تاثیر رابطه بین ایلات متحده و هویت ایرانی

 What effect has the relationship between the USA and Iran had on Iran’s Identity? How has this affected the nuclear issue?

This dissertation aims to establish the cumulative effect that the interactions between the USA and Iran have had on Iran’s identity, both the one constructed for it by the USA and the one it constructs for itself. These findings in turn will be applied to the nuclear issue. I will start by charting the relationship pre-1979 and assessing what role the USA played the 1979 revolution as this lays the foundation for the current situation. I will then explore the events between the end of the revolution and 1997 before looking at the reform period of 1997-2005 to see how the relationship changed. Finally I will examine the effect Iran’s identity has had on its dealings with the USA over the nuclear issue.

Statement of the problem

Iran and the USA have had a tense relationship since the 1979 revolution. The revolution overthrew the ruling Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a strong ally of the USA, and resulted in the establishment of an anti-western revolutionary government under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Iran holds an unfavourable view of the USA and as I will argue even uses the USA as a tool to reinforce its own revolutionary identity. The USA also views Iran negatively. In 2002 for example President George Bush of the USA classed Iran as part of the ‘axis of evil’ because he claimed it ‘aggressively pursues these weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror.’[1] Supreme leader Khamenei still refuses to engage with the USA despite the attempts of new President Barak Obama. He explains that to enter into talks with the USA would be ‘naive and perverted’ and that when America tries to broker relations with Iran ‘we notice that they are hiding a dagger behind their back…They have not changed their intentions.’[2] In order for this defective relationship to improve its origins must be explored.

Significance of study

There is much literature exploring why Iran and the USA have such a poor relationship but much less that recognises the cumulative effect of USA’s actions on Iran’s identity and thus Iran’s behaviour toward the USA. Bennis for example charts the historic reasons why Iran-USA relations are so dysfunctional. She explains that Iran has consistently opposed the USA’s foreign policy objectives in the Middle East region.[3] Rather than just indentifying matters on which the USA and Iran disagree as a reason for their tense relationship, I aim to explore the foundations of Iran’s behaviour in the context of its revolutionary identity and examine how the actions of the USA have been a major factor in defining Iran’s identity and seriously hindered any prospect of reconciliation.

Literature review

Ansari (2006) gives a critical account of how the failure of American foreign policy in Iran has led to the current hostile situation between the two countries. He explores significant historic events between the two countries that have impacted on the current relationship.[4] This critical account of history is of extreme importance to my dissertation and I will be building on this approach to explore how these events impacted on Iran’s identity and thus its behaviour.

Frye (2003) explains how Iran has been historically interpreted in the ‘mind of the West.’ He explains that, before the 1979 revolution, Iran had gone from being a respected enemy to a despised friend.[5] I will develop this research and explore how Iran has been viewed, that is had an identity constructed for it, since the 1979 revolution by the USA and how that has informed the actions of both countries.

Axworthy (2008) gives a coherent introduction to Iranian history from the prophet Zoroaster to the present day. He explains the complex successions of dynasties of rulers of Iran as well as the wider range of ethnic groups that make up modern day Iran.[6] This historical awareness is important. However, because of the significance of the 1979 revolution, the focus of my dissertation will be on Iran’s twentieth century history.

The literature I have reviewed here give a broad understanding of the history of Iran and the relationship between the USA and Iran. I intend to build on this research and apply my critical theoretical framework in order to understand how Iran’s identity has been constructed through interaction with the USA and continues to inform the contemporary relationship.

Methodological analysis

For my research I will be using English language sources as English is my only language, it could be argued that in order to properly address this question I must learn Persian, the official national language of Iran,[7] however I lack both the time and the money to undertake this. My research will be conducted on secondary sources. Ideally I would like to travel to Iran and the USA to collect primary data but this is logistically impossible. I will be using a combination of books, journal articles, speeches, reports and media sources where appropriate.

Theoretical framework

In researching and writing this dissertation I have concluded that the most effective way of exploring the topic is by using critical theories as opposed to taking the more traditional approach. Critical theories emerged as a reaction to the traditional International Relations (IR) theories which assert a single view of human behaviour. Realism is one of the oldest theories of IR. Realists believe in a state centric approach to world politics and that humans are inherently selfish and wish to gain power and survive.[8] Liberalism is also a traditional IR theory. Liberals too believe that the state is the primary frame of reference in IR although they differ from realists in that they believe humans naturally seek peace.[9] These traditional theories are both explanatory, meaning they seek to just explain IR, and foundationalist, meaning they believe things can be proved true or false. I believe in order to properly understand Iran’s identity and how this impacted on its relationship with USA assumptions about human behaviour must be abandoned.

