OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of the researcher are as follows:

-

To explore the historical development of the USA-IRAN relationship

To study how the above has influenced the modern International Law and framed the
international political scenario

SCOPE OF STUDY:
The scope of the study will be:
-

To understand the evolution of the USA-IRAN relationship

To study the influence of the above in forming political blocks that influence world
politics at a macro level.

HYPOTHESIS:
The hypothesis proposed by the researcher is that Iran is fast becoming a problem for the United
States because it has backed out of the NPT and because it is still trying to develop nuclear
weapons. This is not just a problem for the Middle Eastern countries, but also a severe problem
for the US, as Iran can be the next threat to the United States.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher has used doctrinal method of research. The research has used doctrinal method of
research. The researcher has confined his study to various books and scholarly articles related to
International Law.
Sources of data:
a) Secondary source Reference books by James A. Bill, S. H. Mosavian, R. L. Beisner,
K. W. Hanson and legal data resources such as JSTOR, Westlaw etc.

INTRODUCTION:
For over a quarter of century, the US and Iran have been hostile toward each other. The Problem
began with the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the subsequent taking of Americans hostage
in Tehran. Even before the Revolution, many Iranians were bitter toward the US for helping
British to overthrow their democratically elected Prime Minster Mohammad Mosadeq in 1953,
and to support the dictator Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom the Revolution overthrow.
That bitterness turned into fierce anti-Americanism during the Revolution and resulted in the
young Islamic radicals to storm the American Embassy. Although the hostages were released
unharmed after 444 days in captivity, the episode created a ripple effect that continues today.
From two friends and partners, the US and Iran became two enemies, harming and demonizing
each other ever since.
The end of cold war era coincided with the beginning of a shift in Irans foreign policy from the
ideological to the pragmatic. The collapse of the Soviet Union created an important geopolitical
region in the north of Iran. The dialogue doors were opened by Khatamis dialogue among
civilizations in contrast to the clash of civilizations. With the election of Bush and especially
after the September 11th attacks, the US code was changed from globalist to regionalist. In this
period, Iran was named as one of three countries in the Axis of Evil. After 2005, the Iranian
policy towards the US changed fundamentally so that Israel and the US were seen as the main
enemies of Iran. Also, Irans nuclear issue aggravated the hostility and it was used by the US to
maximize its hegemony. In this context, the US efforts to impose its geopolitical codes on other
countries to be involved in conducting its policies against Iran could be justified. It was also
regarded as a geopolitical imperative. Today, the US has to curb Irans ideological-political
activities and if both Iran and the United States do not scale down their demands, military
confrontation could be predictable.
Iran has been a mischief to USA for a long time and it has been testing the limits ever since
1985. Iran signed the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) then but has since failed to adhere
to the restrictions. It has also not allowed having its nuclear facilities inspected by the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency), which is part of the NPT. Although inspections of the
facilities did commence in 1992, a new problem arose that identified that Iran was in fact
drawing up plans to build up nuclear weapons. Many efforts were made by the United States to

try and stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and these have extensively been reported.
The United States and European countries agree that a nuclear Iran, which would violate the
1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), would create more instability in a region that is
already troubled.
It was in 2002 when Iran officially admitted on having a nuclear program that was aimed to
finally produce nuclear weapons. By the end of 2002, Iran had also revealed to the world that it
was going to restart its plutonium production and would remove all IAEA personnel and
inspectors from their land. By January of 2003, Iran had also withdrawn from the NPT. Earlier in
the 1990s, it was known that Iran produced enough radioactive material for the production of two
or three nuclear weapons, which could have been raised to five or six. Many researchers and
analysis of the current situation in Iran has divulged that Iran is definitely capable of producing
many nuclear warheads, although there is still a debate whether Iran has in fact been able to
create such weapons. Many claim, such as the Bush administration, that Iran does in fact have
already made the nuclear devices but that they are having trouble with their detonation devices
and that is why Iran has not been able to conduct any tests and build their weapons. It has been
assumed that iran is currently capable of producing as many as nine nuclear weapons.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN USA-IRAN RELATIONSHIP:

Today, the relationship between Iran and the United States is more complex than ever. It is one of
historical intricacies and contemporary challenges, cautious opportunities, and consequential
actions. The relationship hinges on Irans desire for regime security, political legitimacy, and the
ever-socritical actor operating within the peripheral view of both the United States and Iran.
Over the course of the past 65 years, relations between Iran and the United States have been at
the center of debates within both inner policy circles and the public sphere. And, over time,
because of the political ambitions and alliances of various actors in the Middle East, the
relationship between Iran and the United States has grown to become triangular.2 More
specically, the close relations between Israel and the United States and the growing enmity
between Israel and Iran have created an atmosphere of extreme political sensitivity.

Political relations between Iran and the United States in the 1800s were largely amicable. Even
before this period of time, many Americans traveled to Iran, and in 1883 the rst U.S. diplomatic
envoy was appointed to Iran.3 Persias desire to break away from Britain and Russia is said to
have been the driving factor behind this friendly dialogue with the United States, and it remained
clear that the United States, an upcoming world superpower at that time, was seen as the
potential third party that may have inuence in the liberation of Iran from Anglo-Soviet
domination. Additionally, there was political gain for the United States in the close relationship.
Iran shared a border with Russia, the foe of the United States in the Cold War. As the 1940s
approached and Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi came to power in Iran, the relationship between
Iran and the United States heightened to perhaps its closest point in history. Iran became the solid
rock and foundation of the United States in the Middle East and an ally against the Soviet
Union.4
Despite these initial friendly relations, 1953 signaled a sharp change in the relationship between
these countries. Mohammed Mosaddeq, the prime minister of Iran, was elected on April 25,
1951, and for two years was very outspoken on a number of controversial issues, including the
nationalization of oil.

In June 21, 1951, Mosaddeq said, Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries have
yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat
poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that
by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and
intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been inuenced. Once this
tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.5
Growing increasingly frustrated with Mosaddeqs policies and particularly perturbed over the
nationalization of Iranian oil, Britain began to posture and make various attempts to regain some
leverage in the region. Turning to the United States, British ofcials sought some alliance in their
efforts, and while initial talks produced no such results, the election of President Dwight
Eisenhower in 1953 brought about new policy views and attitudes toward Iran. Eisenhower
feared that internal tensions may lead to a governmental breakdown and rise of the Communist
Party in Iran, and after months of debating, he agreed to work with Britain in an attempt to
remove Mosaddeq from power. During the summer of 1953, Operation Ajax, as it was called,
was under way and after two attempts was successful. Mosaddeq was overthrown by the U.S.
government, and the shah of Iran assumed power, proclaiming the need to westernize policy and
develop more modern models of governance. This irritated hard-line Islamists to say the least,
and anti-U.S. tensions began to are. These tensions set the stage for the 1979 Iranian Revolution
and the hostage crisis: two events that, like the 1953 coup, forever changed U.S.-Iranian
relations.6

GEOPOLITICAL IMPORTANCE OF IRAN AND THE UNITED

STATES:
American intervention in the Persian Gulf dates back to the discovery of oil in the region in
1908. As the developed world increased its reliance on oil over the 20th Century, the geostrategic
importance of the region to the United States became even more significant. For this reason the
U.S. became progressively more involved in regional politics. In 1979, following the overthrow
of the American backed Shah, President Carter articulated the American commitment to securing
its interests in the region; Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force
to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of
the United States of America, and such assault will be repelled by any means necessary,
including military force. From that point forward, U.S. involvement has primarily taken the
form of military engagement, in an effort to ensure regional stability and protect energy
resources.
While the current geopolitical situation in the Persian Gulf may seem to present promising
conditions for Irans desire to fill the regions leadership vacuum, each of the policy
manifestations of the states pursuit of regional hegemony are extremely concerning United
States. As the global hegemon, the U.S. is state most equipped to stand in the way of Irans
regional aspirations and poised to do so in light of provocative Iranian policies. The Iranian
nuclear program, for instance, threatens American global security and energy interests in the
Middle East (Bruno, 2010). Irans support of international terrorism is equally concerning as
military, financial, and logistically support funneled to the Levant are used against the principal
American ally in the region, Israel, on a daily basis. Finally, while they do not directly impact the
United States, Irans offensive treatment of its civil and political societies flies in the face of
many foundational American values (State Department, 2012). At this point it is clear that if
Iranian policy in each of these areas maintains its current trajectory, the two states will position
themselves on a crash course for conflict with one another, if they have not already.
In terms of American domestic politics, there is quite possibly no more divisive and prevalent
foreign policy topic than how the United States should deal with the Iranian Question. The hot-

