Iran–United States relations

U.S.-Iran relations

United States	Iran

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, shakes hands with a US Air Force general officer prior to his departure from the United States.

Political relations between Iran (Persia) and the United States began when the Shah of Persia, Nassereddin Shah Qajar, officially dispatched Persia's first ambassador, Mirza Abolhasan Shirazi (ميرزا ابولحسن شيرازی), to Washington D.C. in the mid to late 1800s. In 1883, Samuel Benjamin was appointed by the United States as the first official diplomatic envoy to Iran.

Persia and the United States were political and cultural allies until the post-World War II era. Until 1979, they remained political allies, but after a series of conflicts and incidents between the two nations, tension developed in their relationship.

Early relations

Even before political relations, since the early to mid 1880s, Americans had been traveling to Iran. Justin Perkins and Asahel Grant were the first missionaries to be dispatched to Persia in 1834 via the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

The famous vizier of Nasereddin Shah, Amir Kabir, also initiated direct contacts with Americans when he signed an agreement with the United States to establish a Navy base in Bushehr to help create a Navy force for Persia.

By the end of the 19th century, negotiations were underway for an American company to establish a railway system from the Persian Gulf to Tehran.

Before the 1950s, Iran and The United States enjoyed cordial political relations.

Up until World War II WW2, relations between Iran and the United States remained cordial. As a result many Persian Constitutional Revolution constitutionalist Iranians came to view the U.S. as a "third force" in their struggle to break free of the humiliating British and Russian meddling and dominance in Persian affairs. It is even believed that such appointments were the result of contacts made by the Persian Constitutional revolutionaries with the executive branch of the US government, even though no official documents of such contacts exist. What is certain however is that Persia's drive for modernizing its economy and liberating it from British and Russian influences had the full support of American industrial and business leaders.

• 
  The U.S. Consulate at Arg e Tabriz sits in the line of fire during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution. While the city was being attacked and bombed by 4,000 Russian troops in December of 1911, some Americans, like Howard Baskerville, took to arms, helping the people of Iran.
• 
  Americans wearing jobbeh va kolah (traditional Persian clothes) at the opening of The Majles, Jan 29, 1924. Mr. McCaskey, Dr. Arthur Millspaugh, and Colonel MacCormack are seen in the photo.
• 
  Morgan Shuster and US officials at Atabak Palace, Tehran, 1911. Their group was appointed by Iran's parliament to reform and modernize Iran's Department of Treasury and Finances.
• 
  McCormick Hall, American College of Tehran, circa 1930, chartered by the State University of New York in 1932. Americans also founded Iran's first modern College of Medicine in the 1870s.

During the Persian Constitutional Revolution, Howard Baskerville died in Tabriz when trying to help the constitutionalists, and after Morgan Shuster was appointed Treasury General of Persia, an American was killed in Tehran by henchmen thought to be affiliated with Russian or British interests. Shuster became even more active in supporting the Constitutional revolution of Persia financially. When Shu'a al-Saltaneh (شعاع السلطنه), the Shah's brother who was aligned with the goals of Imperial Russia in Persia, was ordered by Iran's government to surrender his assets to it, Shuster was assigned this task, which he promptly moved to execute. Imperial Russia immediately landed troops in Bandar Anzali demanding a recourse and apology from the Persian government. Eventually, Iran's parliament in Tehran was shelled by General Liakhoff of Imperial Russia, and the American Morgan Shuster was forced to resign under tremendous British and Russian pressure. Shuster's book "The Strangling of Persia" is a recount of the details of these events, a harsh criticism of Britain and Imperial Russia.

It was the American embassy that first relayed to the Iran desk at the Foreign Office in London confirmation of the popular view that the British were involved in the 1921 coup that brought Reza Pahlavi to power. A British Embassy report from 1932 admits that the British put Reza Shah "on the throne". The United States was not an ally of Britain as far as Persia was concerned at that point in time.

Morgan Shuster was soon to be followed by Arthur Millspaugh, appointed as Treasury General by Reza Shah Pahlavi, and Arthur Pope, who was a main driving force behind the Persian Empire revivalist policies of Reza Shah. But the friendly relations between the United States and Iran were about to change at the onset of the 1950s.

