Relations between the United States and Iran
The Iran and the the United States always maintained the political relations since the Shah of Persia officially sent its first ambassador, Nassereddin Shah Qajar, in Washington D.C at the end of the 19th century. However a succession of conflicts and incidents between the two nations generated a tension in their relation.
Historical relations
As of first half of the 19th century and thus before even the beginning of their political relations, of American went to Iran. Justin Perkins and Asahek Grant were the first missionaries with being sent in Persia in 1834 by the American Board off Commissioners for Foreign Missions. The Medical college of the university of Orumieh for example was founded by a group of American doctors in the years 1870. Samuel Benjamin was however the first diplomat officially sent by the United States in Iran, in 1883.
To the Second world war, the relations between Iran and the United States remained cordial, and of many Iranian constitutionalists regarded the United States as a “third force” in their fight to release itself from the domination and the interference of the British and Russian in the Iranian businesses. The American presence however had a price.
Howard Baskerville died in Tabriz whereas it tried to help the Iranian constitutionalists, and after Morgan Shuster was named General Trésorier of Persia, American was killed with Teheran by henchmen which one thinks that they were related to the Russian or British influence. In fact, the Iranian Parliament was bombarded by the Liakhoff general (imperial Russia), and Morgan Shuster had to resign under the pressure exerted by the British and Russian on the Shah. The book of Shuster, The Strangling off Persia is an account of the details of these events as well as a sharp-edged criticism of the the United Kingdom and imperial Russia
It is the American embassy which with the first transmitted to the Iranian office of Foreign Office with London the confirmation of the popular opinion according to which the British were implied in the coup d'etat of 1921 which brought Reza Pahlavi to the capacity. A report/ratio of the British embassy in 1932 concedes that they are the British who put Reza Shah on the throne. At that time, the United States was not combined to the British in Persia. For sources on the implication of the British, to see
Morgan Shuster was quickly followed of Arthur Millspaugh, appointed general treasurer by Reza Shah Pahlavi, and Arthur Pope, which was the principal craftsman of the policies of Reza Shah aiming at making revire the Persian Empire . The friendly relations between Iran and the United States were going to change with the arrival of the Années 1950.
Respective concerns of the governments Iranian and American
There exist serious obstacles with the improvement of the relations between the two countries. The US government defines five points of Iranian policy which he considers unacceptable:- supposed Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and others weapons of massive destruction;
- the supposed participation of Iran in international terrorism;
- the support supposed for a violent opposition to the process of peace in the Middle East;
- threats and activities subversive supposed against its neighbors
- supposed non-observance of the human rights
The obstacles seen by Iranian are the following:
- the Operation Ajax which drew aside from the capacity the Prime Minister democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh and restored the Shah who had left in exile;
- the cold Iranian assets which were not placed at the disposal since 1979;
- the American support for organizations terrorrists anti-Iranian women (OMPI e.g.);
- assistance of the American companies in the development of the generating stations of chemical weapons during the War Iran-Iraq;
- destruction in flight of the plane of Iran Air (flight 655) by the USS Vincennes successor in title the death of many civilians;
- illegal overflights of drones in the Iranian airspace since 2003;
- the non-observance of the human rights.
Tensions and threats of military operations in 2005-2006
The official position of the United States concerning Iran is qu'" Iran having the nuclear weapon is not acceptable" and that " all options" including the unilateral use of the force and nuclear weapons in the first resort (without summations?) are “on the table”. However, they deny to prepare an imminent attack. These facts appeared when three European countries: France, the United Kingdom and Germany (Euro 3) tried to negotiate the suspension by Iran of activities of nuclear enrichment and the American charges that these activities were intended to manufacture nuclear weapons. The United States has, to date, a long history several decades of close military cooperation or a military presence significant, if not important, with four countries bordering which are Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
American refusal to grant visas to the Iranians within the framework of activities concerned with the United Nations
In September 2005, the American State Department initially refused to grant a visa to the door word of the Iranian Parliament as to a group of official Iranian wanting to travel to the United States in order to take part in an international parliamentary meeting organized by the the United Nations. The visa was finally granted but too late so that the members of Parliament attend the meeting. According to the rules of UNO, the E.U must grant visas to the representatives of any Member State of UNO in order to take share with the conferences which it organizes, without restriction compared to their political opinions.
