The US–Iran relationship: the impact of political identity on foreign policy

2017 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 744-745
Author(s):  
Amir M. Kamel
2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-491
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Joksimovic

In searching for various opportunities to act in pursuing its foreign policy and endeavors to achieve a dominant role in the global processes USA has developed a broad range of instruments including a financial assistance as a way to be given support for its positions, intelligence activities, its public diplomacy, unilateral implementation of sanctions and even military interventions. The paper devotes special attention to one of these instruments - sanctions, which USA implemented in the last decade of the 20th century more than ever before. The author explores the forms and mechanisms for implementation of sanctions, the impact and effects they produce on the countries they are directed against, but also on the third parties or the countries that have been involved in the process by concurrence of events and finally on USA as the very initiator of imposing them.


2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 31-37
Author(s):  
N. Arbatova

The Euro-Atlantic relations after the end of the Cold war have been strongly influenced by the impact of three interrelated crises: the existential crisis of NATO, the world economic and financial crisis, and the crisis in the Russia-West relations. The end of bipolarity has changed the threat environment and revealed how different alliance members formulate their threat perception and foreign policy interests. Europe stopped to be the US foreign policy priority. The US pivot to Asia has raised European concerns about American commitments to collective defense. The removal of the threat of a global conflict resulted in the EU initiatives aimed at promoting integration in the field of common security and defense policy (CSDP). Even though the US has officially welcomed a stronger European pillar in NATO, it has become concerned about new approaches that could divide transatlantic partnership and take resources away from military cooperation. At the same time the unilateralist preferences of the Bush administration generated deep political divisions between the United States and the European Union. The world economic and financial crisis contributed to a dangerous gulf between American and European defense spending. The US has complained about the tendency of the alliance’s European members to skimp on defense spending and take advantage of America’s security shield to free ride. In the absence of a clear external threat NATO tried to draft new missions, which were found in NATO’s expansion to the post-Communist space and Alliance’s out of area operations. But these new missions could not answer the main question about NATO’s post-bipolar identity. Moreover, the Kosovo operation of NATO in 1999 fueled Russia’s concerns about NATO’s intentions in the post-Soviet space. The creeping crisis in the Russia-West relations resulted in the Caucasus and Ukrainian conflicts that provided kind of glue to transatlantic relations but did not return them to the old pattern. There can be several representing possible futures lying ahead. But under any scenario EU will be faced with a necessity to shoulder more of the burden of their own security.


2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inderjeet Parmar

AbstractThe American aggression in Iraq and the campaign in Afghanistan resulted from the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US. 9/11 has had a massive, catalysing effect on the American public, press, main political parties and official foreign policy makers. This article assesses the impact of 9/11 in changing US foreign policy and especially in creating a new foreign policy establishment by comparing it to the consequences of an historical military attack on the United States – Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941. It concludes that there is adequate evidence to suggest that a new bipartisan foreign policy consensus/establishment has emerged.


2020 ◽  
pp. 204-213
Author(s):  
Elena Khakhalkina ◽  

The article analyzes the regional policy of the European Union and the problems of regionalization through the prism of modern theoretical provisions about the region and identifying its place in the existing system of international relations; shows the EU's practical steps to assert its role as an independent actor in the world arena. Attention is focused on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the processes of globalization, on the key principles of which ‒ the free movement of people and goods ‒ were dealt a noticeable blow. The pandemic has intensified the processes of regionalization, the strengthening of which occurred as a natural response to the challenge. The author of the article analyzes the problems of regionalism through the prism of a collective monograph by well-known experts on regionalism and international relations E.B. Mikhailenko and V. I. Mikhailenko "European Union's Foreign Policy in the XXI century. European interregionalism", which became a continuation of the scientific research of the authors at the Ural Federal University. The article focuses on such vulnerabilities of the EU's regional policy as poorly formed EU foreign policy identity; dependence in the field of security on the United States; insufficient use of the tools of "hard power" to defend their interests and promote their values and ideals. The still insufficiently meaningful manifestations and consequences of the pandemic have given additional relevance to the monograph, clarifying the origins, difficulties, trends in the implementation of the EU's foreign regional policy, the achievement of interregionalism, its goals and limits


1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-330
Author(s):  
Sheila L. Croucher ◽  
Patrick J. Haney

Beginning on Thanksgiving Day 1999, and for many months to follow, the impact of diaspora groups on US international and domestic politics became strikingly clear when Elian Gonzalez’s mother drowned, along with ten other Cuban refugees, while trying to reach South Florida’s shores. Six-year-old Elian survived and reached the US, but only to suffer another torrent, once in the US, of lawsuits, custody battles, and a shameless political tug of war. Cubans on the island demanded that the boy be sent back to his father, who was still living in Cuba and pleading for the return of his son. Cuban Americans in Miami, including relatives of Elian, refused to return the boy to the “Communist tyranny” his mother had died trying to escape. This battle over one little boy’s fate is just the most recent episode in a case that has, for over thirty years, illustrated the dedication (in this case antagonistic) that diasporas can maintain toward a homeland, the energy they can and will expend to influence US foreign policy toward that homeland, and the profound as well as profoundly complex implications of diaspora identity and mobilization for US politics and the US political system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Busby ◽  
Craig Kafura ◽  
Jonathan Monten ◽  
Jordan Tama

AbstractInternational relations scholars have found that multilateral approval increases public support for the use of military force and have developed competing explanations for this phenomenon. However, this literature has given little attention to the attitudes of individuals who participate directly in the foreign policy process or shape foreign policy debates. In this research note, we administer a survey experiment to both a cross-section of US foreign policy elites and a nationally representative sample of the US public. We find that US foreign policy elites are more responsive to multilateral approval than the US public, with elites with direct foreign policy decision-making experience valuing it especially highly. These findings point to the importance of considering differences between elites and the public when investigating or theorizing about the impact of multilateral cooperation on domestic politics.


