Recent orders
Access to basic health care as a fundamental human right
Name
Tutor
Course
Date
Access to basic health care as a fundamental human right
Introduction
The right to health is inclusive of a number of factors, which are the determinants of health. These factors comprise of safe food, safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, healthy environmental condition, as well as gender equality. Apart from these factors, the most vital component that determines the right to health includes getting access to healthcare services. It is also necessary to consider the fact that the rights to health comprises freedoms such as the right to freedom from non-consensual medical treatment and freedom from torture, and degrading human treatment.
When discussing the aspect of rights to health, it is vital to consider that it contains entitlements such as having access to most of the essential medicines, the right the control, treatment and prevention of diseases and the right to a health protection system. The protection systems should provide equity and opportunity for every individual to enjoy a high level of health. This paper looks into some of the implications of the propositions to health care as a fundamental human right, further establishing the organization responsible for ensuring that all human beings have access to health care. Additionally, the paper looks into what it would take to guarantee health care provision, including the reasons as to why not everyone has the access to healthcare.
Implications of access to basic health
Mountains Beyond Mountains brings about some critical questions that address the issue of health care, as well as the distribution of wealth across the globe. The book gives a glimpse of some of the works that Dr. Farmer is involved in, in his quest to ensure change in the world, condemning some of the developmental issues in Haiti that neglect the improvement of the health practices of the people in the country. It is possible to equate the quest for Dr. Farmer to seeking justice for the people that are not in a position to access health care as a basic right. The particular sense of health rights in this case has to do with the distribution of scarce resources, which comprises of the overall requirements that ensure a healthy people. The understanding of distributive fundamental rights in this case ensures a fair distribution of health benefits and burdens among the different individuals in the society.
It is vital to take recognition of the fact that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that its subjects have access to health care. Every individual in society has the right to a specific standard of living, which ensures adequacy in terms of health care access for him or herself, as well as his or her family. The state has the responsibility if ensuring that the citizenry enjoy the adequacy of food, housing social services, clothing, adequate sanitation and health care services. These needs are indispensable components of an adequate standard of living that improves the people’s well-being and health.
Some of the factors that the government or state should take care of to ensure an uncompromised living standards for its people include ensuring an adequate distribution of clean water to its people, making sure that they maintain a sufficient supply of food to its people and establishing sufficient standards of sanitation. Those factors that relate directly health include the provision of maternal and prenatal healthcare, educating the citizenry on malnutrition as well as disease prevention, and finally the administration of widespread medication and vaccination. All these are the responsibilities of the state or government, which are measures of providing some of the fundamental rights to the people inhabiting the subject community.
Quality health care includes making sure that the government meets its mandate of health care education provision, provision of good sanitary measures, as well as making certain that the citizenry have access treatment facilities. With all these considerations, it is vital to mull over prevention as the best determinant to a successful health care system, which is a way of ensuring that people have access to good quality health care. Dr. Farmer emphasizes on the distribution of risks for suffering and disease, which is an approach of delivering good quality health care. Dr. Farmer accentuates the fact that suffering and disease are not random events, but entail human agency.
Dr. Farmer incorporates the term structural violence, as indicated in the book, which refers to violations that are economic and political in nature, and are against the human rights. The consequence of the violations includes poverty, human suffering and disease. An example in this case s the flooding of the Artibonite Valley in Haiti, which led to the creation of water refugees, who were at risk of diseases, suffering and malnourishment. The water refugees had no livelihood means after the floods, and they comprised of Dr. Farmer’s poorest patients. Dr. Farmer insinuates that the suffering that the people were going through was not a result of random events, but they were consequences of decisions made by human beings. Dr. Farmer argues that the events are structured in a systematic way, whose consequences violate the fundamental human rights of accessing basic health care.
Ways of guaranteeing this right
The explanation for poor health or disease is possibly a derivative of economic social and political force, which shapes the outcome of the health. Some of the violations of the core human rights emanate from lack of social and economic opportunities. Education is one of the critical factors that determine the economic and social position of individuals; this is a precursor to their health. For this reason, it is possible to determine that individuals with low education levels are of a poor health status. The other economic factor that is important for determining the health of an individual is the income level, which is a modifiable factor that determines the health and well-being of individuals. The most transparent way of ensuring prioritization of health support, which is a way of fulfilling the human rights health needs, it would be necessary to ensure an equitable distribution of resources. Provision of preventive measures to the people, which might be inclusive of providing vaccinations to the people, is another way that the government can use to make sure that they provide the basic human health rights to the people. On the political front, the legislators are responsible for coming up with policies that promote health rights among the people. With all these considerations, it is vital to consider that obtaining the basic health rights has not been universally possible. It is possible to argue that shortcomings of the social economic and political responsibilities have affected the acquisition of health care as a basic human right. Not all people have access to the fundamental human rights, especially in relation to health issues.
