Search

The article presents the report "Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses" released by the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) as of March 2, 2012. Topics discussed include Iran being identified as a threat to the U.S. national security, by U.S. President Barack Obama, Iran being accused by the U.S. officials for helping Syria's leadership, and international coalition by the Obama's administration to pressure Iran through economic sanctions.

The article discusses the concerns of the U.S. on Iran as a threat to its interests in national security and its policy responses. It reviews the political history of Iran, the structure of the regime, the presidential elections, the Qods Force and Revolutionary Guard as well as human rights practices in the country. It also notes the Iranian Nuclear Program, the foreign policies of the country, the U.S. approach and military action and the Gulf Security Dialogue (GSD).

The Obama Administration views Iran as a major threat to U.S. national security interests, a perception is generated not only by Iran's nuclear program but also by its military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Palestinian group Hamas, and to Lebanese Hezbollah. Particularly in its first year, the Obama Administration altered the previous U.S. approach by expanding direct diplomatic engagement with Iran's government and by offering Iran's leaders an alternative vision of closer integration with and acceptance by the West. To try to convince Iranian leaders of peaceful U.S. intent, the Obama Administration downplayed discussion of potential U.S. military action against Iranian nuclear facilities and repeatedly insisted that it did not seek to change Iran's regime. It held to this position even at the height of the protests by the domestic opposition "Green movement" that emerged following Iran's June 12, 2009, presidential election. Iran's refusal to accept the details of an October 1, 2009, tentative agreement to lessen concerns about its nuclear intentions-coupled with its crackdown on the Green movement-caused the Administration, in 2010, to shift toward building multilateral support for strict economic sanctions against Iran. The Administration efforts bore fruit on June 9, 2009 when a U.N. Security Council was adopted (Resolution 1929) that required countries to take a number of significant steps against Iran, including banning major arms sales to Iran, and authorized a number of additional significant steps. During July-September 2010, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and other countries announced multilateral sanctions against Iran that use much of the authorities of Resolution 1929, and which also supports elements of U.S. legislations passed in June 2010 (the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, P.L. 11-195). Still, the Administration and its partners assert that these sanctions are intended to pave the way for successful diplomacy with Iran to limit its nuclear program. Many observers assess that the U.S., U.N., and other "national" sanctions enacted since mid-2010 are pressing Iran economically. However, because the sanctions have not and might not cause Iran to fundamentally alter its commitment to its nuclear program, the Administration reportedly has revived deliberations of possible military action to try to set Iran's nuclear program back. Other options include methods to contain Iran if it does become a nuclear armed power. Some believe that only domestic opposition in Iran, which in late 2009 appeared to pose a potentially serious challenge to the regime's grip on power, may provide a clear opportunity to reduce the potential threat of a nuclear Iran. Obama Administration officials appear to believe that the opposition's prospects are enhanced by a low U.S. public profile on the unrest. Congressional resolutions and legislation since mid-2009 show growing congressional support for steps to enhance the opposition's prospects. Others maintain that the prospects for the domestic opposition, which has been largely absent from the streets in 2010, are poor, and that other options are fraught with risks, and that the Administration should return to a focus on reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. For further information, see CRS Report RS20871, Iran Sanctions; CRS Report R40849, Iran: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy; and CRS Report RL34544, Iran's Nuclear Program: Status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents report titled "Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses" by the U.S. Congressional Research Service as of September 22, 2010. Topics discussed include Iran as a major threat to U.S. national security interests, Iran's refusal to accept the details of an October 1, 2009, tentative agreement to lessen concerns about its nuclear intentions and overview of the U.S. President Barack Obama Administration Policy for military.

The article focuses on a report related to the U.S. foreign policy towards Iran, released by the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CSR) as of December 7, 2009. Topics discussed include views of U.S. President Barack Obama Administration towards Iran as a treat to the U.S. national security interests, Iran's nuclear program and its military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iranian Policy in Iraq.

