Running head: FOREIGN POLICY CONFLICT BETWEEN US AND IRAN 1

Foreign Policy Conflict Between US and Iran

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Date
FOREIGN POLICY CONLICT BETWEEN US AND IRAN

Foreign Policy Conflict Between US and Iran

While many countries have been concentrating on President Donald Trump’s conventions

with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and NATO, tensions are skyrocketing adversely between Tehran

and Washington. Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani has warned the US president not to ‘joke with

the tail of the lion.’ These were the harshest terms ever used by President Rouhani during his

reign to the US. During a gathering of Iranian diplomats, Rouhani added that the US should

understand that peace with Iran is the foundation of all peace under the sun, and war with Iran

means the mother of all wars (Girvan 2017). President Trump sent his response via twitter stating

that never should Iran dare to threaten America again. Recently, Rouhani has threatened that Iran

may be tempted to halt Persian Gulf Oil transportations if anyone dared to stop Iran’s exports.

Literature examines the US – Iran conflict due to foreign policies, the role of both the legislature

and executive in handling conflicts as well as the UN participation in calming the war.

The Iranian president is yet to show any concerns about Iran’s improvement of uranium

or fostering for the closure of the state’s nuclear weapon idea. Many issues both small and great

fight with Iran for attention. Adverse scandals about National Security Agency and Benghazi,

Revenue Service, the federal budget and political standstills over sequestration, Afghanistan, and

Syria are the most concerning issues about Iran. None of these issues is less important.

According to Rocca (2017) in the US – Iran foreign policy conflict, Congress has played a

critical role such as increasing economic pressure and applying sanctions on Tehran as it tries to

advance to a bomb without really crossing the red lines drawn by the US executive. The
FOREIGN POLICY CONLICT BETWEEN US AND IRAN

3
legislative branch of the government has a role of debating nationally over this problem of war

pre-emption.

Congress should take up the issue of Iran with the weight it deserves. The conflict

between the US and Iran is a fraught one that the legislature cannot afford to overlook. The

decision on whether to choose the idea of striking Iran’s nuclear capacities is serious enough that

the current head of executive should not have absolute power to rule over the matter. It is only

the legislature that can debate on favorable terms that might calm the looming war between Iran

and the United States. Arango (2017) posits that while some reformists may imagine that the

application of force could be definitive, short and limited, the history between Iraq to Vietnam to

Kosovo could repeat itself now with a mighty magnitude. Congress need not declare war on Iran.

But it should rather encourage the Whitehouse to go for a resolution strategy that allows the

president to use force in special conditions. Congress should refrain from drafting any formal

declaration of war. Neither should it be debated or voted upon. The rightful role of Congress

should endeavor to prevent a war, not to trigger one.

The legislature needs to be more involved than it has performed in the past concerning

conflicts of such weight. The reason the legislature needs to increase its participation in handling

the conflict between the US and Iran is that a conflict with Tehran could not be limited to initial

American air invasions but Iranian revenge via terrorism. Furthermore, invasions on Persian Gulf

oil wells and shipment or Iran can further increase its activities from Afghanistan to Iraq to

Syria. Such a war might not end painlessly or quickly. Due to that, the American Congress need

to be engrossed in the issue fully and in advance. The only congressional debate can initiate a

harmonious conversation and produce an ultimate consensus (Duncombe 2017).

FOREIGN POLICY CONLICT BETWEEN US AND IRAN

4
The executive branch of the government in America has a significant role to play that can

bring shape in both national foreign affairs. The president should not go to war without explicit

approval by the Congress. The president needs to use the executive powers bestowed on him to

define a prudent course that can end the conflict between the US and Iran. The president can play

a role of lifting sanctions imposed on Iran under his authority. Likewise, the president can

abolish sanctions that were imposed by Congress. The executive needs to bring together peaceful

minded nations to form a coalition that denies Iran all the avenues to a nuclear weapon

(Khodadadi & O’Donnell, 2017). As a result, the assembled nations can then counter the totality

of the malign activities of the regime. The American executive plays an integral responsibility in

calming the wars worldwide; therefore, it should urge the nations of the world to block the

Iranian regime idea of a destabilizing drive for the regional political system.

