US-Iran Relationship An Issue of Ideological Differences
Module Code
Class/Group
Module Title
Assessment Title
Tutor Name
Student GU ID Number
Date of Submission
Word count: 1803
US-Iran Relationship: An Issue of Ideological Differences
Introduction
Global politics have changed so much since the World War era. Heywood (2014) notes that the global political landscape is volatile, informed by ideology and historical events. Since the take-over of the US-funded Persian dynasty in 1979, the ideologies and political choices of the Islamic ruling party that took over have led to strained relationships between the US and Iran. From the conflict at the mentioned time, Donelly (2013) notes that the political grandstanding, ideology, and rhetoric have all played a key role in the US-Iran conflict. In a few interactions, the two nations have cooperated and agreed on a few issues, yet, their ideological perspectives as well as actions have remained to be a hindrance to long-term positive agreement. The ideological differences are noted by Soltaninejad (2015) to be the key constraint to progress and cooperation between the two nations, in spite of the several attempts made to bring an end to the conflict. Objective plans (including what President Obama’s administration attempted) have been futile in bringing the rift and bringing an end to the conflict (Mattair 2010). In this report, the view that the US-Iran relationship is largely shaped by differences in ideology is taken. The main argument is that ideology has solely led to the differences in perspectives and agenda, evidenced by instances of cooperation and objective attempts to resolve the conflict without success. While the relationship has largely been inconsistent, moving from hostile disagreement to complete cooperation, the only constant factor in the US-Iran relationship has been the differences in ideology, therefore, leading to the conclusion that it is the root of the conflict.
What is Ideology?
The current world can be interpreted as one that is politically charged. Therefore, this drives a need to understand why nations behave the way they do towards each other. The usage and meaning of ideology bears a significant relationship on this understanding. Originally, ideology only meant a science of different ideas that emphasized the significance of human sensation in knowledge formation (Hussain 2015). Therefore, in this definition, ideology was simply a consequence of the environment and its influence on how people thought. Today, ideology has shifted from the previous perspective to focus on the ideas that creates the environment. These ideas are political. As such, Sauer (2019) defines ideology as a phenomenon that exists in order to confirm a given political standpoint, serve a certain group’s interests, and perform functional roles in relation to the political, legal, social, and economic institutions. Ideological differences are defined by Gause (2017) as a body of ideas reflective of interests and beliefs relating to a political system or nation. Further, Sauer (2019) observes that ideological differences are responsible for underlying the political actions of a given group. In simple terms, ideological differences can be used to mean the system of beliefs that informs the decision making process or one that orders reality in a society in order to render decisions and actions intelligible. In this sense, Iran’s ideology is defined by Golkar (2014) as a complex amalgamation of political populism, Islamic religious radicalism, and pan-Islamism. The Iranian society uses this ideology to create a view of a constant battle against oppression, paganism, and empire rule. Contrariwise, the US sees its ideology to be made of freedom and self-rule, masked in concepts such as democracy, liberalism (Burchill 2013), conservatism, populism, and a combination of any of these concepts ranging from mild, moderate, to extremism. These differences are separated by a conformity to what each society defines as political necessary to ensure existence and safety of its stakeholders.
Role of Ideology in the US-Iran Relationship
America’s relationship with Iran has not always been hostile. However, it has been inconsistent. At some point, Iran’s government was a powerful US ally (Bill 2001). At present, the two nations are involved in a conflict regarding their political movements, actions, and decisions. Regardless of the interaction, Pickering et al. (2009) provide an opinion that the relationship is fundamentally driven by an action-focused intersubjective and ideological belief systems rather than one focused on logic and objectivity. Following the Second World War, America and Iran were regular allies working on different agendas including buffering each other against the spread of communism and the rise of pan-Arabism within the Middle East (Posch 2017). Recently, the two nations have worked towards an agreement on protocols on creating a nuclear program that would be meant to increase peaceful coexistence between the two nations. Evidently, the cooperative spirit where necessary, and the stubbornness that has led to conflict is as a result of difference sin ideology.
Having defined ideology and seen the difference between the system of beliefs that inform decision making and political actions for both Iran and the US, it is now prudent to assert that the ideological differences between these two entities have largely been inflexible. For both US and Iran, the system of actions have been fuelled by a subjective pattern involving public interaction and the progression of the conflict. Soltaninejad (2015) and Golkar (2014) observe that the subjective ideologies and the preferred political actions of the two nations have prevented any significant progress aimed at cooperation. Although leaders from both countries have made repeated attempts towards easing the tension and conflict, any progress is eventually stifled by ideological statements, reactions, or actions by a country towards the other. It is also clear that abandoning ideological positions for both America and Iran is near impossible (Sauer 2019). Pathways towards ending the conflict will only be made possible by an actual intention to abandon ideological standpoints and political positions.
The paradox for the US policy direction in Iran is noted through the enduring conflict between Iran and the United States. As the world continues to change since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the changes that have since occurred have shifted political direction for both US and Iran, including their relations (Mirilovic & Kim 2017). However, as things continue to change, the more they remain the same for the US and Iran in their relationship. The impasse between the US and Iran is still unresolved and quite raw, despite tentative transformation on both sides. For example, Washington’s initiatives in Iran have not meant a decline of concerns regarding the foreign policy actions taken by Iran. Similarly, previous cooperation between the two nations have not resolved the mistrust that Iran has on the US and its agenda in the Persian Gulf.