The United States has been involved in a number of peacekeeping missions in war tone countries
Subject
Students Name
Institution of Affiliation
Date
The United States has been involved in a number of peacekeeping missions in war tone countries. The U.S has a foreign policy that makes it stand for the restoration of peace in the regions especially if the country affected has been or is at a strategic point in terms of location or other relevant material gains and treaties that the United States share with the affected country (Hook & Spanier, 2018). For decades now, the U.S has assisted many countries, most of them being from the Asian regions and the main reason is that they are strategic for the trade especially in the oil industry. Therefore, there are some cases that the U.S have used an integrated approach to solve the war crisis in the region, some of them being successful while others failed.
In the first case where the United States has made success to restore peace is Libya, a country in the Northern part of Africa that had been involved in disputes (Woodward, 2016). As it has been said earlier that the United States does not venture or does not have interests with countries that it does not benefit from, Libya is an oil-producing nation, and therefore it becomes a country of interest. Another reason as to why the U.S had to step in and help the country solve its internal problems is that the then president of Libya, Muammar Gadhafi had been in power for long and was against the idea of the United States being involved in the country’s affairs. Most of the oil producing nations are engaged in domestic violence with antagonist groups rising against the government, trying to overthrow and take control of its country resources. Libya is not an exemption as antagonist gangs rose against the government forcing the U.S step in to assist. Here, the mission was a success, and the main reason for the excellence is that the government was weak as it had spent years fighting the opposition. Besides, the government was losing its popularity in that the president had been in power for a long time and the people needed a change, a transition to another government. The primary interest of engaging in the peacekeeping mission is that the U.S could enjoy the benefit of ripping the oil field and therefore the main areas that they secure first are the strategic points.
In another case, the U.S has had affairs in the Middle East especially in Syria. Syria has been in war for many years, and the main reason to be at war is for the control of oil, the only golden mines in the region as the country relies primarily on oil for their growth (Krieg, 2016). The fact that the government in Syria was not welcomed to the idea of the United States joining the war by deploying their troops in the country made it difficult for the U.S to bring peace. Syria is one of the largest oil-producing nations in the middle east, and therefore, the act of the U.S troops setting their foot in the country means that they were ready to take control of the golden fields, the only treasure for the government, depriving it of its main source of income. Due to this, it could not be simple to let it go in the name of restoring sanity in the country. The Syrian government stood strong, leaving no chances for the U.S troops. Due to this, the U.S had no other option other than using the usual tricks, attacking the enemy from within, and this meant finding an ally from the country to help stop the government. In doing this, the U.S took the initiative of sponsoring the antagonistic groups in the country, making them strong so that they could overthrow the government promising them that they will take the government once peace has prevailed. As these groups are power-hungry, they end up agreeing, getting ammunition from the U.S and fighting their own government. Through such sponsorship, the U.S contributed to the formation of the ISIS, Islamic groups to fight the government. The groups were formed to weaken the government, but they went out of control as they gained more power than what the U.S had expected. The U.S plans became a failure, leading the withdrawal of its troops from the region as their soldiers could perish in the region.
The two cases have some similarities in that the U.S is a superpower country and this means that it has ample resources that it can use to restore peace in areas of war. It, therefore, means that the country has strong and well-trained soldiers as well as tens of modern ammunition that help the soldiers fight and win the war against the countries of interest, restoring peace after destroying the present forms of government and instituting one of their kind. Getting into war is the main tool that the U.S troops have been using to restore peace as they have to subdue the resistance either by capturing or eliminating the leaders involved in the war. In the first case of Libya, the U.S succeeded because the people were in dire need of a new president and so, the government was losing popularity among its people. Besides, the presence a strong opposition that was reinforced by the U.S military made it possible to weaken the defenses allowing for an easy transition.