Declarations relating to the threats of military attack of the United States against Iran
The official position of the United States concerning Iran is qu'" Iran having the Nuclear weapon is not acceptable" and that " all options" including the unilateral use of the force and nuclear weapons of aggression are " on the tapis" . However, they deny to prepare an imminent attack. These facts appeared when three European countries: the France, the the United Kingdom and the Germany (the Euro 3) tried to negotiate the suspension by Iran of activities of nuclear Enrichissement. Were added the American charges, applicant whom these activities were intended to manufacture of the nuclear weapons.
The United States has, to date, a long history several decades of close military cooperation or significant, if not important military presence with four countries bordering which are the Iraq, the Turkey, the Afghanistan and the Pakistan.
A American Journalist, Seymour Hirsch, affirmed that in January 2005, it was requested from the CENTCOM (American military Central Command in the Zone) to revise the plans of war of the American army, envisaging a terrestrial and air Invasion maximum of Iran. He also affirmed that the " Falcon s" US government did not believe only the Négociation S carried out by l'" Euro 3" were going to succeed and that the American administration will as soon as act the clearly established situation. Official of high ranking of the information said to him: “It is not a question of knowknowing if one were going to do something against Iran. They work there (already)”.
Scott Ritter, old Inspecteur of the United Nations in Iraq for the weapons of massive destruction of 1991 to 1998 affirmed in April 2005 that the Pentagone was to be ready for June 2005 to launch a massive air attack against Iran in order to destroy the Iranian Nuclear program. He as affirmed in June 2005 as the United States prepared with a massive military presence in Azerbaïdjan which would precede a major terrestrial campaign intended to take Teheran. He as affirmed as the American attack " " had already started;.
In its article published on March 27th, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Director for the non-proliferation with the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, declared that " certain official on high ranking already decided. They want to strike in Iran" and qu'" there could be a campaign concerted to strike in Iran" . He however informed qu'" a military Raid would be disastrous for the USA. It would do nothing but carry out the national union near an unpopular mode, to poke anti-American anger in the Muslim world, to endanger the American position in Iraq, already fragile, and that it would do nothing but accelerate and not delay the Iranian nuclear program. Thus, the falcons of Teheran would see themselves consolidated in their feelings that the only means of dissuading the east United States to have the Nuclear weapon. The Iranian leaders could in record time prepare a nuclear program which would produce the atomic weapon in some années."
Stephen Zunes, professor with the University of San Francisco and writer for the the Middle East with the Foreign Policy in X-ray Project also affirms that an attack against Iran is envisaged.
Declarations relating to the plans of use of nuclear weapons against Iran
In March 2005, the United States revises to them doctrines concerning the use of the Nuclear weapon to consider its préemptif use or possibly the preventive Guerre against states not having themselves the atomic weapon.
In August 2005, Philip Giraldi, former officer of the CIA, declared that the American Vice-président Dick Cheney had ordered with STRATCOM to prepare an emergency plan to apply in answer to an terrorist attack of the type September 11th to the United States…
Between 2005 and 2006, several personalities declared that the United States envisages the use of the nuclear weapon in an attack against Iran. One can quote Jorge Hirsch, Michel Chossudovsky in January 2006, the committee " Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention one Iran" and finally, in April 2006, Seymour Hersh.
The April 18th 2006, on CSPAN, the US president George W. Bush answered a journalist who asked him: “Sir, when you speak about Iran, that you known as that a diplomatic solution must be found, you known as often that all the options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of an nuclear attack? Does your administration have such plans? ”. The president then answered “All the options are on the table”.
