In the U.S., public officials are currently at odds over how the relationship with Iran should be defined. Is Iran still a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East? Should the U.S. lift economic sanctions and other measures that have been enacted to punish Iran for its alleged links to terrorist groups and past acts of aggression? Would a closer relationship between the two countries provide impetus for political reform in Iran?
Some observers assert that the time is ripe to engage Iran in a more open relationship. Rather than seeking to discipline the country through sanctions and harsh rhetoric, they say, the U.S. should seek to foster change through diplomacy and trade. If U.S. officials fail to give up grudges against Iran, supporters argue, they will squander an opportunity to gain a new trading partner and potential ally.
Yet others are less optimistic about Iran's prospects for change, and reject the notion that the country deserves of closer commercial and diplomatic ties. Despite Khatami's promises for reform, they argue, Iran is far from establishing a trustworthy and stable state. Supporters of sanctions point out that hard-line Islamic leaders remain entrenched in Iran's political system, blocking the country's path to reform. Unless Iran can prove that it has ceased sponsoring terrorist groups and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, they say, the U.S. should not lift sanctions or establish diplomatic ties.
In the late 1970s, Iran descended into chaos as conservative Muslims began to align themselves against the Shah. His opponents united under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, an Islamic cleric, who orchestrated a government overthrow while living in exile in France. Following widespread strikes and rioting staged by Khomeini's supporters, in January 1979 the Shah fled the country. One month later, Khomeini returned to Iran and became the country's supreme leader.
Khomeini declared Iran an Islamic republic and established a government based on strict religious principles. Leaders of his regime put to death political opponents, shut down newspapers and magazines, banned political parties, closed universities and restricted civil liberties. The new regime espoused fervent anti-American sentiments because the U.S. had supported the Shah.
The new government drafted a constitution that is still in place today. The constitution features elements found in most secular democratic systems, such as a democratically elected president and parliament. However, it also established theocratic elements such as a Council of Guardians, a body of Islamic clerics charged with screening all candidates for elective office and ensuring that government policies are consistent with Islamic principles. It also gave absolute power to a Faqih, or supreme leader, who has control over the military, judiciary and armed forces.
In October 1979, after U.S. President Jimmy Carter (D, 1977-81) allowed the Shah to enter the U.S. for medical treatment, a group of radical students stormed the U.S. embassy in the Iranian capital, Teheran, and kidnapped 66 U.S. citizens. Khomeini supported the act, arguing that it represented the will of the Iranian people, and offered to release the hostages if the U.S. would agree to extradite the Shah to Iran for trial.
U.S. officials rejected Khomenei's offer, and after attempts to negotiate a release of the hostages broke down, in April 1980 the U.S. military made an unsuccessful attempt to free them through the use of military force. The hostages were held captive until January 1981, when the U.S. agreed to return $8 billion of Iranian assets frozen in the U.S.
In response to the Iranian revolution and ensuing hostage crisis, U.S. leaders suspended all ties with Iran. Congress also enacted a series of measures prohibiting arms sales to Iran and restricting exports of materials and technology that could be used by the country to further its strategic ambitions. Those measures established the basis for a sanctions regime that is still in place today.
In 1980, Iran was also drawn into a war with neighboring Iraq. Skirmishes between the two countries began when Iraqi leaders demanded that Iran grant autonomy to minority groups such as the Kurds and Azerbaijanis, who opposed the Islamic revolution and had taken up arms against the Iranian government in a quest for independence. When Iran refused, Iraqi forces poured across the border, sparking a full-scale conflict that lasted until 1988 and claimed one million lives.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the U.S. provided Iraq with military equipment and training, hoping that a swift Iraqi victory would stabilize the Middle East. At the same time, however, through a series of secret negotiations now known as the Iran-Contra Affair, the U.S. also sold arms to Iran in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages held by Lebanese militants with ties to the Iranian government. Funds generated through the arms sales were also used to finance a rebel insurgency against the communist government of Nicaragua. (Fairbanks, 2003)
Under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, tensions between the U.S. and Iran continued to escalate. In response to the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S. maintained a heavy naval presence in the Persian Gulf, provoking sporadic skirmishes with Iranian forces. (New York Times, 2001) In 1987, citing the "increasingly bellicose behavior" of Iranian forces in the gulf, Reagan issued an executive order banning all Iranian imports. The order, which enraged Iranian officials, expanded an earlier ban on U.S. exports that could be used by the Iranian military. In 1988, the U.S. also angered Iranian leaders by accidentally shooting down an Iranian civilian aircraft, killing all 290 people aboard.
