Realism: According to realism, states work only to increase their own power. Because the international system is anarchic (there is no overarching power that enforces global rules) , each state has to survive on its own, thus perpetuating the need to repeatedly "out do" weaker states, using a realist's most important resource- military power. A state's primary interest is self-preservation, and as a result, states must seek power in order to protect itself. This power can come from building up a military force or even seeking out allies. However, these alliances are formed as a way to protect the state and to increase its military or political influence abroad, and have no incentive to be long-term because of the lack of trust between the states in the alliance. These powerful states would then have the ability to use reciprocity to influence other states to follow the rules the hegemony set.
Liberalism: Most often, liberalism focuses on the interdependence economic relationships would bring to various states. This interdependence would keep states from using force with one another because warring would threaten the prosperity or trade relations experienced between the two states. The rapid rise in communications technology, and the increase in international trade mean that states can no longer rely on force to determine their role in international politics. Liberalists believe that republican government and democratic capitalism lead to a more harmonious relationship, which is often know as "democratic peace". In liberalism, the combination of economic and political interdependence have the possibility to bring about peace.
Constructivism: Constructivism is a set of assumptions about the world, human motivation, and various state actors. Constructivists tend to associate international relations with identity and beliefs; and ideas and the interpretation of historical events, are the driving force behind international relation “moves” and domestic policies. Constructivism emphasizes how ideas and identities evolve through time, and adjust to the shared civic values , and national loyalties in that particular state. It is because of similar cultural beliefs and ideologies that state actors work together.
It is a fact known around the world that the United States- Iran Nuclear Negotiations remain unresolved, and many are left wondering why this may be. From a realist prospective, the tensions between Iran and the U.S. are not unfamiliar, because both nations have significant powers that allow them to be seen as a threat by the other. Iran distrusts the United States because of the U.S.'s long standing tendency to meddle in other nations' affairs to suit their needs, and also because the U.S. as a powerful Western nation is seen as a threat to the leaders of Iran. Similarly, the nuclear capabilities and Iran's reluctance to bend to the soft and hard power moves made by the U.S. labels them as a threat to the U.S.'s power in the Middle East. From a realist prospective there is little hope for peace, because the battle for power never ends, and the nations will remain distrustful of each other. From a liberalism prospective the economic relations between the U.S. and Iran should prevent any major uses of force. Iran, as a nation still facing political, social, and economic instability, needs the economic ties made with the U.S. and other Western nations, or even allies of Western nations, to prop-up their economy. The U.S. relies on Iran and its neighbors for a steady supply of oil, and would rather not have a repeat of the oil crisis that occurred in the 70s. If the U.S. shows support to the Iran government and introduces new trade relations, the two states may gain enough "trust" to begin working towards more peaceful relations. The distinct differences in Iranian and American social and political structure have remained a point of tension on both sides. Iran's theocracy may feel threatened by the Western influence the U.S. has tried to push onto the region, and as a result continues to debate with the U.S. as not to look like they are letting Western culture infringe on the Islamic social structures in Iran.
Citation for article on U.S. - Iranian Relations in Sources tab
Liberalism: Most often, liberalism focuses on the interdependence economic relationships would bring to various states. This interdependence would keep states from using force with one another because warring would threaten the prosperity or trade relations experienced between the two states. The rapid rise in communications technology, and the increase in international trade mean that states can no longer rely on force to determine their role in international politics. Liberalists believe that republican government and democratic capitalism lead to a more harmonious relationship, which is often know as "democratic peace". In liberalism, the combination of economic and political interdependence have the possibility to bring about peace.
Constructivism: Constructivism is a set of assumptions about the world, human motivation, and various state actors. Constructivists tend to associate international relations with identity and beliefs; and ideas and the interpretation of historical events, are the driving force behind international relation “moves” and domestic policies. Constructivism emphasizes how ideas and identities evolve through time, and adjust to the shared civic values , and national loyalties in that particular state. It is because of similar cultural beliefs and ideologies that state actors work together.
It is a fact known around the world that the United States- Iran Nuclear Negotiations remain unresolved, and many are left wondering why this may be. From a realist prospective, the tensions between Iran and the U.S. are not unfamiliar, because both nations have significant powers that allow them to be seen as a threat by the other. Iran distrusts the United States because of the U.S.'s long standing tendency to meddle in other nations' affairs to suit their needs, and also because the U.S. as a powerful Western nation is seen as a threat to the leaders of Iran. Similarly, the nuclear capabilities and Iran's reluctance to bend to the soft and hard power moves made by the U.S. labels them as a threat to the U.S.'s power in the Middle East. From a realist prospective there is little hope for peace, because the battle for power never ends, and the nations will remain distrustful of each other. From a liberalism prospective the economic relations between the U.S. and Iran should prevent any major uses of force. Iran, as a nation still facing political, social, and economic instability, needs the economic ties made with the U.S. and other Western nations, or even allies of Western nations, to prop-up their economy. The U.S. relies on Iran and its neighbors for a steady supply of oil, and would rather not have a repeat of the oil crisis that occurred in the 70s. If the U.S. shows support to the Iran government and introduces new trade relations, the two states may gain enough "trust" to begin working towards more peaceful relations. The distinct differences in Iranian and American social and political structure have remained a point of tension on both sides. Iran's theocracy may feel threatened by the Western influence the U.S. has tried to push onto the region, and as a result continues to debate with the U.S. as not to look like they are letting Western culture infringe on the Islamic social structures in Iran.
Citation for article on U.S. - Iranian Relations in Sources tab