The 1950s and the politics of oil, a turning point

File:Farah-Jackie.JPG

Empress Farah Pahlavi and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in a friendly chat.

From 1952-53, Iran's democratically elected nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq began a period of rapid power consolidation, which led the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to a brief exile and then into power again. Much of the events of 1952 were started by Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now British Petroleum. Established by the British in the early 20th century, an agreement had been made to share profits (85% British-15% Iran), but the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. Due to alleged profit monopolization by the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, the Iranian Parliament had unanimously agreed to nationalize its holding of, what was at the time, the British Empire’s largest company.

The United States and Britain, through a now-admitted covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from the US Embassy in Tehran, helped organize protests to overthrow Moussadeq and return the Shah to Iran. The operation failed and the Shah fled to Italy. After a second successful operation he returned from his brief exile. Iran's fledgling attempts at democracy quickly descended into dictatorship, as the Shah dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch.

During his reign, the Shah received significant American support, frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American Presidents. The Shah's close ties to Washington and his bold agenda of rapidly Westernizing Iran soon began to infuriate certain segments of the Iranian population, especially the hardline Islamic conservatives.

Relations with the Carter administration

However, beginning with the administration of liberal President Jimmy Carter in 1977, relations between Iran and the United States became strained. Jimmy Carter, unlike previous American presidents, was outspoken about his criticism of the Shah's government and its human rights record. Carter pressured the Shah to relax freedom of speech and to allow more freedom for political dissidents.

Many politicians and political figures in the United States such as Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller vigorously opposed Carter's condemnations of the Imperial Iranian government, citing the importance of not weakening the Shah's position in both Iran and the region. As is well-known, American administrations previous to Carter had always pressured the Shah to remain steadfastly anti-communist and to aggressively prosecute Communists and Islamists who were increasingly moving closer together into an anti-Imperial alliance.

The Carter administration blocked exports of tear gas and rubber bullets to Iran, and was also implicated by some commentators in a scandal involving Jimmy Carter demanding financial favours from the Shah. Some also attributed these actions against the Shah to Carter's attempts to warm up to the Soviet Union.

File:DF-SC-82-06566.jpg

Vice President George H. W. Bush and other VIPs wait to welcome the former hostages to Iran home

Prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran had one of the world's largest number of students residing in the United States.

The 1979 revolution

In 1979, the Iranians revolted and the Shah was ousted for a second time. Ayatollah Khomeni became Iran's new leader and soon began issuing vicious rhetoric against the United States, describing the country as the "Great Satan" and a "nation of infidels."

The American administration under President Jimmy Carter refused to give the Shah any further support and expressed no interest in attempting to return him to power. A significant embarrassment for Carter occurred when the Shah, as of that time suffering from cancer, requested entry into the United States for treatment. The American embassy in Tehran vigorously opposed the United States granting his request, as they were intent on stabilising relations between the new interim revolutionary government of Iran and the United States.

Despite agreeing with the staff of the American embassy in disallowing the Shah's entry into the U.S., after pressure from Kissinger and Rockefeller, among other pro-Shah political figures, Carter reluctantly agreed, but the move was used by the Iranian revolutionaries' to justify their claims that the former monarch was an American puppet and led to the storming of the American embassy by radical students allied with the Khomeini faction.

The 1979 Iran hostage crisis

Main article: Iran hostage crisis

Families wait for the former hostages to disembark the plane. The former hostages will be on U.S. soil for the first time since their release from Iran.

On November 4, 1979, Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line occupied the American embassy in Tehran with the support of Ayatollah Khomeini because some of the USA spying was done at that embassy. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

Immediately after the taking of the embassy, the entire staff of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan's interim government resigned in protest. During the few months that Bazargan's government had been in power, he had increasingly become distressed at the constant interference of Islamist and Communist militias in his liberal, secular and pro-free market government. In reality, Bazargan's government had very little power.

On April 7, 1980, the United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran, and on April 24, 1981, the Swiss Government assumed representation of U.S. interests in Tehran via an interests section. Iranian interests in the United States are represented by the Iranian Interests Section of the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, DC.

