The tension in Iranian-American relations for decades serves as a factor of destabilization of the international situation in the middle East - a region where geopolitical interests of the leading States. The starting point of the Iranian-American confrontation can be considered the Islamic revolution 1979 [9, p. 72], which not only proclaimed the creation of a new state - the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), but also showed the loss of the United States is the main conduit of American security policy in the Persian Gulf.
The coming to power of Iran's Shiite religious elite led by Ayatollah Khomeini under the slogan "export of Islamic revolution", have contributed to the emergence of the so-called "revolutionary Islam", the main feature of which was the rapid growth of fundamentalist and extremist Muslim organizations, the increasing threat of terrorism, development and use of weapons of mass destruction and undermining the effectiveness of the American policy of creating a "Crescent of crisis" around the Soviet Union.
Today the problem of collision of interests of Iran and USA in the energy, political and ideological issues is gaining new momentum. Repeated calls by U.S. President Barack Obama about the need to curb the Iranian energy programme towards the creation of nuclear weapons, along with the threat of escalation submitted by the military conflict in the Gulf illustrate the relevance of this study.
Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran were severed after the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the seizure of hostages of employees of the American Embassy in Tehran, and so far they have not been restored. The theocratic regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, viewed in Washington as hostile to U.S. interests and for Republican and democratic administrations, the U.S. the reason for the application against that country comprehensive sanctions [7, c. 60]. When in 2002 in the United States were obtained satellite images of objects for the enrichment of uranium on Iranian territory, indicating violation of Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA (International atomic energy Agency) from 1974 and the commencement of a large-scale undeclared activities in the nuclear field , Washington began to dramatically step up political pressure on Iran, demanding it to abandon any enrichment of uranium. But Iran refused.
The invasion of American and British troops in Iraq in March 2003 and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime to a certain extent, affected the mood in Tehran. Iran agreed to accede to the Additional Protocol with IAEA on nuclear safeguards, on which the representatives of the IAEA to inspect the Iranian nuclear facilities, and has suspended research in the nuclear field of a military nature. Trying to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful, Tehran in late 2004 freely voluntarily took a temporary commitment to cease enrichment of uranium and production of plutonium. Iran has also started informal negotiations with Great Britain, Germany and France. But further negotiations, which in 2005 was joined by the US diplomats, had a long, difficult and, most importantly, futile in nature. Against Iran applied the tactics of "carrot and the stick". On the one hand, Iran has offered certain benefits as "payment" for the abandonment of its nuclear program and threatened to send the Iranian issue to the UN Security Council and resort to other sanctions.
Complete refusal of Iran of uranium enrichment, Western countries have not reached. European partners of the USA could not, would not satisfy Iran (supply light hydrogen reactor for nuclear power plants, guarantees of nuclear fuel supply, as an alternative to their own production, weakening of the process of expert control in the supply of advanced technologies that provide greater access to the EU market for Iranian goods). Besides the victory in the Iranian presidential election 2005 an adherent of a tough policy towards the countries of the West Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as the declining positions of the USA and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan have strengthened the intransigence of the Iranian leadership.
Was unsuccessful and diplomacy established at the beginning of 2006 "group of six" with the participation of all permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, Russia, China, Britain, France plus Germany. In early 2006, Tehran announced that one of the unilateral moratorium and the resumption of works on uranium enrichment, the cessation of the observance of the Additional Protocol on guarantees with the IAEA about the start of experimental work on uranium enrichment . Negative impact on American politicians made well as holding Iran in February 2008 tests of the missile "Kavoshgar - 1" orbit Iranian satellite "Omid". Further development of Iran's own full nuclear fuel cycle, gives him the potential to obtain nuclear weapons, which cannot but worry United States and other traditional members of the so-called "nuclear club".
31 July 2006 the UNSC adopted resolution 1696 , which demanded Iran until August 31 to halt all work on uranium enrichment and exercise of plutonium under IAEA control. In case of refusal, she threatened to use against Iran "appropriate measures". Iran ignored the resolution, and subsequent actual duplicate Security Council resolutions 1737 (R. 2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2009), 1929 (2010) . Many American experts believed that Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons because "the Bush administration has not applied sufficient pressure or not offered sufficient rewards for the course ".
The failure of the United States is due to the fact that Washington has failed to create effective anti-Iranian consolidation to counter Tehran's nuclear program. The UN Security Council was not unanimous, for example, when Russia and China supported Iran extensive trade, economic and technical context, and resisted the effective adoption of UN security Council resolutions.
Negative impact of unsuccessful negotiations with Iranian leaders. Evaluating the negotiation process with Iran, us lead analyst, former U.S. Secretary of state Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that "the prospects for successful negotiations is still quite uncertain" and in his view is further complicated by two problems: the first is that the Iranians already possess the ability to enrich uranium and they are not going to abandon this. The second problem relates to the policy of the U.S. administration. Because, according to Brzezinski, will not be successful negotiations if the United States will continue to call Iran a terrorist state, a state that can't be trusted, the state must apply sanctions or even military steps .
But, despite pessimistic forecasts of experts, in 2014 it became apparent the positive progress in us-Iranian conflict. And he has a chance to go down in history as one of the most significant geopolitical developments in the early twenty-first century. Until recently, most experts argued that sooner or later the American-Iranian conflict will lead to full-scale war [15, p. 167], but this has not happened. On the contrary, 2014 has become a point of no warming in U.S.-Iranian relations. This radical change significantly reshaped the balance of power on the geopolitical map of the world and will continue to significantly influence the global energy market.