It is also important to consider the constitutive effect that applying theories can have on world politics. Alexander Wendt describes critical theory as ‘a family of theories that include post-modernists [also known as post-structuralists], constructivists, neo-Marxists, feminists and others. What unites them is the concern with how world politics is “socially constructed.”[10] I would also add post-colonialists to this definition. This social construction element is key. In order to understand why countries, and indeed their relationships, are the way that they are we must consider their experience. This theoretical framework will be further explored in the first chapter.

Structure of dissertation

This dissertation will be divided into seven sections, five chapters, an introduction and conclusion. The first chapter will outline the theoretical framework while the other four will each explore a key research question.

-          Introduction

-          Chapter one: Theoretical framework

-          Chapter two: How did Iran’s relationship with the USA impact on its identity and how did this contribute to the 1979 revolution?

-          Chapter three: What aspects of the Iranian-American relationship affected Iran’s identity between 1979 and 1997?

-          Chapter four: What effect did the reform period of 1997-2005 have on Iran’s identity?

-          Chapter five: What effect has this identity formation had on the Nuclear Issue between the USA and Iran?

-          Conclusion

Chapter One

Theoretical Framework

This chapter will explain the theoretical framework that will inform the argument of this dissertation. I will be taking a critical approach, Cox explains that critical theory ‘stands apart from the prevailing order and asks how that order came about.’[11] I will be questioning the prevailing order with regard to the relationship between Iran and the USA through the examination of identity with consideration of both post-colonial thinking and foreign policy. Critical theory is also a ‘theory of history’[12]; this is of vital importance to my study. I need to re-examine what effect actions of the USA had on Iran’s identity and how this effect continues.

Identity can be described as both a basis for, and product of, social and political action.[13] It is also both shaped and reinforced by interaction.[14] This is of huge importance to my argument as I will explore how the identity of Iran has both been informed and shaped by its interaction with the USA. Wendt states that ‘Identities are the basis of interests.’[15] To that end we must understand identity to understand interests and why actors behave in the way they do. Ruggie explains that as the identity of a state evolves so do its interests.[16] It will be important in this dissertation to note how Iran’s identity changes and whether this impacts on its relationship the USA.

Identity can be described as ‘the individual characteristics by which a person or thing is recognized.’[17] On an international level these characteristics must be ascribed to actors, which are often a collection of individuals. Piven calls this ‘collective identities’ and explains that they derive from a primal need to belong to a group for survival. She describes how ‘collective identities’ are constructed through ‘common traits and common interests, and inherit and invent shared traditions and rituals.’[18] I will explore how the shared revolutionary tradition stemming from 1979 continues to inform Iranian identity.

Vertovec explains that identity is the ‘ways in which people conceive of themselves and are characterised by others.’[19] This is a particularly important definition as it highlights the fact that actors are not solely responsible for their identity construction. I will also explore how the USA has constructed an identity for Iran on the international stage which informs how it interacts with it. Huntington explains that ‘people define their identity by what they are not.’[20] This dissertation will explore how Iran has defined itself post-1979 in relation to the USA and how this binary oppositional identity construction continues today. Due to the transient nature of the concept, identity can be seen as a subjective term. There is some contention over whether identity is primordial or constructed. Primordial identity is scientific, in other words we are who we are because of the way we are born. Constructed identity is a product of our upbringing and environment.[21] Guibernau states that ‘all identities emerge within a system of social relations and representations.’[22] For this dissertation my argument rests on the idea that identities are constructed, both by the actor themselves and by other actors.

It is also appropriate in this study to use post-colonial thinking. Post-colonial thinking explores not only the period of colonialism but also the ongoing domination of a state by the coloniser after the official period of colonialism has ended.[23] Although Iran was not officially colonised it was occupied in both World War One and Two, attempts were made to make it a protectorate and it was tied into unfair oil contracts by Britain. If colonisation is thought of as ‘[the] control of other people’s land and goods’[24] I believe this makes the application of postcolonial thinking supremely relevant. Said states the West, or Occident, purport a romanticised and homogenous image of Asia and the Middle East, or the Orient, which it uses to justify their imperial ambitions. He explains that ’Orientalism [is] a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.’ [25] Speaking in 1980 on the USA, Said explains that ‘Muslims and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life [is understood]… What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.’[26] It is important in this dissertation to explore the impact that this ‘Orientalist’ thinking has had on Iran’s identity formation.

