scholarly journals Strategi Amerika Serikat dalam Menekan Pengembangan Nuklir Iran

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 314-340
Author(s):  
Rio Sundari

The purpose of this research “United States strategy in Suppressing Iran's Nuclear Development” as a critical analysis related to the controversy over nuclear development conducted by Iran. In the history of Iran's nuclear development, the United States is one of the countries that fully support this nuclear development. However, the dynamics of relations between Iran and the United States are a factor in the status of nuclear development. As a result, Iranian attitudes and policies that are not in line with the United States will result in a decline in American support for Iran’s nuclear development. Finally, in 2018 the US announced its exit from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and decided to impose economic sanctions on Iran which coincided with Iranian support for Syria which was contrary to US political attitudes. This research uses qualitative research methods using secondary data such as books, journals, articles, and other sources to provide analysis of this case. This research results in a finding of efforts and strategies carried out by the United States to suppress Iran’s nuclear development. This was done because of two things, first, related to the interests of the United States in the Middle East. Iran’s political stance is often at odds with the politics of the United States. Second, reduce and maintain the hegemony of Israel as a close ally of the United States in the Middle East.

2020 ◽  
Vol 02 (02) ◽  
pp. 2050009
Author(s):  
Alexander Texas Meresin

The purpose of this paper is to analyze China’s geopolitical strategy in the Strait of Hormuz using secondary data of the topic and the concept of Natural Resources War. The Strait is very important to all the importing oil countries from Middle East including China as the only way in and out. At the same time, the Strait is also vulnerable with any kind of attacks that become challenge and threat to all the countries. It is the United States (US) as the one and only superpower which guarantee the security of the Strait and all the ships from importing oil countries. Recently with a lot of issues occurred in the region, the US seemed to be overwhelmed and asked every country to protect their own ships. With the status of one of the superpower countries and the power of its economy, China should be able to have the same role as the US. This paper contends that the lack of power of China’s military, dependence on the US security and Iran conflict with the US are the reasons why China is not showing some significant roles in Middle East related to its geopolitical strategy specifically in the Strait of Hormuz.


Health disparities in the United States and around the world carry with them a history of cultural bias, fear of the unknown, racism, sexism, ageism, intolerance of religious beliefs, and a desire to retain the status quo. Some people perceive a majority group as superior to demographic groups that are believed to be inferior. However, as the US population becomes increasingly diverse, changes will come. Internationally, globalization and immigration merge the worlds of the poor and rich, as each social class struggles to find their socioeconomic and healthcare footprint in modern-day society. All US citizens will be affected by a failure to unite.


Philologia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grayson Lewis ◽  
Carson Bartlett

As violence and political turmoil plague parts of the Middle East, many scholars in international relations are searching for a new way to build democracy and promote peace in the area. With such a complicated political environment, though, there are endless theories as to how the United States should best move forward diplomatically. According to senior political science and history major Grayson Lewis, there is one group in the Middle East whose potential as an ally is incredibly underrated and underexplored: the Kurds.Many people may not be familiar with the Kurds, although their position in the struggle against ISIS and their role in the US invasion of Iraq have earned them notoriety among political scholars in recent years. Kurdistan, which is not an of officially recognized state and which has no autonomous government, is an area of land situated in the Middle East that comprises parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.Through his research, Lewis advocates for Kurdish liberation, not for the sake of liberating the Kurdish people but as a diplomatic possibility for the United States to attempt to stabilize the region: “The US likes to play this game of democracy building...We want to have an ally that’s a democracy, but it’s also got to be one that’s stable, and it’s also got to be one that’s a friend of Israel, and the Kurds have all three,” said Lewis.For Lewis, the allure of Kurdistan is that unlike many other nations in the Middle East, it has shown a commitment to democracy and even more unlikely, an enduring and stable democracy. The Kurds of Rojava in northern Syria, for example, have an autonomous democratic government. They are progressive in terms of gender equality and representational equality, among other democratic features.Establishing allies and a favorable opinion of the United States in the Middle East has been a struggle for decades, and it only seems to become more and more pressing with each passing year. If the United States plans to have any kind of cooperative relationship with countries in that area, Lewis argues that they should seek out a democratic ally and that Kurdistan is the best possible contender.In regards to the question of the process of Kurdish independence, Lewis says that he is more concerned with deciding whether a nation would be an asset to the free world before considering establishing it as an independent state. “Land is land, and you can’t just draw a line on a map. I specifically didn’t go into how that was going to work,” said Lewis when discussing the ramifications of establishing an independent state irrespective of existing borders. For Lewis, independence should be a question of global benefit rather than strictly a historical or cultural question.“I don’t think wanting to be independent is the best judge of whether a group of people should be independent...A better questions is: will they be democratic?” Lewis found, surprisingly, that the body of research on Kurdish independence, and even on the strategic relationship that the US and Kurdistan could establish, was limited.In his research, Lewis compiles information about the history of democracy for the Kurds, the vibrancy of the democracy in Rojava, and hypothesizes a United States diplomatic strategy that would take advantage of the stability of the Kurds in the Middle East.


