IRAN and US

Posted: January 4th, 2023

IRAN and US

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

IRAN and US

Are contemporary relations between the United States of America and Iran better explained by realist or liberal theories of International Relations?

The conflict between the United States and Iran has been ongoing for the last four decades, with no end in sight. The two countries severed formal diplomatic relations in 1980 following the successful Iranian Revolution of 1979. Since then, the two nations have viewed each other with suspicion, giving rise conflict characterized by significant ideological differences, with each country pursuing to advance its worldview (Mazurek, 2018). Neoliberalism and Islamism have shaped the ideological differences between the two states. While the former has characterized the United States, the latter has been promoted by Iran (Malici & Walker, 2016). With each country endeavoring to demonize the other, and using different strategies to advance their divergent perceptions, numerous attempts to normalize the international relations between the two countries have been unsuccessful.

The US-Iran conflict has been studied extensively using the realist and liberal theories of international relations. While the soured relations between the two countries have been articulated in the foreign policies, the underlying problem fomenting the continuing conflict has been explained differently by leaders, policymakers, and scholars (Juneau, 2015). Realist and liberal theories have provided conflicting perceptions of the US-Iran ties, considering that they advance different interpretations of conflict and cooperation in international relations (Heywood, 2011). This discussion proposes that the realist theories of international relations can explain contemporary US-Iran ties better than the liberal ones. The five-criterion framework advanced by Mowle (2003) is used to analyze the realist and liberal explanations of the US-Iran relations and support the realist views over the liberal ones. 

Realism, liberalism, and theories of international relations

International relations are about how the international system operates, which can be explained through the realist or liberalist lens. In this regard, realism and liberalism are the two major theories of international relations that can explain the US-Iran relations in modern times. Although international relations theories explain the behavior of states and policymakers based on national interests, realism and liberalism advance the different ways in which these interests are advanced and defended by individual states. The national interests include the influence of one state over another, economic prosperity, military security, and self-preservation (Malici & Walker, 2016). In this regard, countries attempt to resolve the differences in national interests through either negotiations or war, lacking which generates extended animosity in their relations. From this premise, the realist theory of international relations posits that nations amass military power to not only self-preserve but also to overcome competitors in a dangerous and harsh world (Heywood, 2011). International relations founded on realism are characterized by suspicion, mistrust, and threats of using military intervention to coerce conformity to their worldview. While international law and institutions cannot achieve inter-state harmony and peace, egoism and power politics motivate foreign policy that dictates international relations (Jumarang, 2011; Burchill et al, 2013). Contrastingly, according to the liberalist theory of international relations, states pursue and employ economic and social power to supplement military authority to survive in a chaotic world. In this regard, national interests are pursued through cooperating internationally, adhering to international rules, and embracing international institutions. The western model of “liberal democracy and capitalism” is seen as the gold standard of policies founded on liberalism (Burchill et al., 2013, p. 56). Therefore nations resolve their differences by interdepending on each other through trading and collaborating in common causes. Hence, military interventions are avoided (Jumarang, 2011). From the foreign policy and behavior of the United States and Iran towards each other, realism rather than liberalism can explain their contemporary relations better, because both countries threaten each other repeatedly with military force and have used covert operations to destabilize each other. Moreover, both countries invoke their right to self-determination and self-preservation, and thus often circumvent international law to advance their worldview. However, they often apply republican liberalism and liberal institutionalism when these serve their national interests (Heywood, 2011). In this regard, realism explains the US-Iran ties better than liberalism.

Absolute versus relative gains from external conflict

The United States and Iran use the realist theory more than the liberalist one when describing their perceptions on their relations. In this regard, they seek to obtain relative gain over their influence over each other rather than absolute power over each other. This explains why the US termed Iran as a supporter of terrorism and thus an irresponsible state, while Iran described the US as an “arrogant” superpower intent on exploiting “oppressed” nations to defame each other in the international community (Soltaninejad, 2015, p. 455). In turn, Mesbahi (2013) argued that the uneven mistrust levels and the leveraging of diplomatic engagement to gain domestic and international favor are characteristic of the US-Iran relations. Both countries have used diplomatic engagement strategically to advance their opportunistic exploitation of each other while leaving room for defecting from any cooperation. 

