President Rouhani's and Ahmadinejad's Administration Foreign Policy in Nuclear Talks - Coursework Example

• Introduction

The governments of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and that of Hassan Rouhani have been perceived to be different in terms of their approach to international policies such as the nuclear deal in which Iran has been interested in developing nuclear energy from uranium. The Western countries such as the United States, European Countries such as Germany, France, Britain, and other global countries such as Australia and China have expressed concerns regarding the ability of Iran to undertake nuclear expeditions responsibly (Tobin, 2015). Both Ahmadinejad and Rouhani have been major contributors to Iran nuclear debate since the idea emerged during their presidency. The existence of conservative political points of views and revolutionary mindset in relation to Iran’s foreign policies has constituted the major pillars of nuclear developments. When Rouhani’s era is compared with that of Ahmadinejad, there is no sign that it was a revolutionary era. This paper explains the foreign policy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the limitations of his foreign policies in relation to nuclear deal with the United States, the foreign policies of Rouhani and his role in signing a deal with the United States that determines the conditions of nuclear exploration in Iran, and the potential political, social, and economic benefits to Iran is it complies with the conditions of the nuclear deal.

• Rouhani’s Administration
• Moderate government

It was believed that Rouhani could become a better President for Iran compared with Ahmadinejad because he was neoliberal and understood the importance of promoting relations with other countries as a measure of achieving economic stability. He understood that strained economic partnership could affect the ability of Iran to promote its industries or improve trade with other countries. Rouhani came from the inner circle of governance in Iran since it was founded but Ahmadinejad was comparatively a neophyte in upper leadership (Samanian, 2013). Therefore, Rouhani was in a better position to promote his relationship with Ayatollah Khomeini. Rouhani had previously held a number of positions such as the official interpreter of the Shia Islam in Iran. Consequently, he had experienced the Islamic Republic’s establishment and had a positive relationship with Khamenei who is more powerful in Iran than the president. Consequently, he was less likely to attempt to grab power in the same manner as Ahmadinejad. The government of Rouhani was believed to be that which will promote relationship with the west and bring an end to the numerous sanctions against Iran in its nuclear ambitions.

• Détente in foreign policy

According to Lake & Rogin (2013), détente in the Iran nuclear deal was reached when Rouhani was elected as the President of Iran. President Obama saw this as an advantage to renew the nuclear talks and lift some of the sanctions against Iran. However, Obama insisted that the negotiations with Iran were not aimed at easing the sanctions, but emphasizing the need for Iran to comply with its international obligations and assuring the world about its ability to conduct nuclear energy exploration in a responsible manner. Previously, Obama had pressured Iran to comply with the US demands by ordering the isolation of Iranian banks from the global financial sector, thus affecting its international commercial activities (Sabet, 2015). There have been little financial pressure on Iran in order to ensure it does not produce a nuclear weapon. A state of détente occurred when changes were made in the Iranian government, by electing officials who were ready to dialogue with the Congress in order to arrive at a consensus regarding the nuclear program. The major forms of sanction reliefs that had been given to Iran included: a slowdown in designation and reduced sanctions against Iranian companies, and the decision of the White House to oppose the sanctions against Iran that were supported by both houses of the Congress. The sales of crude oil in Iran had increased considerably after the election of Rouhani to 150,000 and 200,000 barrels a day, implying that most sanctions on trade had been lifted by the Obama administration. Similarly Tobin (2015) states that President Obama insisted that Iran needed not only to reach a nuclear deal with the US, but also to promote democracy, increase openness to travel among its citizens, and increase chances of the release of its frozen assets which are estimated to be worth $100 billion. The Objective of Obama administration had been to enter into a deal at any price due to his belief that it was the only solution to a new entente with Iran that would result into an end to conflict among its leaders.