Author(s):  
Steven Hurst

The United States, Iran and the Bomb provides the first comprehensive analysis of the US-Iranian nuclear relationship from its origins through to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. Starting with the Nixon administration in the 1970s, it analyses the policies of successive US administrations toward the Iranian nuclear programme. Emphasizing the centrality of domestic politics to decision-making on both sides, it offers both an explanation of the evolution of the relationship and a critique of successive US administrations' efforts to halt the Iranian nuclear programme, with neither coercive measures nor inducements effectively applied. The book further argues that factional politics inside Iran played a crucial role in Iranian nuclear decision-making and that American policy tended to reinforce the position of Iranian hardliners and undermine that of those who were prepared to compromise on the nuclear issue. In the final chapter it demonstrates how President Obama's alterations to American strategy, accompanied by shifts in Iranian domestic politics, finally brought about the signing of the JCPOA in 2015.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (10-3) ◽  
pp. 228-237
Author(s):  
Marina Shpakovskaya ◽  
Oleg Barnashov ◽  
Arian Mohammad Hassan Shershah ◽  
Asadullah Noori ◽  
Mosa Ziauddin Ahmad

The article discusses the features and main approaches of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East. Particular attention is paid to the history of the development of Turkish-American relations. The causes of the contradictions between Turkey and the United States on the security issues of the Middle East region are analyzed. At the same time, the commonality of the approaches of both countries in countering radical terrorism in the territories adjacent to Turkey is noted. The article also discusses the priority areas of Turkish foreign policy, new approaches and technologies in the first decade of the XXI century.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 132-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Dodge

Even before its hundredth year anniversary on 16 May 2016, the Sykes-Picot agreement had become a widely cited historical analogy both in the region itself and in Europe and the United States. In the Middle East, it is frequently deployed as an infamous example of European imperial betrayal and Western attempts more generally to keep the region divided, in conflict, and easy to dominate. In Europe and the United States, however, its role as a historical analogy is more complex—a shorthand for understanding the Middle East as irrevocably divided into mutually hostile sects and clans, destined to be mired in conflict until another external intervention imposes a new, more authentic, set of political units on the region to replace the postcolonial states left in the wake of WWI. What is notable about both these uses of the Sykes-Picot agreement is that they fundamentally misread, and thus overstate, its historical significance. The agreement reached by the British diplomat Mark Sykes and his French counterpart, François Georges-Picot, in May 1916, quickly became irrelevant as the realities on the ground in the Middle East, U.S. intervention into the war, a resurgent Turkey and the comparative weakness of the French and British states transformed international relations at the end of the First World War. Against this historical background, explaining the contemporary power of the narrative surrounding the use of the Sykes-Picot agreement becomes more intellectually interesting than its minor role in the history of European imperial interventions in the Middle East.


Author(s):  
Carter Malkasian

The American War in Afghanistan is a full history of the war in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2020. It covers political, cultural, strategic, and tactical aspects of the war and details the actions and decision-making of the United States, Afghan government, and Taliban. The work follows a narrative format to go through the 2001 US invasion, the state-building of 2002–2005, the Taliban offensive of 2006, the US surge of 2009–2011, the subsequent drawdown, and the peace talks of 2019–2020. The focus is on the overarching questions of the war: Why did the United States fail? What opportunities existed to reach a better outcome? Why did the United States not withdraw from the war?


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israa Daas ◽  

Abstract The Palestine-Israel conflict is probably one of the most pressing problems in the Middle East. Moreover, the United States has been involved in this conflict since the 1970s. Therefore, the present research aims to learn more about the American perception of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was conducted using a survey that addressed Americans from different backgrounds, focusing on four variables: the American government’s position, solutions, the Israeli settlements, and Jerusalem. The research suggests a correlation between political party and the American perception of the conflict. It appears that Republicans seem to be against the withdrawal of the Israeli settlements, and they believe that the US government is not biased toward Israel. Nevertheless, Democrats tend to believe that the US government is biased in favor of Israel, and they support withdrawing the Israeli settlements. Moreover, there might be another correlation between the American perception and the source of information they use to learn about the conflict. Most of the surveyed Americans, whatever their resource of information that they use to learn about the conflict is, tend to believe that the US is biased in favor of Israel. It is crucial to know about the American perception when approaching to a solution to the conflict as the US is a mediator in this conflict, and a powerful country in the world. Especially because it has a permanent membership in the UN council. KEYWORDS: American Perception, Palestine-Israel Conflict, Jerusalem, Israeli settlements


Author(s):  
Yen Le Espiritu

Much of the early scholarship in Asian American studies sought to establish that Asian Americans have been crucial to the making of the US nation and thus deserve full inclusion into its polity. This emphasis on inclusion affirms the status of the United States as the ultimate protector and provider of human welfare, and narrates the Asian American subject by modern civil rights discourse. However, the comparative cases of Filipino immigrants and Vietnamese refugees show how Asian American racial formation has been determined not only by the social, economic, and political forces in the United States but also by US colonialism, imperialism, and wars in Asia.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 11-21
Author(s):  
Matthew Dotzler

The conflict between Turkey and the Kurds is once again reaching a boiling point. Following the defeat of ISIL in northern Iraq and Syria, Turkey is now concerned that the returning Kurdish militias pose a threat to its national security. The United States, as an ally to both parties, finds itself in a unique position to push for diplomatic solutions and to mediate the conflict before it grows out of control once again. This paper will examine the history of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, the actors involved, and how US foreign policy can be used to try and deter yet another war in the region.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document