منبع تحقیق درمورد the، of، and، a

دانلود پایان نامه ارشد

and the scope of Russian opinion today does not play into Middle East policy decisions to the degree that the Soviet Union did (Martin Indyk, Graham Fuller, Cordesman, & Marr, 1994). In short, in the view of the Clinton administration, the removal of the Soviet Union from the superpower stage had removed a major strategic consideration from the Persian Gulf policy.
2- Balance of power
Both Iran and Iraq were weakened by the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988 by sanctions, military and financial loss of war and in the case of Iraq, by the destructive defeat that the country suffered in the aftermath of its invasion of Kuwait. So, a regional balance of power was established between Iran and Iraq (Gause, 1994). The military weakness of Iran and Iraq after eight years of the Iran-Iraq war reassures Americans of their unilateral containment of Iran and Iraq in the Persian Gulf region.
3- Cooperation of Persian Gulf allies
After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council states were more willing to enter into security arrangements with the United States in the region which had some protector and allies among Iraq and also Iran.
4- Positive regional strategic context
The Arab-Israeli Peace Process has always been the core of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, so after the end of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War, U.S. leaders feel it is able to promote peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. In this process, Dual Containment policy can play an important role. Because if Iran or Iraq or both continue to oppose an Arab-Israeli Peace Process, these countries are further isolated, thereby strengthening the Dual Containment policy (Martin Indyk et al., 1994).
3.9.3 Implementation of the Dual containment policy toward Iran
Compared to Iraq, the strategy of Dual Containment toward Iran was not obvious. In Iran’s case, the most important United States motive for the Dual Containment policy included a desire to prevent the export of the Islamic Revolution to the region and to the world. The U.S. containment of Iran was essentially a passive policy that included a mixture of non-intercourse, economic sanctions, and efforts to limit Iranian relations with third countries (Hunter, 2010, p. 50).
Iran in the Persian Gulf was a main power with a gorgeous culture, long and brilliant civilization, and an aggressive relationship with the U.S. From the American point of view, Iran was a revolutionary state that was engaged in outlaw behavior. Martin Indyk believed that:
Iran is paradoxically both a lesser and greater challenge to our policy; lesser in the sense that Iran today does not pose the threat that Iraq did to our interests some five years ago. And our challenge is to prevent Iran five years from now from becoming the kind of threat that Iraq was five years ago (Martin Indyk et al., 1994, p. 5).
The main reasons of conflict between the American government (Clinton’s administration) regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf region in the view point of Martin Indyk were: first, support of terrorism and throughout the world; second, Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction; third, Iran was acquiring offensive capabilities in the Persian Gulf region that would threaten the GCC states and promote instability among US allies in the Persian Gulf area; fourth, the opposition of the Iranian regime to the Arab-Israeli Peace Process. Finally, Iran’s record of human rights abuses.
On May 6, 1995, President Clinton signed an executive order strengthening the policy of Dual Containment toward Iran. According to this executive order there were imposed some bans on Iran like arms ban, dual use technologies ban, import ban on Iranian products coming into the United States, controls on certain items for export to Iran, and a diplomatic position of blocking all lending to Iran from international financial institutions (Laipson, Sick, & Cottam, 1995). In sum the main purpose of the dual containment policy was to block the transfer of dangerous goods and technologies to Iran and to pressure Iran’s economy by limiting its financial ability to acquire critical materials and fund undesirable overseas activities.
There are some important reasons for the dual containment or Clinton strategy : 1- Clinton administration were afraid of rising terrorist activities regarding against the Middle East peace process that inevitably Iran was at the axis of the charges. 2- There were seen Signs of Iran’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons of mass destruction. 3- United States allies had the expectation that there must not be contradiction between the real policy and current deeds of Clinton’s administration.
3.9.4 Implementation of the Dual containment policy toward Iraq