In accordance with the Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (located in The Hague, Netherlands) was established for the purpose of handling claims of U.S. nationals against Iran and of Iranian nationals against the United States. U.S. contact with Iran through The Hague covers only legal matters. On January 20, 1981, the date the treaty was signed, the hostages were released.

See also: Interests Section of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the United States

The Iran-Contra Affair

Colonel Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra Affair hearings in 1986.

Main article: Iran-Contra Affair

In 1986 members of the Reagan administration helped sell weapons to Iran, using the profits to fund Contra militants in Nicaragua.

The 1988 shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655

Main article: Iran Air Flight 655

On July 3, 1988 the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus A300B2 on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in 290 civilian fatalities from six nations, including 66 children. On February 22, 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown. The United States has not compensated Iran for the airplane itself to date. The aircraft was worth more than $30 million. The United States however never officially apologized.

Iranian stamps commemorating the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes.

Hezbollah bombings

The U.S. contends that the organization of Hezbollah has been involved in several anti-American terrorist attacks, including the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing which killed 17 Americans, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. peacekeepers in Lebannon, and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing.

A U.S. District court judge ruled in 2003 that the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing was by what had been at the time been a new organization called Hezbollah supported by the state of Iran. [8]

In May 2003, in a case brought by the families of the 241 servicemen who were killed, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983, and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation. [9]

A U.S. federal court has found that the Khobar Towers bombing was authorized by Ali Khamenei, then ayatollah of Iran [10]

Commercial relations

See also: Sanctions against Iran

Before the Revolution with the Shah, the United States was Iran's foremost economic and military partner, thus participating greatly in the rapid modernization of its infrastructure and industry with as many as thirty thousand American expatriates residing in the country in a technical, consulting, or teaching capacity. A posteriori, some analysts argue that the transformation may have been too rapid, fueling unrest and discontent among an important part of the population in the country, which culminated with the revolution itself in 1979.

The issue of frozen Iranian assets is especially sensitive for the Iranian government. After the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran, the United States froze about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. According to U.S. officials, most of those were released in 1981 as part of the deal for the return of U.S. hostages taken in the embassy seizure. But some assets--Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less--remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.

Commercial relations between Iran and the United States are restricted by U.S. sanctions and consist mainly of Iranian purchases of food and medical products and U.S. purchases of carpets and food. Sanctions originally imposed in 1995 by President Clinton have been continually renewed by President Bush, citing the "unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security posed by Iran. The 1995 executive orders prohibit U.S. companies and their foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with Iran, while banning any "contract for the financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran." In addition, the U.S. Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) of 1996 (renewed for 5 more years in July 2001) imposes mandatory and discretionary sanctions on non-U.S. companies investing more than $20 million annually in the Iranian oil and natural gas sectors. The ILSA terminates on August 5, 2006, unless renewed by Congress.

From 1995 until 2004

In April 1995 a total embargo on dealings with Iran by U.S. companies was imposed by U.S. president Clinton. Trade with the U.S., which had been growing following the end of the Iran-Iraq war ended abruptly. The next year the American Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions act which threatened even non-U.S. countries making large investments in energy. The act was denounced by the European Union as null and void, but blocked some needed investment for Iran nonetheless.

The election of reformist president Khatami brought hopes for a thawing of relations. In January 1998 Khatami called for a "dialog of nations" with US in a CNN interview. US Secretary of state Madeleine Albright answered with conciliatory words and there followed an exchange of wrestling teams, freer travel to and from the US, and an end to the U.S. embargo of two Iranian export items, carpets and pistachios. Relations did not improve further though, as Iran's conservatives opposed them in principle and the U.S. preconditions for discussions included changes in Iranian policy on Israel, nuclear weapons, and support for terrorism.

"Axis of evil" speech

On January 29, 2002 U.S. President George Bush gave his "Axis of evil" speech, describing Iran, along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, as an axis of evil and warning that the proliferation of long-range missiles developed by these countries was of great danger to the US and that it constituted terrorism. The speech caused outrage in Iran and was condemned by reformists and conservatives alike.

Since 2003 the U.S. has been flying unmanned aerial vehicles, launched from Iraq, over Iran to obtain intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, reportedly providing little new information [11]. The Iranian government has formally protested the incursions as illegal [12].