Declarations relating to the Iranian installations which would be attacked by the United States
The cities likely to be targeted, according to the Center of the Studies for non-proliferation, the group of research Oxford (Oxford Research Group) and Michael Keefer include cities having a population estimated at approximately 23 million inhabitants (1999 - 2006). These cities include:
- of the cities having nuclear installations (supposed to play a part in the development of nuclear weapons)
-
of the cities having air bases depending on the Western Command
-
of the cities having air bases depending on the Southern Command
- Bandar Abbas, 350.000h, 2005
- Chabahar
-
of the cities with air bases close to the Iraqi border
The role of the Iranian nuclear program in the tensions américano-Iranian women
Since 2003, the United States affirms that Iran develops a program of nuclear weapons. Iran maintains that its nuclear program only aims at producing electricity. In June 2005, the American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice declared that the director of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), Mohamed El Baradei should harden its position in connection with Iran , if not it could not obtain a third mandate as director of the IAEA.
The United States and Iran are recipients of the Traité nuclear non-proliferation (NPT). At the time of the conference of May 2005 on the NPT, one showed the United States (and other states having the Nuclear weapon officially) to violate article VI of the NPT which requires that they disarm, which they did not make yet to date. But the IAEA declares that Iran violates the agreement of Safeguard not to provide sufficient information concerning its nuclear material, its treatment and its use.
Article IV of the Treaty gives the right to the states not having the nuclear weapon to develop nuclear programs of civil use.
Since 2003 until the beginning of the year 2006, the tension between Iran and the United States gradually increased, even during the inspections of the Iranian significant nuclear industrial sites by the IAEA, according to an Additional protocol of the NPT which Iran had accepted.
March 8th, 2006, the representatives of the United States and the group EU-3 noticed that Iran had sufficient gas Uranium hexafluoride not enriched, being able to be highly enriched to manufacture ten atomic bombs, adding that it was time that the Safety advice acts .
However, uranium not enriched can be used neither in the engine of Bushehr, which is a Pressurized water reactor, nor in an atomic bomb, unless it is not enriched.
The role of crude oil and other strategic factors in the tensions américano-Iranian women
Stephen Zunes declared that the Republican party and the democratic party have haste to punish, insulate, and threaten to attack a country rich in oil which refuses to cooperate sufficiently with strategic plannings and economic American in the Middle East.
The role of the Iranian oil Stock Exchange and the euro in the tensions américano-Iranian women
See also: Iranian Stock Exchange of oil, War of the petrodollar, Pétroeuro
There exist many indications which Iran wants to create new a international Futures market for the Pétrole whose final name was not fixed yet but which could be called the Iranian Bourse of oil. The Transactions would be carried out there in euro S and probably of other currencies rather than in dollar S, more often used on the others Marché S exchanging of oil. Some fear that can have a significant negative impact on the value of the dollar on the foreign exchange market international. The opening of this Bourse had been programmed for the March 20th 2006, but was deferred.
The role of the interior policy in the United States in the tensions américano-Iranian women
In November 2005, Michael Klare, professor with the section of Studies for Peace and the Safety of the Hampshire College affirmed that a major factor which would encourage the administration George W. Bush to attack Iran would be its desire to divert the attention of the political difficulties of the country to increase the popularity of the president. The popular support for president Bush increased approximately 10% when the the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and fell down on its level preceding only a few month later.
The role of the interior policy in Iran in the tensions américano-Iranian women
See also: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
Analysts such Ali Ansari interpreted the remarks made by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad like electioneering propaganda interns with the country. Others as the Israeli government see there threats of attack against the state of Israel.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which is a preserving monk, was elected president of Iran in 2005. In October 2005, he declared on several occasions in front of an Iranian public agree with the declaration of the Ayatollah Khomeini according to which " the mode occupying in Palestine should disappear from the pages of the book of Times " , mentioning in its speech that the modes of the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, of the Soviet Union as a state and the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq were deposed capacity in the same way.
December 8th, 2005, it made a statement denying the Holocauste but one week later, the December 14th, it renewed its Discours without this time to deny the Shoah explicitly.
It is generally considered that its declarations follow the line of its populist electorate (19% of the voices to the first turn of the presidential 2005)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Juan Cole affirms that these declarations were badly translated and badly interpreted by the Western mediums when they affirm that the Iranian president said that Israel must be striped chart . The goal of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad according to them was only to defend the Démocratie in Palestine.
Without polemizing on the bad possible interpretation of these remarks, the international reaction with those Ci was extremely negative.
