US-Iran relations | The Times of Israel
In this file photo taken on December 13, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo · Pompeo on Tehran rockets: US 'won't stand by' as Iran threatens global . There has been international condemnation of the rocket-firing, which Israel blamed on Iran, with the United States accusing Iran of trying to. Iran warned on Wednesday it would hit U.S. and Israeli targets if it were A U.S.- Iranian war of words has escalated since Trump withdrew.
The operation, named Full Disclosure and carried out by Shayetet 13 special forces, took place in the Red Sea, 1, kilometers away from Israel and some kilometers from Port Sudan.
Los Angeles Times reported that the city might be home to a secret nuclear facility. Israeli military did not comment on the reports. Israel responded with artillery fire toward two Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon.
On 8 Decemberduring a summit of Muslim nations in Islam's holy city of MeccaAhmadinejad told Iran's Arabic channel Al-Alam a complicated story on the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel. Since then, the Iranian president has made statements pertaining to these topics. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no. But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or we [said] they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is.
We view the American nation as one with the greatest nations of the world. President Ahmadinejad, however, defended Mashaei and spoke in his favor. At a news conference, he said, "The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it. But we feel pity for those who have been deceived or smuggled into Israel to be oppressed citizens in Israel. During a Friday sermon in Tehran, he stated, "It is incorrect, irrational, pointless and nonsensical to say that we are friends with the Israeli people This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people.
The official said that the continual announcement of these remarks show how Iran's leaders believes in them, and that Iran's leadership must end these comments to reduce international pressure. In the meantime, Marc Richan Israeli-Swiss businessman with international ties, entered Iran through his Glencore company headquartered in Switzerland.
Rich ignored US and international sanctions on Iran and became the major trader of Iranian oil for 15 years. For his actions, United States government found him guilty of more than 65 counts of criminal offenses including money laundering and violating Iran sanctions.
There have been reports that former Mossad heads, Avner Azulay and Shabtai Shavit both personally wrote to Clinton arguing for Rich's pardon. The head of Iran-China economic room, Asadollah Asgaroladi said in the article that such transactions are easily possible. Based on the article Israel imports only a quarter of pistachios from US and about half of its pistachios from Britain and Germanywhereas these two countries are not producers of pistachio at all and the source is very likely to be from Iran.
Furthermore, in Israeli government punished the Hamama Brothers Co. Jones wrote a letter to Israel's finance minister Ronnie Bar-on demanding Israel to stop importing Iranian pistachios from Turkey. A controversy over Israeli-Iranian business links erupted in mid Israeli company Ofer Brothers Group was subject to U. The article reported that the oil from Iran arrives to Israel through a port in Rotterdam.
Much of this trade is conducted through a third country. Israel supplies Iran with fertilizer, irrigation pipes, hormones for milk production, seeds, and fruit; Iran, meanwhile, provides Israel with marble, cashews, and pistachios. He expressed an interest in purchasing irrigation pipes, pesticides and fertilizers.
Based on the investigations the oranges were imported from Dubai. American policies created a feeling in Iran that the United States was on Mosaddeq 's side and optimism that the oil dispute would soon be settled with "a series of innovative proposals to settle" the dispute, giving Iran "significant amounts of economic aid".
Mosaddeq visited Washington, and the American government made "frequent statements expressing support for him. Eisenhower replaced Democratic President Harry S. Trumanthe United States helped destabilize Mosaddeq on the theory that "rising internal tensions and continued deterioration The operation initially failed, and the Shah fled to Italy, but a second attempt succeeded, and Mosaddeq was imprisoned.
According to a study of the coup headed by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, intended "to resolve" the "controversy" over who and what were responsible, "it was geostrategic considerations, rather than a desire to destroy Mosaddeq's movement, to establish a dictatorship in Iran or to gain control over Iran's oil, that persuaded U.
In the first three weeks, the U. A US Army colonel working for the CIA was sent to Persia in September to guide local personnel in creating the organization   and in Marchthe Army colonel was "replaced with a more permanent team of five career CIA officers, including specialists in covert operations, intelligence analysis, and counterintelligence, including Major General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf who "trained virtually all of the first generation of SAVAK personnel.
The Shah's close ties to Washington and his Modernization policies soon angered some Iranians, especially the hardcore Islamic conservatives. Sanctions relief under the terms of the deal freed over billion dollars in frozen assets overseas for Iran and increased foreign access to the Iranian economy.
In return, Iran had to agree not to engage in activities, including research and development of a nuclear bomb. The United States withdrew from the deal in Relations in the cultural sphere remained cordial.