In January 2006, James Risen, a New York Times reporter, alleged in his book State of War that the CIA carried out a Clinton approved operation in 2000 (Operation Merlin) intended to delay Iran's nuclear weapons program by feeding it flawed blueprints for key missing components - which backfired and may actually have aided Iran, as the flaw was likely detected and corrected by a former Soviet nuclear scientist who headed the operation to make the delivery.

Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Triangle: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007), in this article says: "According to Lawrence Wilkerson, former secretary of state Colin Powell's chief of staff, it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who made sure that Washington dismissed Iran's May 2003 offer to open up its nuclear program, rein in Hezbollah and cooperate against al-Qaeda."

Concerns of Iranian and US governments against each other

File:Anti-US Tehran.jpg

Anti US mural, Tehran

Obstacles to "resumption of relations" between the two countries noted by one student of the issue include

• Iran's (alleged) state sponsorship of international terrorism
• opposition to the Middle East peace process;

• (alleged) pursuit of weapons of mass destruction
• (alleged) threats and subversive activities against neighbors in the Persian Gulf
• violations of human rights at home

"In recent years, the last two issues seem to have lost some of their potency and are now only infrequently raised. On the other hand, a new accusation of Iran's harboring of al Qaeda operatives has recently been added to the list."

On Iran's side, its original post-revolutionary list of demands included:

• That the United States accept the legitimacy of the 1979 revolution,
• Not interfere in Iran's internal affairs,
• Deal with the Iranian regime on the basis of "respect and equality."

As the regime became "more secure domestically" and less isolated internationally other demands were added:

• Lifting U.S. economic sanctions,
• Release of frozen Iranian assets in the United States
• Removal of the U.S. Navy from the Persian Gulf

During the Clinton administration two more demands were included

• An end to one-sided support for Israel
• A formal apology for Washington's past misdeeds

Its suggested other complaints might include:

• CIA Operation Ajax to overthrow democratically chosen Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and restore the exiled Shah;
• U.S. Support for anti-Iranian terrorist organisations (i.e. the MKO);
• U.S. companies assistance in developing Iraq's chemical weapons facilities during the Iran-Iraq war.;
• USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 with many civilian fatalities;
• Economic damage caused by U.S. sanctions and political pressure;
• U.S. UAV overflights over Iran violating Iranian airspace since 2003.
• U.S. military presence in the neighboring countries of Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Its human rights record.
• US, a democracy, used weapons of mass destruction (a nuclear weapon) as a tool in war. The only occurrence known in the recorded human history.

Direct Inter-Parliamentary (Congress-to-Majlis) informal talks

August 31, 2000

On August 31, 2000, four United States Congress (US parliament) members: Senator Arlen Specter (R), Representative Bob Ney (R), Representative Gary Ackerman (D), and Representative Eliot L. Engel (D) met in New York city with Mehdi Karroubi, speaker of the Majlis of Iran (Iranian parliament), Maurice Motamed, a Jewish member of the Iranian Majlis, and three other Iranian parliamentarians for informal talks about various issues, taking advantage of a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Tensions and threats of military actions in 2005-2007

US refusal to grant visas to Iranians for United Nations activities

In September 2005, U.S. State Department refused to issue visas for Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mousa Qorbani, and a group of senior Iranian officials to travel to US to participate in an International parliamentary meeting held by the United Nations. According to UN rules, US has to grant visas to the senior officials from any UN member states, irrespective of their political views, to take part in UN meetings.

The United States' official position on Iran is that "a nuclear-armed Iran is not acceptable" and that "all options" - including the unilateral use of force and first-strike nuclear weapons - are "on the table". However, they have denied that the United States is preparing for an imminent strike. This came while three European countries, the United Kingdom (UK), France and Germany (the "EU-3") attempted to negotiate a cessation of nuclear enrichment activities by Iran, which America claims are aimed at producing nuclear weapons. [13]

As of 2006, the United States has either a large or significant military presence or a history of several decades of tight military cooperation in four other countries bordering Iran: Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

An American journalist, Seymour Hersh, claimed in January 2005 that U.S. Central Command had been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran and that the "hawks" in the U.S. government believed the EU3 negotiations would not succeed, and the Administration will act after this became clear. A former high-level intelligence official told him "It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're doing it."