button issue has dominated the Republican presidential primary season, surpassing the American
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nuclear issue, in particular, has consumed much of this
discussion as academics and politicians alike debate the geopolitical implications of an Iranian
state with an atomic bomb at its disposal. Although both Republicans and Democrats are
opposed to the current trajectory of the Iranian nuclear program (i.e. the pursuit of a bomb),
debate on the Iranian Question breaks down along party lines. On one side of the Iranian
question are Republicans, who have taken a hawkish hard-line stance, arguing that sanctions and
diplomacy will be unsuccessful in an American effort to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon. Republican presidential candidate and current frontrunner, Governor Mitt Romney,
argues that the message of American willingness to use military action against the Islamic
Republic should be demonstrated through action; The United States should restore the regular
presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf
region simultaneously. increase military coordination, assistance and enhance intelligence
sharing [with Israel]. and increase military coordination with our Arab allies to demonstrate
that Irans nuclear-weapons program is unacceptable (Romney for President, 2012).
Democrats, on the other hand, have taken a less militaristic approach stressing the need to
exhaust all other foreign policy options before resorting to force. While President Obama has
refused to take the strike scenario off the table, he and his administration argue sustained and
aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent
Iran from building nuclear weapons (Elsner et al., 2008).

IRANIAN VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

NUCLEAR PROGRAM:
Irans primary breaches of its international obligations with regard to the states nuclear program
come in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its adjoining Safeguards
Agreement (the state-specific addendum to the NPT in accordance with Art. 3(1)). The NPT is a
landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and
weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to
further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament (UN,
2002). Opened for signature on July 1st, 1968, the treaty was signed by Iran the same day, and
entered into force on March 5th, 1970 (UN, 2002). Today the NPT is the only binding
commitment in the form of a multilateral treaty aimed at nuclear disarmament and future
acquisition of nuclear weapons by signatories. Under the NPT, all signatories have the
inalienable right to pursue nuclear technology for civilian energy production, but states may
not utilize fissile material for weapons of any kind (UN, 2002).
Overall, the NPT advances three essential pillars with regard to the future of nuclear energy and
weaponsnon-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear energyeach Siegel, 54
of which is violated by the current Iranian nuclear program (UN, 2002). Irans violations of the
NPT are primarily based on Article 3(1), which states that parties to the convention will not
divert the production of nuclear energy for peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other explosive
devices. As explained in Part 1 of this paper, it is clear that Irans current nuclear program
extends beyond the production of peaceful energy, as the state continues to engage in practices
that are exclusively useful in the production of atomic weaponry such as uranium enrichment
(conversion), laser isotope enrichment experiments, and plutonium experiments (White House,
2009). In addition, Irans failure to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) violates both the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement. Also in breach of Article 3(1), Iran
has failed to report the existence of several nuclear sites to the IAEA (e.g. an enrichment facility
at the Kalaye Electric Company Workshop and laser enrichment plants at the Tehran Nuclear
Research Center and at Lashkar Abad) as well as the construction of new facilities (e.g. Qom)
(Shire & Albright, 2006, p.2). Finally, in violation of Irans Safeguards Agreement, the state has

