American Studies

university of tehran, institue of north american and european studies

American Studies

university of tehran, institue of north american and european studies

With New Data, U.S. Revises Its View of Iran

 

 

 

 

“WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 — How could American intelligence agencies have overstated Iran’s intentions in 2005 so soon after being reprimanded for making similar errors involving Iraq?

The spy agencies had swallowed hard and pledged to do better after a presidential commission in March 2005 issued a blistering accounting of the intelligence failures leading to the Iraq war.

But a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that was issued two months later said Iran’s leaders were working tirelessly to acquire a nuclear weapon — a finding that, like the prewar intelligence on Iraq, has now been acknowledged to have been wrong

in one of its chief conclusions.

 

New York Times , Dec. 5

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/washington/05intel.html

 

 

American intelligence agencies surprised the world on Monday, Dec. 3, declaring they have come to new conclusions about iran’s nuclear programs, something in sharp contrast to what they had reported previously in May, 2005. Nearly 2 years ago they claimed that the Iranian government was pursuing a nuclear weapon program. Backed by such reports and estimates, President Bush increased pressure on Iran to end the enrichment process and to forget about the nuclear energy programs forever.america’s European allies were also pressed to support the sanctions against Iran that were suggested by America in the UN every now and then. China and Russia despite their reluctance in some cases could not resist the American hegemony over this issue.

By presenting Iran as a general threat to world, US President was recently speaking of the possibility of a Third World War. So how and why does this happens overnight? It is said that these agencies came to this conclusion one year ago so why to wait this long to reveal it. They even rejected the recent IAEA report about iran’s nuclear program that by emphasized on the peacefulness of it admitted that no evidence was found to prove iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Despite all the uncertainties about intentions behind this report and its being brought into public attention now, one thing is clear: they did not do it for iran’s good, and that their pressure on Iran would not stop. Although the report states that Iran is not after nuclear weapons but it does not exonerate Iran completely. They say Iran has ceased its attempts to reach nuclear weapon in 2003 and is now doing the enrichment process only for peaceful intentions. But they also say that because once Iran had that non-peaceful intentions so there is a possibility of it happening in the future. They want to make the world believe that if America had not pressed Iran this much, Iranians would have made nuclear weapons by now. In this way American officials are actually justifying their actions and not simply excusing Iran

 

?Iran or America

 

NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS FOR NOVEMBER, 6. TODAY ( Dec. 7). I'VE JUST DELETED IT ACCIDENTALLY WHILE I WANTED TO EDIT IT ! THAT'S WHY IT APPEARS HERE AND NOT IN IT'S OWN PLACE.

 

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates appealed to China for help in curbing Iran's nuclear programme, arguing that a stable Persian Gulf was in the interests of Beijing's energy security.


 

"An Iran that is a destabilizing force in the region is not in anyone's interest, including in China's," Gates told reporters as he toured the Forbidden City.


 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his Chinese counterpart agreed to work together to steer Iran away from its nuclear ambitions in talks that Chinese President Hu Jintao described Tuesday as "very candid and friendly ."


 

And, with a nod to China's reluctance to support greater economic sanctions against Iran, Gates said he stressed to Cao the importance of using such pressure to convince the Iranian government "to make different choices." Tehran is suspected of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, something it denies.                                                                              


 

                                                                                                                              Washington Post- 6, November, 2007


 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110600095.html 


 

     U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates travelled to China for the first time since his taking the office nearly one year ago. If we were following the news, we would see that besides Gates, many other U.S. officials have travelled to China recently. But what’s the purpose Americans are after in China? As the above news suggests, one of the reasons for Americans being there, is to reduce their concerns over Iran’s nuclear programs through negotiating with their Chinese counterparts. They hope to press China to approve harder economic sanctions on Iran. Because both the U.S. and China have the veto right in the U.N. Security Council, China’s consent is also needed for Americans to carry out their intentions and decisions. But contrary to the harsh diplomacies America is following against Iran, China prefers negotiations and peaceful talks for getting this problem done. Thus, U.S. is trying to convince China saying that the sanctions would force the Iranian officials to back down and thus it would make the region more stable that would be “in China’s interest”.


