Perceptions and misconceptions in US-Iran relations

It is in the best interest of both to move forward and implement this treaty

A state’s interests, actions and policies play a pivotal role in shaping its perceptions and misperceptions towards another state while formulating the foreign policy. The US-Iran relations exhibit this phenomenon to a great extent. Iran is one state that has remained a matter of great concern to the United States. With changing internal and external scenarios, Iran’s position and role kept changing within United States’ strategic and security thinking. In history, it has been recognised as a trustworthy friend and a regional partner of the United States under the regime of CIA backed Reza Shah Pahlavi. This situation reversed after the Revolution of 1979 and Iran was perceived as the most relentless adversary of the US. The Iranian hostage crisis of 1981, the US support to Iraq in Iran-Iraq War and the Iran-Contra affair of 1987; all these cases represent that the rational assessment of costs and benefits in adopting a right course of action remained problematic on the part of both states. This not only resulted in mistrust and animosity between the two for more than three decades but also created implications for the balance of power in the Middle Eastern region.

The nuclear ambitions of Tehran further determined the United States’ perception regarding T as a rouge state for a long time. On the other hand, Iranian leadership also remained suspicious regarding US intentions of its nuclear program, its’ support to Israel and its closeness with the religious and regional rival of Iran i.e., Saudi Arabia.

The recent conflict between the two states revolves around acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. The superficial concept of “American Exceptionalism” presupposes that the US has a legal and moral duty to contain the threats of nuclear proliferation in the world. For this reason, the US has criticised Iran for its nuclearisation policy and non-compliance with NPT. Iran always rejected these claims by arguing that its nuclear program was pursued for peaceful purposes. A breakthrough has been achieved this month with the Vienna Treaty where Iran has decided to limit its nuclear program in return for relaxation of sanctions imposed on it by the UN. Nevertheless, the history of misperceptions between these two countries would continue to hinder the implementation of this treaty in an effective way.

The history of Iran’s nuclear program dates back to the US initiated Atoms for Peace Program under the administration of President Eisenhower

The history of Iran’s nuclear program dates back to the US initiated Atoms for Peace Program under the administration of President Eisenhower. The idea was to transfer nuclear technology to developing states for civilian purposes. Iran’s nuclear program began under the auspices of the same Atoms for Peace program in late 1950s under the Shah’s government. Iran signed the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 to ensure nuclear technology would be used for peaceful purposes. In 1974, Shah established Atomic Energy Organisation and declared that Iran would create 20 power reactors. The program was actively supported by the major Western powers namely US, France and Germany, and provided reactor sales to Iran.

The first problem arose in the late 1970s when Iran expressed interest in acquiring a domestic reprocessing plutonium separation plant to handle power reactor spent fuel, an action which was disapproved by United States. Shah announced in 1974 that “Iran would get nuclear weapons without a doubt and sooner than one would think”. The underlying intentions of attaining nukes became apparent. But US pressure forced him to retreat from his position. However, special research projects were pursued by Iranian scientists secretly in the field of dual use of nuclear technology to materialise the objective in case of a threat from any rival regional state.

The emergence of the Islamic leadership in 1979 abandoned all the nuclear activities which were previously pursued by Shah in collaboration with the United States. Soon, the outbreak of Iran-Iraq War helped Iran in realising its vulnerability in the region as the US supported Iraq against it in the war to damage the reign of Ayatollah Khomeini. The importance of having a credible deterrent force was anticipated and nuclear activities were resumed but with the help of Russia. The steady and deliberate progress in Iran’s quest to pursue full nuclear fuel cycle was observed 1988 onwards with further development of its uranium mining infrastructure, research and development, and construction of uranium conversion and enrichment nuclear sites.

In 1991, Iran secretly imported approximately one metric ton of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) from China. Pakistan’s clandestine support to Iran took place in the same decade as centrifuges were provided for uranium enrichment allegedly in “good faith”.

In 2002, construction of Natanz nuclear facility was initiated. This facility remained at the heart of Iran’s dispute with the United Nations Security Council. It is so because the technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power at this site could also be used to enrich the uranium to a much higher level. This alarmed the West and with the help of EU-3 states — Britain, France and Germany — negotiations were conducted. Iran halted its activities on the site as a result but resumed uranium enrichment work at Natanz in 2005 once opened to IAEA inspections.

