All roads in the conflict between Iran and the United States may not lead to war, but the one both sides are currently on certainly does. The two are at loggerheads, their relationship ossified into a zero-sum strategy that leaves almost no room to maneuver.
Since Israel's security, as the Israelis define it, shapes U.S. strategy toward Iran as much as America’s direct security does, there are rigid limits on what Washington can do or even propose. It is hard enough to reconcile the vital interests of two nations, much less three. Compounding the problem, the United States does not have an integrated and comprehensive Iran strategy, but rather one designed only to address the Iranian nuclear program. Because the United States does not trust the Iranian regime on either nuclear issues or other points of contention, such as Tehran's support for terrorism, it relies solely on sticks like diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions, with no carrots in the diplomatic tool kit. And since the United States knows that once U.N. sanctions targeting Iran are lifted they will not be reapplied, the Obama administration clings tenaciously to them while waiting for concessions from Tehran. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- The Realist Prism: Can Obama Count on ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to Fight Islamic State Group?
- Islamic State Threat Puts Independence on Hold for Iraq’s Kurds
- In Fight Against Islamic State, Iraqi Kurds Are Problematic Partners
- Diplomatic Fallout: Having Tried Hope, Obama Turns to Fear to Reaffirm U.S. Power
- The Realist Prism: Though Politically Attractive, U.S. ‘Train and Equip’ Missions Often Disappoint