The Bush Administration characterized Iran as a profound threat to U.S. national security interests, a perception generated primarily by Irans nuclear program and its military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Palestinian group Hamas, and to Lebanese Hezbollah. The Bush Administrations approach was to try to prevent a nuclear breakout by Iran by applying multilateral economic pressure on Iran while also offering it potential cooperation should it comply with the international demands to suspend its enrichment of uranium. The incorporation of diplomacy and engagement into the overall U.S. strategy led the Administration to approve the participation of a high-level State Department official at multilateral nuclear talks with Iran on July 19, 2008. To strengthen its approach, the Bush Administration maintained a substantial naval presence in the Persian Gulf, which U.S. commanders insist would prevent any Iranian attempts to close the crucial Strait of Hormuz for any extended period. President Obama has said his Administration shares the goals of the previous Administration on Iran and Secretary of State Clinton has said she shares the perception that Iran is trying to undermine many U.S. goals in the Middle East but Obama Administration officials say that there is need for new strategies and approaches. First and foremost, according to President Obama, is to look for opportunities to expand direct engagement with Iran. His Administration also appears to be de-emphasizing potential U.S. military action, although without ruling that out completely, and efforts to promote democracy in Iran. Yet, there is debate among experts over whether such shifts would yield clearer results. The policy decisions come as Iran enters its run-up to June 12, 2009 presidential elections, which, now that former President Mohammad Khatemi and other reformists have entered the race, might produce more moderate leadership in Iran. The multilateral efforts to pressure Iran include three U.N. Security Council resolutions (1737, 1747, and 1803) that ban weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-related trade with Iran; freeze the assets of Irans nuclear and related entities and personalities; prevent Iran from transferring arms outside Iran; ban or require reporting on international travel by named Iranians; call for inspections of some Iranian sea and airborne cargo shipments; and call for restrictions on dealings with some Iranian banks. Further U.N. Security Council sanctions have been under consideration. Separate U.S. efforts to persuade European governments to curb trade, investment, and credits to Iran; and to convince foreign banks not to do business with Iran, are beginning to weaken Irans economy, compounding the effect of a sharp drop in oil prices since mid-2008. Bills in the 110th Congress, including H.R. 1400, S. 970, S. 3227, S. 3445, H.R. 7112, H.Con.Res. 362, and S.Res. 580 versions of which might be introduced in the 111th Congress would tighten U.S. sanctions on Iran. This report is updated regularly. For further information, seeCRS Report RS20871, The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), by Kenneth Katzman, CRS Report RS22323, Iran's Activities and Influence in Iraq, by Kenneth Katzman, and CRS Report RL34544, Irans Nuclear Program: Status, by Paul K. Kerr. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the Administration's "National Security Strategy" document released on March 16, 2006, the United States "may face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran." That perception continues, generated primarily by Iran's nuclear program and intensified by Iran's military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Lebanese Hezbollah. U.S. officials also accuse Iran of refusing to bring to justice several senior Al Qaeda activists in Iran. In part to direct regional attention to that view but also to engage Iran on an Iraq solution, the Administration attended regional conferences on Iraq on March 10, 2007, and May 3-4, 2007, both attended by Iran (and Syria), and subsequently held bilateral meetings with Iran in Baghdad on May 28 and July 24, agreeing in the latter meeting to form a working group on Iraq security issues, which met for the first time on August 6. The Bush Administration is pursuing several approaches to attempt to contain the potential threat posed by Iran, but the U.S. emphasis is now on multilateral economic sanctions on Iran. Iran has not complied with repeated U.N. Security Council deadlines since August 2006 to cease uranium enrichment. That demand is encapsulated in two U.N. resolutions (1737 and 1747) that ban trade with and freeze the assets of Iran's nuclear and related entities and personalities, prevent Iran from transferring arms outside Iran, and require reporting on international travel by named Iranians. With Iran still refusing to comply, further steps are under discussion at the U.N. Security Council. Separate U.S. efforts, showing some success, have included trying to persuade European governments to curb trade, investment, and credits to Iran; and pressuring foreign banks not to do business with Iran. To strengthen its diplomacy, the Administration has added components to efforts to contain Iran, including a naval buildup in the Persian Gulf; arrests of Iranian agents in Iraq. The Administration strongly denies it is planning on military action against Iran, but has refused to rule it out. Some legislation introduced in the 110th Congress, including H.R. 1400, S. 970, and H.R. 2880, would increase U.S. sanctions on Iran -- both the U.S. trade ban and the Iran Sanctions Act that seeks to prevent foreign investment in Iran's energy sector. The Administration opposes aspects of these bills that would limit Administration flexibility in applying sanctions. Other legislation, such as H.R. 957, H.R. 1357, and S. 1430, would promote divestment of companies that do business with Iran. Some in the Administration believe that only a change of Iran's regime would end the threat posed by Iran, although without specifying a clear means of achieving such a result. For further information, see CRS Report RS20871, The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), by Kenneth