Some internal and external factors caused Iraqi regime an outlaw state in the international community. Internal factors were such as Brutal repression of Kurds in the north, the Shiites in the south and use of chemical weapons in Kurd city of Halabche in Iraq. External factors were such as use of biological and chemical weapons in his war with Iran, Iraqi invasion to kingdom of Kuwait. However, the UN resolutions and sanctions against Iraq gave this feeling to the Clinton administration that the sanctions are having some effects on Iraqi regime, as Iraq accepted the resolution no.715 of the Security Council that allowed monitoring of its WMD programs for a long time.
U.S. containment of Iraq by contrast of Iran, was different and more active. The Iraqi containments were including United Nations sanctions imposition of no-fly zones over the northern and southern parts of Iraq, also various kinds of sanctions opposed to minimize the relative suffering of the Iraqi people, and attack on targets in Iraq by United States when Iraq violated the no-fly zones. The U.S. invasion of Iraq by the administration of President George H. W. Bush in March 2003, was a direct consequence of the U.S. policy of Dual Containment that was formalized in the administration of President Clinton and was adopted informally in the administration of president George W. Bush. But under President George W. Bush, containment went from passive aggressive to active-aggressive and also this transition in the United States policy was to Iraq and not to Iran (Hunter, 2010).
Some of the Arab conservative member states of the Persian Gulf also had opposing view point regarding to the U.S. containment policy against Iraqi regime. For example Sean Foley in Journal of “Middle East Review of International Affairs” in 1999 states: “In recent years, however, U.S.-UAE relations have deteriorated because the UAE objects to Washington’s policy of containing Iraq and supporting Israel” (Foley, 1999, p. 33). The UAE sheikhdom officials argued that Iraq has “fulfilled most of its obligations to the international community” and that a “militarily strong and united Iraq is needed to balance Iranian power” (Al-Shayeji, 1997). Ruler of the UAE sheikh Zaid believed that Baghdad does not threaten its neighbors, and has referred to the Iraqi sanctions regime as unjust and during the GCC’s conference on December 1997, pushed for breaking sanctions over Iraq with the United States (Gardner, 1998).
Madeleine K. Albright, US secretary of states in December 1998 declared the new stage of Dual Containment against Iraq and said the Washington policy of Dual Containment regarding Iraq had changed to one of “containment Plus regime change” (Priest & schneider, 1999).
3.10 Establishment of the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
3.10.1 Introduction
The [Persian] Gulf cooperation council (GCC) was funded on May 25, 1981 by six coastal Persian Gulf states including: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman. The main common characteristics of the GCC states are: 1) they are all Arab (speak Arabic) and Islamic states; 2) all govern by monarchies or sheikhs; 3) they are all oil producers; 4) they have all lunched programmers of economic development financed by oil revenues 5) they all suffer from labor shortage and use expert and no expert foreigner workers in their economical systems. However there are some disparities between the GCC states, such as their geographical location, oil reserves, production differentials, and the history of inter tribal relations (Troxler, 1987). Since the beginning in 1981, the Persian Gulf cooperation council (GCC) has experienced three major wars: 1) the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), 2) the Operation of Desert Storm, January 16- February 27, 1991) [the Persian Gulf War], and 3) Operation of Iraqi Freedom (March 2003) [US Iraqi liberation war]. In this section it will be analyze the reasons of founding the GCC and also the turnover of the organization among Iran according to U.S. regional policies in contrary of Islamic Republic of Iran.
3.10.2 Previous Efforts for cooperation and alliance
There were a few efforts to create an organization for cooperation and alliance within the Arab community of the Persian Gulf, which are considered as the background of the GCC foundation in 1981. Such of these efforts are: establishment the Gulf Air in 1974, establishing the [Persian] Gulf Organization for Industrial Consultancy (GOIC) in 1976, establishment the [Persian] Gulf News Agency in 1978. On the other hand Political co operations such as; border agreements between the six GCC states and formation of the UAE in 1971 also has been registered in the workbook of the Persian Gulf Arab countries.
One of the first Persian Gulf security plans was promulgated by Iran in 1974. According on this plan the Shah Pahlavi wished to sign a military cooperation agreement to lead all of the conservative sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf region – except Iraq- in a quest for regional dominance but Saudi Arabia disagreed and was willing to establish security arrangements within the Arab “nation”(Chubin, 1982, pp.

پایان نامه
Previous Entries منبع تحقیق درمورد the، of، and، a Next Entries منبع تحقیق درمورد the، of، and، a