• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23
  24. 24
  25. 25
  26. 26
  27. 27
  28. 28

Post-Cold War Realities

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Post-Cold War Realities INTRODUCTION: THE ANTI-AMERICAN ALLIANCE In June 1995, the Speaker of the Majlis (parliament) told the visiting Deputy Chairman of the Russian Duma, Alexander Vengerovsky, that the two strategic states of Iran and Russia should form an alliance to limit the expansion of U.S. hegemony in the region.[1] This proposal effectively sums up the entire history of the Russian-Islamic Republic ?strategic partnership??anti-Americanism. During the final decade of the Cold War, mutual loathing for the United States held together a relationship of slightly less suspicion and disdain for each other. As the protracted conflict between Moscow and Washington began to thaw, so did relations with Tehran. Subsequently, in the face of intruding U.S. presence in the greater Middle East, the benefits of cooperation in the obstruction of Western influence became increasingly evident and useful. Both share an aversion to a unipolar world in which the United States wields unchallenged primacy, controlling the United Nations, dictating supplier unions, and deciding who receives advanced arms, technology, and industry. As a result, they have found common ground to further their own political, economic, and hegemonic aspirations. For Iran, Russia provides distinct opportunities to advance its goals of conventional and nuclear military buildup; extension of cultural and political influence in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Caspian regions; economic oil interests in the Caspian Sea; and emergence from U.S. induced international isolation. For Russia, Iran presents similar prospects including a demand for its Soviet-era military hardware and technology; assistance in the re-imposition of control over its former sphere of influence; its own Caspian Sea oil and gas interests; and insulation from Western political and economic pressure. While both sides would prefer to dominate the regions on their own, their inability to individually block U.S. influence from making inroads has brought them together to present a stronger, more unified resistance. This paper will proceed to analyze how the theme of anti-Americanism is rooted in past and present Russian-Iranian relations and the implications that the current realities of this ?strategic partnership? hold for United States policy. ...read more.


The collapse of the social safety net and resulting social and economic despair then served to aggravate an already volatile situation. When it came time to point the finger at someone, most people immediately blamed those with whom they had always had some sort grievance?though previously kept under lock and key by Moscow.[29] Even so, Russia still considers the former Soviet republics that now make up the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as its undisputed sphere of influence. However, it is not blind to the fact that it has, in many ways lost the ability to project control over the region. At least for economic reasons, ?Russia?s budget cannot sustain a further drain of resources in the direction of Central Asia.?[30] After seventy years of forced subordination to the Kremlin, many of the former republics, despite their Communist remnant leaders, are relishing their newfound independence. As a result, any overt imperialistic action by Moscow is seen through the lens of the Soviet legacy by wary eyes. Looking for help, Russia?s increasingly friendly trade relations with Iran presented the opportunity to collaborate once again. Due to Persian culture?s important ties with the predominantly Islamic majorities in many of these new states, Russia sees the opportunity to culturally contract Iran for its own influential benefit. Similar to Russia, Iran has nothing to gain from the re-emergence of a power struggle in the region. But by cooperating with Russia, it can also extend its own political and cultural influence, establishing economic ties in the process. The distinct lack of cultural and national identities provides Tehran, with its historical ties, a singular ability to take advantage of the situation and possibly further its long held belief in a ?great Iran? spreading into the larger Middle East. For many of these countries, Iran could represent a means to gaining alternatives to Moscow?s control. At the same time, Russia believes that it could use Iran as a conduit for indirectly influencing the region on uncooperative issues and as a means ...read more.


