-respected political analyst and professor of politics at the University of Virginia, shared the scepticism, though he noted that Obama was more bellicose than people had expected. "He has not been hesistant to use force. And that has surprised not just the left but people round the world. I am not sure he would get the Nobel peace prize now. Just as well he got it early," he said. If there was to be a conflict, it would be better late next year, close to the election, rather than during the remainder of this year or early next. "We always talk about October surprises and we would have people rallying round the flag if there was sufficient justification. October means the election would be held before the US becomes mired down in conflict or faces a boomerang effect," Sabato said.

Israel is not alone in talking about military action against Iran. Among the state department documents disclosed by WikiLeaks was one in Saudi Arabia called for action to chop what it called "the head of the snake". The attitude of the Obama adminstration towards Iran is well illustrated by the episode in which allegations surfaced of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington with the help of a Mexican drug cartel. If the US was finally bowing to pressure from not just Israel but Saudi Arabia, the alleged Iranian plot would have been a useful casus belli or at least the start of a softening up process in preparation for war. Instead, Obama administration staff briefed privately almost immediately that a military response was not being contemplated, not even sending more naval vessels to the Gulf or announcing new military manoeuvres in the region.

The United States and Iran: the logic of war

Paul Rogers, 1 February 2007 The surge in United States troop levels in gathering pace. As it does so, the civilian losses in Iraq continue at an appalling rate: as many as a hundred people often die each day as a result of car-bombs, shootings and other attacks. American soldiers themselves continue to fall. A relatively low level of casualties in the first two weeks of January may have reflected a reduced number of patrols, but from the middle of the month the US casualty rate soared. In the four weeks to 24 January, eighty were killed and 400 wounded. There is now little expectation in Washington that the surge will have a radical effect, and indeed the notable current tendency is radically to curb expectations. President Bush's nominee to replace General John Abizaid as head of US central command (the military operations centre covering the middle east, including Iraq and Afghanistan) is Admiral William Fallon; during his confirmation hearings in front of the Senate armed-services committee on 30 January, he was notably cautious. Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001 Two elements of Fallon's thinking were apparent. The first was to limit expectations in Iraq, and to expect any degree of success to be slow in coming, despite the reinforcements now being deployed. The second was to concentrate on curbing the power

and influence of Iran, an aspect of the war that has come rapidly to the fore in Washington in the past three months. This week, under-secretary of state Nicholas Burns warned that Iran was involved in attacks on US forces: "We have picked up individuals who we believe are giving very sophisticated explosive technology to Shi'a insurgent groups, who then use that technology to target and kill American soldiers. It is a very serious situation. And the message from the United States is that Iran should cease and desist" (National Public Radio, Morning Edition, 1 February 2007) Burns went on to say that the matter could be resolved by diplomatic means, but repeated the standard administration line that all options remained open including military action, specifically in relation to Iran's nuclear ambitions. A few commentators have warned of a confrontation with Iran for several years - see, for example, Crisis Action and the Oxford Research Group. Several columns in this series have also emphasised this prospect (see, for example, "Iran, the real focus", 16 March 2006 and "Iran: the politics of the next crisis", 28 September 2006). For the most part, they have been discounted. Today, in the context of the changed mood in Washington and even though it is an extraordinarily dangerous prospect and seems so far-fetched as to be unbelievable - the risk can no longer be ignored. Tehran sting What has happened is this. As the United States predicament in Iraq has steadily deteriorated, the reaction among the more hawkish opinion-formers in the US has been to insist in the strongest terms on the need for victory in Iraq, while seeing Iran as the real reason for current failures. Iran therefore must be dealt with, initially at least in terms of destroying any nuclear capability it may possess or be seeking to acquire. This objective is aided by the rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, especially his holocaust-denial propaganda, notwithstanding the fact that much of it is intended to deflect criticism from the mounting failures of his domestic policies. In one sense, Iran was always the main issue for neo-conservatives: "the road to Tehran runs through Baghdad" was their mantra. Indeed there was a strong view in 2003 that the best way to deal with Iran was by installing a client administration in Iraq, secured by a substantial permanent American military presence at four large bases. Iraq would become a western bastion, with the added double benefit of reducing the significance of a somewhat unpredictable House of Saud while ensuring the Iran would know its place. In essence, regime termination to Iran's east (Afghanistan) and west (Iraq) within two years would achieve a precious strategic success: a pliant Tehran. It has not exactly worked out like that. Instead, a Taliban revival is underway to the east and a terrible descent into violence to the west, with US forces steadily losing control. US