When looking at identity from a post-colonial stance it is psychological and cultural impact that is central to the analysis rather than the material and economic. [27] Fanon explains that the colonial experience left the colonised with an ‘inferiority complex’, so the identity of the imperial power was seen as preferable to the indigenous.[28] Nandy states that ‘colonialism is first of all a matter of consciousness and needs to be defeated ultimately in the minds of men.’[29] That is, the imperialism can become so ingrained that it becomes part of the identity of those previously colonised and in order to address this it needs to be indentified and rejected. This leads on to the idea of resistance. Resistance can take many forms from independence movements to re-writing the history of colonialism and telling the story from the point of view of the colonised; the ‘empire writes back’ as Abrahamsen calls it. It is clear that in order to break the dominating post-colonial relationship the discourse must be challenged. I will argue that Iran did this through the anti-Western nature of its revolution, which will be explored in Chapter Two, and by constructing its current identity in opposition to those who tried to dominate it in the past.

Grovugui explains that ‘the representations of “international reality” and “international existence” have remained grounded in Western institutional and discursive practices so as to reflect and affirm parochial structures of power, interest and identity.’ [30] This is an important point and helps to unpick the reason that Iran and the USA have such a tense relationship. If Iran’s identity is contrary to what is seen as acceptable by the USA then this will inform the USA’s reaction to it.

In order to assess how the identity of Iran has contributed to its behaviour one must consider their foreign policy; that is the way they deal with external actors. Hill describes foreign policy as ‘the sum of official external relations conducted by an independent actor (usually the state) in international relations’. He explains that the policy is ‘foreign’ due to the fact the world is split into distinctive communities rather than being a homogenised mass and actors must have strategies to cope with this.[31] Indeed it can be stated that ‘foreign policy is at least in part an act of construction; it is what the actors decide it will be’.[32]  Messari expands on this to say that foreign policy is ‘an identity-making tool that erects boundaries between the self and other.’[33] She explains that these ‘others can be divided into two different groups: allies and enemies.’[34]Through interaction with the enemies an actor’s identity is reinforced due to an awareness of what it is not; that is its identity is defined in opposition to its perceived enemies. However identity is also reinforced during dealings with allies through affirmation of the links and characteristics shared. [35] To that end I will be examining the foreign policies of both Iran and the USA especially in regard to the nuclear issue in order to assess how the concept of Iranian identity differs between them and informs their behaviour.

How did Iran’s relationship with the USA impact on its identity and how did this contribute to the 1979 revolution?

This chapter aims to establish the factors that led to the 1979 Iranian revolution and how this shaped Iran’s identity. When considering the role of the USA in this study it is important to realise that the revolution also impacted on the identity that the USA has constructed for Iran. It is therefore appropriate to examine to what extent the USA’s involvement in Iran contributed to the revolution. Iran’s experience in the First and Second World Wars which encouraged it to turn away from its traditional ally Britain are examined, followed by the USA’s role in the 1953 coup and its close relationship with the Shah.

The 1979 revolution refers to a political and social movement that culminated in the downfall of the Iranian monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[36] Adib-Moghaddam explains how the revolution ‘radically questioned Iran’s historical consciousness, the country’s self awareness and Jahanbini (world view)’ (emphasis original).[37] It is appropriate to examine the causes as its world view will have been shaped by its revolutionary identity.

Iran was occupied in both World War One (WW1) (1914 to 1918)[38] and World War Two (WW2) (1939 to 1945).[39] Despite Iran’s declaration of neutrality during WW1, it was occupied by a number of forces including the British, Russians and Swedish.[40] This can be identified as the first instance of imperialism on which Iran has come to base its post-colonial identity. Indeed after the war in 1919 there was an attempt to make Iran a British protectorate. The Anglo-Persian agreement would have signed over Iran’s fiscal, governmental and military responsibilities. This can be cited as an attempt to effectively ‘colonise’ Iran. The British made it an attractive proposition with promises of security, infrastructure development and cash loans and the Shah initially accepted but as the details emerged and British bribes were discovered, all sectors of opinion went against the agreement.[41] This can be seen as a form of resistance because although Iran had been occupied without consent during WW1, the Iranian people would not consciously agree to imperial domination. It can also be cited as the first of many times in the Twentieth Century that the Iranian people opposed the Shah because he operated in a way that was seen to be contrary to the Identity of a proud and independent Iran. The attempt by the British failed.[42] Axworthy explains how Iran suffered a severe famine from 1917-1918 partly as a result of the disruption to trade and agriculture caused by the war;[43] It is estimated that up to a quarter of the population in the north of Iran died as a result.[44] It had a huge effect on the Iranian people and marred their relationship with Britain. After WW1 many Iranian nationalists looked to US President Woodrow Wilson’s new post war philosophy of self determination. They thought of the USA as Iran’s best hope amongst the great powers of the time.[45]