President George Bush also made efforts to isolate Iran by tightening the sanctions enacted by Carter and Reagan. In 1992, he signed the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act, a law barring the sale of nuclear technology and military equipment to Iran and Iraq. The law also gave the U.S. government the power to penalize individuals and private companies that assisted Iran in acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Cautious Steps Towards Normalization
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, some observers began to question the validity of maintaining sanctions against Iran. In particular, many oil industry leaders argued that U.S. companies should be allowed to trade directly with Iran and develop the country's vast oil fields. Some of the U.S.'s allies, such as France and Japan, also argued that sanctions were a detriment to human rights and a poor means of persuading Iran to institute democratic reforms and cut ties to terrorist groups.
Throughout much of his two terms in office, President Bill Clinton (D, 1993-2001) rejected the notion that taking a more conciliatory approach to U.S.-Iranian relations would change Iran's behavior.( Lantos, 2002) Citing Iran's role in terrorist activities and its attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, Clinton broadened existing trade restrictions and arms embargoes. In May 1995, he also issued an executive order barring all U.S. trade with Iran.
In August 1996, Clinton signed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), a law that calls for economic sanctions on foreign companies that make large investments in the energy sectors of Iran or Libya, which Clinton called "the most dangerous supporters of terrorism in the world." The law was harshly criticized by countries such as France, Italy and Germany, which had begun to express interest in redeveloping Iran's oil industry. (Moore, 1999) In 1997, the stage was set for a change in U.S.-Iranian relations when Iranian voters elected Mohammed Khatami, a moderate Islamic cleric, as president. Throughout his campaign, Khatami had promised to promote changes that would assure civil rights and freedom for Iranian citizens, such as curbing media censorship, granting more rights to women and reducing the role of religion in politics.
Future Uncertain
For years, the relationship between Iran and the U.S. has been mired in tension and open hostility. Due to conflicting interests and cultural differences, the two countries have been locked in a struggle that has lasted for more than four decades. While the U.S. has criticized Iran for its repression of human rights and its role in international terrorism, Iran has long resented the U.S. for its apparent meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and its support of a strict regime of sanctions.
Despite years of conflict, some analysts say that relations between the U.S. and Iran have reached a turning point. Since Iran had begun to undergo political change from within that may bring about a significant evolution in its policies, an increasing number of people have begun to advocate a more open relationship between the two countries.
Yet despite the increasingly positive prospects for U.S.-Iranian relations, some analysts say that it will take great effort to resolve lingering disagreements. Geoffrey Kemp, a specialist on the Persian Gulf region at the Nixon Center in Washington, D.C., believes that it will take years for the U.S. and Iran to move beyond past conflicts. "While the strategic logic for better relations is overwhelming, the political realities are very different," he says.
References
Abdo, Geneive. "The Tenacious Hold of Repression in Iran." New York Times (June 12, 2001): A33.
Fairbanks, Stephen. "Iran: No Easy Answers." Journal of International Affairs (Spring 2003): 447.
Lantos, Tom. "Let's Not Reward Iran for Bad Behavior." Washington Post (May 28, 2002): A23.
Moore, Molly. "Iran's Women Say Yes to Khatami." Washington Post (Friday 8, 1999): A22.
New York Times. "Iran's Leader Says U.S., to Improve Ties, Must Ease Policy." (June 6, 2001): A12.