The executive needs to pump in more efforts in dealing with the issue of Iran. The

executive should direct negotiations between the Us and Iran. Trump has demonstrated that he

believes in his hard lines will be essential in pushing Tehran to seek a harmonious deal with

Washington. In the recent past, Trump has shown signs of wanting to negotiate with President

Rouhani of Iran. Such a move is exemplary and plausible since it aims at fostering world peace.

Rouhani has given powerful statements showing that he is determined to use the unity supported

by the US in making considerable economic solutions including corruption, privatization,

smuggling, and unemployment (Najarzadegan, et al., 2017). This is an indication that more

involvement of US executive into the matter with the aim of ending the conflict could yield

positive results.

The main objective of the United Nations across the world include peace-keeping,

addressing the North-South problem, human and social rights matters. Following the conflict
FOREIGN POLICY CONLICT BETWEEN US AND IRAN

5
between the Washington and Tehran, the UN has been on the forefront in encouraging

Washington to have a consensus talk with Tehran. The peacekeeping agenda of the UN has

geared true supervision of activities of Iran whenever it approaches the Nuclear weapon. The UN

Security Council has threatened to impose mandatory and comprehensive sanctions to Iran if it

does not withdraw from its Uranium program deals. On the same note, the UN has always

encouraged the Whitehouse to apply peaceful models of resolving its acrimonies with Iran. A

significant role of the UN was evident when it managed to influence the US foreign policy to

lower its ultimatums towards Iran. Consequentially, it was vital as it helped in lowering the

tensions of the looming war. Therefore, a hand of the UN in managing countries at loggerheads

is important and should be escalated towards bringing in more force to preach peace worldwide

(Renshon et al., 2018).

It is of the essence that the United Nations and other international organizations

associated with dealing with conflicts such as the one between Washington and Tehran be free of

conditions. It is also important that the UN take part in such wars since it has the expected

experience and audacity in handling conflicts. For instance, the UN has successfully managed

conflicts in Central America by bringing a progressive, peaceful settlement in the region.

Furthermore, the UN should be mandated with ending such conflicts based on its past dealing

especially that of Iran-Iraq that was at first fruitless but eventually the UN secretary General

managed to issue statements that introduced some elements of peace.

In conclusion, having examined the US – Iran conflict due to foreign policies, the role of

both the legislature and executive in handling the conflict as well as the UN participation in

calming the war, it is evident that the two nations should solve their issues through peaceful

negotiations. Katzman (2017) argues that Washington and Tehran are important capitals of the
FOREIGN POLICY CONLICT BETWEEN US AND IRAN

6
universe that any war between these two nations could result in massive killings of humanity.

The legislature arm of the US has a significant position in determining the peace of the world

through lobbying and debating about approaches that the Whitehouse can adopt to end the

conflict in a harmonious way. Congress is an essential arm of the American government, and it is

for the Congress to make or break the world through the kind approvals and declines it debates

about. The UN should be at the center stage of ending world conflicts like this on between the

US and Iran.
FOREIGN POLICY CONLICT BETWEEN US AND IRAN

References

Arango, T. (2017). Iran Dominates in Iraq After US ‘Handed the Country Over.’. New York

Times, 15.

Duncombe, C. (2017). Twitter and transformative diplomacy: social media and Iran–US

relations. International Affairs, 93(3), 545-562.

Girvan, N. (2017). Corporate imperialism: Conflict and expropriation. Routledge.

Katzman, K. (2017). Iran: Politics, Human Rights, and US Policy (No. CRS-RL32048).

Congressional Research Service Washington United States.

Khodadadi, M., & O’Donnell, H. (2017). UK press and tourist discourses of Iran: A study in

multiple realities. Leisure studies, 36(1), 53-64.

Najarzadegan, S., Dabaghi, A., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2017). A critical discourse analysis of Iran

and US presidential speeches at the UN: The sociopragmatic functions. Theory and

Practice in Language Studies, 7(9), 764-774.

Renshon, J., Dafoe, A., & Huth, P. (2018). Leader influence and reputation formation in world

politics. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 325-339.

FOREIGN POLICY CONLICT BETWEEN US AND IRAN

8
Rocca, N. (2017). Iran’s geopolitics in Eurasia after the nuclear deal. Cambridge Journal of

Eurasian Studies, 1, ZHTK8T.