In WW2 Iran again declared itself neutral but despite this it was invaded and occupied by the British and Soviet Union, in 1941. The British justification for the invasion was ‘[to ensure] the security of the British position in this area; a desire not to rebuff the Russians; the expulsion of the Germans from Iran; and the question of the supply route’. The British wanted to ensure the Soviet Union were adequately supplied as the Germans attacked them in June of 1941.[46] Axworthy explains how Iran was humiliated by this second occupation and it caused a rise in political activity and nationalist feeling. This nationalist feeling is another example of resistance and a reaction to the humiliation of another imperialist occupation. As in WW1, Iran turned to the USA. The Shah appealed to pro-USA feeling among the Iranian people and to the USA for support. He compared Iranian nationalism and its struggle for independence directly with the American nationalism and declaration of independence from the British Empire in the eighteenth century.[47] This can be seen as an example of Iranian identity being defined as akin to that of the USA. Under an agreement signed during the occupation the British and the Soviets were required to leave Iran within six months of the end of the war. The British did withdraw but the Soviet Union decided to remain to try to exploit the social democratic tradition in the region, encourage pro-Soviet secession movements and create a ‘sphere of influence.’ The USA helped persuade the Soviets to leave in 1946 and used this opportunity to strengthen its presence in Iran.[48]  Within a few years it became clear that the USA’s apparent affinity with Iran was simply a matter of self interest as it involvement in the 1953 coup demonstrates.

In order to explain the significance of the 1953 coup it is appropriate to briefly explore the background. Before the discovery of oil in Iran in 1908, Britain’s primary interest had been defending its Indian territory.[49] In 1909 the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was set up [50] and the British switched from using coal to oil to power its Navy as it was less bulky to transport. By 1914, the British government had purchased a majority share in the company. At the time of the company’s inception the Iranian government agreed to allow the British to extract the oil for a modest 16% royalty. This was later raised to 20% to appease the Shah and the population, who were unhappy with the original terms that were agreed by a previous government.  Despite this increase, due to taxation, the British government’s profits were much greater than the revenue gained by the Iranian government. Indeed many ordinary Iranians viewed the company as a British arm of the Iranian government.[51] This unequal distribution of profits as well as claims by the Iranians that they were treated like colonised subjects by the British led directly to the nationalisation of the company in 1951.[52] This nationalisation can also be seen as a sign of resistance feeding the construction of Iranian Identity in opposition to Britain.

The election of Mohammad Mosaddeq as president in 1950 reflected the popular dissenting views against perceived imperialism and reinforced the idea that Iranian identity was being constructed in defiance of Britain.  Mosaddeq had left the country in 1919 in protest at the Anglo-Persian agreement and it was he who had spearheaded the campaign to nationalise Iranian oil.[53] Indeed this has been called the ‘Nationalisation Movement’ with its aims being to end the economic exploitation of Iran by foreign powers.[54] President Mosaddeq had to deal with the fallout of the oil nationalisation in the form of an unofficial boycott of Iranian oil which effectively cut off the country’s oil revenue.[55] His support of the nationalisation of Iranian oil was centred on preserving national sovereignty by removing the influence of Britain.[56]  Mosaddeq expected the USA to be sympathetic and provide loans to sustain the oil company and compensate for the oil revenue deficit. Indeed if one considers the comparison between Iranian nationalist identity and the USA’s identity defined by its struggle for independence from the British, one would expect the USA to be supportive. Instead the USA joined the boycott.[57] This dealt a huge blow to the hopes of Mosaddeq and the Iranian people of finding an ally in the USA.