On the other hand, in Syria, it was difficult for the U.S to restore peace. The country had been in war for long, and the formation of the ISIS did not come in their favor. It is the same groups that turned against the U.S becoming more radical and uncontrolled and therefore making the restoration of peace in the region difficult. Besides, the region is known to be a terrorist background, with the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda having their basis in the regions. The terrorist groups have a lot of funding, and they are not afraid of engaging in war, unlike the U.S troops who fear death, the terror groups believe to be fighting Jihad, holy war and therefore difficult to deal with completely. It is due to this that the U.S troops failed to restore peace in a short period as the war became extensive against their will.
The two cases were of relevance to the U.S government in that, taking control of the region meant that they controlled the production as well as the sale of oil. Oil is the heart of both countries, and therefore it’s of strategic interests. Furthermore, in engaging in peacekeeping mission meant that they could have an opportunity to sell their weapons and at the same time making deals with the country concerning development, making them a preferred party to work with in future due to their aid. Besides, terror has been a major threat to the U.S since the September 11 attack and therefore it is the mission of the U.S troops to keep guard of its people preventing cases of terror attack in future and to do so they have to deploy intelligence from the terror tone countries as well as the breeding grounds for terrorists such as Syria and Libya.
There are a number of lessons that can be withdrawn from the two cases for the pursuit of the U.S foreign policy. Dealing with terror is a global issue, and therefore it calls for the action of all the relevant bodies to control. If it is not our responsibility to restore sanity and peace in war tone areas, then we shall become the victims either directly or indirectly. Another lesson is that, in peacekeeping missions, using rebels to fight against the government can be a success, while at the same time be a failure depending on the kind of group that one is dealing with, knowing the interests of each group makes the process of peacekeeping simpler and achievable at a lesser duration.
Reference
Hook, S. W., & Spanier, J. (2018). American foreign policy since World War II. Cq Press.
Krieg, A. (2016). Externalizing the burden of war: the Obama Doctrine and US foreign policy in the Middle East. International Affairs, 92(1), 97-113.
Woodward, P. (2016). US foreign policy and the Horn of Africa. Routledge.
The United States and Iran Foreign Policy
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
The United States and Iran Foreign Policy
Introduction
The associations between the United States and Iran have persisted ever from the nineteenth century. The American missionaries are regarded to have been in Iran for a more extended period than the nineteenth century. However, the real association between these two countries is well evident only from the Second World War. The association between the United States and Iran has commonly been tight, but it seems to have deteriorated. The weakening of the relationships among the two countries can be attributed due to many reasons, but the predominant one is the involvement of the United States CIA in overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh who was a prominent prime minister during the 1953 coup (Offiler and Ben, p.123). Another reason is during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, whereby it contributed a lot to a breach in associations which seems to have not yet been resolved up to contemporary times. Therefore, these two countries that were regarded as great partners and exhibited close links among themselves nowadays view each other as enemies.
However, the persistent hostility between Iran and the United States typically signifies the dominant paradox for the United States policy in the Persian Gulf. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the world seems to have changed a lot. The Revolution led to the introduction of a religious administration in Tehran, and therefore this led to the breaking of the United States and Iran relations. The changes which ascended continued to be felt even within the Iranian Revolutionary politics, for instance, the rise and ascendancy of a popular reform movement that was initiated by electing Mohammad Khatami’s into power as a president in the 1997 election, who was a moderate President. Thus this progression stimulated a decline in all-inclusive United States sanctions, and after that, it amplified the expectations of reconciliation between the two countries.
Presently, the Middle East is a conflict-filled, resource-rich, culturally unique region that has been consistently overlooked and underestimated. Multiple stakeholders and states have been involved in the area for some reasons (Kemp and Geoffrey, p.31). The cultural ignorance has influenced U.S. foreign policy to neglect perspective opportunities of a country within impoverished regions. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate Iran and the United States foreign policy interactions from their national perspective. Their internal aspects shall encompass both cultural and administrative influences.
Research Objectives
This research entails fulfilling the following objectives that will examine the significant issues in the foreign policy between the United States and Iran. For example, what drives the United States foreign policy in Iran and also in what way Iran reacts towards the United States foreign policy.
Emphasize the influence of cultural practices on foreign diplomacy tactics
Provide a regional and country-specific historical context for the U.S. and Iranian relations
Differentiate foreign policy between administrations in both Iran and the U.S. With a particular focus on the comparison of Barack Obama’s comprehensive international diplomacy approach and Donald Trump’s restrictive foreign diplomacy approach.
