Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on policy matters in Iran, assured an audience of thousands of members of the hard-line Basij paramilitary organization that the negotiators would not compromise on Iran’s main nuclear policies.
“I do not interfere in the details of the talks,” Ayatollah Khamenei said in a speech in Tehran. “We will not step back one iota from our rights.”
Iran’s leaders have always emphasized a set of “red lines,” vowing not to stop enrichment, which has been demanded by five United Nations Security Council resolutions. The Iranians also refuse to temporarily halt enrichment.
The Geneva talks are a continuation of an attempt two weeks ago to clinch a deal with Iran that would put a brake on its nuclear program in return for an easing of economic sanctions. American officials say those terms are intended only as a first step to a comprehensive agreement that would remove the risk of Iran’s developing a nuclear weapon.
Those talks failed, in part because France, one of the six world powers conducting the talks, objected that the proposed deal did not d...
The Framing of Negotiator Judgement focuses on how the negotiation is set up. Negotiators must consider the influence of positive versus negative frames. If the sides are able to identify what gains can be made in compromise this deviation could be avoided (Bazerman, 1999, 199). Similarly, the mythical fixed-pie of negotiations describes a win/lose scenario in which it is assumed that one party’s interests directly conflict with the other party 's interests. (Bazerman, 1999, 201). The resolution to this deviation is the ability to find ‘favorable trade-offs between negotiators’ (Bazerman, 1999,
To begin with President Carter immediately ordered for all imports from Iran to be stopped, and 8 million US dollars were frozen in Iran assets (Iran Hostage Crisis). This was an attempt to weaken the economic standpoint of Iran, in hopes to pressure them to give back the hostages. However, Iran went unphased from the economic sanctions placed on them by the United States and its allies (Britannica). Contrary to the United States short term effects, Iran faced significant long term conflicts regarding their global stance. As a request to free the hostages, Iran demanded for the assets to be unfrozen, immunity in all civil cases, and for the US to assure they will not to intervene with Iran’s culture or lifestyle in future affairs. Much to their liking, they closed a deal in which all three requests were meet (Iran Hostage Crisis). In the big picture Iran lost allies and ties to other countries around the world. However from the crisis, they upset the American people and their president, they were never forced to pay for the damages they had done. Because of this incident it left a bitterness between the two countries which still lingers
...hich has been seen in the past as the deals that are struck may prove to be nothing for Iran anyways. United States went into Iraq against the UN. Iran knowing this, would understand that striking the deal with the US may not be in their best interest and can simply play along to their demands, but secretly continue their research and development on nuclear technology. Ultimately, leaving the second option as a reliable one, which is pre-emptive war. The other options give the Iranians too much time and leniency regarding a very big threat, a threat that would be in the hands of a Middle Eastern State in a very unstable surrounding environment known to home anti-western and anti-Jewish radical organizations and people. This is something that would be near impossible to contain considering guerilla warfare and stateless people are very hard to track down and control.
The west, who trusted the Shah to rule Iran safely with the help of CIA trained SAVAK, never picked up on the momentum of the revolution within Iran. They perceived that the Shah had Iran under control and therefore did not intervene until it was too late. The Shah also had a misperception of Khomeini and his revolution. The Shah believed that by exiling Khomeini from Iran, he had taken care of any threat Khomeini posed. He was oblivious to the fact, however, that Khomeini had been establishing himself and nurturing anger towards the Shah ever since the White Revolution, sending cassette tapes into Iran from his exile in Paris with his preachings. With these tapes, Khomeini inspired demonstrations and unrest within Iran until the Shah was forced to abdicate in 1979. Finally, Khomeini also perpetuated a misperception that the groups of the opposition, including the bazarris, the peasants, and the Ulema, had the same goals and complaints. This perception unified the opposition under an ambiguous banner whose broad definition promoted inclusion and
The Majlis’s committee lead by the Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq disagreed on how the Western nation’s company, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) was profiting off of the oil and decided to nationalize the oil. On May 3, 1951, the Shah signed a bill nationalizing oil to end Great Britain's ownership of the oil industry. Great Britain enraged by the decision prohibited exportations of trade goods from Iran in September 1951. Great Britain also banned Iranian oil causing devastation to Iran’s economy. The effects of Great Britain’s displeasure caused The Shah to turn against Mossadeq and the people of Iran. The Central I...