Individual versus collective norms and interests

The United States and Iran make policy statements that advance their self-interests more than the mutual interest of the international community, making realism better than liberalism in understanding the relations between the two countries. Each country believes that institutional norms, such as those advanced by the United Nations, are not sufficient to persuade a change in the leaders’ perceptions of their national interests. In this regard, both countries pursue security-related, materialistic, and short-term interests to gain an advantage over each other, instead of the long-term interests advanced by the international community. The US has undermined the Iranian regimes since the 1979 Iranian Resolution, with Iran reciprocating in equal measure. Ignorance, special interests, and ideological dispositions held by the two countries have characterized their foreign policy and relations (Malici & Walker, 2016). Moreover, US policy in the Middle East and particularly towards Iran has been influenced by the fear of Iran’s perceived hegemony in the region by Israel and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the alliance between the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel against Iran focuses on the advancement of their national interests rather than those of the international community, which are securing the entire Middle East region (Smith, 2016). In this regard, a realist rather than a liberal view of the foreign policies of the US and Iran better explains the diplomatic standoffs.

Protecting the state versus protecting other states in the international community

Both countries fear that the other and other nations would become too powerful to threaten their national securities. Golkar (2014) notes that the highly-indoctrinated Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reinforces Iran’s strategy of resisting American dominance schemes and overruns any internal dissents, such as the 2009 Green Movement protests to ensure that American ideologies do not take root among Iranians and destabilize the Islamic regime from within. Likewise, successive administrations in the US have sought a villain in the international community to advance their special interests and cement their position as the global ombudsman of peace. Therefore, after deposing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and aiding the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US set its sights in Iran as the next threat to its national security (Malici & Walker, 2016). Moreover, Bill (2001) noted that the policymakers in the United States, through the Atlantic Council, have had to change tactics, which are calculated to influence Iran’s behavior change to conform with US economic, energy and geostrategic interests. This complies more with the realist international relations theory that with the liberal one.  

Combatant versus other states’ lessons on the conflict’s ramification

Both countries view each other’s actions in any dispute as advancing their relative position against each other and that their efforts can persuade other militant states to pursue similar policies. Therefore, the US and Iran view each other as aggressors that threaten and endanger their national security, which informs their militaristic approach to their relations. The United States views Iran as a threat to the Middle East peace with its nuclear program, while Iran perceived the US as a threat to Islam. The US feels that allowing Iran to continue with its nuclear program would encourage other radical nations to follow suit, endangering Israel especially. However, Mattair (2010) noted that Iran was developing a nuclear program in response to being surrounded by nuclear nations, such as Israel, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and possibly Iraq. In this regard, the Iranian nuclear program was defensive about deterring aggression from its foes. Moreover, in its pursuit of security assurances, Iran was particularly not impressed by the United States’ position in the Israeli-Arab or its support for Saudi Arabia, and therefore was cautious about warming its relations with the US (Pickering, Parsi, Katzman, & Mattair, 2009). The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, is a good example that demonstrates the realist rather than the liberalist view of the US-Iran conflict, with the United States seeing Iran as a combatant amid nuclear countries, such as Israel, which are not recognized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Although President Obama has succeeded in hammering a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, the Trump Administration undid this progress by withdrawing from the plan (Beck, 2018). In this regard, the realist view of Iran’s nuclear status as being instrumental in stabilizing the Middle East over current Israel’s nuclear monopoly overrides the liberal theory supporting the adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Multilateral institutions and alliances as tools versus goals of the state

The United States and Iran enter into alliances that serve the immediate state interests, provided such coalitions do not undermine their independence. The policies and actions of the two countries towards each other are premised in a tradeoff between the two countries rather than adherence to the norms of the international community and its institutions. For instance, the US seeks support from the international community when advancing the threat posed by Iran to global peace, just like Iran pursues similar support when arguing against the US-imposed sanctions. However, these positions are always punctuated by overarching national interests, which are demonstrated when both countries maintain the current stalemate in their relations. For instance, the US feels that the only way to deter Iran from developing nuclear capacity without outright war or economic upheaval is to unseat the Iranian regime by an internal revolution. Meanwhile, Iran would only refrain from weaponizing its nuclear technology when a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is attained (Treviño, 2013). The negotiation standoff is consistent with the realist rather than the liberal theory of international relations.