Analyze the United States foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s foreign policy towards the United States
Critically evaluate determining influences on foreign relations approach with specific adherence to culture, resources, and global status.
The Historical Context between the United States and Iran
According to this paper, the interactions, as well as the interrelations between the United States, instigated in 1951.
In 1951, the excellent relationship between the United States and Iran that existed before experienced a crisis in 1951. This was the period whereby there was a movement to nationalize the Iran oil industry that was regarded as the epitome of the contributor of the country’s economy for it was the primary basis of the foreign exchange revenues. Also, the oil industry existed as the most significant contributor to employment in the country. However, it was controlled by the British which the Iranians strongly opposed. The locals who majority were the Iranians had no say in the running of the industry mainly on production or setting the oil prices. For many years, the British administration benefitted a lot from this oil to the extent of overpassing the Iranian government itself (Duncombe and Constance, p.164). This issue angered the Iranians and therefore during the late 1940s and precisely in 1951, a movement was formed with an objective of nationalizing the oil industry. Mossadegh was the frontrunner of this movement whereby he eventually became the Prime Minister. This led to the nationalizing of the oil industry in 1951, and as a result, conflicts between Britain and Iran began.
Moreover, when the Truman administration was in power, the government tended to support Iran. Consequently, the United States became suspicious of the ancient imperial powers and therefore they backed the nationalists’ movement which was perceived as a significant obstacle towards the spread of communism. The United States was in support of Iran in controlling its oil industry, and they urged the British to look at the plight of the Iranians. However, they were persuaded by the British who from the first beginning oppressed the Iranians. Therefore the two joined hands against Iran.
In 1953, Truman who was the United States leader was not willing to accept the collaboration with the British to overthrow Mossadegh. However, when Eisenhower came to power with his administration, things changed. Eisenhower together with his brother Allen who happened to be the Head of the CIA both decided to join the British to overthrow the Iranian ruler. A joint American-British conspiracy contributed to the ousting of the duly elected Prime Minister. They eventually succeeded in overthrowing him, and thus this was regarded as the 1953 coup. Therefore most of the Iranians saw this as the original sin and from there the relationship between the two countries developed from bad to worse. Afterwards, there was the restoration of the monarch whereby Shah Mohammad Pahlavi who was liked by the Western countries came to power.
The coup consolidated power beneath the Shah, making specific cooperation on oil and discouraging Communist expansion. All this was according to the British interests. Up to now, this coup that led to the removal of Mossadegh is still recognized and more so remembered by the Iranians (Gasiorowski and Mark, p.62). They regard it as a symbol of the Western countries in meddling in Iranian internal affairs resulting in the weakening of the country’s economy as well as poor governance. They regard that the move was much inspired by greed.
In 1957, the United States assisted Iran to start its nuclear plant. Shah signed a deal with the United States which was a civil nuclear collaboration treaty. This led to Tehran creating its nuclear plant. Therefore, the agreement which they made delivered technical aid, and it endorsed the lease of improved Uranium to Iran. This helped Iran to develop a bit as the economy grew slightly. However, there existed some individuals who significantly opposed this idea, for example, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who was an Islamic leader (Butler and Declan, p.45). He was detained for speaking out against the Shah’s relationship with the United States. His arrest resulted in him being exiled to Turkey. This led in some protests within Iran demanding for his release. From this incidence, it is evident that Shah’s method of the ruling was not according to the likes of several citizens. It can be regarded that Shah was looking for stability by engaging business with the United States (Lansford and Tom, p.28).
However the America’s Iran watchers seemed worried that Shah’s despotic strategies could backfire, and this sparked a revolution against the Western relationships. They claimed that the then regime was spending most of its dollars earned from the oil business on guns, and few of them were used on the basic needs of the populace. Subsequently, after ten weeks when John Kennedy became the leader of the United States and occupied the White House, several riots exploded about everywhere in Tehran. As a result of John Kennedy who was now the new leader, formed a task named National Security Council in 1961, aimed at studying the predicament in Iran. The United States president’s advisers settled at the point that the crisis in Iran, was home-grown and therefore it was not a communist-motivated one as it was regarded. The group feared that lest the Iranian leader embraced economic modernization as well as political reforms, he was going to be ejected from his great seat. On learning this, Shah came up with his new movement which he named as the White Revolution. His movement aimed to introduce some reforms like land reforms plus women rights among several others. However, his move was not well embraced by many individuals in Iran like the landlords and clerics.