Is the US-Iran Relationship Largely Shaped by Ideological Differences?
It is evident that the US-Iran relationship is largely shaped by differences in ideology. The ideological conflict between America and Iran, according to Hussain (2015), is based on a choice made by each nation regarding objectivity and ideology on each other’s interpretation of the importance of individual interests relating to the perceived dangers from each other. Presently, the US interprets its ideological interpretation and objectivity on Iran that the latter will use its nuclear capabilities to perform violent actions against the US West. On the other hand, Iran uses its ideological position to craft a belief that the US is constantly attempting to stop nuclear ambitions so as to prevent it from benefiting from what such technology offers. On such differing views, and the deteriorating relations between the US and Iran, different economic, military, or geopolitical interests cannot be blamed for the circumstances leading up to the tensions ad conflict (Cordesman 2008). Instead, the narratives and ideas that emerge due to ideological standpoints have led to the positions taken by each nation. While some of them are rooted deep in historical actions and events, there is little evidence pointing to anything more than just pure need to be right from one’s ideological standpoint.
Even where other factors such as political regime, economic interests, and political interests are involved, the US-Iran relationship seems to go back to relying on ideas that are part of each society to make a decision. President Obama’s efforts to ease the conflict between the US and Iran were largely interpreted as weak and dangerous to the wellbeing of the US. Similarly, President Trump’s actions in North Korea (although not within the scope of this report) were also seen as a danger to the nation. These examples point to a simple fact that every nation would rather support its own ideologies than accept to look at an issue with objectivity and rationality. The US would never see Iran’s nuclear capability as a progress to the nation but rather another looming danger to its welfare. Similarly, The US will always be a threat to the welfare of Iran as long as the two nations use ideology to inform decisions. Wherever the two nations stand to gain, they gladly cooperate, forgetting the said ideological positions to meet a certain agenda. Issues regarding protection against other nations have, for example, been a common source of cooperation in the past. Yet, in every other circumstance or event, the different political grandstanding, ideology, and rhetoric emerge in a way that clouds the entire decision making process, regardless of consequences for both the United States or Iran. Arguably, the US-Iran relationship, and its deteriorating nature, goes back to ideological differences that inform political decisions and similar points of view.
Conclusion
The aim of this report was to present evidence that the US-Iran relationship is largely shaped by differences in ideology. The main argument is that ideology has solely led to the differences in perspectives and agenda, evidenced by instances of cooperation and objective attempts to resolve the conflict without success. The report shows that while the relationship has largely been inconsistent, moving from hostile disagreement to complete cooperation, the only constant factor in the US-Iran relationship has been the differences in ideology, therefore leading to the conclusion that it is the root of the conflict. In the discussion, ideology is defined as a phenomenon that exists in order to confirm a given political standpoint, serve a certain group’s interests, and perform functional roles in relation to the political, legal, social, and economic institutions. Iran’s ideology is presented as a complex amalgamation of political populism, Islamic religious radicalism, and pan-Islamism while the US sees its ideology to be made of freedom and self-rule, masked in concepts such as democracy, liberalism, conservatism, populism, and a combination of any of these concepts ranging from mild, moderate, to extremism. The said differences are separated by a conformity to what each society defines as political necessary to ensure existence and safety of its stakeholders. Regardless of the interaction, the relationship between Iran and America is fundamentally driven by an action-focused intersubjective and ideological belief systems rather than one focused on logic and objectivity. In the end, it becomes clear that the US-Iran relationship is largely shaped by differences in ideology.
Reference List
Bill, J A 2001, ‘The Politics of Hegemony: The United States and Iran’, Middle East Policy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 89-100.
Burchill, S 2013, ‘Liberalism’, in S. Burchill, et al., (eds.), Theories of International Relations (5th ed.), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 57—87.
Cordesman, A H 2008, ‘Iran and the United States: The Nuclear Issue’, Middle East Policy, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 19-29.
Donelly, J 2013, ‘Realism’, in S. Burchill, et al. (eds.), Theories of International Relations (5th ed.), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 32—56.
Gause, F G 2017, ‘Ideologies, alignments, and underbalancing in the new Middle East Cold War’, PS: Political Science & Politics, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 672-675.
Golkar, S 2014, ‘Iran’s Revolutionary Guard: Its View of the United States’, Middle East Policy, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 53-63.
Heywood, A 2014. Global Politics (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, chapter 3, pp. 53-67.
Hussain, N 2015, ‘US-Iran Relations: Issues, Challenges and Prospects’, Policy Perspectives, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 29-47.
Mattair, T R 2010, ‘The United States and Iran: Diplomacy, Sanctions and War’, Middle East Policy, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 52-61.
Mirilovic, N and Kim, M 2017, ‘Ideology and threat perceptions: American public opinion toward China and Iran’, Political Studies, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 179-198.
Pickering, T R, Parsi, T, Katzman, K, and Mattair, T R 2009, ‘The United States and Iran: What are the prospects for engagement?’, Middle East Policy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1.
Posch, W 2017, ‘Ideology and strategy in the Middle East: The case of Iran’, Survival, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 69-98.
Sauer, T 2019, ‘The Role of Informal International Organizations in Resolving the Iranian Nuclear Crisis (2003–15)’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 939-955.
Soltaninejad, M 2015, ‘Iran and the United States: A Conflict Resolution Perspective’, Asian Politics and Policy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 455-475.