Conclusion

Iran has focused on surviving the anarchic and hostile Middle East region and its foreign policy since the Iranian Revolution while propagating its Islamic ideologies. Similarly, the United States is intent on undermining the Iranian regime after losing its influence in the country following the Iranian revolution, while at the same time siding with Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are declared foes of Iran. These national interests have characterized the US-Iran relations and fomented the longstanding impasse in the several diplomatic engagements between the two countries. Moreover, both countries invoke international community engagement only when their positions are threatened. The alliances form when advancing the divergent national interests is fragile, and only last for as long as they serve the short-term purpose for both countries. It means that friends supporting the foreign policies of the two countries can easily transform into foes once the US and Iran change their policy stands. In this regard, the realist theory of international relations explains the contemporary US-Iran relations more adequately than the liberal approach. The two countries only comply with international law and adhere to international community norms when it serves their national interests and rejects  it when it does not.

References

Beck, M. (2018). An international relations perspective of the Iran nuclear deal. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/pdf/75169.

Bill, J. A. (2001). The politics of hegemony: the United States and Iran. Middle East Policy, 8(3), 89-100. doi:10.1111/1475-4967.00029.

Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. & True, J. (2013). Theories of international relations (5th ed.). Macmillan International Higher Education.

Golkar, S. (2014). Iran’s Revolutionary Guard: Its views of the United States. Middle East Policy, 21(2), 53-63. doi:10.1111/mepo.12070.

Heywood, A. (2011). Global Politics. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Jumarang, B. K. (2011). Realism and Liberalism in International Relations. E-International Relations. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/pdf/10069.

Juneau, T. (2015). Squandered opportunity: Neoclassical realism and Iranian foreign policy. Stanford University Press.

Malici, A., & Walker, S. G. (2016). Role Theory and Role Conflict in US-Iran Relations: Enemies of Our Own Making. Taylor & Francis.

Malici, A., & Walker, S. G. (2016). Role Theory and Role Conflict in US-Iran Relations: Enemies of Our Own Making. Taylor & Francis.

Mattair, T. R. (2010). The United States and Iran: diplomacy, sanctions and war. Middle East Policy, 17(2), 52-61. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4967.2010.00438.x.

Mazurek, K. D. (2018). Kissingerism and Iranian-American relations: Prospects for reconciliation and the establishment of a new order. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=intlstudies_honors.

Mesbahi, M. (2013). Trust and US-Iran relations: Between the prisoners’ dilemma and the assurance game. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, 4(1), 7-51.

Mowle, T. S. (2003). Worldviews in foreign policy: Realism, liberalism, and external conflict. Political Psychology, 24(3), 561-592. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00341.

Pickering, T. R., Parsi, T., Katzman, K., & Mattair, T. R. (2009). The United States and Iran: what are the prospects for engagement? Middle East Policy, 16(2), 1-25. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4967.2009.00388.x.

Smith, K. (2016). Realist foreign policy analysis with a twist: The Persian Gulf security complex and the rise and fall of dual containment. Foreign Policy Analysis, 12(3), 315-333. doi:10.1111/fpa.12084.

Soltaninejad, M. (2015). Iran and the United States: A Conflict Resolution Perspective. Asian Politics & Policy, 7(3), 455-475. doi:10.1111/aspp.12199.

Treviño, R. (2013). Is Iran an Offensives Realist or a Defensive Realist? A Theoretical Reflection on Iranian Motives for Creating Instability. Journal of Strategic Security, 6(3), 382-392. doi:10.5038/1944-0472.6.3s.33.