Until recently, Iran, squeezed by economic sanctions the US and EU, could not fully enter the international energy market and has been in the actual conditions of the economic blockade. It is clear that under such circumstances the state could not fully develop. Now the situation has changed radically. The negotiation process between Iran and the six powers, including Russia, USA, UK, France, China and Germany, on 24 November 2013 gave first over the last decade, a positive result - Tehran has agreed to limit the right of uranium enrichment [23, 49]. If the process continues further, in the near future Iran, after the removal of all sanctions, will be able to significantly increase export volumes of oil and gas. In addition, a positive impact on U.S.-Iranian relations plays a tense situation in Iraq.
But it is worth noting that there are problematic aspects in the relations. In particular, Iranian conservatives and supporters of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the return to hard-line foreign policy[21, p. 6]. It is unlikely that criticism of opponents will affect the position of current President Hassan Rouhani - Iran for a long time requires the easing of international sanctions and full access to world markets.
M. A. Arkhireeva
The list of used sources and literature
- An overview of O. F. A. C. Regulations involving Sanctions against Iran // [Electronic resource] the Website of the Ministry of Finance of the USA. – Access mode:http://www.treasury.gov/resourceenter/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf (accessed 07.11.2014)
- Guidance on the Sale of Food, Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, and Medical Devices by Non-U.S. Persons to Iran // [Electronic resource] the Website of the Ministry of Finance of the USA. – Access mode: http://www.treasury.gov/resourcecenter/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran_guidance_med.pdf (accessed 06.11.2014)
- Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations // [Electronic resource] the Website of the Ministry of Finance of the USA. – Access mode: http://www.treasury.gov/resourcecenter/sanctions/Programs/Documents/fr75_49836.pdf (accessed on 05.11.2014)
- Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 1929. - 9 June 2010. // [Electronic resource] the UN Website. – Access mode: http://www.un.org/press/en/2010/sc9948.doc.htm (accessed 06.11.2014)
- When Iran M. Ahmadinejad. To The Memory Of A. Z. Arabajyan.— M.: Institute of Oriental studies, Center for strategic conjuncture, 2013. -220 C.
- Kortoev R. J. On Some aspects of American foreign policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran in the beginning of XXI century // Bulletin of Adyghe state University. - 2010. - No. 3. - S. 44-50.
- Kortoev R. Y. American-Iranian relations during the reign of U.S. President B. Clinton (1993 - 2001) // Vestnik of Adyghe state University. - 2011. - No. 2. - S. 59-65.
- Kortoev R. J. the Deterioration of U.S. relations with Iran after the victory of Islamic revolution and attempt of the President of the United States J. Carter to free American hostages in Tehran (1979-1981.) // The Bulletin of Adyghe state University. - 2011. - No. 4. - P. 38-46.
- Cancer M the United States and Iran: about conflict sources (1979-1984) // New and newest history".-2011.–№1.–P. 60-76.
- Sinovets P. nuclear programme of Iran in the dialogue between Russia and the United States: from conflict of interests to dialogue and cooperation? // [Electronic resource] 2012. - Ponars Eurasia. – Access mode: http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/policy-memos-pdf/pepm227_russ_sinovets_sept2012.pdf
- Yury Sveshnikov, the United States and Iran in Afghanistan: divide or face off? // The Afghan endgame? - No. 2. – 2011. – P. 76 – 83.
- Sokolov A. Iran and the USA: complicated game with multiple-result // [Electronic resource] 2012. – Access mode: http://warfiles.ru/show-2627-iran-i-ssha-slozhnaya-igra-s-nogovariantnym-rezultatom.html (accessed 07. 11. 2014)
- The V. tsygichko, the US Military operation against Iran: possible scenarios and consequences // the security Index No. 3-4 (102-103). - Volume 18. – S. 65-80.
- Shabani R. a brief history of Iran Cultural centre of the Iranian Embassy in the Russian Federation, 2008. – 399 p.
- D. Allin, The Sixth Crisis: Iran, Israel, America and the Rumors of War / Dana H. Allin; Steven Simon. Oxford University Press, 2010. – 224 R.
- Bahgat G. United States-Iranian Relations: The Terrorism Challenge // Parameters, Vol. 38. - No. 4. - Winter 2008. – P. 76 – 89.
- Bolton J. R. Iran and the next administration: policy challenge [Electronic resource] / J. R. Bolton. – Access mode: http://www.heritage.ord/research_Middle_East/hl1104.cfm.(accessed on 05.11.2014)
- R. Haass, Economic Sanctions and American Diplomacy: A Council on Foreign Relations Book / R. Haass. – 1998. – 91 p
- Katzman K. Iran: United States Concerns and Policy Responses DISAM Journal, Vol. 31.- No. 2. - August 2013. – P. 48 - 68.
- Katzman K. The Iran Sanctions. Congressional Research Service. - 2014 Congressional Research Service. – R. 56
- Pavliuk O. I. The American approach to the solution of Iranian nuclear problem potential // Studia Humanitatis. - 2013. - No. 2. - S. 6.
- Rooney J. Missile Defense and Rising Global Tensions: The Web of Relations between Iran, Russia, and the United States The New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central European Affairs. - Vol. 12. - No. 2 - Spring 2009. – P. 65 – 73.
- D. Rennack Iran: U.S. Economic Sanctions and the Authority to Lift Restrictions. Congressional Research Service. – 2014. – 49 p.
- 14-06-2019The electronic state of the future
- 11-03-2019How to change the world, when the Earth's population will reach 10 billion
- 09-09-2018Le Monde (France): We come to the point where globalization is too expensive
- 02-05-2018Technology: 35-forecasts to 2018
- 22-03-2018"Digital state": how they have evolved
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success