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons of mass destruction inspector in Iraq, 1991–1998, claimed in April 2005 that the Pentagon was told in June 2005 to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. He claimed in June 2005 that the US military was preparing a "massive military presence" in Azerbaijan that would foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran. He also claimed that the US attack on Iran had "already begun" (see below).

In his article published March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, claimed that "some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran." and that there "may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran." Joseph Cirincione also warned "that a military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years."

Professor at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, Stephen Zunes, also claims that a military attack on Iran is being planned.

President George W. Bush insisted on August 31 2006 that "there must be consequences" for Iran's defiance of demands that it stop enriching uranium. He said "the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran", demonstrated by the war between Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants and Israel.

In early April 2007, Michael T. Klare claimed that Bush had already taken the decision to attack Iran. He said that references to Iran by US president George W. Bush in major televised speeches on January 10, January 23 and February 14, 2007 establish that Bush "has already decided an attack is his only option and the rest is a charade he must go through to satisfy his European allies". Klare claims that in these speeches in particular, Bush has developed a casus belli in order to prepare public opinion for an attack, focussed on three reasons: claims that Iran supports attacks on US troops in Iraq, claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and claims that Iran could become a dominant power in the region and destabilise pro-US governments in Israel, Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and thereby endanger oil supplies.

Claims of plans for use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran

In March 2005 US revised its doctrine on when to use nuclear weapons to include preemptive or possibly preventive use on non-nuclear states.

In August 2005, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, claimed that US Vice President Dick Cheney had instructed STRATCOM to prepare a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States... [including] a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons... not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. The reason cited for the attack to use mini-nukes is that the targets are hardened or are deep underground and would not be destroyed by non-nuclear warheads.

Claims that the US plans to use nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran have also been made in 2005 and 2006 by Jorge Hirsch, in January 2006 by Michel Chossudovsky, and by the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran and in April 2006 by Seymour M. Hersh.

On April 18, 2006, on C-SPAN, in response to a journalist's questioning, "Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about, how you have to have diplomatic efforts, you often say all options are on the table. Does that include, the possibility of a nuclear strike, is that something that your administration has plans about?", US president George W. Bush replied "All options are on the table".

Claims of arms smuggling against Iran

A former Iranian diplomat, Nosratollah Tajik, was accused by the United States of arms smuggling. He was set to appear in court on April 19 2007.

The role of Iran's nuclear program in US-Iran tensions

This section is just a summary. For more detail see Iran and weapons of mass destruction#Nuclear weapons

Since 2003, the United States has alleged that Iran has a program to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity.

In June 2005, the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei should either toughen his stance on Iran or fail to be chosen for a third term as IAEA head. Both the United States and Iran are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States (and other official nuclear weapons states) were alleged during the May 2005 month-long meeting on the NPT to be in violation of the NPT through Article VI, which requires them to disarm, which as of 2006 they have not done, while the IAEA has stated that Iran is in violation of a Safeguards Agreement related to the NPT, due to insufficient reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use. Under Article IV, the treaty gives non-nuclear states the right to develop civilian nuclear energy programs.

From 2003 to early 2006, tensions between the US and Iran have successively mounted even while International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of sensitive nuclear industry sites in Iran have continued, in line with an Additional Protocol to the NPT which Iran voluntarily adhered to.

On March 8, 2006, US and EU-3 representatives noted that Iran has enough unenriched uranium hexafluoride gas to make up to 10 atomic bombs if it were to be highly enriched, and adding it was "time for the Security Council to act". The unenriched uranium cannot be used either in the Bushehr reactor, which is a pressurized water reactor, nor in atomic bombs, unless it becomes enriched.

The role of crude oil and other strategic reasons in US-Iran tensions

Stephen Zunes stated that the Republican and Democratic Parties of the USA have

an urge to punish, isolate, and militarily threaten an oil-rich country [Iran] that refuses to sufficiently cooperate with U.S. economic and strategic designs in the Middle East.

Escalating tensions between the United States and Iran have been attributed to the evolving state of energy geopolitics, and the future of energy security for much of the Western world. This includes ultimate control over the Straits of Hormuz, through which tankers ferry close to 40 per cent of the world's daily oil needs.