• Negotiate with the US after thirty-five years

When Rouhani came to power in 2013, he revived the negotiations with the United States after it was stalled during the reign of Ahmadinejad. Negotiations with Iran had been spearheaded by President Barack Obama and John Kerry. In order to solve the nuclear issue of Iran, the United States considered Iran as a major partner who could contribute to an end to the emergence of Islamic States. According to the Iranian Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, there is a likelihood of a dialogue in relation to regional issues affecting Iran such as nuclear negotiation issues (Lake & Rogin, 2013). The US Secretary of State, John Kerry and Javad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister expressed their optimism that successful implementation of the nuclear deal will create an opportunity for discussion between the US and Iran regarding regional issues. For instance, it would be possible to discuss the Sunni extremisms as well as illegalize Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusrra that cause major global security threats. The cooperation between the US and Iran will promote the resolution of the global social, economic, and political factors contributing to violent extremism in Iran. The deal with the United States also acted as a prospect of reaching a solution to a strained diplomat between the two countries since 1970s when Iranian domestic policies had been obstacles in enabling the success of its relation with the United States.

• Solving Iran nuclear issue

The involvement of Rouhani in talks to resolve the nuclear exploration program resulted into the enactment of the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 which was enacted on July 20th 2015 and presented a schedule for suspending the previously imposed sanctions during Ahmadinejad’s rule, with the promise of re-enacting them if Iran failed to comply with the JOCPA. This agreement requires that Iran should reaffirm that under no circumstance, will it be involved in the production of firearms. Implementation of JCPOA will provide the opportunity for Iran to enjoy the right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful objectives in accordance with the relevant articles in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the programme will be regarded as any other non-weapon programme in the NPT (Haghgoo, Ghaffari Hashjin & Aghaei, 2017). This deal also requires that Iran should not be involved in any research and development (R&D) for the purpose of producing nuclear weapons. The R&D will be conducted in a manner that does not involve accumulation of enriched uranium. When Iran complies adequately with the JCPOA, it will benefit from a lift to sanctions such as: termination of the provisions of the EU regulations, such as sanctions against Iranian entities, persons, and institutions from conducting international transactions. The EU will also promote its commitment to the provision of grants, financial support, and concessional loans for government activities in Iran. It will also result into a lift in the sanctions against Iran by the United States such as lifting of a ban in trade between Iranian banks and those of the U.S. Bilateral trade limitations against Iran will be lifted while there will be increased trade between the US and Iran in exchange of goods, services, information, technology, technical expertise, and oil and petrochemical products.

• Interference from outside of government (Hardliners)

When Rouhani becam the president of Iran, he encountered opposition from hardliners such as religious opposition who lost the elections but have control in key areas of the Iranian economy. Opposition emerges from some of those who contributed to his victory by over 5 million votes who now believe that he may not fulfill his campaign pledges of including women and revolutionist politicians in his cabinet. He has been criticized by opposition leaders of not consulting the Supreme leader, Khamenei in most sensitive decisions affecting Iran despite the existence of this requirement (Haji-Yousefi, 2010). Rouhani has been accused of selling the country to colonizing interests after he signed the multi-billion deal for development of a natural gas exploration fieldwith Total- a French oil company. According to the perceptions of foreign banks and businesses, it has been claimed that Trump administration is more likely to use an aggressive approach in snactioning Iran in case it transgresses the nuclear deal. Some hardliners have recomnded that Rouhani should increase his interaction with the world but should develop a resistance economy that maintains its dignity and Islamic system of governance. In his first term, he spent a significant amount of resources facilitating the nuclear deal, and most domestic issies were not addressed (Sherrill, 2014). There was lack of satisfaction from the hardliners regarding his effort to address the domestic issues. In his second term, he has embarked on addressing the local issues affecting Iran and is likely to face pressure from reformists towards the end of his presidency.

