Whose human rights? : human rights and conflict avoidance in U.S.-Iranian relations

Islam, as it is embodied in its Shi'i form in Iran, has perplexed American foreign policy planners for almost two decades now, and there seems to be no sign that a significant breakthrough will be made in the near future. Accusations of human rights atrocities and state-sponsored terrorism have become the norm when America refers to Iran. For its part, Iran is no less hostile to the United States. Anti-American sentiment, born decades earlier, boiled into the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Since this time, Iran has established an Islamic Republic that has repeatedly refused to toe the American line. The result has been a standoff. Military posturing and trade embargoes have made dialogue and engagement impossible. As a result, armed conflict is a very real danger. This danger has become a circular and self-fulfilling prophesy thereby eclipsing the need for the protection of human rights. This thesis takes a critical look at the present situation and offers a number of policy alternatives which could reduce the likelihood of conflict and also serve to protect human rights in Iran. This is done by critically reassessing both Realism and Universalism and proposes the abandonment of both theories. Only by moving into the relativist paradigm and adopting policies of engagement can any progress be made towards simultaneously protecting human rights and resolving the conflict between Iran and the United States.