The Iran Deal and Main USA Intentions

Friday, May 22, 2015

Behzad Khoshandam
Ph.D. in International Relations & Expert on International Issues

Out of the member states of the P5+1 group, the United States has been the most influential, the most important and the most challenging proactive actor with regard to finding a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear case during the past decade. Following the Lausanne statement, Americans started a serious and basic move toward agreement with Iran on the basis of the past process of this originally legal case, which is hoped to end in a comprehensive nuclear deal. Both the US administration and prominent figures that influence trends, policies and decisions in that country have been adopting remarkable policies and positions in this regard up to May 13, 2015. The positions taken by Americans at this juncture, which have been mostly logical and rational, prove that due to domestic, regional and international strategic requirements, US officials have no choice, but to continue negotiations with Iran.

An important issue in this regard is the real goals that the United States pursues by emphasizing on the need to achieve a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran at the present juncture. A more important point, however, is whether Americans have goodwill in their move toward agreement with Iran at the present juncture, or they are simply interacting with Iran over its nuclear issue as a result of their foreign policy needs, but their true intentions at this juncture are somehow different from main goals of this country’s foreign policy?

On this basis and through analysis of international, regional and national conditions and also in view of the content, discourse, and salient points that can be deduced from US officials’ positions and policies, a few hypothesis could be derived as follows:

1. The true intention of the United States for reaching an agreement with Iran is to impose serious restrictions against international strategic influence, developing hegemony, and regional policies of Iran with the goal of taking essential concessions from the Islamic Republic with regard to the nuclear case as well as regional and international developments.

2. The true intention of the United States for reaching an agreement with Iran is to impose serious restrictions on strategic nuclear abilities and capabilities as well as international influence of Iran due to Washington’s concerns about international and regional strategic stability.

3. The true intention of the United States for forging strategic partnership with Iran, first in economic, trade and civil fields, and in later stages, in political and security spheres is similar to the model that Americans have been applying to their interaction with China.

4. The true intention of the United States is purposive management of domestic developments in Iran by entering into a game with Iran during the present and future course of developments related to the country’s nuclear case.

5. The true intention of the United States is to trap Iran in the course of the conclusion of a nuclear deal with the country through forging a temporary agreement in the first step. In the next step, the US will refrain from implementing that deal or will put obstacles on its way in order to achieve its real and long-term goal of promoting Iranophobia and bringing about regime change in Iran in the course of future interactions and negotiations with Tehran.

6. The true intention of the United States is tactical containment of extremism in the region by clinching a temporary nuclear agreement with Iran with serious commitment to long-term strategy of changing geographical borders and altering trends and developments in the Middle Eastern countries, including Iran.

7. The true intention of the United States is management of its relations with other big and regional powers in the geographical sphere of the Middle East through managed engagement of these actors in regional conflicts and by taking advantage of such tools as the NATO within framework of Iran nuclear scenario, which will be managed by the United States.

8. The true intention of the United States is to pin and engage Russia, China and the European Union on global economic and energy chessboard by reaching a tactical agreement with Iran and purposive management of this issue with the final goal of victimizing Iran's interests through interaction with or taking concessions of big powers.

9. The true intention of the United States is to foment regional rivalry between Iran and its neighbors with the purpose of securitization and promotion of militarism in the Middle East in line with the objectives of death trade and realization of the goals of industrial and military complexes of the United States.

10. The true intention of the United States is to achieve purposive agreement with Iran as a nuclear reality and an unrivalled identity-based regional power in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. As a result, Americans are no more capable of and willing to count on hostile confrontation with Iran aimed at regime change in the country. Therefore, to coexist in peace with Iran, they should have short-term (less than 10 years), medium-term (15-20 years) and long-term (>30 years) plans for the management of the current and future domestic, regional and international developments.

It seems that the exceptionalist foreign policy apparatus of the United States has become confused in confrontation with the reality of “Iran exception” and Iranian peace, and its power to realistically analyze and estimate the existing conditions has been compromised. The Islamic Republic of Iran, as an effective international reality has been one of the most important issues facing the foreign policy of the United States. At the present juncture, the true intention of the United States for achieving an agreement with Iran can be one or a combination of the above hypotheses. Iran will continue to remain one of the most important foreign policy issues for the United States during the next three decades. Therefore, as US President Barack Obama approaches final years of his term in office, strategic changes in the US foreign policy trends in the direction of confrontation or cooperation with the reality of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been mostly a function of strategic conditions and requirements of the US foreign policy apparatus in the past few years. It seems that in the future trends, the United States will not necessarily rely on inflexible scenarios designed by the country’s foreign policy apparatus with regard to Iran. Therefore, the United States’ choice between interaction or confrontation with the phenomenon of Iran, with or without a comprehensive nuclear agreement, will be decided in the context of short-, medium-, and long-term current and future developments and on the basis of national, regional and international analyses of those developments.

Key Words: Iran Deal, USA Intentions, P5+1, Regional Policies, International Strategic Influence, Iranophobia, Russia, China, European Union, Exceptionalist Foreign Policy, US Foreign Policy Trends, Khoshandam

More By Behzad Khoshandam:

*The Iran Deal and Sense of Insecurity:

*The Iran Deal and Iran's Strategic Influence:

*Iran and the European Union: Reciprocal Strategies and Viewpoints:

*Photo Credit: Town Hall