• Ahmadinejad Administration
• Hardliners in the power

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power, he revoked all the restrictions that were placed on Iran in its effort to acquire nuclear capability and labeled them ‘worthless paper’. This involved the ‘Grand Proposal’ that was presented to the United Nations Security Council by Mohammed Khatami, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor after it was established that Iran was involved in a secret nuclear program. In the proposal, it was suggested that Iran should be allowed to undertake the nuclear program under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Zarouni, 2016). It was also proposed that all points of contention between the two nations should be negotiated, such as the support for the Hamas and Hezbollah. This proposal was rejected by President Bush of the United States. There were diplomatic negotiations between Hassan Rouhani, Mohammad Javad Zarif and the European Union (EU3) states –Germany, France, and Britain who were involved in the negotiation on behalf of the United States. In this negotiation, it was decided that Iran should not produce more than 3,000 centrifuges. However, this proposal was rejected by the EU3 states under the pressure from the US. Due to the directive from Ahmadinejad, Iran proceeded with its nuclear program, creating more than 9,000 centrifuges by December 2010. The tone of Ahmadinejad on Presidency was a different one since he denounced the West as implacable entity that opposed Islam and also recruited members of the IRGC into civilian government positions, resulting into an increase in the population of IRGC members in the political scene (Shirazi, Azarbaiejani & Sameti, 2015). His image was that of a simple ‘man of the people’ who opposed the stagnation of a revolution, but promoted moral decadence and corruption. This governance structure was attractive to those who took part in the Iran-Iraq war who were able to retain their status at the expense of the youths in the society. Consequently, there were strong conservative Islamic beliefs in the rural areas, but there was a rise in cynical beliefs about the clerical government. Consequently, Ahmadinejad contributed to a split in the conservatives by separating the old-guard clericals who fought for the revolution with those who possessed few Islamic beliefs. Ahmadinejad denied Holocaust and a crackdown on those who opposed his government such as the Green Movement. This resulted into a deep rift between Iran and other countries such as the United States and the EU nations. A number of sanctions were enacted against Iran that greatly affected its economic development. In the presidential elections of 2009, it was believed that Ahmadinejad would be defeated by his opponent by more than 10 million votes owing to his role in subjecting Iran to economic sanctions and, corruption, international isolation (Nakanishi, 2015). This would mean an embarrassment to a supreme leader such as Ahmadinejad who resolved to commit an electoral fraud. There were high incidences of demonstrations but he mobilized the IRGC to disperse demonstrators who opposed his forceful re-election. Many protesters were tortured and raped while some were detained by the security forces. This resulted into yielding of protesters who recommended that Islamic system should be ended and Ahmadinejad resolved not to make a similar mistake in Iran while empowering the IRGC to silence those who attempted to protest. The forceful seizure of power by Ahmadinejad was highly criticized by the clerics who believed that the incidences of rape resulted into the questionability of the legitimacy of the supreme leader and his ability to reform the Iranian society.

• Sanctions got increase in his government

Ahmadinejad opposed the involvement of the IAEA in monitoring its nuclear programs resulting into a number of sanctions from the UN Security Council such as arms embargo of 2007 which expanded the freezing of Iranian assets, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 which was passed in March 2008 (Haghgoo, Ghaffari Hashjin & Aghaei, 2017). This sanction extended the freezing of assets upon Iran by monitoring its banks, inspecting its ships, and monitoring those who participated in the nuclear program through their territories (Lo, 2014). The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 was passed in June 2010 as a reaction to the determination of Iran to continue with its nuclear program. This sanction banned Iran from involvement in any activity associated with ballistic missiles, increased embargo on the use of firearms, imposed travel bans on those who participated in the program, froze the funds of Iranian evolutionary Guard and prevented the access to financial services for use in nuclear exploration. It was prohibited for Iranian banks to enter into relationships with the UN banks and UN financial offices operating in Iran were prevented from doing so.

• World against Iran

The resistance of Ahmadinejad to cooperate with the United States and P5+1 countries in abandoning the nuclear programme resulted into increased isolation of Iran in many instances. Most countries ended their bilateral relationships with Iran while the number of sanctions was immeasurable (Beall, 2015). The economy of Iran plunged and the financial institutions such as banks incurred high losses. A part from the US and P5+1, other global economic partners isolated Iran in various ways. Australia imposed financial sanctions against Iran and travel bans for Iranians who participated in the nuclear program or contributed to Iran’s defiance to the nuclear deal. Canada banned the trade in property with people of Iranian origin as well as an embargo on arms, oil-processing equipment, and the establishment of Iranian financial institutions in its territory (Lake & Rogin, 2013). India imposed bans such as non-exportation of materials, equipment, technology, and goods that could contribute to the achievement of Iran’s nuclear programmer’s success. Israel banned bilateral trade with Iran and prevented its citizens from travelling to Iran as well as enacting a legislation that penalizes companies that did no obey the sanctions. A number of administrative and regulatory policies were imposed that prevented Israeli companies from participating in trade with Iran as well as the announcement of the establishment of a national directive that enacted the sanctions. Iran’s access to inputs for use in the nuclear programme was greatly affects and the value of its rial depreciated significantly, resulting into panic among the Iranian citizens.