IAEA had conducted periodic inspections of Iranian nuclear sites since the inception of its program. The sites which form the basis of the core issue include Parchin, Qom, Natanz, Isfahan, Gachin and Arak. There is a dispute regarding Iran’s obligation to IAEA as Iran is not a signatory to the Additional Protocol which grants unlimited access to IAEA in inspecting nuclear sites of any state that is signatory to IAEA. This resulted in differences between the two at many stages; Iran claiming that it cooperated with IAEA and IAEA complaining about a non-cooperative attitude of Iran.

These differences were aggravated when Ahmadinejad assumed office in 2005. It marked the beginning of a new hostile era between Iran and USA. Relations remained constrained from 2005 to 2013. In 2006, Ahmadinejad declared that Iran had successfully enriched uranium to 20 percent, the percentage which is critical in the development of nuclear weapons. The war of words remained a key feature between Ahmadinejad and former President George W Bush. Individual idiosyncrasies on the part of both leaders further motivated distortion of realities and limited the measures of peaceful resolution of the conflict. Iran was also placed in the “Axis of Evil” by President Bush along with Iraq and North Korea.

A series of sanctions were imposed by the UN on the demand of USA on Iran in the past. These sanctions placed a ban on all sales of material and technology related to nuclear enrichment and heavy water, ballistic missile development and restricted dealings with certain Iranian banks and individuals along with an embargo on its oil exports. These sanctions crippled Iran’s economy and affected life of Iranians to a great extent. The shattered economy paved the way for moderates to achieve success in 2013 elections. The elected President Hassan Rouhani’s decision to normalise relations with USA is rightly based on pragmatism and bounded rationality. The Vienna Declaration brokered with the help of P5+1 states is the first step to outlaw the illogical and irrational policy actions that have been adopted by the two countries in the past.

However, both states are facing internal and external opposition to the commencement of this new era. The Republicans along with the Israeli lobby in the US are strongly condemning this treaty. The involvement, presence and influence of the notorious Israeli lobby within USA’s political system can act as an obstacle towards this positive development. Israel is staging a great protest by declaring it a historical mistake. It is primarily done to draw more aid and defence assurances from the US on the pretext of a growing Iranian threat. Similarly, Sunni dominated Arab countries have rushed to sign military and defence pacts with the US in an effort to maintain the status quo in the region.

The legacy of mistrust and suspicion can only be countered by following a strategy of serious negotiations. Confidence building measures should be carried out consistently to make this new rapprochement workable

The same is true for conservatives in Iran who are sceptical of increased cooperation between the two countries. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini has declared that “the nuclear deal won’t change his country’s policy toward the arrogant US”, while the US has also stated that the option of use of force is not completely eliminated. Further, the Iranian Supreme Leader has made it clear that all sites would not be opened for IAEA inspection, a demand that is prioritised by the US. Further challenges like Iran’s support to Hezbollah and US support to Israel, which is considered as an evil force by Iran, will continue to shape misperceptions regarding interests and priorities of both states.

The legacy of mistrust and suspicion can only be countered by following a strategy of serious negotiations. Confidence building measures should be carried out consistently to make this new rapprochement workable. It is imperative for Iran to abandon the nuclear security myth permanently as national security can better be achieved by benefitting from a state’s economic potential. If Iran’s oil exports are resumed, it would be placed in an advantageous position. On the other hand, the US should also abandon the possibility of using force against Iran for the greater benefit. The United States is already facing difficulties in holding Afghanistan and Iraq together. Any sort of military engagement with Iran would be catastrophic.

Thus, it is in the best interest of all parties concerned to move forward and implement this treaty. A successful implementation would open new gates of friendship and a new political order would emerge in the region. From a reliable regional partner to a rogue state and axis of evil, Iran is now set to achieve a new position in its relations with the US. The choices and policies adopted by these countries would decide the true nature of their new relationship. However, one should not forget that there are no permanent friends in international relations, only interests are permanent.