2018 ◽  
pp. 11-27
Author(s):  
Peter Finn ◽  
Robert Ledger

The Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the US 2016 Presidential election has dogged the Trump administration, almost from the beginning of its time in office. The impact of the probe is widespread and affecting the United States in myriad ways both domestically and in foreign policy. We contend that, regarding US-European relations, the Mueller investigation is hastening two broad trends. Firstly, the continuing revelations are pushing the traditional US foreign policy establishment closer towards Europe. Secondly, and simultaneously, these revelations, as well as the continued actions of the President himself, are acting as a source of tension in US-European relations that are pushing European elites into awkward policy choices. The Mueller investigation has uncovered an ill-defined Russian strategy of sowing discord during the 2016 election cycle, matching other initiatives in Europe itself. In the rhetoric of prominent American politicians, it has succeeded. Donald Trump has been loath - unlike his verboseness towards the majority of the US's traditional allies - to criticise the Russian state. Meanwhile, the US Congress has tightened sanctions against Russia. While Trump has distanced himself from the European Union on issues such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Iranian Nuclear Deal, other parts of the US polity – from city to mayors to state governors and Congress itself – have sought to reinforce relationships with European countries. The forthcoming 2018 midterm Congressional elections are likely to result in an exacerbation of the process, particularly if there are further allegations of Russian cyber-attacks. The impact on European leaders is varied. Whereas the German government wants to push ahead with a new gas pipeline, which would increase reliance on Russian energy supplies, the EU has thus far held firm over sanctions and presented a united front denouncing the alleged Russian state-sponsored use of a nerve agent in Britain. This paper will aim to explore the impact of the Mueller investigation on these two trends and the effect on wider US-European relations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (6) ◽  
pp. 41-51
Author(s):  
Irina Bolgova ◽  

The European solidarity was challenged by the coronavirus pandemic both at institutional regulations and nation-state levels. The presented analysis is based on a review of the official speeches of the heads of European institutions and expert publications of leading European think-tanks and researches demonstrating that the geopolitical dimension of the EU foreign policy today is a new basis for intra-European consolidation in light of growing frustration about the global role of the US and China. The European foreign policy is nevertheless regarded as a new consensus within the integration alliance. Actually, the EU geopolitical role is an updated foundation for domestic consolidation, as it allows to push aside the contradictions on the value-based internal political development, which were clearly associated with the growth of nationalism, and to articulate the external conditions for political identity. The need for a stable consensus on foreign policy priorities creates the preconditions for the formation of new principles of relations with China, the emergence of Africa as a promising area for the application of the common foreign policy and a decrease of interest in integration projects in Eurasia.


2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 695-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
JENNA PITCHFORD

For many years opposition to US foreign policy has frequently been interpreted by cultural commentators and the wider media as “anti-Americanism.” Such “anti-Americanism” has been situated as dangerous, irrational and violent, and this apparent link has been reinforced continuously since 9/11. However, by making a reading of two Iraqi weblogs which have gained significant recognition in Iraq and the West, this article challenges such a simplified definition of alternative perspectives on foreign policy as “anti-Americanism.” This article focusses on the blog entries of two Iraqis, Salam Pax and “Riverbend,” who lived in Baghdad throughout the Iraq War (2003–9) and during the subsequent years of civil unrest. It explores how their online responses to the US action in Iraq illustrate the complexity of perceived “anti-Americanism.” The bloggers do not situate themselves as “anti-American.” Instead they draw a clear distinction between opposition to US foreign policy and hostility towards America and its people, thus problematizing previous definitions of “anti-Americanism.” However, this article also recognizes that whilst these texts highlight this distinction, the negative impact of US foreign policy on Iraq since the occupation, coupled with the militarized image that America projects of itself, has caused the distinction between a disapproval of US foreign policy and an objection to US culture in broader terms to become increasingly blurred. Indeed, these narratives indicate that rather than situating 9/11 as the first move in a campaign of “anti-Americanism,” it could be argued that it is the American government's reaction to the attacks, and the impact of the subsequent occupation of Iraq, which acted as a catalyst for the growth of opposition to US foreign policy, and to some extent a rejection of US culture, in Iraq.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Lidya Christin Sinaga

This essay examines the impact of the assertiveness of China’s Foreign Policy in the South China Sea under Xi Jinping on United States and Australian foreign policy. The essay focuses on the  Xi Jinping period from 2013 because Xi has a different approach in foreign policy making from that of his predecessors. His determination to defend and advance maritime claims and interests as well as the external developments, have made his foreign policy  more assertive. This essay will argue that China’s assertive foreign policy in South China Sea under Xi Jinping has paved the way for a greater role for the US in Southeast Asia, and deepened the rivalry between China and the US. This rising tension in turn has put Australia in a challenging situation, torn between its security alliance with the United States, and its economic interests in  China. However, Australia does not have to choose one, but Australia can play a constructive role in the development of some compromise between the two.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document