For example, the University of Southern California received an endowed chair of petroleum engineering, and a million dollar donation was given to the George Washington University to create an Iranian Studies program. Starting in the mids, this "weakened U. According to scholar Homa Katouzian, this put the United States "in the contradictory position of being regarded" by the Iranian public because of the coup "as the chief architect and instructor of the regime," while "its real influence" in domestic Iranian politics and policies "declined considerably".
Carter administration[ edit ] Mohammed Reza PahlaviShah of Iranshakes hands with a US Air Force general officer prior to his departure from the United States In the late s, American President Jimmy Carter emphasized human rights in his foreign policy, including the Shah's regime, which by had garnered unfavorable publicity in the international community for its human rights record.
Throughliberal opposition formed organizations and issued open letters denouncing the Shah's regime. Under the Shah's brilliant leadership Iran is an island of stability in one of the most troublesome regions of the world. There is no other state figure whom I could appreciate and like more. According to historian Nikki Keddiethe Carter administration followed "no clear policy" on Iran.
On November 4,Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt. Michael Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there. Another scholar, sociologist Charles Kurzmanargues that, rather than being indecisive or sympathetic to the revolution, the Carter administration was consistently supportive of the Shah and urged the Iranian military to stage a "last-resort coup d'etat" even after the regime's cause was hopeless.
Iran—United States relations after The Revolutionwhich ousted the pro-American Shah and replaced him with the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeinisurprised the United States government, its State Department and intelligence services, which "consistently underestimated the magnitude and long-term implications of this unrest".
The Struggle for Control of Iran. Many students had read excerpts from the book and thought that the CIA would attempt to implement this countercoup strategy. Until this point, the Carter Administration was still hoping for normal relationships with Iran, sending its National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. I believe this vision is at least as delusional as the suggestion by many in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq that the road to Jerusalem ran through Baghdad.
I also think it is delusional to think that, if the Islamic Republic of Iran disappeared or were effectively contained, there would be no more problems with the Middle East peace process and that Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria would simply fall into line with Israeli and American preferences for organizing the regional order.
These actors have their own agendas and their own preferences for regional diplomacy, which they will not give up simply because Israeli or U. To this day, the Islamic Republic has no meaningful capacity to project conventional military power beyond its borders. Iraq, Lebanon and among the Palestinians. Whether we like it or not, Iran has sided with groups and individuals that have been perceived as winners and have actually won elections in their key regional contexts.
In fact, the opposite is true. In reality, the prospect of strategic cooperation with Israel, whether we like it or not, is profoundly unpopular with Arab publics, regardless of what some of their ambassadors may say from time to time.
Even moderate Arab regimes cannot ignore the reality of this profound dislike among their publics and sustain that kind of cooperation. Pursuit of an Israeli-moderate-Arab coalition united to contain Iran is not only delusional.
Even more important, it will continue to leave the Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict unresolved and prospects for their resolution in freefall, as they are today.
These tracks cannot be resolved without meaningful American interaction with Iran and its regional allies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran is also not going to take Israeli or U. It should be taken especially seriously among those of us in the American Jewish community, because he is on an extremely dangerous course.
This confrontation would threaten U. Israel and the pro-Likud community, if not the broader Jewish community here in the United States, may well be blamed when the resulting U. We should be considering a more constructive way forward. That would entail real U. There is precedent for doing this successfully. It is what Nixon and Kissinger did with China and Egypt in the early s, striking a grand bargain with, at the time, these two rising regional powers in a way that profoundly changed for the better their respective regional environments.
In particular, the U. This is a much better scenario than if we had continued to try to contain or roll back Egyptian or Chinese power and influence.
Today, from a strategic perspective, bringing Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah into a diplomatic process and eventually a political settlement would be at least as consequential. For those who buy into the demonization of the Islamic Republic and these groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, it would be useful to remember that it is only in retrospect that the late Anwar Sadat is viewed as a man of peace.
But the critical point here is that, without U. And I do so with an amendment to the portrait that Hillary has just given you of what the conventional wisdom is — actually two amendments. But I do believe that it would help.
And it would certainly help with the challenge that we face from Iran. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a very convenient vehicle for doing so. Why would they have intervened in Egyptian efforts recently to reconcile Fatah and Hamas so as to provide a unified Palestinian polity that could make peace with Israel?
Why would they have intervened to prevent Hamas from following through on that agreement? Why, when we were making progress between Israel and Syria, would we suddenly discover Hezbollah launching Katyusha rockets into northern Israel to disrupt those negotiations?