Russian Foreign Policy after the Cold War. Praeger Publishers: Wesport, CT, 1996. p. 87 [17] Tarock, 70 [18] Al-Suwaidi, 122 [19] Sobhani, Rob, ?U.S., Iran and the Caspian,? Georgetown University, class lectures [20] Hersh, Seymour, ?The Iran Game,? The New Yorker, December 3, 2001 [21] Tarock, 65 [22] Hersh, Seymour, ?The Iran Game,? The New Yorker, December 3, 2001 [23] Tarock, 64 [24] Hersh, Seymour, ?The Iran Game,? The New Yorker, December 3, 2001 [25] Al-Suwaidi 123 [26] Alam, Shah, ?Iran?s Hydrocarbon Profile: Production, Trade and Trend,? Strategic Analysis: A Monthly Journal of the IDSA, Volume 25, no. 1, April 2001. [27] Tarock, 65 [28] Benn, Aluf, ?Iranian nukes top U.S.-Israeli strategic talks,? Ha?aretz, October 31, 2001 [29] Sobhani, Rob, ?U.S., Iran and the Caspian,? Georgetown University, class lectures [30] Atabaki, Touraj and O?Kane, John (ed). Post-Soviet Central Asia. Tauris Academic Studies: New York, NY, 1998. p. 59 [31] Al-Suwaidi 189 [32] Allison, Roy and Jonson, Lena. Central Asian Security. Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, 2001. p. 115 [33] Tarock, 71 [34] Al-Suwaidi, 181 [35] Al-Suwaidi, 182 [36] ?Storm in a precious teacup,? The Economist, August 2, 2001 [37] ?Caspian pipedreams no longer,? The Economist, March 8, 2001 [38] ?Caspian pipedreams no longer,? The Economist, March 8, 2001 [39] ?Caspian pipedreams no longer,? The Economist, March 8, 2001 [40] ?Friends by default,? The Economist, March 8, 2001 [41] ?Storm in a precious teacup,? The Economist, August 2, 2001 [42] Altstadt, Audrey, ?Who Can Heal Azerbaijan?s Ulcer,? Caspian Crossroads, Volume 5, issue no. 3 [43] ?Storm in a precious teacup,? The Economist, August 2, 2001 [44] ?Where worlds collide,? The Economist, August 17, 2000 [45] ?Friends by default,? The Economist, March 8, 2001 [46] Atabaki, Touraj and O?Kane, John (ed), p. 75 [47] ?Addicted to oil,? The Economist, December 13, 2001 [48] Betts, Richard, ?The New Threat of Mass Destruction,? Foreign Affairs, Volume 77, no. 1, January/February 1998 [49] Amuzegar, Jahangir, ?Adjusting to Sanctions,? Foreign Affairs, Volume 76, no. 3, May/June 1997 [50] Clawson, Patrick, ?Iran under Khatami: a political, economic and military assessment,? Washington Institute for Near East Policy: Washington, DC, 1998. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent is the oil crisis of 1973 a turning point in postwar ...

    5 star(s)

    progress in the global economy , and would not have been possible without the onset of the 1973 oil crisis that sparked its formation- thus justifying the latter as a crucial turning point in the world economy's development. Yet, despite the fore-mentioned positive impacts of the oil crisis, it is

  2. Why did tension increase in Europe between 1900 and 1914?

    The Berlin Wall Why did Khrushchev order the building of the Berlin Wall? * It had always been possible for Berliners to travel from one part of the city to another. Many worked in one sector and lived in another.

  1. Who was responsible for the start of the Cold war?

    As a result the Truman doctrine was announced to the world on 12th March and was seen by observers as the American presidents first direct challenge to the rule of Stalin. For the first time Truman explicitly stated his belief that Communism posed a direct threat to capitalist society and that the two could not co-exist in harmony.

  2. Superpower Relations 1945-90

    The airlift was their way of calling his bluff. Stalin had no choice but to call off the blockade, since the only other way to get the Allies out of Berlin would have been by force. That would have led to a 3rd world war.

  1. The Cold War was a big rivalry that developed after World War II.

    As a result of this, industry grew rapidly but the general standard of living was a lot lower than that of the USA. The USSR was a one party dictatorship. All candidates belonged to the communist party; many communists were bitterly opposed to the Western Capitalist policies.

  2. What were the Main Causes of the Cold War? and Which of these Causes ...

    Stalin angrily reacted by closing all access to Berlin. Truman replied by saying, "We are going to stay. Period." The American's thought of using their army or even the atom bomb, but decided to ferry supplies into West Berlin by air. Stalin too stopped just short of violence and did not even try shooting sown American planes.

  1. American economic foreign policy and the origins of the cold war

    "From its beginnings in the liberal democratic theory of John Locke and the laissez-faire economics of Adam Smith, American political and economic ideology has been grounded in the notion that maximum collective good will result from a society structured to permit freedom of individuals to compete in pursuit of their

  2. The aim of this essay is to evaluate if the end of the Cold ...

    The historic disruption seen between 1989 and 1991 in Europe and other parts of the world finally brought the Cold War to a close. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and fall of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the bipolar antagonism between the two value and social systems ?East & West)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work