neocons cannot in any sense consider this to be a failure of US policy; someone else must therefore be to blame, and Iran is the obvious candidate. Its culpability is both in its underpinning the evolving role of Shi'a militias in Iraq, and in its working full-tilt to develop nuclear weapons which threaten the United States's closest ally, Israel. There are, in fact, numerous signs that the Iranian nuclear programme is in serious difficulty. But Iran's president has chosen to announce an expansion of the uraniumenrichment programme, a move calculated to raise tensions as well as (again) to divert his people's attention from domestic concerns. In a further, military initiative that could come to fruition at any time, Iran is reported to have converted one of its ballistic missiles into a satellite launch-vehicle able to lift small reconnaissance satellites into low orbit (see Aviation Week, 26 January 2007). This would be little more than a technological demonstration, but its psychological and political significance across the region would be considerable. Iran is making progress on two other fronts in ways that annoy Washington. First, Pakistan and India have agreed with Iran a pricing formula for gas delivered to both countries by a planned $7 billion pipeline. Second, and even more of an affront, is Iran's decision to promote close economic, diplomatic and military cooperation with Iraq. This includes an offer of training equipment and advisers for the Iraqi army, aid in civil reconstruction and (most symbolically) the opening of a branch of the Iranian national bank in Baghdad (see James Glanz, "Iran looking to expand its presence in Iraq", International Herald Tribune, 30 January 2007). In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click here Paul Rogers's new book is Into the Long War: Oxford Research Group, International Security Report 2006 (Pluto Press, November 2006) The cost of conflict Meanwhile, the overall attitude of the Bush administration has become progressively more hardline. Its more strident comments about the threat from Iran have been accompanied by two other moves that may well be designed to prepare the way for war. As with the increased troop numbers in Iraq, these go directly against the recommendations of the Baker commission's report which called for improved diplomatic links with Tehran. The first dates back to autumn 2006 when "Bush gave the military secret authorization to kill or capture members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, including members of a Guard unit known as the Quds Force, and any Iranian intelligence operatives suspected of arming or supporting Shiite militias in Iraq" (see Dafna Linzer & Ann Scott Tyson, "Lethal-Force Order Justified, Bush Says", Washington Post, 27 January 2007). What is significant here is that this decision was only publicised four months later, in what

appears to be a deliberate policy of preparing the domestic audience in the US for a crisis with Iran. The second initiative is the widely publicised deployment of a second US navy carrier battle-group to the region. This initially appeared to be a temporary measure which would entail merely a longer-than-usual overlap between deployments (carrier battle-groups normally deploy for six months before being replaced, but each group has the capability to remain on station for much longer than that, allowing for a short-term doubling-up). Now, however, it seems that the two-group arrangement is not a temporary political "symbol" but a longer-term arrangement. The point here is that having two carriers in the area at any one time allows for even more "overlap". It will therefore be quite easy to deploy three full carrier battle-groups for extended periods if required. This is the first time that more than one group has been in the region for any length of time since mid-2003. The resources of a powerful naval force to support any action against Iran are abundantly present. In these circumstances, the conclusion must be that a direct military confrontation with Iran is now seriously likely in the next six months, no matter how dangerous that might prove. The perils of such a confrontation remain as great as ever; they were assessed in (for example) this Oxford Research Group report in 2006: It is clear that a full-scale US air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and related infrastructure could do substantial damage, as well as causing hundreds and probably thousands of casualties. Even a more limited Israeli raid would have a major effect. Equally clear is the wide range of options open to Iran in responding to such an attack especially as its principal immediate effect would be a fundamental unifying of opinion in favour of the government (no matter how unpopular it might be in other respects). The possibilities include:

immediate withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty and a wholehearted effort to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible - leading to further action by the United States and Israel, and a long war action against US forces in Iraq, through Shi'a militia intermediaries on a far larger scale than at present direct involvement of Iran's Revolutionary Guards in Iraq closure of the Straits of Hormuz, causing a steep increase in world oil prices aid and encouragement to Hizbollah in southern Lebanon (especially if Israel was involved in the attacks)

paramilitary attacks on oil facilities in western Gulf states.

Furthermore, an attack on Iran would be seen by Shi'a groups in many other countries as an attack on them; this would create potential for severe disturbance, not least in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Against the trend to escalation, there are fortunately many indications of serious unease by European governments at the prospect of a war with Iran. Moreover, the public mood in countries such as Britain may simply not tolerate another war. There is also a much higher level of knowledge about the risks; Crisis Action plans on 5 February to release a major report on this theme, which highlights the dangers and argues strongly for further diplomatic engagement. The neocon tide may still be flowing in Washington, but US military action against Iran is certainly not inevitable. A pivotal influence in shaping the key decision could well be the position of the Tony Blair government in London. If one of his last actions in office is to back a US confrontation with Iran, it would be an even more grievous mistake than Britain's Iraq policy - a grim end to his decade in office, and a devastating farewell to people in the middle east whom war will affect most harshly.