Well, there is a thread that runs through all of this: It says very clearly over and over again that it wishes to destroy Israel, wishes to wipe it off the map. Those are the statements we all have heard very clearly emanating from Tehran, in particular, from its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
That is the fundamental inconvenient truth, which cannot be resolved by some mythical grand bargain on the Egyptian model.
Egypt sought to make peace with Israel. Egypt in the form of President Sadat evicted Soviet advisers in with the express purpose of seeking to build a relationship with the United States and make peace with Israel.
Sadat was very clear about his desire and intention to make peace with Israel before the war. The tragic fact of the matter is that neither Israel nor the United States took him seriously, and he went to war in order to make peace. But as soon as he had upended the status quo and taken a position across the Suez Canal, he turned to making peace with Israel and never turned back. That is a fundamental difference between the Egyptian model and the Iranian model.
The Iranians have no desire or strategic interest in seeing a grand bargain struck that involves peace and reconciliation with Israel in the Middle East. This is a fundamental reality that we have to find a way to deal with. How to deal with it is, I think, clear. Hillary has laid out what she refers to as the conventional strategy for doing so. And I think it is one that makes sense.
On the one hand, we work as hard as possible to bring together the international community through various mechanisms.
The most recent of these were UN Security Council sanctions designed to send a message to Iran that its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons in contravention of its commitments under the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty NPTto which it is a signatory member, will be opposed by the international community. Successive UN Security Council resolutions have made that position very clear. Iran, of course, has refused to listen.
The effort to send a message of unified resolve to Iran was combined last year in an effort to engage Iran in negotiations over its nuclear program, an effort that was spurned by Iran. But the effort by President Obama, which was a sincere effort, failed. Now the effort is to apply more sanctions, not to make war on Iran, but to bring it back to the negotiating table. That effort to pressure Iran, to make it see that its interests do not lie in disrupting the whole nonproliferation regime, has to be, in my mind, combined with an effort to make peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Precisely because Iran uses the Arab-Israeli conflict to expand its influence in the region, pressure on Iran can indeed be enhanced by a comprehensive effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. And yes, that involves both an effort to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through the establishment of an independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel, and it involves an effort to make peace between Israel and Syria.
Hillary cites some statement that the Iranians supported the Syrian negotiation with Israel. The question that Syria had to answer and, I believe, did answer in those negotiations was what its relationships would be with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, were it to make peace with Israel. Why was this a relevant question? Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas have one particular thing in common.
They all espouse the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, and they do not support peace making with it. Therefore, this question is reasonably posed. If Syria intends to make peace with Israel, what will that peace treaty mean if Syria maintains strategic relations with a country and its proxies that are determined to destroy the very party that Syria is making peace with?
If Syria were to make peace with Israel, it could not maintain the same relationships with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. It would have to change those relationships or Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas would have to make peace with Israel too.
- Iran–United States relations
- U.S. Policies Toward Israel and Iran: What are the Linkages?
- Your questions answered on Iran and Israel relations
Therefore, it is, I believe, far more effective to try to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Arab states and the Palestinians and to try to find a way to thereby isolate Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas and convince them that violence, terrorism, conflict and destruction, and the abrogation of international obligation, do not achieve a more stable, peaceful and prosperous order for anybody in the Middle East, including the people they purport to represent.
Not even Israeli security experts argue that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon against Israel or that there is even the threat of that.
That is, absent any nuclear weapons, immediately, they should be attacked. The poll also reported that 70 percent of Israeli Jews said they would not consider emigrating if Iran got the bomb. So there is deep fear. Almost every decision that Israel makes about Gaza, about the aid flotilla, about Hamas, about the negotiations in general, is justified by references to Iran. News in Israel is not a politician saying that this is the s, that Iran is Nazi Germany inthat Ahmadinejad is Hitler.
Maybe Israel ofto quote her, is not the Jews of Europe in And a fantastic book by Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez, Foxbats over Dimona, used newly released documents and amazing research techniques to document the fact that the Soviets were egging the Arabs on to provoke Israel into a war that they could exploit to try to take out the budding nuclear capabilities at Dimona. Hence, the unprecedented deployment of Foxbats in reconnaissance missions over Dimona prior to the war.
It may have been a very powerful factor in producing the Six-Day War. More recently, as was already mentioned, we can remember the hysteria that gripped the United States about whether weapons of mass destruction were in fact in the hands of Saddam Hussein — which precipitated what?