Despite this setback Mosaddeq remained popular. In the latter half of his presidency, he began to instigate reforms to benefit ordinary Iranians. However there was increasing dissent against the President amongst the Western powers, encouraged by the ruling Shah who was threatened by the power of Mosaddeq. This manifested itself in attempts by Britain and the USA to destabilise the government through covertly supporting opposition groups as well as organising fake demonstrations.[58] Adib-Moghaddam explains how the USA intelligence services also planted a fake study in an American newspaper which, when reprinted in Iran, fed the ‘war of nerves’ against Mosaddeq. [59] Throughout the build up to the 1953 coup the USA played on the idea that Mosaddeq was a ‘communist danger.’ This was a rhetoric device as they knew that he distrusted the Soviet Union and even complained of his neutrality. [60] On the 19th of August 1953 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the USA and the MI6 intelligence bureau of Britain successfully orchestrated a coup against Mosaddeq. Baxter and Akbarzadeh explain that this is a clear example of direct foreign interference which violated Iran’s sovereignty to protect the economic and political interests of the USA and Britain.[61] Grovogui indentifies Mosaddeq’s actions as a resistance to ‘European notions of ‘imperial sovereignty.’’ [62] Chomsky explains that after the coup forty percent of Iran’s oil revenue went from Britain to the USA.[63]  This completely undermined the desire to sustain an Iranian Identity that resisted imperialism. As Iran’s perceived ally, the USA, was instrumental in removing a popular president who had been fighting for Iranian freedom, to satisfy its own imperial desires. The oil nationalisation and the coup still have a great effect on the minds of the Iranian people today. The anniversary of the former is still marked by a national holiday.[64] It has been said that ‘the coup tarred America with the British brush: being perceived as the “colonial power,” a perception that created deep distrust between Iran and United States’.[65] This arguably marked the beginning of Iranian identity being constructed around opposition to the USA, at least in the minds of ordinary Iranian people. The continued celebration of the oil nationalisation, a symbol of resistance to imperialism, can be cited as proof of the continuing weight of this event as a defining factor in Iran’s post-colonial identity.

These interventions by Britain and, more significantly for this study, the USA, ensured the revolution had a distinctly anti-Western nature. However it is appropriate to briefly examine other domestic factors that helped spark the revolution to overthrow the ruling regime. It must be remembered that the Shah was a close ally to the USA. This can be seen through the move by the USA to remove President Mosaddeq who had threatened his power. Although a level of corruption was normally tolerated in Iranian society the increases in oil revenue from 1973 highlighted the massive excesses and corruption in the ruling regime that were viewed as obscene by the Iranian people. There were allegations that the regime had purchased unnecessary amounts of weaponry at the behest of the USA’s arms industry, harming economic prosperity and providing further proof that the Shah was a puppet of the West. Although wealth disparity was not a new phenomenon the reforms implemented during the White Revolution, a series of reforms designed to strengthen the Shah’s power,  meant that the poorest in society could no longer turn to the landed aristocracy for financial assistance or loans as they had done previously.[66] These domestic factors fed into the hatred of the Shah and his regime and ultimately culminated in the 1979 revolution.  In terms of identity it has been stated that ‘military and economic dependence were matched by progressive westernisation of Iranian education and society. Religious and lay people shared a common concern about cultural alienation.’[67] Therefore the revolution can be seen as a reassertion of perceived Iranian identity which had been threatened under the Shah.

The secular nationalism of Mosaddeq had failed to deliver change in Iran. The Iranian people, secular and religious, instead turned to political Islam to achieve their goal of regime change and removing Western influence in the form of the exiled religious leader and politician Ayatollah Khomeini.[68] This is an example of political Islam which can be described as ‘form of instrumentalization of Islam by individuals, groups and organizations that pursue political objectives’.[69] Indeed Axworthy states that ‘the revolution of 1979 was not solely and perhaps not even primarily a religious revolution… but the revolution drew strength from its Shi’a form… which lent cohesion and a sense of common purpose… from the clarity and charisma of Khomeini.’ [70]  Khomeini established a political system that was Islamic in character however more importantly it was also ‘anti-western [and] anti-Israeli.’ [71] I will argue that this assertion of revolutionary identity continues to inform Iran’s behaviour to date.

