What's New in US-Iranian relations?

What's New in US-Iranian relations? 



2/5/16

After American sailors were arrested in Iranian territorial waters, speculation arose about the content and the implications of this development. The sailors were released after less than 12 hours. And a few days later, was the lifting of international sanctions under the nuclear agreement between Iran and the six-party group after the support of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the work of Iran's obligations according to the agreement. 

It also announced a deal to exchange prisoners between Iran and the United States, which launched five Americans in Iran in exchange for the release of Washington seven Iranians were arrested on charges of helping Tehran to circumvent international sanctions and unilateral.
After application of the nuclear deal a week, it flew an Iranian reconnaissance aircraft overflew the USS "Harry Truman." Clearly, the stagnant waters of US-Iranian relations have not moved so quickly for decades, but it is the question about the possibility of change in the bilateral relations and the effects of salt in front of a researcher who follow regional developments.
"Besides the nuclear deal and the prisoner swap deal and previous Kanjazan important, Iran has launched experimental missiles like the past and stopped the American sailors and dealt firmly with any development that could set new precedent in the extent of the independence of its strategic options."
Comes the question about the possibility of improvement in bilateral relations after the start of the application of the nuclear deal in the foreground. Needless to say, noting that history still weigh this relationship, Vasagat certified team and the support of the Shah in front of his opponents through supporting Iraq in its war against Iran and imposed severe economic sanctions and others, are still vivid in the memory of Iran.
In contrast, the American spoke wryly about the taking of hostages and the threat of Iran to Israel's security and standing in front of the US policies in the Middle East crisis, as parts can not be overlooked at any development in the relationship with Tehran. Krasm and history of the image has an impact racing reality sometimes, so despite the fact that meaningful negotiations that ended with the signing the nuclear agreement has significantly influenced the historical picture of the two sides, the effect of history still determines many of the developments.
Many Iranians researchers, Americans and Arabs different outcome of the nuclear deal has been speculated on the relationship of Iran and the international community, are all involved in one thing: the inevitability of a change compared to the past. But the level and direction of change are foothold dispute.
To understand this change, we can track the US and Iranian policy through the above developments, the US government found in the nuclear file negotiations a party can work with him. Thus, the picture appeared in the conversations of both President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry more than once. Therefore, President Obama sent his letters known to the Iranian leadership. However, the US administration is still talking about Iran from the perspectives of containment on the one hand and the handle on the other. 
In addition to signing the agreement, the US administration justified its command to critics at home and abroad that it comes in the context of containing Iranian nuclear threat. As for Iran, much careful in dealing with the United States, and saw in the Obama administration a new American reality looking for serious change out a policy of "regime change" usual. Therefore, Tehran has dealt with Washington At framework to deal with the international community are different ways completely usual in the past decades. However, the Iranian required differs radically from the US is required in many of the files.
Apart from the reasons for entering Iran's nuclear negotiations, which differed around the observers, there is a clear policy of Iran in careful steps towards the international community: to maintain the strategic decision of Iran away from the influence of any US after the nuclear deal.
So, along with the nuclear deal and the prisoner swap deal and previous Kanjazan important, Iran has launched experimental missiles like the past and stopped the American sailors and dealt firmly with any development that could set new precedent in the extent of the independence of the strategic choices.
So, we're about bilateral Iranian collectively form Tehran's policy towards the international community (the United States). On the one hand it can work with the international community and reach an agreement with him to end the sanctions restrict and define the Iranian nuclear program, on the other hand must packets with any issue that could affect the independence of Iran on the strategic level. In this sense, did not come out -omn difficult to predict Boukroj- Iranian policy toward the United States and the international community has identified strategic frameworks that mental Iran before the signing of the nuclear deal.
"America looking for two parallel: the involvement of the major powers in the burden of the transitional phase in the Middle East and elsewhere, and focus on building a regional balancing involve regional player in the burdens of regional crises and shrinking the level of strategic rivalry and negative projections on Washington's policy in the region."
Nevertheless, the fear many regional states of the American Iranian rapprochement and calculated that it is inevitable, Resentment of the Arab ruling elites in the iPad's comments, especially in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE.
Despite intensive Iranian messages on the lack of linkage between Iran's regional policy and nuclear file, the Arabs still skeptics in this highly mobile messaging number. It is questioning some of these countries entered the ready for any development in Washington's regional policy from its relationship with Tehran angle phase.
