The United States and Iran: Troubled Times

January 16, 2008

Uneasy Relations

On January 6, 2008, the U.S. Navy reported that five Iranian fast boats confronted three of its vessels in the Persian Gulf. According to navy crew members, they believed the hostile intent of the boats’ pilots was clear by their actions and radio contacts they received (the source of which is in dispute). A U.S. Department of Defense spokesperson said the U.S. ships issued warnings to the approaching vessels and were prepared to fire when the boats turned away. The Iranian ships were under the command of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps—a group loyal to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and responsible for national security, border control, and law enforcement.

This recent confrontation underlines ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran, whose political relations have been deteriorating for decades, dating back to the overthrow of the U.S.-backed shah during the 1979 Islamic revolution. Following the revolution, hard-line leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini came to power and quickly denounced the United States as the “great Satan.” The ensuing Iranian hostage crisis resulted in severed diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States in April 1980, at which time the United States also froze Iranian assets estimated at around $12 billion. The United States contends the bulk of the seized Iranian assets was returned to Iran as part of the deal under which the hostages were released, a claim Iran disputes.

Since the revolution, numerous events—some violent—have further marred relations between the two countries. It is believed the Iranian-supported Islamic militant group Hezbollah was responsible for fatal attacks on the U.S. embassy and the U.S. Marine Corps’ barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In 1988, the USS Vincennes (a U.S. Navy Ticonderoga-class AEGIS guided-missile cruiser) mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft, killing 290 and prompting outrage from Iran and sympathetic Arab nations.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration, concerned about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support of terrorists, enacted a policy of “dual containment” toward Iran (and Iraq). Dual containment was intended to halt Iranian influence spreading throughout the region by means of a beefed-up U.S. military presence, regional alliances, and economic sanctions. Shortly after the policy was implemented, President Clinton issued an executive order enacting an embargo on nearly all trade and investment between the United States and Iran.

During the last decade, despite a smattering of diplomatic successes, relations between Iran and United States have continued to deteriorate. In 2002, President George W. Bush summed up his administration’s opinion of Iran during his “Axis of Evil” speech. In recent years, populist Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made his contempt for the United States clear on numerous occasions—including comparing President Bush to Hitler.

Iran’s Nuclear Ambition

Iran claims that its nuclear program is for "civilian" use only and has no military component, but the United States has long suspected Iran of harboring a secret nuclear weapons program. Although it has been known for some time that Iran has successfully enriched uranium, its government contends it is needed to provide energy for its rapidly expanding population and industries (under the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, countries are permitted to learn the uranium enrichment process). Once the enrichment process is mastered, however, only a few short steps are necessary to then devise a nuclear weapon.

A report issued in November 2007 by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded Iran most likely had a nuclear weapons program in place but, in response to international pressures, terminated the program sometime in 2003. The report spurred Ahmadinejad to denounce the United States’ hard-line position toward Iran and demand a public apology.

Despite the NIE report, not everyone is convinced Iran’s current nuclear ambitions are peaceful. Regarding his trip to the region, President Bush told an Israeli newspaper that “part of the reason I'm going to the Middle East is to make it abundantly clear to nations in that part of the world that we view Iran as a threat, and that the [National Intelligence Estimate] in no way lessens that threat, but in fact clarifies the threat.”

For Israel, this latest NIE report confirms long-held suspicions that Iran has been seeking to develop a nuclear weapons program. Some U.S. officials have said they fear that Israel might use the report’s findings to justify a strike against Iran and possibly draw the United States into a serious confrontation. For the United States, the report appears to have temporarily thwarted serious talk about launching a preemptive strike against Iran but does little to ease worries about the implications of a nuclear-armed Iran.

A Diplomatic Solution?

In light of the volatile political rift dividing the United States and Iran, is there any hope for a peaceful resolution or is violence inevitable? In a collaborative article written by the Hoover Institution’s Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow Michael McFaul and Hoover research fellow Abbas Milani, they argue that preemptive strikes against Iran would not only be disastrous but would undermine what little stability exists in the region. The two explain that the best way to engage Iran is through diplomatic means: “Although counterintuitive to some, diplomatic engagement is required to pursue the long-term goal of democratization and, in parallel, the short-term goal of arms control.”

But is the chasm between the United States and Iran too large to cross?  A number of reliable polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of Iranians hold a highly favorable opinion of America and Americans. Furthermore, according to a published report, a vast majority of Iranians and Americans alike denounce Osama bin Laden and agree that terrorism is a serious threat. This suggests to experts such as McFaul, Milani, and Hoover senior fellow Larry Diamond that enough common ground exists that diplomatic solutions can be explored.

For the time being, and barring any sudden provocation, the NIE has appeared to temper talk of a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran. Yet, as evidenced by the fast boat incident, serious tensions between the two countries remain. Despite decades of distrust and heated rhetoric, Victor Davis Hanson, the Hoover Institution’s Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow, believes that the U.S. Iran policy is working. “A strike now on Iran would be a grave mistake,” Hanson explains, “in every strategic and political sense—not to mention the humanitarian one of harming a populace that may well soon prove to be the most pro-Western in the region.” —Michelle Bussenius, Editor