Katzman; CRS Report RS21592, Iran's Nuclear Program: Recent Developments, by Sharon Squassoni; and CRS Report RS22323, Iran's Influence in Iraq, by Kenneth Katzman. This report will be updated as warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the Administration's "National Security Strategy" document released on March 16, 2006, the United States "may face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran." That perception continues, generated primarily by Iran's nuclear program and intensified by Iran's military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Lebanese Hezbollah. U.S. officials also accuse Iran of refusing to bring to justice several senior Al Qaeda activists in Iran. In part to direct regional attention to that view but also to engage Iran on an Iraq solution, the Administration attended regional conferences on Iraq on March 10, 2007, and May 3-4, 2007, both attended by Iran (and Syria), and subsequently held bilateral meetings with Iran in Baghdad on May 28 and July 24, agreeing in the latter meeting to form a working group on Iraq security issues, which met for the first time on August 6. The Bush Administration is pursuing several approaches to attempt to contain the potential threat posed by Iran, but the U.S. emphasis is now on multilateral economic sanctions on Iran. Iran has not complied with repeated U.N. Security Council deadlines since August 2006 to cease uranium enrichment. That demand is encapsulated in two U.N. resolutions (1737 and 1747) that ban trade with and freeze the assets of Iran's nuclear and related entities and personalities, prevent Iran from transferring arms outside Iran, and require reporting on international travel by named Iranians. With Iran still refusing to comply, further steps are under discussion at the U.N. Security Council. Separate U.S. efforts, showing some success, have included trying to persuade European governments to curb trade, investment, and credits to Iran; and pressuring foreign banks not to do business with Iran. To strengthen its diplomacy, the Administration has added components to efforts to contain Iran, including a naval buildup in the Persian Gulf; arrests of Iranian agents in Iraq. The Administration strongly denies it is planning on military action against Iran, but has refused to rule it out. Some legislation introduced in the 110th Congress, including H.R. 1400, S. 970, and H.R. 2880, would increase U.S. sanctions on Iran - both the U.S. trade ban and the Iran Sanctions Act that seeks to prevent foreign investment in Iran's energy sector. The Administration opposes aspects of these bills that would limit Administration flexibility in applying sanctions. Other legislation, such as H.R. 957, H.R. 1357, and S. 1430, would promote divestment of companies that do business with Iran. Some in the Administration believe that only a change of Iran's regime would end the threat posed by Iran, although without specifying a clear means of achieving such a result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to an Administration national security strategy document released on March 16, 2006, the United States "may face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran." To date, the Bush Administration has pursued several avenues to attempt to contain the potential threat posed by Iran, but support for a longer term policy of changing Iran's regime has apparently gained favor within the Administration as Iran has resisted permanent curbs on its nuclear program. In the nearer term, the Administration is intent on slowing or blunting Iran's nuclear program through diplomatic and economic pressure by the United Nations Security Council or a coalition of like-minded major countries. Because Iran continues to advance its nuclear program, some advocate military action against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Others believe the United States should undertake direct talks with Iran; in past years the Bush Administration had some limited dialogue with Iran on specific regional issues. Iran's nuclear program is not the only major U.S. concern on Iran. Successive administrations have pointed to the threat posed by Iran's policy in the Near East region, particularly material support to groups that use violence against the U.S.-led Middle East peace process, including Hizballah in Lebanon and the Palestinian groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Hamas has formed a Palestinian government following its victory in January 25, 2006, elections, but it is thus far holding fast to its rejection of Israel. Iran and other Middle Eastern states are providing Hamas assistance to help circumvent U.S. and European aid cuts intended to pressure the new Hamas-led government. Some senior Al Qaeda activists are in Iran as well, although Iran claims they are "in custody." U.S. officials also accuse Iran of attempting to exert influence in Iraq by providing arms and other material assistance to Shiite Islamist militias, some of which have fought U.S. and partner forces there. However, most Iranian-supported factions in Iraq are supportive of the U.S.-led political transition roadmap, and the United States and Iraq announced in March 2006 that they would hold bilateral talks on the issue of stabilizing Iraq. Talks have not been held, to date. Iran's human rights practices and strict limits on democracy have been consistently criticized by official U.S. and U.N. reports, particularly for Iran's suppression of political dissidents and religious and ethnic minorities. However, Iran holds elections for many senior positions, including that of president. U.S. officials have tended to see the human rights issue in Iran as exemplifying the negative character of the Iranian regime, but not necessarily as a direct threat to U.S. interests. For further information, see CRS Report RS20871, The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), by Kenneth Katzman; CRS Report RS21592, Iran's Nuclear Program: Recent Developments, by Sharon Squassoni; CRS Report RS21548, Iran's Ballistic Missile Capabilities, by Andrew Feickert; and CRS Report RS22323, Iran's Influence in Iraq, by Kenneth Katzman. This report will be updated as warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]