Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
Volume:4 Issue: 1, Spring 2013

Trust and its implications in international relations in general, and in conditions of longterm conflict and hostility between opposing states, has been the subject of considerable scholarly attention and debate in recent years. This study addresses the issue of trust in shaping U.S.-Iran relations in general, and in affecting a myriad of complex issues and interactions between the two states, including its role in framing direct or multilateral negotiations on the nuclear issue. The paper situates the discussion of trust in the context of international relations theories and examines the divergent views and approaches of both countries towards trust, the extent of their risk taking in “costly signaling”, and both states’ attitudes and behavior while engaging in both “prisoners’ dilemma” and the “assurance game”. It is argued that Iran''s approach towards conflict resolution and overcoming the challenge of mistrust is generally driven by its “strategic culture” of being a “security seeker” which favors playing an “assurance game”. The incongruency between the U.S''s and Iran''s strategic cultures and thus the U.S. tendency towards “prisoners'' dilemma” in mistrusting conditions constitutes a foundational obstacle in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy and negotiations between the two countries.The study thus illustrates the complex and significant connection between trust and the U.S. and Iranian strategic cultures, introducing the concept of natural hubris in U.S. foreign policy identity and its ramifications for the dynamics of trust, and finally, what is termed here the effective balance between the two states.

The advent of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 significantly worsened Iran-U.S. relations. Although this relationship has been founded upon hostility ever since, the 1984-86 period can be mentioned as one when relations between the two actors were exempt to the rule, with both sides trying to establish unofficial relationships. This article seeks to explore the reasons for U.S. proximity to Iran during those years and to answer the following question: Why did the United States pursue rapprochement with Iran in 1984-86 in spite of hostility and negative space found between the two states? The hypothesis which is proposed in this writing revolves around the discussion of fear of Communist influence in Iran; a fear that made the United States devise a plan for approaching Iran. This ultimately resulted in the Iran-Gate or Iran-Contra affair. In other words, this research seeks to test the following hypothesis: Fear of Communist influence in Iran led the United States to approach Iran in the 1984-86 period.

The main question this paper seeks to answer is what the legal and political This paper studies the film Argo which narrates the historical event of the escape of six U.S. diplomats from Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis and the Iranophobia and Islamophobia presented in the film. It also examines the film Slumdog Millionaire and the role of Muslim slum dwellers and their petty and thoughtless lives as well as the film Avatar which narrates the conflict between human beings and native people on the Planet Pandora, where humans exploit the land and suppress the natives as mirrors of the Neo-Orientalist approach towards Iranians, Indian Muslims and Easterners through the Western media. Although avoiding the uses of white bodies for forcing their central storyline and lacking the labels of ‘colonialist’ or ‘racist’, they show traces of a Western superior culture. All three movies have a potential for so-called humanism, Argo by depicting Western stereotypes about Iran and Iranians, Slumdog Millionaire by framing slums as useless spaces that are worlds of their own, and Avatar representing colonization by means of Orientalism through a scientific approach and war. However, underpinning all three films are Orientalist stereotypes about Iranians, Muslim slum-dwellers, and Easterners which are wrapped in the sentiment of Neo-Orientalism by the New Media.

In today’s world, a country’s portrayal and prestige in public opinion is more important than before, essentially contributing to the failure or success of its policies. From this perspective, many states have considered efforts at influencing and shaping public opinion in recent years. The United States is among those which pay utmost attention to this issue, pursuing its activities within the framework of public diplomacy. In recent years, a change in mindsets in the Middle East is viewed as one of Washington''s public diplomacy goals. Iran also has a few plans for introducing the Islamic Revolution’s model to the world and influencing global public opinion. Given religious, cultural and geographical commonalties, Iran pays special attention to the peoples of the Middle East. This paper seeks to compare public diplomacy employed by Iran and the United States in the region, raising the question of which has been more successful. This comparison particularly refers to certain key aspects of the public diplomacy of the two nations, including their goals, audience, sources of soft power, instruments and degree of success.

Rivalry between different Islamic views is an old issue that the recent developments in the Middle East have revived in a more acute manner. Irrespective of the views considering economy, nationalism, civil war, democratization, etc. as the main cause of these developments, this article posits that Islamism is the main cause of recent developments in the Middle East. Accordingly, four different models are studied: Neo-Ottomanism, Salafi–Takfiris divided into Salafi-Courtiers and Salafi-Jihadis, Egypt''s Muslim brotherhood, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. These four models are the most important rival Islamic views with distinct attitudes towards Islam. Now, the question is which model is more apt at influencing the recent developments in the Middle East? The main hypothesis of this article is that among these models, the only suitable ones are those capable of responding to demands regarding democratization that enjoy two characteristics: accepting the political status of Islam and the flexibility of political action. As a result, this article first explains the nature and attitude of each views regarding Islam. Then, given the above hypothesis, the ability of these models in responding to demands for democratization in the region is evaluated. The finding is that among the above models, the Islamic Republic of Iran has a more logical capability to establish a link between wisdom and faith to influence the developments in the Middle East.

This article tries to explain the Islamic Republic of Iran’s foreign policy towards the Middle East during the first decade of its existence in the framework of the strategy of maximizing revolutionary influence. The goal of this strategy is to pressure the revolution and the new political system by expanding the revolution''s borders and creating a favorable regional environment for the survival of the Islamic Revolution and its expansion. This article tries to answer the question of what were the most important factors contributing to the introduction, continuation and decline of the strategy of maximizing revolutionary influence in the I.R.I''s foreign policy in the related period, drawing upon the conceptual potentials and elements of neo-classical realism to explain this strategy. It also seeks to study the different dimensions and changes of this strategy. Along these lines, it argues that the structure and developments of the international and regional systems have been the independent variables contributing to the introduction, continuation and decline of the strategy of maximizing revolutionary influence in the I.R.I''s foreign policy towards the Middle East. However, the impact of these variables on foreign policy has been carried out through intermediating variables of domestic policy such as ideology, identify of the new political system, leaders'' perception of developments and capability of mobilizing resources along with the goals of foreign policy.

Iran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as an observer member in 2005 and the year after applied for full membership. This application raised debates among SCO members, inside Iran and outside this organization in international politics. In the positive side, Iran''s geostrategic importance and huge energy resources give impetus to SCO members. On the negative side, Iran’s challenge with the West, nuclear in particular, discourages SCO members to accept Iran at this juncture because they hesitate to pretend that they are standing against United States and the West. This article studies these debates in the theoretical framework of neo-realism and examines these events through historical analysis and according to their historical context. Considering the current international environment, membership of Iran in the SCO seems remote and very much depends, on the one hand on future progress of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear dossier, and on the other hand on relations between SCO members and the West.