failed to declare and report a number of other nuclear related activities including uranium
imports and transfer, processing and use of uranium, reactor information, uranium conversion
experiments, importation and use of other nuclear materials and design information of
nuclearrelated facilities to the IAEA.
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION:
In terms of human rights, Iran is currently engaged in a number of practices that violate
international law. In this area, Irans legal obligations are derived primarily from the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR). Together these three accords make up an unofficial international bill of rights
intended to protect fundamental freedoms and human rights for all, in accordance with the
United Nations Charter (which is binding on all states) (UN, 2007). Major Iranian violations in
this area include, but are not limited to: cruel and unusual punishments, death sentences imposed
on minors, arbitrary detention, persecution of minority religions/cultures/ethnicities and
restrictions on freedom of association/speech/expression/privacy/information (NEPR, 2011, p.518). In addition to these breaches, however, it is important to call special attention to Irans
treatment of women as well as its illegitimate manipulation of the political sphere, which both
account for further infractions of international law.
In modern Iran women are regarded as second-class citizens and are codified in law as the
inferior sex (NEPR, 2011, p.5). Both treaties mentioned above, as well as the UDHR have
special provisions concerned exclusively with the equality of women (ICCPRArt. 3, ICESCR
Art. 3, and UDHRArt. 2), but the current Iranian regime has simply ignored these
obligations and continues to oppress females throughout the country. Article 209 of the
Constitution, for instance, states that a womens life is valued as only half as much as a mans (if
a man is convicted of murdering a women his only punishment is to pay the womens family a
dayeh or stipulated sum of money). According to the Penal Code, penalties for women
convicted of crimes are harsher than men convicted of the same offence. Moreover, the code
stipulates that health care is to be entirely segregated on the basis of gender, which seriously
compromises the health of women and girls since there are not enough health professionals

trained in female issues (WFAFI, 2008, p.1-2). Overall, the treatment of women in Iran
represents one of the states most egregious violations of its international obligations.
SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM:
Irans policy towards Hizballah and Hamas constitute egregious violations of Article 2 of the
ICSFT (International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism) and Article
1 of UN Security Council Resolution 1373. As explained above, Iran is the primary financial
backer Hizballah, providing the organization between $25-50 annually (Byman, 2008, p.172).
Additionally, the state contributes between $20-30 million to Hamas each year (Byman, 2008,
p.172). Both of these groups are considered to be foreign terrorist organizations by the United
States State Department, and both engage in actions that violate the ICSFT definition of
terrorism (Department of State, 1999). Hizballah has on numerous occasions been condemned by
members of the international community for intentionally targeting citizens in its attacks on
Northern Israel (Byman, 2003, p.58). Hamas has been similarly criticized for its attacks (based in
the Gaza Strip) on Southern Israeli townships (Adkins et al., 2010).
A final aspect of Irans violations of international law in the sphere of international terrorism
comes in the October 2011 commissioned plot to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the
United States by conspiring with a Mexican Drug cartel (Cooper, 2011, p.1). This action, which
is in violation of Articles 1(a) and 2(a) of UNSC Res. 1373, differs from other Iranian support, in
that it constituted a direct threat against the United States that was to be carried out on American
soil.

THE US-IRAN RELATIONSHIP: POST NUCLEAR DEAL

Landmark agreements between two former adversaries are typically symbolic of the beginning of
a conciliation period. On July 14, 2015, when a nuclear agreement was reached between P-5+1
and Iran, the world community (excluding conservatives) hailed it as a historic deal, promising
the beginning of a new era in the US-Iran relations. As both countries have evolved sharing
hostile perceptions of one another, this breakthrough was viewed by many as a promising
opportunity. Viewed in this context, Irans prospective role in the Middle East, especially with
regard to the Syrian crisis, was viewed by the US as favourable.
The optimism of a possible US-Iran reunion was hinted at by President Rouhani in his UNGA
Speech, wherein he expressed that the deal might, lead to positive outcomes regarding the
establishment of sustainable peace and stability in the region.Additionally, he suggested the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), should not only be limited to seeking a nuclear
deal but be employed in recreating a fresh constructive international order. To the US, he hinted
at a constructive engagement by highlighting, (Iran) will not forget war and sanctions but
look to peace and development. However, in less than 90 days of the USIran rapprochement,
the highest authority in the Islamic Republic had called for an outright ban on future bilateral
negotiations. On 07 October 2015, the supreme leader of Iran- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banned
any further negotiations between the two countries. While addressing the Iranian Revolutionary
guards, he stated that the country (US) is aiming to infiltrate Iran through
negotiations.2Similarly, on a previous occasion too, the reaction on the Zarif-Obama handshake
had invited a strong reaction from the hardliners in Iran. Eventually, the Iranian foreign minister
had to apologise for hurting their sensitivities.
Furthermore, it must be noted that the Iranian Parliaments approval of the outline of the
JCPOA is only a trivial matter, as the journey to its implementation begins. Out of the 2904 seats
in the Iranian Parliament, the support for the deal came from 139 votes. And this is only the
initial nod. The adoption day of the Iranian Deal is nearing. 18 October 2015 would mark the
starting of the implementation of the JCPOA. These dynamics, of course, are insightful of how
domestic politics in Tehran might impinge on foreign policy matters.