• Comparative Analysis

Both Ahmadinejad and Rouhani have recommended that Iran should be allowed to get a relief from sanctions as a component of negotiations on their nuclear plan. This is illustrated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which recommended that Iran should not be put under international scrutiny. Both Ahmadinejad and Rouhani had the perception that Iran possessed the right to explore its nuclear ambitions. During Rouhani’s talks with the United States in 2005, he believed that movements aimed at promoting democracy of Iran should not be prevented from existence (Beall, 2015). They had not welcomed the National Council of Resistance of Iran which was perceived to contribute to the renouncement of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has been suggested that the policies of Rouhani are similar to those of Ahmadinejad in terms of pressuring Baghdad to murder members of the People’s Mujadedin of Iran (PMOI) in Camp Ashraf and the holding of hostages who were removed to Iran where they were likely to be harmed. Ahmadinejad was rhetoric in the attempt to acquire nuclear capability of Iran (Lake & Rogin, 2013). In a similar manner, Rouhani was consistent in actions aimed at acquiring nuclear capability and persecution of pro-democratic movements. Rouhani also contributed to negotiation with the UN during Ahmadinejad’s presidency when he was the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

The main contrast between Rouhani and Ahmadinejad in relation to nuclear foreign policy is that the former has been more ready to dialogue with the US compared with the latter who used letters of a form of communication of his nuclear demands. Compared with Ahmadinejad, Rouhani had been involved in nuclear negotiations with the United States in a number of occasions in the past. This is illustrated in his campaign in the 2013 presidential elections in Iran where he promised that he would resume talks with international stakeholders regarding the nuclear programme (Samanian, 2013). Due to his previous experience in Iran’s nuclear negotiations with the US, he believed that when he acquired power, he would contribute to a relief on the punitive sanctions that were enacted during the reign of Ahmadinejad. When he won the elections, he expressed his desire to promote the relationship between Iran and other countries, and promote their trust on the safety of Iran in its nuclear programme (Sabet, 2015). He was involved in direct talks with the United States rather than using letters as was the case of Ahmadinejad. Due to direct talks, there were a number of interim deals and conference building efforts that led to the JCPOA.

Rouhani’s negotiating team was more effective than that of Ahmadinejad’s because the former’s team was able to sit down and dialogue with the delegates from the US while the latter’s team only used letters as means of stating its position and demands on the nuclear programme (Tobin, 2015). Rouhani’s delegates were more willing to give up some rights of Iran in order to promote the dialogue with the US and the EU while Ahmadinejad was conservative and did not consider the demands of the West to be significant. Rouhani was more open in dialogue with the West and was involved in face-to-face meetings with American officials in order to resolve the nuclear programme deal.

• Conclusion

The nuclear ambition of Iran is a major factor that contributed to its disagreements with the Western countries and international organizations such as the UN Security Council. It was perceived as an attempt to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that could result into uncertainty regarding global safety. The success of the program was subject to the roles of its presidents in addressing international policies such as compliance with the conditions of its exploration. Ahmadinejad’s administration was more adamant and conservative in addressing the issue compared with Rouhani who was more willing to engage in dialogue with the US. The increase in the number of sanctions against Iraq due to resistance of Ahmadinejad to accept the conditions of production of nuclear energy resulted into many countries declining to trade with Iran as well as enacting sanctions that affected various sectors of its economy. However, the liberal approach of Rouhani in engaging in dialogue with the US has resulted into lifting of many sanctions and it is believed a more suitable solution will be reached in addressing Iran’s nuclear ambition.