Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Utilizing Watzlawick, Bavelas, and Jackson's interactionist approach to human communication, I analyze the foreign policy issues plaguing the situation between the US and Iran. I end the paper with a discussion of possible interventions in the dysfunctional system of interactions that characterizes US foreign policy with Iran.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program has come to the forefront of international security concerns since 2000. In the recent past, Iran has admitted to having uranium enrichment program, alarming the international community, especially the United States. Its weapons drive has been examined by scholars and policy-makers and most believes that the country is motivated to acquire nuclear weapons for security purposes. While this remains the primary driving force, no one has examined why Iran, in the absence of a hostile Iraq after Saddam Hussein?s rule, still chooses to keep its nuclear weapons option alive and in fact remains more focused on the weapons program. Thus, this paper addresses the question: what drives Iran to relentlessly move on with its nuclear weapons program in a less-hostile regional environment? I argue that although prestige?both regional and international?is a salient variable in Iran?s nuclear drive, its hostility with the United States remains the major causal factor for its proliferation activities. Iran?s protracted conflict with the United States started since the end of the Shah period and the Islamic revolution in the country in 1979. During this period, Iran?s leaders perceived the United States as the principal enemy of the Islamic states which supported their main enemy-Israel. Thus, in addition to having two protracted conflicts since the late 1940s and early 1950s with Israel and Iraq respectively, Iran developed a new protracted conflict with the US in 1979. Since then Iran had three enemies?Iraq, Israel, and the US?for the next 27 years. Although Iraq and Israel?s nuclear weapons programs alarmed Iran and the Islamic Republic became anxious to develop a deterrent capability against Iraq with whom it fought one of the longest wars in the region, and Israel, whose existence in the Middle East Iran denies, the pace of its nuclear weapons program was relatively slow till 2000. With the US administration taking aggressive foreign policies towards Iran since 2000, the latter?s security concern intensified. The Bush administration?s declaration of Iran as part of the ?axis of evil? states severely threatened and humiliated Iran; the threat exacerbated with the administration?s war on Iraq on the pretext that it was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. A society that was and still is split on many of the important domestic issues including democratization, modernization, and westernization, the Iranians remained united on the issue of nuclear weapons acquisition after the war on Iraq. US? decision to attack Iraq without the approval of the United Nations proved that in the absence of a nuclear deterrent capability, Iran would soon be in the same position as Iraq and would be the US? next target in the Middle East for being one of the ?axis of evil? states. Consequently, Iran became relentless in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons and boldly announced its decision to enrich uranium so that the US is not confused about its possession of the nuclear capability. Improved and non-aggressive US policies towards Iran, which can be instrumental to ending the prolonged Iran-US conflict, can convince Iran to renounce its nuclear weapons ambition.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper explores the role of values in diplomatic discourse between Iran and the United States and suggests that the inability for these two countries to successfully negotiate is impeded by contrasting conceptions of the abstract value "national security." In order to achieve this objective this essay distinguishes how both countries develop contrasting concrete values in their argumentation over the issue of nuclear proliferation and when combined provide competing alternatives for an abstract value such as national security.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Traditionally (in the past two hundred fifty years or so, caught between the extensive influence of United Kingdom and Russia, Iranian statesmen felt unable to steer a constructive foreign policy whereby the interests of Iran would not be undermined by those of the outside powers. British interests in India and the Russian turbulent foreign relations both required a weak Iran that was already experiencing a decline in the Qajar dynasty. To counterbalance the influence of UK and Russia in Iran, Iranians tried to introduce third countries in Iran thereby challenging the dominance of London and Moscow in Iranian affairs. In particular three premiers, Ghaem Magham, Amir Kabir and Ghavam made fantastic efforts to that end with varying degrees of success. This paper aims to outline their efforts, drawing patterns wherever possible and explain the behaviour of UK and Russia in resisting the change in Iran's foreign policy. It will also be noted that the battle between the then Iranian 'reformists' in foreign policy and the outside interests may be explained paradigmatically. In conclusion Iran's current foreign policy issues and the approach adopted by the Iranian establishment will form the core of discussion.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: With a growth in unwanted population movements, refugees are increasingly heard as a challenge to the integrity and security of both the sending and hosting states. In many cases, mass movements are frequently employed as foreign-policy tools and refugees have become instruments of warfare and military strategy. Armed exiles have been used instrumentally as 'freedom fighters' and guerrillas to engage in wars of resistance on all continents, and international assistance to refugee in some cases serves to sustain armed rebel movements. Harboring large numbers of refugees also influences domestic politics, particularly in the developing world. Mass arrival put heavy economic troubles on the country of asylum, which often lead to political instability and strong pressures on the government to restrict immigration. The increase in refugee pressures has led to ever-tighter restrictions on the entry of refugees into states fearful of creating ethnic conflict within their own borders and of possible nationalist reaction against asylum-seekers. A climate of fear, disbelief and bitterness has influenced popular reactions not only to refugees, but also to economic migrants. Western publics are concerned that mass migration will threaten communal identity and culture by directly changing the ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic composition of the population and integrity of their countries. There are many ways in which refugee problems are closely connected to local, regional and international stability and the behavior of international relations today that is going to be a greater concern in the 21st century. Although it is obvious that refugee and security issues are closely linked and do not often command the attention of high level policy-makers, the nature of the security threat created by refugee problems is frequently outside the usual reach and response capacity of defense and foreign ministries. The military force operation and the creation of security alliances are largely irrelevant to such non-military threats to security, and different institutions, techniques and forms of international cooperation are needed to deal with them. What is required are new and innovative approaches towards conflict resolution, external assistance and domestic controls. In the long run, the only effective way of dealing with the problem is to address systematically the conditions that create such movements. In my paper, I would like to highlight major concerns that were dealt with the refugees in Iran and emphasis on how the Iranian government coping with the refugee question over the past two decades or so. Moreover, to describe experiences relevant to the international community's efforts to construct plans and put together more efficient ways of dealing with refugee phenomenon and to draw attention to the vital status of the significant contributions that developing countries willing to make to this issue, one such as Iran.