For example, the idea began to inflate the "Iranian threat" to regional peace and security. This fear of the speech to scare Western countries, "the Iranian threat" to the process -lazaar policies seriousness of this Almkhaov- to cut off Iranian-Saudi relations after the attack on the Saudi Embassy has emerged, despite the ruling elites meeting in Tehran on the profile and the initiation of punishing emitters him and accepted full responsibility for actions about him.
And intimidation of Iran liberated from the UN sanctions restrictions only part of the picture. The other part comes in the context of trying to push the United States to compensate for the acceptance of the nuclear deal, it was this agreement will increase Iran's regional power by this vision, for the United States, therefore, that to balance this force (Saudi Arabia, for example). So complete intimidation of Iran's policy.
This policy has been built on two assumptions are difficult to build them: The first is that the Arab countries not to accept the nuclear deal was a stumbling block in the regional strategy for Washington. This hypothesis was amplified error, Washington has not let the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to Camp David only after it had become a nuclear agreement with Tehran just around the corner from the signature, and the confirmation of the US president on Washington's commitment to support its allies in this meeting only message I want her to reduce slippage these countries towards Russia and China first, and Ttminha sell larger quantities of arms II.
The second hypothesis is that the United States has begun to get out of the Middle East policy of the framework of the regional balance of power tipped to Iran, which is the wrong perception Ktsour leaving Washington, the Middle East to focus on the rise of Chinese power. In the final estimate, all you can get it by the amplifying "the Iranian threat" is already available: larger quantities of arms.
Apart from the Arab impressions, we can not arrive at an accurate perception about the developments of the Iranian-American relations without focusing on the change in the international context. When verbosity in world politics and in the framework of monitoring the US view of the Middle East, one would come to the four results:
1. constitute the most important developments of the global system based on any development that appears in Washington's policy in the Middle East and other regions.
2. We are in a transitional phase in the global system strong transition from a unipolar who finished or nearing completion system to a multipolar system.
3. The United States was looking to move or stop the lengthening standing as much as possible, and load burdens on emerging poles in the global system.
4. The United States views the Middle East as the burden can not get rid of it, so it must involve emerging world powers in carrying this burden on the one hand, the introduction of influential regional players in the management of crises on the other. 
So we are about the global evolution, and the preoccupation with the purely regional Basagatath only summarize the analysis in the framework lacks precision. In light of this global evolution of the United States was looking at two parallel: The first is the involvement of the major powers in the burden of the transitional phase in the Middle East and elsewhere, and the second is to focus on building regional balancing involve the player levels in the burden of regional crises on the one hand, reduced the level of strategic rivalry and projections negative effects on Washington's policy Middle East on the other.
"Although the nuclear deal and the prisoner swap deal, Tehran appears keen to show the distance between them and Washington launched missiles and reconnaissance aircraft and other behaviors. And will continue this strategic Iran's behavior, it is difficult to expect a sudden change in it. "
In contrast, Iran does not put itself in a strategic framework drawn by the United States. And considers Tehran to change Washington's policy a chance to curb the recent hostility, while at the same time distancing itself from entering into regional or global game and Washington.
So Iran is likely to work with Russia and China and the EU to work with the United States in order to defend the independence of its strategic decision. Therefore, despite the nuclear deal and the prisoner swap deal, Tehran appears keen to show the distance between them and Washington launched missiles and reconnaissance aircraft and other behaviors. And will continue this strategic Iran's behavior, it is difficult to expect a sudden change in it.
Therefore, the Iranian foreign policy has seen no quantum leap, but he was in Tehran's regional priorities, which is now focused in the post-nuclear agreement on the fight against extremism, according to the Iranian vision, of course, the bulk of the change.
In general we can say that the Iranian-American relationship is still continuing the same previous frame the nuclear deal, but we are in a new phase certainly strong drop the Washington military option against Tehran's nuclear program as a result of the agreement.
This change, which could be the greatest promise in US-Iranian relations for four decades, have formed an important element in pushing the nuclear deal. However, this change did not lead to change Iran's strategy in dealing with the United States (international level) or in its Middle East policy (regional level).
Everything that happened on the part of Iran was in response to a change in the international climate over its nuclear program and the possibility of ending the crisis without freezing the entire program. All that the owner of that came after him is not a departure from the ordinary, and did not reflect a sudden change, as some call it pleases.


 http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sandbox=0&sl=ar&tl=en&u=http://www.faceiraq.com/inews.php%3Fid%3D4568525&usg=ALkJrhhioREb4WObeDDQZbqxCJxH8Q34Rw