Nowadays, the issue of relations between Iran and the United States is particularly acute. Every year, their relationship is getting worse. At the beginning of 2020, the world was on the verge of a third world war. Four years ago America and Iran were on a different path. After Barack Obama offered to extend a hand if Iran’s leaders “unclenched their fist”, the two sides came together, leading to the nuclear deal. But President Donald Trump pulled America out of the agreement, calling it a “disaster”. It is not, but that damage is done. Renewed sanctions on Iran and the threat to punish anyone who trades with it have wrecked what is left of the agreement. Instead of reaping the benefits of co-operation, Iran has been cut off from the global economy. The rial has plummeted, inflation is rising and wages are falling. And now it is probably too late to save the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Because American aircraft-carrier strike group is steaming towards the Persian Gulf, joined by b-52 bombers, after unspecified threats from Iran. John Bolton, the national security adviser, says any attack on America or its allies “will be met with unrelenting force”. In Tehran, meanwhile, President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will no longer abide by the terms of the deal signed with America and other world powers, whereby it agreed to strict limits on its nuclear programme in return for economic relief.
In both countries policy is being dictated by intransigents, who risk stumbling into war. Mr Bolton and Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, believe in using economic pressure to topple the Iranian regime and bombs to stop its nuclear programme. On the anniversary of America’s exit from the agreement, on May 8th, he said that Iran would begin stockpiling low-enriched uranium and heavy water, which would in sufficient quantities breach its terms. Without economic progress in 60 days, he said, Iran “will not consider any limit” on enrichment. On May 7th the front page of an ultraconservative newspaper declared: “Iran lighting match to set fire to the JCPOA.”
Predictably, rather than bringing Iran’s leaders to their knees, America’s belligerence has caused them to stiffen their spines. All this suggests that Iran will start moving closer to being able to build a nuclear bomb.
Iranian leaders have long seen the nuclear programme as their best bargaining chip with the West. The threat of obtaining a nuclear weapon is useless if it does not seem credible. And if it is credible, it risks provoking military action by America or Israel.
Doing deals, though, is a Trump trademark. The president has shown an ability to change direction abruptly, as with North Korea. A new war is not in his interest, even if being hard on Iran is part of his brand. Bombing would not destroy Iranian nuclear know-how, but it would drive the programme underground, making it impossible to monitor and thus all the more dangerous. I see only one way out of this situation is renewed negotiation. Mr Trump needs to keep the likes of Mr Bolton in check.
2. 1. Which models of international relations were described by Ole Holsti to describe and explain different properties of discordant and accommodative relations in world politics? What are their differences?- Какие модели международных отношений были описаны Оле Холсти для описания и объяснения различных свойств диссонирующих и адаптивных отношений в мировой политике? В чем заключаются их различия?
2. Because of what classical realism is the most venerable and persisting models of international relations? What it provides? - Из-за чего классический реализм является наиболее почтенной и сохраняющейся моделью международных отношений? Что это обеспечивает?
3. What premise unites the classical realists? – Какие пункты объединяют классических реалистов?
4. Can the question of relative capabilities be regard as a crucial factor? - Может ли вопрос относительных возможностей рассматриваться как решающий фактор?
5. If human nature explains war and conflict, what accounts for peace and cooperation, according to classical realism? - Если человеческая природа объясняет войны и конфликты, что объясняет мир и сотрудничество в соответствии с классическим реализмом?
6. How Marion Kaplan described several types of international systems? - Как Марион Каплан описала несколько типов международных систем?
7. Which of Kenneth Waltz`s theory the most prominent effort to develop a rigorous and parsimonious model of modern realism and grounded in analogies from microeconomics? - Какая из теорий Кеннета Вальца является наиболее выдающейся попыткой разработать строгую и экономную модель современного реализма, основанную на аналогиях из микроэкономики?
8. Waltz uses his theory to deduce the central characteristics of international relations. What characteristics can be distinguished? - Вальц использует свою теорию для определения основных характеристик международных отношений. Какие характеристики можно выделить?
9. Robert Gilpin shares with Waltz the core assumptions of modern realism, but his study of War and Change in World Politics also attempts to cope with some of the criticism leveled at Waltz`s theory. What are the main differences between these two points of view? -Роберт Гилпин разделяет с Вальцом основные предположения современного реализма, но в его исследовании «Войны и перемены в мировой политике» он также пытается справиться с некоторой критикой, направленной на теорию Вальца. Каковы основные различия между этими двумя точками зрения?
10. How the expansion of actors whose behavior can have a significant impact beyond national boundaries? - 10. Как образом происходит расширение субъектов, поведение которых может оказать существенное влияние за пределы национальных границ?