North Korea's demonstrated nuclear capability has not invited an equal degree of global alarm.

The role of the Iranian Oil Bourse and the euro in US-Iran tensions

Main articles: Iranian Oil Bourse, Petrodollar warfare, and Petroeuro

There are numerous indications that Iran plans to create a new International Oil futures exchange, whose formal name is uncertain, but may be called the Iranian Oil Bourse, trading oil priced in euros and possibly other currencies, rather than dollars, which all other oil markets currently use for trade. Some fear that this would have significant negative impact on the strength of the US Dollar on international currency markets. The opening of the exchange had been planned for March 20, 2006, but has been delayed.

The role of electoral reasons in the USA in US-Iran tensions

In November 2005, Michael Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, alleged that a major factor motivating the George W. Bush administration to attack Iran would be its desire to distract attention from domestic political difficulties and to increase popularity for the President. US popular support for Bush increased by about 10% when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and only dropped back to its previous level several months later.

The role of electoral reasons in Iran in US-Iran tensions

see main article in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

Remarks made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been interpreted by analysts such as Ali Ansari as having national electoral aims internally in Iran, and by others such as the Israeli government as constituting threats to attack Israel.

Religious-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran in 2005.

In October 2005, he made remarks to domestic audiences agreeing with Ayatollah Khomeini's statement that the occupying regime in [Israel/Palestine should vanish from] from the page of time, citing in his speech that the regime of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Soviet Union as a State and Saddam Hussein's government of Iraq, had similarly been removed from power.

On December 8 2005, he made remarks doubting the Holocaust though a week later, on December 14, he made a similar statement no longer literally denying the Holocaust.

These remarks are generally considered to be in line with his populist voting base - 19% of voters chose him in the first round of the 2005 presidential election.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Juan Cole claim that the remarks have been mistranslated and misinterpreted in the Western media, who claimed that Ahmadinejad stated that Israel should be "wiped off the map", and that his aim is only to support democracy in Palestine.

Independently of whether or not his remarks were misinterpreted, the international reaction to his perceived statements was extremely negative.

Seema Mustafa in the Asian Age claimed that Ahmadinejad's remarks relating to Israel and the Holocaust are now used as a major reason for an attack against Iran, stating that:

A campaign to demonise [Ahmadinejad] to rally around international opinion against Iran has been very effectively unleashed. He has, in fact, been carefully inducted as a key component in the propaganda war against Iran...

and that this argument was presented to journalists in Delhi by German-French-UK representative Dr Michael Schaefer and US undersecretary Nicholas Burns when they were requesting Indian representative to accept IAEA referral of Iran to the UN Security Council.

The role of increasing democracy in the Middle East in US-Iran tensions

In political speeches following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush has claimed (after weapons of mass destruction could not be found) that his administration's goal in the invasion was to bring democracy to countries in the Middle East and to oppose "islamofascism".

The anti-Iraq War World Tribunal on Iraq and others have doubted the sincerity of this motive, pointing to a List of killed, threatened or kidnapped Iraqi academics systematic campaign against academia in Iraq during the US occupation of Iraq.

Robert Dreyfuss, author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, claims that the US actions in the region have in fact supported, and are continuing to support, "islamofascism" rather than oppose it.

Iranian fears of attack by the US

Main article: Plans for military attacks against Iran

Paul Pillar, former CIA official who led the preparation of all National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on Iran from 2000 to 2005 in his role as national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, told the InterPress Service that all of the NIEs on Iran during that period

"addressed the Iranian fears of U.S. attack explicitly and related their desire for nuclear weapons to those fears" and stated "Iranian perceptions of threat, especially from the United States and Israel, were not the only factor, but were in our judgment part of what drove whatever effort they were making to build nuclear weapons."

Another former CIA official, Ellen Laipson, said that "the Iranian fear of an attack by the United States has long been 'a standard element' in NIEs on Iran." In 2005, the United States passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which appropriated millions of dollars for human rights NGOs working in that country. Several politicians in both countries have claimed the Act is a "stepping stone to war," although the Act contains a specific prohibition on the use of force towards Iran.

