Skip to content

The Iran dilemma

Rela­tions between Iran and the U.S. have dete­ri­o­rated in recent months, as America has sought to tighten eco­nomic sanc­tions aimed at Iran’s nuclear pro­gram and Iran has responded by threat­ening to close the Strait of Hormuz, cut­ting off seaborne access to Per­sian Gulf oil. We asked pro­fessor Kim­berly Jones, the asso­ciate director of the inter­na­tional affairs pro­gram and a fac­ulty asso­ciate in the Middle East Center for Peace, Cul­ture and Devel­op­ment, to ana­lyze the com­plex rela­tion­ship between the Middle Eastern nation, the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Why does what hap­pens in Iran present such a major con­cern to the United States and other Western nations?

There are numerous rea­sons why the United States pays par­tic­ular atten­tion to Iran. For one, the U.S. and many of its key allies are con­cerned that Iran is actively seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. Second, Iran is strate­gi­cally sit­u­ated along the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which a major por­tion of global oil flows. Crit­i­cally, Iran has threat­ened to close the strait resulting in a flurry of diplo­matic posturing. Moreover, Iran has man­i­fest inter­ests, to dif­fering degrees and expressed in dif­ferent ways, in two of its neigh­bors: Afghanistan and Iraq. In terms of other states in the region, Iran has had acri­mo­nious rela­tions with two key U.S. allies — Saudi Arabia and Israel. Finally, Iran is on the U.S. Depart­ment of State’s list of “State Spon­sors of Ter­rorism,” in part because of its link­ages with groups such as Hamas in the Occu­pied Pales­tinian Ter­ri­to­ries, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

If you just look at this list, Iran does indeed look like a global pariah. But this is just a list and beyond it lays a rich con­text under­lying its strategic deci­sions — from engage­ment with actors in Iraq to “threats” regarding the Strait. We also need to be very careful to sep­a­rate the rhetoric, harmful and out­landish as it may be at times, from hard actions, looking at Iran’s intent in a more nuanced way. If one truly wants to impact its decision-​​making in a pos­i­tive way, one needs to under­stand the con­text in all its complexity.

What incen­tives does Iran have to coop­erate with the inter­na­tional com­mu­nity on issues such as nuclear inspec­tions and oil trade?

Con­trary to the pop­ular rhetoric, Iran is a rational actor and it responds in dif­ferent ways to pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive induce­ments — car­rots and sticks. How­ever, too much atten­tion, espe­cially in the U.S., has been focused on the sticks — in part for polit­ical rea­sons. On the one hand, Iran doesn’t have a tremen­dous incen­tive to respond (in a good way) to the use of sticks such as sanc­tions — in part because there is, to a degree, a matter of national pride at stake. There is a sense of not wanting to be seen as backing down or “caving” to U.S. pressure.

On the other hand, Iran is suf­fering under the weight of sanc­tions and it does seek to manage its pariah status. It wants to strike a bal­ance posi­tioning itself as a regional leader against an ascen­dant Turkey, and stand up to what it per­ceives as Western/U.S. hege­monic poli­cies toward the region.

How do reported covert actions — such as the recent killing of an Iranian nuclear sci­en­tist, which Iran has blamed on Israel — com­pli­cate inter­na­tional rela­tions between Iran and the United States?

While Israel is a major U.S. ally, Iran and Israel view each other as ene­mies. Notably, Iran is not the only nation to ques­tion whether Israel is behind the recent murder of its sci­en­tist (as well as other covert actions). All of this, of course, adds another layer of com­plexity, raises serious con­cerns about regional sta­bility and feeds a well-​​sated conflict.This is all set against a back­drop in which some think pre­emp­tive action, such as an attack from Israel or the United States, is needed to neu­tralize Iran. Overt mil­i­tary engage­ment with Iran is not in the best inter­ests of either the U.S. or Israel. It mis­un­der­stands the threat and the costs far out­weigh any poten­tial benefit.

– by Matt Collette

More Stories

Photo of the Capitol Building at night

High stakes for politics, SCOTUS in 2018

Photo of the crashed truck that was used in the October 31st attack in Manhattan.

Weaponizing Language: How the meaning of “allahu akbar” has been distorted

Northeastern logo

Why I love studying Spanish