A gigantic American war in the Middle East. As was said, Iran has never been very good at projecting conventional military power outside its borders. Ahmadinejad is brilliant at that. I can give you very good examples of how he calculatedly does this for his own interests. But that hysteria has many sources: I want to briefly go over some of those sources so we can see how powerful these feelings are in Israel and what they could be producing. On its most obvious level, the obsession with Iran, especially by Netanyahu and his government, is actually very simple and very familiar as a calculated distraction from what it does not want the United States and the world to pay attention to.
This is just one more ride on the peace-process carousel: And the merry-go-round continues. So this story about a Galut Jew is actually a story about Israeli right-wing governments, especially.
In Central and Eastern Europe, they used to use Jews as intermediaries — tax collectors, enforcers, administrators and so on. This poretz in Poland gets very angry at his Jew and threatens to kill him. The Jew is desperate. You just give me a year and a bear and I will teach the bear to talk. Nobody can teach a bear to talk, but anyway, what good is that?
No, wait a minute. The Jew goes home. His wife says, what are you, crazy? The poretz will kill you. The husband says, maybe I can teach the bear to talk.
But many things can happen in a year. Maybe the poretz will die. Maybe the bear will die. All of them have some substance, and this has some substance also. But there are other, deeper sources. Every ideology is a combination of a theory and an imperative to action. So when you challenge the theory behind an ideology, you are challenging it.
Iran threatens to hit U.S., Israel after Trump aide warns of 'maximum pressure'
It was all part of one process: You can actually be Islamic. So the future of the Middle East is not necessarily democratic or Western.
When the shah — known as, you may recall, the Light of the Aryans — was emperor, his Pahlavi dynasty was put forward as a revival of the ancient Achaemenid dynasty. It was a Persian and secular, pre-Islamic political formula. The spectacular rise of Iran under the shah was reassuring to Zionism. An ancient Middle Eastern people could reconstitute itself by using ancient myths as legitimizing formulas, even in the modern Middle East, to become secular and modern.
The sudden and complete disappearance of that regime was a shock to Israel, suggesting that the deep, volcanic process in the Middle East might not tolerate this kind of revival of an ancient, secular idea in the modern Middle East — not from the ancient Persians and perhaps not from the ancient Jews or Israelites either. The idea is to teach Arabs, over decades, through a series of defeats, that there is no hope of destroying Israel.
They will have to accept the reality of it. Best reports suggest that Israel, of course, has hundreds of sophisticated nuclear weapons and a highly capable delivery system. In other words, they would get nuclear ambiguity. This opacity policy that Israel has pursued is another thing that produces hysteria in Israel. Nuclear weapons, if you read Israeli politics closely — and you have to do it very closely because almost everything that has to do with nuclear weapons is censored or coded in language that requires you to know Israeli society extremely well to follow — is the ultimate hot-button issue.
Israel has the best of three different worlds here. That is another thing that is put at risk by the Iranian move, because Iran is trying to do the same thing, which then pushes analysts and policy makers to start to approach the Iranian problem.
Finally, we have the Holocaust trauma. I recommend highly a book by Avraham Burg — The Defeat of Hitler in Hebrew, The Holocaust Is Over in English translation — in which he goes into enormous and brilliant detail about the saturation of Israeli life and psychology with the Holocaust and memorializations of the Holocaust that actually inflict constant post-traumatic stress disorder PTSD on most Jews, but especially Israeli Jews.
If you realize that all of Israeli culture and politics is somewhat permeated by these images of the Holocaust, you can understand how Ahmadinejad is able to push those buttons so easily and produce reactions in Israel that serve his interest.
The Holocaust imagery that comes out of Iran — not that they deny the Holocaust, but are even asking questions about it, combined with the idea of nuclear weapons —— puts Israeli elites with children that they could send abroad into intolerable situations. It could happen in a split-second. Then what do you do? You send your children abroad.
There is a real fear that living in a Middle East that is multipolar, that has an ambiguous Iranian nuclear capacity, could encourage even more significant levels of elite emigration. You send part of your business abroad; one kid goes abroad — all of these kinds of tactics. What is the major reality that these two elites are hiding themselves from? One big one is, of course, the United States. What can we learn from this analysis to clarify the opportunities for U.
Iran–United States relations - Wikipedia
The men who lead the Islamic Republic of Iran have a similarly intense and existential commitment to preserve their regime and the legacy of the Islamic revolution, despite encirclement.
Here is where I would disagree with some of what Martin said, though I agree with a good deal of it. Think North Korea; think Iraq. What was the difference?
Think Iran, for that matter. So both regimes had similarly intense and existential reasons for developing nuclear weapons.