Role of domestic opposition to war with Iran in the United States

Main article: Opposition to war against Iran

Within the United States, the now-unpopular war in Iraq has taken a toll on the willingness of the American public to accept another war. A CBS poll taken in June 2006 showed that only 21 percent of Americans supported military action against Iran. Fifty-five percent favored diplomacy and 19 percent said Iran was not a threat to the United States.

Some groups have begun organizing sentiment in opposition to an attack on Iran. This pressure to rule out a military attack on Iran may have an impact on the actions that the United States government will be willing to take with regard to Iran.

Calls for Diplomacy

In May of 2007, Iran's top diplomat Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki declared that Iran is "ready to talk" to the United States . There is significant work to be done before the United States drop a 28 year old freeze on diplomatic relations, but the comments mark the most diplomatic advance by Iran in recent memory.

2003-2007 alleged US violations of Iranian sovereignty

Several claims have been made that the US has violated Iranian territorial sovereignty since 2003, including the flying of drones, sending US soldiers into Iranian territory, and the use of former or current members of the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK or MKO) and the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK) to carry out provocations such as bombings on Iranian territory in order to provoke pre-existing ethnic tensions.

Flights of US drones over Iranian territory

Since 2003 the U.S. has been flying unmanned aerial vehicles, launched from Iraq, over Iran to obtain intelligence on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, reportedly providing little new information.The Iranian government has formally protested the incursions as illegal. A U.S. RQ-7 Shadow and a Hermes UAV have crashed in Iran.

In June 2005, Scott Ritter claimed that US attacks on Iran had already begun, including US overflights of Iran using pilotless drones.

US armed forces present on Iranian territory

Seymour Hersh has stated that the US has also been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground [nuclear weapons development] installations.

US using proxies

MEK

See also: People's Mujahedin of Iran § Alleged MEK Activity In Iran

Scott Ritter has stated that CIA-backed bombings had been undertaken in Iran by the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK or MKO), an opposition group listed by the United States Department of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

In April 2006, The Raw Story cited an unnamed UN source "close to" the United Nations Security Council stating that former MEK members had been used as a proxy by the US for "roughly a year" inside of Iranian territory. An intelligence source quoted by The Raw Story said that the former MEK members were made to "swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK" before being incorporated into US military units and retrained for their operations in Iran.

PEJAK

See also: Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan

Following the killing of 24 Iranian security forces in Iran in March 2006 by the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK), an opposition group closely linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is listed by the U.S. State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, Dennis Kucinich claimed in a letter to George W. Bush on April 18, 2006, that PEJAK is being supported and coordinated by the US, since it is based in Iraq, which is under the de facto control of US military forces.

In November 2006, journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker supported this claim, stating that the US military and the Israelis are giving the group equipment, training, and targeting information in order to create internal pressures in Iran.

Baloch armed opposition groups

See also: Jundullah

Stratfor (as cited by Media Lens) claimed that an attack inside Iran against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps occurred in early 2007: "this latest attack against IRGC guards was likely carried out by armed Baloch nationalists who have received a boost in support from Western intelligence agencies".

On April 3, 2007, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) published a claim that Jundullah, a militant Islamic organization that is based in Waziristan, Pakistan and affiliated with Al-Qaeda and has killed about 400 Iranian soldiers, has been supported by the USA since 2005.

2006 Sanctions against Iranian institutions

See also: Sanctions against Iran and Current international tensions with Iran

The United States, pushing for international sanctions against Tehran over its atomic ambitions, accuses Iran of providing logistical and financial support to Shi'a militias in Iraq, something Tehran denies. The U.S. government imposed sanctions on an Iranian bank on September 8 2006, barring it from dealing with U.S. financial institutions, even indirectly. The move against Bank Saderat Iran was announced by Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the major state-owned bank in Iran of transferring funds for alleged terrorist groups, including Hezbollah. While Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the U.S. financial system, they are permitted to do so indirectly through banks in other countries. But the latest move severs that access for Bank Saderat and Levey said the action does not apply to other Iranian banks. It was the Bush administration's latest effort against Iran and Hezbollah. Levey said since 2001 a Hezbollah-controlled organization had received 50 million U.S. dollars directly from Iran through Bank Saderat. He said the U.S. government will also persuade European banks and financial institutions not to deal with Iran.

