Making Sense of the Iran-U.S.

Relations

Introduction

The relationship between the United States and Iran is best characterized by looking at

specific events in the past like the Iran’s Islamic revolution and hostage crisis in the early 80s,

the Iran-Iraq War, the 9/11 attack, the Iraq invasion among others. However, students of

international relations can recognize the way in which America’s behavior towards Iran fits well

to the pattern of American international relations and diplomacy. Such were products of

geopolitics, domestic politics, and history. Moreover, the United States’ way of engaging with

Iran for the past several decades is ostensibly consistent with the ways that they employed in

dealing with other states that contradict the American values.

However, on another level it is arguable that the relationship between Iran and the United

States of America transcend rational interests like political power, regional influence, or control

of natural and other economic resources. In lieu, such relationship, characterized with hostility

and mistrust, is shaped by the more rooted and profound institution that is religion—the single

most powerful determinant of cultural and civilizational development in the Middle East.

This literature review will discuss a few works that explains and makes sense of (1) the

behavior of the United States towards Iran and vice versa, and (2) how these attitudes are

explicable, not just in terms of realpolitik, but also in terms of differences that penetrates

identity, culture, and civilization. In this sense, the relationship of the United States and Iran

ought to be understood with layers of perspective and analyses, in lieu of just one theory in

international relations.

It is only when we understand this crucial background, can we make sense of Iran’s role

in the proliferation of armed groups and militias throughout the region that serve as embodiments
of the nature of actors in the conflicts in the Middle East, that are also exported in different parts

of the world through the current character of terrorism that is extremist, anti-Western, anti-

liberal, and anti-capitalist.

American Exceptionalism in the 21st Century and its Contradictions

The Americans’ attitude towards the importance of international relations is said to have

been shaped by its unique geographical location, and its experiences with its border neighbors.

Simply put, the geographic characteristics of the New World—a place of both abundance and

wilderness, where civilization was created from the ground up. The “harsh natural environment

in some ways represented an ideal opportunity for a people who manifestly believe that it was

their duty to carve civilization out of wilderness… (it) provided a unique environment for living

out the ideas of the Enlightenment” [ CITATION Rya18 \l 1033 ]. Therefore, wild American claims

of exceptionalism and white man’s burden was reinforced by the premises of the American

nation.

They were convinced that the things that they were able to do to their lands at the onset of

their colonialism in the New World, they can do elsewhere. It was not surprising therefore, that

by the nineteenth century, as the United States of America consolidate itself as a relatively young

nation, it would start hoisting itself among the powers that vie for power and dominance in Latin

America and the Pacific Region.

For more than a century, the belief that the great American nation is obliged to ensure

that the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the

earth” mobilized American foreign policy. From the days when the U.S. congress and the

American public debated American occupation of Pacific territories after the Spanish-American

War in 1898, to the debates that surrounded the invasion of Iraq and the U.S. War on Terror after
9/11, American exceptionalism informed the paradigm of the American foreign policy

[ CITATION Hil12 \l 1033 ]. Within this century, such justification was observable in the way the

United States conducted its diplomacy and international relations.

The manifestations just vary from one historical context to the next. From civilizing the

savage peoples of Asia and Africa in the 19th and early 20th century, fighting for freedom against

the fascist powers during the Second World War, to containing the authoritarian socialist

ideologies in the decades of the Cold War, to subduing terrorists during the War on Terror, the

United States has always positioned itself as the defender of liberalism. As Ryan (2018) puts it,

“(t)hroughout their history, Americans have tended to frame their conflicts as righteous crusades

of universal significance

Corollary to this, the United States tend to perceive another nation as monolithic.

Meaning, Americans employ macro-perspective in looking at the character of a particular state

that they happen to deal with. In looking at post-1949 China for example, the United States

simply saw the most populous nation on earth as communist and hence as something that is in

diametric opposition to them in terms of ideology. Such perception informed the actions that

they undertook in dealing with China and consequently made them neglect certain particularities

and cracks that they can utilize in crafting a more strategic and nuanced approach their

diplomatic relations [ CITATION Rya18 \l 1033 ]. The United States is always inclined to look at

thing in black and white, us vs. them.