 

     Today China is getting nearly 12 percent of its energy from the Middle East and specially Iran. If China approves harder sanctions against Iran, tensions would arise in the relationships between the two countries. Any tension of any kind in china-Iran relations is not favorable for the Chinese who are trying to maintain their position the world and who are therefore in great need of energy sources. That’s why they are trying to solve the problem peacefully. China is now facing a major dilemma. On the one hand American markets are of the highest importance for Chinese because if America closes its markets on Chinese products, China’s industry would be troubled and may suffer a lot. On the other hand and as mentioned before, keeping good relations with Iran is also beneficial because it may bring about reaching more energy sources . So the decision that the Chinese would make, basically depends on the fact that siding with which one benefits more: Iran or America


 

    


 

 

Book Review:

I had this book review also published in Ezine Articles webite: http://ezinearticles.com/?id=864256

The book is part of the American History in Depth series. The author is John Dumbrell and the general editor of the series is A. J. Badger. The book is published in Hong Kong, 1997, by McMillan Publications. It is in paperback (ISBN: 0-333-61094-6), and it is also available in hardcover (ISBN: 0-333-61093-8); with papers suitable for recycling. No picture, table or graph can be seen in this book; except the photograph on the front cover that shows presidents Carter and Clinton together. As we can see in the Bibliographical Note, the author used secondary sources as well as some primary articles in form of printed articles. The book focuses on the America foreign policy in the mid-20th century (from Carter’s to Clinton’s presidency) that was marked with the “struggle between liberal democratic capitalism and Soviet state socialism”. As it is stated in the introduction, the book discusses four major themes:

“1) ending of the Cold War,

2) The legacy of Vietnam War,

3) American decline, and

4) The possibilities of the democratic foreign policy after 1977.”

It examines the “long tradition of American optimism” saying that despite apparent victories, American optimism was under pressure during 1980s; the great pressure and damage coming from America’s defeat in Vietnam War which as carter put it made Americans understand that they are “no better than other people”. Throughout the book, it is shown how attitudes and decisions in American foreign policy were under the influence of the Vietnam legacy, with special focus on the four presidents of the era, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. The author tries to put the information together in an impartial way, criticizing or approving of the events carefully.

About Carter it is said that he believed that the cold war period had ended and that it was time to pursue “domestic processes”. His other goal was to put commitment to human rights at the center of his foreign policy. But he never reached it because in some cases human rights were ignored because security issues were more important. In his time in the office, 2 revolutions took place that were not favorable to US, one in Iran and the other in Nicaragua. These events made Carter’s presidency as a period full of crisis. Reagan’s policies are discussed after Carter’s. First his decision to increase defense expenditure is stated and the fact that he believed that America must develop a “high-tech shield that would protect it from nuclear threats. Then his doctrine is presented:” American sponsorship to all enemies of communism in the developing countries”. That’s why he involved America in the Lebanese crisis so that it would not become a communist state. He also used human right as “an anti-soviet weapon”. Another important thing about him that is analyzed in this book is his “shadow policy of “winning back Iran” that finally led to Iran-contra scandal. The Reagan- Gorbachev dialogue is one of the other things discussed in this book. Then the book focuses on Bush’s presidency claiming that his policies mainly reflected that of Reagan’s except his policies toward the soviet that were more cautious than Reagan’s. It is explained that how he faced a dilemma in the second gulf war. He wanted to oppress Iraq that had invaded Kuwait and at the same time to keep Iraq as threat to Iran. Clinton is the last president that the book speaks of. It says that like Cater, Clinton emphasized domestic issues over foreign policy. He tried to “close the book on Vietnam, by promoting the cause of US trade and investment. His military program is also mentioned stating that he belied that its cost and size should be reduced.

The book is a good source of information for those who want to study the Cold war period and the effects of Vietnam war over American policies in the same era, especially undergraduate students who want a general information about the this period. For those who want a detailed description of the American foreign policy in the post-Cold war era, the book is not suitable because it does not go into details of the events and developments, giving only an overall picture. However in the End Notes for each chapter, one can find useful sources, books and articles that can guide him or her to further information about the topics discussed in chapters. In the Bibliographical Note also, the author suggests that: “much of the important secondary literature on recent US foreign policy may be found in specialist journals, notably Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, International Security and International Affairs”.