CONTAINMENT: ORIGINS, INFLUENCES United States foreign policy in the Middle East during the Cold War sought to contain the Soviets through military alliances. US policy towards Iran demonstrated the US desire to prevent Soviet influence from infiltrating the region. With the assistance of the British in 1953, the US participated in "Operation Ajax" which successfully returned the young Shah Reza Pahlavi to his throne. Pahlavi was placed back in power to replace nationalist prime minister Muhammad Mussadiq who had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. This act seemed to be a lesson to would- be nationalist challengers and a clear attempt by the West to protect the free flow of oil, a strategic interest of the United States. The replacement of the Shah by the United States demonstrated that the US was determined to protect its interests and insulate the region from further Soviet influence. Until the late 1970s, when the Shah of Iran was ousted from power, Iran was an American ally that the US protected from external influence. With the fall of the Shah and the rise of the 1979 revolution, Iran quickly became an American adversary. The dynamic shift in Iran came not from the Soviet Union but rather from within the Islamic nation. The 1980's were marked by a policy of "balancing" by the United States where the US would balance Iran and Iraq against each other. The close of the 1990's, however, lead to a shift in US policy from balancing to dual containment. The United States, under the power of the Clinton Administration, has continued a policy of dual containment towards Iran and Iraq. The United States' perception of the Iranian state derives from and builds upon itself from a motivated bias. The United States labels Iran as a rogue nation and is suspicious of all her actions because of a motivated bias where the US sees what it wants to see. Michael Klare suggests that this psychological principle explains a certain level of "threat magnification" of the Iranian state by the Pentagon. Klare argues that the fall of the Soviet Union meant that exorbitant military budgets were coming under closer scrutiny and were scheduled to be scaled back. In a function of bureaucratic politics, where domestic institutional forces such as the Pentagon formulate threats to justify military budgets, Klare argues that Iran was constructed as threat to justify higher levels of military spending. Klare contends that clashes with states like Iran have become "articles of faith among US policymakers." The motivated bias that the US has towards Iran continues to build upon itself to the point where containment is rationalized as the only option for the United States to pursue. The establishment of a "Rogue State Doctrine" has made these motivated biases easier to accept. By brandishing Iran as a nuclear outlaw, a direct sponsor of international terrorism, a threat to the free flow of oil, an enemy of American values and a determined disrupter of the Middle East peace process, the US has effectively convinced itself that Iran is the "New Enemy". These views of Iran are pervasive and easily accepted by political leaders, multiple domestic lobby groups and the American public. Once one accepts that Iran is a rogue state it becomes easy to accept that all of Iran's actions are designed to disrupt peace and security. The result is that US policymakers and the public see what they want to see in the regime. This motivated bias directs policy efforts to contain Iran. This bias, however, may be defensible. Although Klare maintains that Iran is not a real threat to the US, a consideration of the evidence demonstrates that Iran is a real threat to the West and its interests. The Iran-Iraq war decimated Iranian capabilities and Iran is currently attempting to rebuild its forces with assistance from China and Russia. This is a verifiable fact that is not tainted by any bias, what Iran's intentions or Iran's reasons for its buildup remain subject to debate for some. Iran's military buildup program presents alarm to the United States and justifiably so. Iran is not an ally of the United States and does seek to limit US influence which could be most readily achievedthrough a control of the flow of oil. A stronger military capability may allow Iran to do precisely that and "hit the West where it hurts" in the words of one Iranian official. Motivated biases may unduly influence US policy to a certain degree but much of the Iranian threat is real. Jason Hernandez Professor Tanter PS 472 - Term Paper United States Foreign Policy Towards Iran: Too Many Sticks, Not Enough Carrots INTRODUCTION The United States has an opportunity to revitalize and redefine its foreign policy objectives that will carry the current Administration and the nation into the twenty-first century. The appointment of former United Nations ambassador Madeline Albright to the position of Secretary of State brings with it the possibility that the Clinton Administration will rethink America's objectives and interests in the world. A top priority on that list, demonstrated by the Administrations fervent dedication, is the pursuit of Middle East peace. The complexities of peace negotiations in the Middle East requires the brokers of peace to be clear in their objectives, skilled veterans of foreign negotiation and possibly most important, it is required that they be patient. These challenges will face the Administration and the nation for several years to come. Past achievements of peace negotiations and the success of the current Administrations efforts at peace make the next four years critical to a durable and comprehensive peace. In short, US foreign policy is at a crossroads. One nation that will remain in the forefront of politics in the volatile Middle East is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran remains a rogue nation in the eyes of the United States and is treated as such by the Administration's foreign policy. The United States currently pursues a policy of containment towards Tehran. This containment policy, however, has not been the historical policy approach the United States has taken towards the Islamic state. Iranian presence in the Middle East remains a formidable challenge to Middle East peace and US foreign policy objectives. Since Iran, like other rejectionist states, will play an important role in the Middle East it is imperative that US policy in the region be carefully tailored and most importantly, it must meet its objectives. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the historical and theoretical issues that define US foreign policy towards Iran. Evaluation of contemporary policies and the factors that influence them will be carefully scrutinized as justifications for a containment policy. The main question this paper will address is whether the United States policy of containment of Iran is the best foreign policy for the United States to pursue? To answer this question I will first provide a historical review of US foreign policy towards Iran to provide a framework for the current containment policy. A consideration and discussion of US objectives in its policies directed to Iran will include a discussion of strategic and intrinsic interests. The theoretical motivations for US policy will also be considered within the context of specific aspects of a containment policy, including bureaucratic politics, terrorism, religious motivations, domestic politics, rationality and deterrence.