Seema Mustafa in the Asian Age claims that the remarks of Ahmadinejad on Israel and Shoah are now used as pretexts for an attack against Iran. He affirms that a campaign aiming at diaboliser Ahmadinejad and to gather the international opinion against Iran is actually launched. Ahmadined has in fact astutely used in the war of Propagande against Iran . He also claims that this argument was called upon in front of the press with Delhi by the representatives of EU-3, the Dr. Michael Schaeffer, and the American under-secretary Nicholas Burns when they invited the Indian representative to agree the recommendations of IAEA to subject the Iranian question to the Safety advice of the United Nations.
The role of the development of the democracy in the Middle East in the tensions américano-Iranian women
In the speeches which followed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush declared (after no Arme of massive destruction was found there) that the goal of sound administration at the time of this invasion was to bring the Démocratie to the countries of the Middle East and to counter l'" Islamofascisme ".
The World Court on Iraq and others questioned the sincerity of this reason, referring to a systematic countryside against the intellectuals in Iraq during the American occupation in Iraq.
Robert Dreyfuss, author of Play of the Devil: How the United States contributed to exacerbate Fundamentalist Islam claims that the American acts in the area have in fact encouraged and continue to encourage the islamofascism rather than to counter it.
The February 5th 2006, the Iranian bloggor Persian Majeed revealed a list of probable violations of the Human rights by the United States in Iran and of attacks of the Iranian democracy lasting this last half-century, requiring judicial enquiries and adequate financial equalizations towards Iranian. It concluded its judgment on severity from the American actions against the democracy in Iran by the will to see the USA sanctioned via the the United Nations.
Fears of Iran of a possible attack of the United States
Paul Pillar, former executive of the the CIA, which directed the preparation of all the National Evaluations of the Information ( National Intelligence Estimates or DENIES) on Iran of 2000 to 2005 as a national framework of the information for the the Middle East and the Southeast Asia, declared with Inter Close Service that all DENIES them on Iran during this period " Iranian fears of an American attack concerned explicitly and DENIES established a link between this desire to have the nuclear weapon and these craintes" and declared that " Iranian perceptions of the threat, particularly American and Israeli, were not the only factor but were one of the elements of what caused, according to us, this will to build the weapon nucléaire."
Suspicions of violation of sovereignty of the Iranian territory by the United States during the time 2003-2006
It was marked on several occasions that the the United States violated the territorial sovereignty of Iran on several occasions since 2003. For example it was marked that the United States made use of Drone S, envoy of the soldiers on the Iranian territory as well as Parti for a free life in Kurdistan (PEJAK) to proceed to bomb attacks in Iranian territory in order to revive preexistent ethnic tensions there.
Declarations relating to the use of American drones having flown over the Iranian territory
Since 2003, the United States would have launched Drone S since the Iraq in order to fly over the territory of Iran to obtain Renseignement S on the Iranian Nuclear program; overflights which would have gotten only little information. The Iranian government formally protested against these illegal incursions. An American RQ-7 Shadow and Hermes UAV were crushed in Iran.
In June 2005, Scott Ritter declares that the American attacks on Iran already started, including the overflight of Iran by drones without pilots .
Declarations relating to the presence of American armed forces on the Iranian territory
Seymour Hersh said that the United States has penetrated Eastern Iran since the Afghanistan in order to seek underground installations being used with the development as nuclear weapons .
Declarations relating to the use of armed wings by the United States
Scott Ritter as declared as the Moudjahidin e-Khalq (MEK or MKO), a group of opposition indexed by the American State Department as foreign terrorist organization had bombarded Iran with the assistance of the CIA.
In April 2006, The Raw Story quoted an anonymous source of the United Nations " proche" Safety advice of the United Nations which declared that former members of the MEK had been used by procuration by the United States during " approximately a an" in Iranian territory. A source of the information quoted by The Raw Story declared that these former members of the MEK " had been forced to lend oath to the democracy and to resign of MEK" before being built-in combat units American and réentraînés for operations in Iran
| Random links: | Lord | … There And Then | Kinich Ahau | Countryside of Neubourg | Sidney Ribaux | Prison_de_Mamertine |