At the other end of the spectrum; opposition on further engagement with Iran emerged directly
from the White House. The Obama administration has declared that the US will not seek
economic ties with Iran. The US commercial sector remains prohibited from conducting business
with Iran. Although both sides may have their validation for such a course of action, it must be
remembered that this limited interaction between the two countries is likely to hurt the future of
the US strategic posture in the Middle East more than Irans. As Irans isolation has ended, it is
ready to engage with the international community. Iran now has more than just the US to engage
with- economically and strategically.
Thus, on the matters of promoting stability in the Middle East, Irans cooperation with Russia on
a host of issues could be viewed as inevitable.
With regard to fighting the ISIS in Syria, the deep historical crevices that exist between the great
Satan and the axis of evil have partially manifested into immense mistrust for any mutual
action. It has been clearly established that any country which is affected by the instability in the
region is anxiously seeking a solution to the ISIS menace. The US, too, aspires the same. At the
recent UNGA meeting, President Obama had conveyed that US is ready to work with either
Russia or Iran.
While both US and Iran may be determined to resolve the ISIS crisis, they are in practice
fighting for different objectives. The US supports ousting of Assad and remains doubtful about
Tehrans intent concerning Syria. A former CIA officer, Reuel Gerecht, who was in charge of
operations inside Syria, has, articulated that, the primary Iranian objective is to ensure that
Assad does not fall..."

CONCLUSION:
It must be reconsidered that the two countries hostile perception of one another is not likely to
change immediately post the nuclear deal. In-fact, in the near future, the flashpoints in the USIran relations would become more visible, such as Irans BMD programme, etc. Decades of
enmity between the two countries has resulted in a communication gap that cannot be bridged
immediately. The nuclear deal has opened up a channel for communication; however, the
countries are likely to be cautious in their approach towards walking the pathway. This should be
viewed as a peculiar norm in the US Iran relations.
The United States and Iran are on a crash course for conflict with one another because of the
state actions associated with Irans pursuit of regional hegemony in the Persian Gulf. These
provocative policies, i.e. the states nuclear program, support of international terrorism, and
human rights violations may align with the regional aspirations, but elements of each are
inconsistent with international law. While condemnation of Iranian breaches of its international
legal obligations is sometimes present in American political discourse, discussion of the
applicability of international law in crafting foreign policy responses has been irresponsibly
minimal.
With respect to future research, so long as Iran and the United States continue on their foreign
policy trajectories, international law will continue to be an important lens through which
potential American action must be evaluated. As geopolitical circumstances are always changing,
legal analysis of U.S.Iran relations will be in constant need of reevaluation. In this regard,
while some American foreign policy responses are illegal under international law today, it is only
through future analysis that potential justifications for those responses can be explored.
The dynamic relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran today
seems to place the policies of the two states on a crash course for one another. A careful
consideration of how international law plays into this predicament has, however, been recklessly
absent from public political discourse, often making it seem like American politicians are not
adequately considering the international responsibilities of the U.S. In order to make informed

foreign policy decisions moving forward, the United States must consider potential action in
light of both current Iranian geopolitical aspirations and violations of its international
obligations. Perhaps more importantly, however, American action must be considered in the
context of the states own international legal commitments. Although the ultimate foreign policy
path of the United States may not totally conform to international law, any analysis that ignores
this crucial piece of the puzzle is overwhelmingly and dangerously incomplete.