One exemplary individual who stood up against Shah’s administration was a sixty-one-year-old cleric known as Khomeini. He typically scorned Shah and his administration and regarded them as the United States puppets. He viewed the reforms which Shah introduced as American-supported reforms and termed them as “Westoxification.” Consequently, the officials in the Shah’s administration considered Khomeini as an annoying bastard. They, therefore, hailed their leaders verdict to send him to exile in 1964. He was first taken to Turkey and was later transferred to Iraq.
Around 1978, Khomeini continued with his activism by establishing an opposition movement in Paris, France. An example of his activism activities was in January 1978 when he led a demonstration against the government. The Iranian troops fired at the massive crowd of protestors in the Qom city where they killed a vast number of demonstrators and also wounding more others. Afterwards, a new revolution was formed whereby the demonstrators spread even to the nearby areas bringing some other coalitions together, for example, the merchants, mullahs as well as the middle-class students who had one thing in common as well as the same goalmouth that Shah had to go. When Shah’s soldiers killed around four hundred protestors on 8th September 1978, and also wounded four thousand in Tehran’s Jaleh Square, he was anticipated that he would eventually step down or be made to live office sooner or later (Lansford and Tom, p.64). This was amplified by a United States Ambassador known as William Sullivan who drafted a cable notifying Carter together with his associates that the right time for change had come. He addressed them that Shah’s ruling tenure was over. In fearing for a great battle of pro-American military command, whereby Shah was to be trolled down to nothing, the Carter advised Shah to pack his bags and leave the office peacefully. This was a humiliating incidence because he had ruled Iran for like forty good years.
Eventually, Shah had nothing to do but to go to exile in Egypt in January 1979. After he went off to exile, Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran after fifteen years. He vowed to cleanse the country of all evils which were introduced by the then rulers and the United States who he seems to have hated a lot as he regarded them as the “Great Satan.” He, therefore, promised to establish the Islamic Republic.
In 1979 that Khomeini together with his loyal supporters claimed Iran as an Islamic State. They occupied the United States embassy in Iran’s capital, Tehran, for over a year protesting for the closure of the embassy. In their response, the United States decided to limit their economic interactions with Iran by freezing their assets. This led to the diplomatic relations between the two countries to be cut short in 1980. Several incidences followed after that like holding into hostage the Americans who were in Iran. After Ronald Regan was elected the United States President and took oath in 1981, the American hostages were finally released by Iran. However, the release of the hostages, the relationship amid the new government in Washington plus the Islamic Republic in Tehran continued to be frosty.
The relationship between the two countries deteriorated which led to several severe incidences happening mainly in Iran. A good example is Beirut bombing which occurred in 1983. In this incident, a suicide bomber beleaguered a United States Marine barracks which led to the death of two hundred and forty-one United States military individuals. This incidence is regarded as the most deadly solo incidence for the American military for an extended period. This attack was associated to be backed by the Iranian militia Hezbollah (Hook et al., p.64). This led to the increased tension between the two countries since none knew what the other country was preparing to do. One year later after the deadly incidence, Reagan administration regarded and proclaimed Iran as a state patron of terror. Several occurrences which were terrific continued to occur between the United States and Iran for example when an Iranian passenger airliner was shot down in 1988 whereby all the passengers who were on board were killed.
In 1989, Khomeini passed away, and another Iranian political figure occupied the highest office, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. He continued with activism, and the political tension between the two countries seemed not to decline anytime soon. The 1997 election in which Mohammad Khatami a reformist was elected the president portrayed a new era as well as an opportunity for reconciliation among the two countries. He came up with several reforms for conciliation like stating that Tehran did not need producing some nuclear weapons and the rest should follow the same. In 2000 Madeleine Albright who was the United States secretary general publicly recognized and admitted the damage that the United States had caused it mainly in its political development. Therefore in 2002, Albright announced the lifting of sanctions in Iran. Afterwards, several leaders have come up since the tenure of Albright who seems to fight this menace of bad relations between the two nations like President George Bush. Although several efforts are being made to counter it the prolonged bad relations between the two countries is still evident up to today.