Nevertheless, for all of the American ideals, the reality would catch up with them in no

time. Hence, while hard selling their profound commitment to democracy as the main reason

behind these crusades, America would see itself becoming a giant walking contradiction. In

many instances, as America endeavors to hoist itself as the strongest nation in the world and
subvert dissidence from smaller and less powerful societies, it forged alliances with the most

brutal despots and dictators whose regimes go in direct opposition to American values

[ CITATION McC17 \l 1033 ]. These contradictions haunt American foreign policy until the

present.

Iran-U.S. Relations: Clash of Interests and Civilizations

The place of Iran in the Middle East has always been volatile because of its persisting

religious uniqueness. Hence, unlike the other troublesome foreign relationships of America

whose complications are rooted from ideology, the main issue that it had with Iran came from

religion. At the onset, the concern of the United States toward Iran was anchored on its conflict

with Russia. The Iranian Shah sovereign sought for the protection of the U.S. as Russian

invasion loomed, and U.S. wanted to establish influence in the region extended such assistance.

However, when the U.S.-allied, corrupt and unpopular Shah government was deposed and

replaced by a Shiite regime, the U.S. and Iran began deeply conflicted relationship.

In Ryan’s (2018) analysis, the failure of the U.S. to prevent the ouster of its allied Iranian

government was due to its negligence of actual diplomacy work. It failed to take a nuanced view

of the domestic condition in Iran, hence failed to assess the growing domestic discontent and the

rise of an Islamic movement. When the Islamic Republic of Iran was established after 1979, the

tune of the U.S.-Iran conflict changed to that of civilizational clash. As Iran tried to protect its

Islamic regime, it sponsored movements and militias throughout the region. Ironically, the initial

trainings of these militias and the artillery of Iraq (America’s main opponent during the War on

Terror), came from the U.S. It is not an exaggeration to say that the United States created its

biggest enemy at present.

 Prior to 1979, the tension between these two nations can be traced back in 1953. The

popular Iranian leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown from power by a Shah,

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with the assistance and help of the United States. The significant

restrictions in the oil industry propagated by Mohammad Mossadegh led to Great Britain’s lost

of control over Iran’s oil reserves [ CITATION WuL19 \l 13321 ]. This economic restriction was

the main reason why the Great Britain needed to ask the U.S. for the latter’s help to overthrow

this leader. However, the regime of Pahlavi also ended through the assistance of the U.S

[ CITATION Gam20 \l 13321 ].

The civil war that broke down crippled Iran’s economy. However, it did not stop it from

developing its military capabilities and innovation. Iran’s influence over Middle East has

expanded through Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. There were various militias trained around the

region. One way that Iran did this was its aggressive and religious training and financing of

militias that fight U.S. troops. Two key examples of such effort was its effort for Lebanon in

1980’s and for Iraq in 2003 [ CITATION Kra20 \l 13321 ]. To get back against Iran, what the U.S.

did was to have facilitated significant economic restrictions that truly crippled Iran’s economy.

Iran and U.S. then came to an agreement they called the Iran Nuclear Deal which on the one

hand, stopped the U.S. from putting so much economic restrictions against Iran and on the other

hand, prevented Iran from further developing its nuclear weapons. This agreement has been

recently revoked unilaterally by current U.S. President, Donald Trump.

It is worthwhile to note that Iran’s strong sentiments against America was not anchored

solely on protecting their political interest and sovereignty. It was also largely anchored on their

strong resistance against Western attacks on Islam and passionate defense of the Islamic

character of their regime. Following Samuel Huntington’s theorizing, the present form of conflict
in the world, would no longer be between the nation-states, but between civilizations[ CITATION

Hun96 \l 1033 ]. The clash between the Western and the Islamic civilization has been

underscored after the 9/11, but the conflict between Iran and the United States for almost more

than four decades is its most fitting embodiment.

References

Gambrell, J. (2020, January 03). What we know about U.S. tensions with Iran. Retrieved from

PBS News Hour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-we-know-about-u-s-

tensions-with-iran

Hilfrich, F. (2012). Debating American Exceptionalism: Empire and Democracy in the Wake of

Spanish-American War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Krauss, J. (2020, January 03). How Iran has created a network of powerful allies in the Middle

East. Retrieved from PBS News Hour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-iran-

has-created-a-network-of-powerful-allies-in-the-middle-east

McCoy, A. (2017). In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S.

Global Power. New York: Haymarket Books.

Ryan, G. (2018). US Foreign Policy towards China, Cuba, and Iran. New York: Routledge.

Wu, L., & Lanz, M. (2019, February 07). How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days.

Retrieved from NPR News: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-

overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days