The history of the US’s relationship with the UN is complex, seeming to vacillate between warm cooperation and abject disdain as the national interests of the US and the rest of the world, and the short- and long-term interests of the US itself, align or oppose each other. The UN was originally the vision of US president Franklin Roosevelt and the product of US State Department planning and diplomacy. It was designed to forward the national interests of its strongest members, the P-5, to reflect and channel the geopolitical power structure rather than twist it into an unnatural and unsustainable hierarchy of weak nations trying to dominate strong. Because the Charter is based in a realist view of the world, during the Cold War, when the national interests of the two world powers diverged, the UN was paralyzed to deal with any of the world’s conflicts. When the Cold War ended it gave rise to the first war that should have been authorized by the Security Council—the Persian Gulf War from later 1990 to early 1991. Many hoped for a “new world order” after the success of the Gulf War, but the interests of the US and the rest of the world, primarily the rest of the members of the Security Council, soon divided again. Today, the world is still struggling to cope with the blow dealt to the UN by the US’s use of force in Iraq, including the US, which has not even begun to feel the long-term negative effects of its unilateralism. However, the war in Iraq could have been less detrimental to the UN and the US in particular, and by extension to the rest of the world, if the US had argued that it was acting to uphold resolution 1441 under the authorization of the Security Cou...
In the book Arms and Influence by Thomas Schelling, he points out that when diplomacy and bargaining are taking place, there has to be a common interest, even if the common interest is to avoid mutual damage. In order for bargaining to work, there must be “An awareness of the need to make the other party prefer an outcome acceptable to oneself” (Schelling 1). In much of the language reported from Iran, however, it does not appear that Iran is willing to negotiate, maybe because it does not feel that damage will be inflicted by not bargaining. Iran may be correct. Unless Iran openly inflicts violence on another country, it may be able to develop its nuclear arms and continue to make threats in spite of what other countries have tried to force Iran to do. This opinion seems surprising considering that Iraq was invaded and Saddam Hussein taken down, even though the nuclear threat from Iraq was not as clear as the nuclear threat coming from Iran. But as argued by Ivo Daalder (2006), the cont...
Maghen, Z. (2009, January). Eradicating the "Little Satan": Why Iran Should Be Taken at Its
Western powers and Iran have had rocky relations for a long time, both holding deeply seeded resentment for the other that dates back much farther than the reign of current rulers from either side. The bad blood between a theocratic Iran and democratic West have been cause for much turmoil for regimes in Iran as they strive to industrialize while at the same time rejecting Western democratic ideals that, in the course of history, accompany long term economic growth. The political culture of Iran is a result of many years of distrust of American and European powers and thus is very much anti-Western, political and clerical leaders have for decades used this sentiment as means to maintain power and reject democratic reforms. It is the political culture of Iran and the culture of fierce Iranian and Islamic nationalism that has slowed much of the democratic development in the country.
This report examines the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed upon on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the P5+1, which includes the U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia and Germany. The agreement fosters a temporary solution in which the P5+1 removed crippling economic sanctions in return for the cease of Iran’s nuclear development. Great powers recognize the threat that Iran poised to the universal vital interest of worldwide peace and established sustainable international relationships to maintain leverage over Iran. However, the JCPOA contains deficiencies that challenge long term restrictions and inhibit the enforcement of implications upon Iran for violations. First, the sunset clause, “Permits critical nuclear, arms, and ballistic
I grew up in a different world from most people. One would call it a different society if one wanted to. The name of this society is the United Nation of Islam; we called it the UNOI for short. Many people might wonder if I was part of a utopia. The answer depends on how one views the world. I viewed it from a whole different perspective. It was very different from how I am living my life today. Whenever I begin to tell people about my experiences with UNOI, they automatically think I’m a Muslim. This group originated from a Muslim Group, but I wasn’t considered a Muslim. Being a part of the Nation shaped me into the person I am today.
...that it will not accept a future in which Iran--its Shiite, Persian rival--has nuclear weapons and it does not” (Allison). If many more countries create nuclear weapons, the world could be in danger of a nuclear war just like it was during the Cold War.
Their interests were well underlined. Indeed, concerning the investment question, the French site was really favourable as it is situated in the "villes nouvelles", which went only through one authority called EPA (Etablissements Public d'Aménagement). This element is crucial for the duration of the negotiation. In fact, the more intermediaries there are, the longer the negotiation will be.
Fifty-one countries established the United Nations also known as the UN on October 24, 1945 with the intentions of preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. Over the years the UN has grown in numbers to include 185 countries, thus making the organization and its family of agencies the largest in an effort to promote world stability. Since 1954 the UN and its organizations have received the Nobel Peace Prize on 5 separate occasions. The first in 1954 awarded to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, for its assistance to refugees, and finally in 1988 to the United Nations Peace-keeping Forces, for its peace-keeping operations. As you can see, the United Nations efforts have not gone without notice.