The Current Context between the United States Foreign Policy towards Iran and Vice Versa
Several examples explain the contemporary situation of the foreign policy between the United States and Iran. For instance: Khamenei quickly condemned the attacks that happened in 2011. The United States entered Afghanistan under their decreed war on terror. Afghanistan was able to defeat the Islamic extremist group, the Taliban government, after the U.S. led war. American and Iranian diplomats met together in the urban centre of Bonn, with a few representatives from the United Nations, to create a brand new government and constitution for the capital of Afghanistan. Iran also opened its borders for refugees coming in from Afghanistan. Iran proposed a “grand bargain” to the U.S. to assist their presence in the region and even claimed they would possibly recognize Israel as a state (Hook et al., p.42). The U.S. overlooked the proposed meeting, once again disrespecting Iran.
During the Obama administration, several treaties were signed between these two nations, for example, the Iran Nuclear deal. Obama administration proved to put more effort to address the importance of denuclearization as well as putting more effort to see the agreements and treaties were respected. The Iran Nuclear Deal which Obama was involved was broken up into four significant tenants;
Limitating Iran’s Uranium stockpile. The Uranium supply is always below the amount necessary to form a nuclear weapon.
Uranium enrichment also disables them from being able to create a nuclear weapon
Iran gave up two-thirds of their centre fuses.
UN inspectors have relatively easy access to inspect any Iranian nuclear or military facilities
The U.S., European Union, and UN will lift sanctions extremely damaging to their economy.
The president Trump Administration exists as a reversal of Obama’s progression. It is considered to be of disrespectful diplomacy. President Trump has abandoned the Iran Nuclear Deal, which was required to be signed by the President every 90 days. Donald Trump utilizations of fear-mongering tactics and generalizations translated into diplomatic action. He seems to increase the lift between the two nations instead of embracing dialogue to end the conflict.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the progress on the United States and Iranian relations have been set back from the Trump administration. Cultural influence and capitalistic needs have blurred relations that Barack Obama began to bring clarity to in the Iran Nuclear Deal. Unfortunately, the deceptive behavior of the current administration has to lead to regression in relations between the two nations. Therefore, peaceful international relationships should be enhanced not only between the two nations but also among other countries in the globe as there usually exist mutual benefits regarding economic growth and development.
The existence of violent and unethical religious groups in Iran does not mean that the government, as well as the nation in general, does not deserve support from the United States as this should be an incentive of getting to this specific country to assist the local government in enhancing cohesion among the warring communities. In effect to the violent relationships existing between Iran and the United States, there is the urge of the federal governments implement appropriate policies which can be enacted through the states’ Congress. Development of peaceful relations between the United States and Iran will open doors to economic growth in consideration of open trade interactions, cultural exchange as well as ensuring that there are no limits regarding investments among the citizens whose results will be significant societal empowerment.
Works Cited
“Engel Statement on Iran Deal.” States News Service, 14 July 2015, www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-421696508.html?refid=easy_hf.
“Introduction.” US Foreign Policy and the Modernization of Iran, doi:10.1057/9781137482211.0003.
“IRAN-US CLAIMS TRIBUNAL v. AS.” International Law Reports, pp. 321–330., doi:10.1017/cbo9781316152232.021.
Butler, Declan. “Iran Nuclear Deal Poses Scientific Challenges.” Nature, Sept. 2015, doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17296.
Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran.
Duncombe, Constance. “Representation, Recognition and Respect: Foreign Policy and the Iran-US Relationship.” doi:10.14264/uql.2015.164.
Kemp, Geoffrey. U.S. and Iran: the Nuclear Dilemma: next Steps. Nixon Center, 2004.
Offiler, Ben. “US Foreign Policy and the Modernization of Iran.” 2015, doi:10.1057/9781137482211.
The Middle East: United States Policy and Relations in the …web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/middleeast/hcentury.html.
“UN Nuclear Chief Supports US-Iran Talks.” Physics Today, 2009, doi:10.1063/pt.5.023023.
Lansford, Tom. A bitter harvest: US Foreign Policy and Afghanistan. Routledge, 2017.
Hook, Steven W., and John Spanier. American foreign policy since World War II. Cq Press, 2018.
Gasiorowski, Mark J. US foreign policy and the Shah: Building a client state in Iran. Cornell Univ Pr, 1991.