In conclusion it can be seen that Iran’s identity was impacted by its quasi-colonial experience through occupation in the First and Second World Wars as well as a supremely unjust oil contract with the British. These incidents led Iran to define its identity in opposition to Britain and instead construct it in relation to the USA. This was due to the USA’s experience of gaining independence from Britain and the consequent expectation that the USA would be sympathetic to Iran’s plight and support it through the oil nationalisation. However the USA proved itself to be, in the Iranian mind, akin to imperialist Britain. Not only did it fail to support the oil nationalisation, it also removed the popular president who had backed it, choosing instead to sustain the power of the Shah and a corrupt regime. The oil nationalisation and 1953 coup led to the beginning of Iran’s identity being defined in opposition to the USA. The Shah did not share his people’s view. His regime was supported by the USA and seen as out of touch, a ‘puppet of the west’. This, as well as domestic factors, led to the 1979 revolution, the establishment of an anti-western system and more importantly a revolutionary identity.

What aspects of the Iranian-American relationship affected Iran’s identity between 1979 and 1997?

This chapter aims to establish how a series of events widened the gulf between the USA and Iran after the 1979 revolution and contributed to Iran’s current identity as seen within Iran and as perceived by the US. This period is significant as it marks the first tentative steps of the new ‘Islamic Republic’ under Supreme Leader Khomeini. We can see during this time how Iran reinforced its revolutionary identity through exploiting perceived atrocities committed by the USA. It is also important to understand that during this time the USA established a new identity for Iran. The USA constructed this identity for Iran in the wake of a supremely anti-western and specifically anti-USA revolution and this context contributed to the USA’s actions toward the country especially during the Iran-Iraq war. I will explore the effect of the hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq war, the case of Iran Air Flight 655 and Iran’s response to Israel.

The first major test of Iran in defining its identity in opposition to the USA after the revolution was the hostage crisis. In 1979, in support of the revolution, a group of students occupied the American embassy holding dozens of US citizens hostage for 444 days. The hostages were seen as a symbol of the USA’s imperialism on Iranian soil.[72] This was an act of post-colonial resistance that proved that Iranian identity no longer accommodated the USA, as it had under the Shah. This caused huge tension and hostility between the two countries and the legacy of this event continues to undermine relations. As the hostage crisis unfolded, President Jimmy Carter of the USA made it clear that Iran faced military intervention if the hostages were harmed or put on trial. On 20th January 1981 the hostages were released after an agreement was reached. Khomeini had demanded that the USA, relinquish all claims to Iran, release all frozen assets and no longer interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. Afterward the US Secretary of State claimed they had only given back a little of what rightfully belonged to Iran and instead it was Iran who made the majority of concessions.[73] The hostage crisis resulted in the severance of diplomatic links and the CIA still states today that ‘US-Iranian relations have been strained since a group of Iranian students seized the US Embassy.’[74] The resulting threat of military intervention by the USA intensified anti-USA feeling and helped to strengthen the revolutionary Iranian identity. Despite the issue being resolved ‘the Iranian regime found it useful to keep alive the spectre of an outside threat to the revolution… The United States provided a very convincing threat’.[75] Hunter explains that the legacy of this crisis makes reconciliation and improved relations very difficult.[76] It can be seen how the ruling regime in Iran used the USA to define its own identity and strengthen the revolution and revolutionary government.

The next significant event in Iran-USA relations was the Iran-Iraq war. The USA supported the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in an effort to contain Iran which was believed to threaten regional stability and its oil interests. This event was yet another reason for Iran to define itself in opposition to the USA. It reaffirmed the justifications for the revolution and its revolutionary identity. The war, in which Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded Iran, lasted from 1980 to 1988, and had its roots in regional tension including border disputes.[77] There was also a fear that the Islamic nature of the revolution would cause an uprising by the suppressed Muslim Shi’a majority in Iraq. It is the involvement and support by the USA however that defines it as a key event in Iran-USA relations.[78] Until 1982 the Western powers had a neutral stance;[79] however it must be considered that when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran there was no uproar or calls for a US embargo by Western powers as there was just over ten years later when Hussein invaded Kuwait.[80] It can be argued that this is due to the ‘pariah’ identity ascribed to Iran by western powers and in particular the USA. Despite the declared position of neutrality, shared by most European powers, Donald Rumsfeld of the USA visited Iraq in 1983; Ansari argues that this visit consolidated American support for the war which had been growing since its inception.[81] A report stated in 1983 that the USA would do ‘whatever was necessary and legal’ to stop Iraq losing to Iran. They believed that if Iran won it would threaten its important oil producing ally Saudi Arabia and create regional instability.[82] The USA provided support to Saddam Hussein both economically and militarily as well as defending his regime on the international stage.[83]  The war which ended with Iran agreeing to a ceasefire, had a heavy human and