The Iran nuclear dispute

Saikal, Amin

doi:10.1080/10357710600696118

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The approach to the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003 demonstrated clearly that, on major issues of international importance, comity among the great powers cannot be taken for granted. Indeed, continuously watered‐down resolutions on the Iranian nuclear weapons issue (Saikal 2006:193) and on the Darfur humanitarian crisis demonstrate how difficult soft power through the U.N. promises to be, especially since the division seems to fall along a U.S.–U.K. versus China‐Russia divide.…”

Section: Us Grand Strategy Policy Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. Grand Strategy Following the George W. Bush Presidency

Ellis

2009

International Studies Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debates over U.S. grand strategy have devoted a disproportionate level of attention to the War on Terror itself rather than the evolving strategic environment. Challenges including an impending shift in the balance of power, structural deficits, and divided public opinion will significantly impact the policy options available to government leaders, but they have not been adequately addressed. This article analyzes the options available for U.S. grand strategy following the George W. Bush presidency by relating key U.S. national interests with domestic and international policy constraints on the horizon. The analysis concludes that the United States must adopt a defensive grand strategy to rebuild popular consensus, to prevent further strain on the military, and to consolidate its gains in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, this strategy will require flexible coalitions, not formal international organizations, because of a significant divergence of security interests and capabilities with its European allies.

show abstract

Section: Us Grand Strategy Policy Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. Grand Strategy Following the George W. Bush Presidency

Ellis

2009

International Studies Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we head into the 21st century, the study of interactions between the United States and Iran is taking on a great deal of urgency for both policy makers and academics alike. The election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with his exceptionally bellicose language suggesting that the Holocaust was a “myth” and that Israel be “wiped off the map” 2 alongside the development of a nuclear energy program which might result in the production of weapons technology has created considerable concerns in the United States (Bowen and Kidd 2004; Saikal 2006). President Ahmadinejad’s announcement in April 2006 that Iran had developed the capability to enrich uranium to the industrial use level of 3.5% (a considerable distance from the 93% that is needed to become weapons grade) sent shockwaves through western capitals 3 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…President Ahmadinejad’s announcement in April 2006 that Iran had developed the capability to enrich uranium to the industrial use level of 3.5% (a considerable distance from the 93% that is needed to become weapons grade) sent shockwaves through western capitals 3 . While Iran denies that it intends to use this technology for the production of nuclear weapons there are many who doubt that Iran does not want to join the nuclear weapons club (Fitzpatrick 2006; Saikal 2006; Tarock 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inside Out or Outside In: Domestic and International Factors Affecting Iranian Foreign Policy Towards the United States 1990–2004

Davies¹

2008

Foreign Policy Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article tests three theories of state behavior with reference to Iran’s interactions with the United States between 1990 and the end of 2004. The study evaluates whether the Iranians alter their foreign policy in response to domestic instability, as proposed by the Diversionary Theory of War, whether the Iranians become more cooperative with the United States when the U.S. President is unpopular or the U.S. economy is underperforming, as proposed by the theory of Strategic Conflict Avoidance and finally whether the European Union, Russia and China can influence Iranian behavior toward the United States through either coercion or engagement. These theories are tested on two time‐series of data pre and post the invasion of Iraq in order to assess whether Iranian behavior toward the United States has been affected by the ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq. The analysis suggests that domestic instability decreases rather than increases Iranian aggression toward the United States, as the regime in Tehran tries to deal with internal difficulties. The results also suggest that the Iranians become more cooperative with the U.S. when the U.S. economy is performing badly supporting the theory of Strategic Conflict Avoidance. The study indicates that the United States, China, and the European Union are able to influence the behavior of the Iranian regime. Finally, the study suggests that the Iranians have tended to exploit the difficulties that the United States is facing in Iraq becoming more hostile toward the United States when President George Bush is unpopular.

show abstract

“…Despite its divided society, many Iranian people supported their government with regard to their country's nuclear issues (Bahgat, 2007). If Iran continued to acquire nuclear weapons, these would likely be used as part of a deterrent strategy (Islam, 2010;Saikal, 2006;Sherrill, 2012). The state might also have learned from countries possessing nuclear weapons outside the P-5.…”

Section: The Development Of the Iranian Nuclear Programmementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The meeting decided to report Iran to the UNSC by 27 votes to three (Venezuela, Cuba, and Syria), with five abstentions including Indonesia (Dewaele & Pullinger, 2006). Russia and China supported the resolution on the condition that it did not contain any clause stipulating immediate sanctions (Saikal, 2006). Enforcement of the resolution was postponed until the Director General of the IAEA delivered a report before the IAEA meeting in March 2006 (Dewaele & Pullinger, 2006;Saikal, 2006).…”

Section: The Iranian Nuclear Issue In the Unscmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of Islam in Indonesia's contemporary foreign policy

Anshori¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This study aims to investigate the extent to which Islam influences Indonesian foreign policy in the post-Suharto era. Specifically, this research intends to examine under what circumstances the influence of Islam on Indonesian foreign policy will be substantial and under what conditions it will have less of an effect. Focusing on the era of the administration of President Yudhoyono, the issues covered in this study embrace Indonesia’s policies towards Iran’s nuclear programme, Kosovo’s independence and Palestinian statehood. This study puts emphasis on the interplay between Muslim groups and the government in relation to the conduct of the country’s foreign policy. As interest groups, Muslim groups in Indonesia have had significant concerns about Muslim issues in both Indonesia’s domestic affairs and in its foreign policy. In general, this study argues that there has been an increased role for Islam in Indonesia’s post-Suharto foreign policy. Islamic elements and Muslim groups’ aspirations have been increasingly included and accommodated in the country’s foreign policy. These accommodations are made to the extent that the aspirations these views reflect do not contradict fundamentally with Pancasila as state philosophy, the 1945 constitution and the country’s vital national interests, mainly those related to territorial integrity. Specifically, the case of the Iranian nuclear programme has showed that the government ‘bowed’ to the Muslim groups’ pressures which were backed by the parliament. The government changed its position from supporting UNSC resolution 1747 on sanctions against Iran to abstaining on the similar resolution no. 1803. In this regard, the influence of Muslim groups on the country’s foreign policy was important and substantial as Muslim groups’ interests and members of parliament’s interests did converge against the government’s policy on that matter. The Kosovo case has demonstrated an opposite effect. The government apparently firmed up its non-recognition of Kosovo’s independence and disregarded Muslim groups’ aspirations. Muslim groups’ aspiration to recognise Kosovo’s independence is perceived to contradict the most vital of the country’s national interest, namely national integrity. Finally, the case of Palestinian statehood has showed that the Indonesian government’s policy and Muslim groups’ aspirations have been aligned (unlike their differences over Iran) with a similar voice being presented.</p>

show abstract

The Iran nuclear dispute

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

U.S. Grand Strategy Following the George W. Bush Presidency

U.S. Grand Strategy Following the George W. Bush Presidency

Inside Out or Outside In: Domestic and International Factors Affecting Iranian Foreign Policy Towards the United States 1990–2004

The role of Islam in Indonesia's contemporary foreign policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About