2007 US raids Iran Consulate General

The US armed forces raided the Iranian Consulate General located in Erbil, Iraq and arrested five staff members.

Sources said that the US forces first landed their helicopters around the building, then broke through the consulate’s gate, disarmed the guards, confiscated some documents and certain objects, arrested five staff members, and then left for an undisclosed location.

People living in the neighborhood were told they could not leave their homes. Three people who left their homes were arrested, and a wife of one of these men confirmed to reporters that the US forces arrested and took her husband away for leaving the house.

Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Kamynin said that the raid was absolutely unacceptable and was a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Kurdistan Regional Government also expressed their shock and disapproval of the raid.

On Thursday's hearing on Iraq, Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delware), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Bush Administration did not have the authority to send US troops on cross-border raids. Biden said, "I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that. I just want to set that marker." After the meeting, Biden sent a follow-up letter to the White House asking for an explanation from the Bush Administration on the matter.

On Thursday morning, Iran's foreign ministry official sent a letter to Iraq's foreign ministry asking Iraq to stop the Bush Administration from interfering with Iraq-Iran relations, and has protested the raid on its consulate general. The official said, "We expect the Iraqi government to take immediate measures to set the aforesaid individuals free and to condemn the US troopers for the measure. Following up on the case and releasing the arrestees is a responsibility of primarily the Iraqi government and then the local government and officials of the Iraqi Kurdistan."

List of prominent Americans in Iran

• Howard Baskerville, Iran's first American martyr.
• Arthur Pope and Phyllis Ackerman
• Arthur Millspaugh
• Elgin Groseclose
• Morgan Shuster
• Richard Nelson Frye
• William Chittick
• David Stronach
• Joseph Cochran
• William M. Miller
• John Limbert
• Samuel M. Jordan, after whom "Jordan Ave." in Tehran is named
• See also:Famous Americans in Iran

Further reading

• Cirincione, Joe & Andy Grotto: "Contain and Engage: A New Strategy for Resolving the Nuclear Crisis with Iran. The Center for American Progress, 2007.
• Friedman Alan, Spider's Web: The Secret History of how the White House Illegally Armed Iraq. New York, Bantam Books, 1993.
• Jentleson Bruce, With friends like these: Reagan, Bush, and Saddam, 1982-1990. New York, W. W. Norton, 1994.
• Phythian Mark, Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine. Boston, Northeastern University Press, 1997.
• Morgan Shuster, The Strangling of Persia, ISBN 0-934211-06-X
• US - Iran Economic and Political Relations Handbook (World Diplomatic and International Contacts Library), ISBN 0-7397-0759-0
• Wise, Harold Lee (2007). Inside the Danger Zone: The U.S. Military in the Persian Gulf 1987-88. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-970-3. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)

See also

• Tehrangeles
• Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal
• Iranian Oil Bourse
• Iranian Americans
  • List of Iranian Americans
• History of Iran
• Iran's nuclear program, started in the 1950s under the US Atoms for Peace program
• Foreign relations of Iran
• Politics of Iran
• Pahlavi dynasty
• U.S. and Iran-Iraq war
• Granting US Visa to UN Member-States Officials
• Iran-Israel relations
• Den of Espionage
• Carter Doctrine
• Sanctions against Iranian scientists
• Chicago's Persian heritage crisis
• U.S. support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war

External links

• Why Iranians Like America by Jeff Weintraub (discussing an article in the Washington Post)
• Contain and Engage: A New Strategy for Resolving the Nuclear Crisis with Iran
• Time line: US-Iran ties, BBC News
• A New Day in Iran? (pdf)
• The Iranian nightmare, Asia Times, August 11, 2005
• President Bush - Attack on Iran, Prediction Contract, CENIMAR: Central Intelligence Market
• US Treasury - Iran Sanctions
• News coverage of US-Iran Relations
• Changing American-Israeli Plans to Strike Iran
• Putin: U.S. pushing others into nuclear ambitions (February 2007)
• US 'Iran attack plans' revealed; BBC News
• Pelosi/Democratic Cave-In To Iran Invasion A Major Tragedy