Invasion of Iran Case

The disagreements were parallel among them. In global issues, both nations made decisions for some re-establishment of the relations. USA and Iran relations did not improve by George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Bush identified Iran in his speech because of the support of nuclear and terrorism ambitions as a threat to international security. USA invasion of Iraq brought the invasion of Iran and the USA closer. Iran is a regional powerful country and successful in Afghanistan and Iraq achieved with the Iranian cooperation and also have good relations (Ferrero, 2013).
Deleted: A war with Iran, Iraq approached the USA with Grand Bargain and offer a present by the Swiss Embassy that represents the USA interests in Iran. The foreign policy in decision-making was used among Iran and the USA. The foreign policy made in the Islamic Republic of Iran and actual powers also involved in Iran. Iran and the USA estranged for thirty years. The conventional wisdom in the USA holds that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for giving threat actions to the USA. Foreign policy decisions were made that increase the political costs of Iran and reduce the desirability of the rapprochement with Iran. The higher political cost after the decision among both countries and desirability low dissuade American purse engagement of USA president with Iran. The disagreements were parallel among them. In global issues, both nations made decisions for some re-establishment of the relations.
Deleted: Bush decided to attack Saddam Hussein but it does not get any support from Americans. Saddam Hussein declared pursuing nuclear weapons and it enhances the biological and chemical capabilities. The USA provided the troops and launched an invasion of Iraq which was an extraordinary success. The forces of Iraq did not give any significant resistance. The civilians of Iraq greeted US forces.
Deleted: The nuclear capability used chemical weapons to repress Kurds and war with Iran and it also uses it in future and established ties with terrorist networks to attack the USA and allies. Bush administrated war with Iraq and called the terrorist which also effects on the Iran community. Bush also tried to remove an imminent threat and create political conditions than lessen which appeal to terrorism.
Deleted: In the decision-making, Iran accepts a two-state solution by Palestine and Israel for reducing funding that USA considered the terrorist organizations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also offers to enter in Persian Gulf security agreement. It was the decision-making theory that brought the end to the nuclear program of Iran. The USA believed to offer sincere and passed the report that is agreed to offer significant and rejected non-starter. Iranian president sent a letter to the USA by suggesting the meeting to discuss Iran’s nuclear program with Bush the President of the USA at that time. Bush was against Iran and he used the same strategy to increase conflicts among the two nations.
Deleted: In September, Bush was challenged by Ahmadinejad t debate at the UN. In the discussion, both offers considered to be publicity stunts and both made no concessions on important issues that were rejected by the USA. According to the decision making, it was decided that there will be no grudge of steel-cage match among Ahmadinejad and Bush and in the end, Bush relations remained hostile. Obama showed a good reaction towards Iran and helped them to discuss different arguments that started from past years. Obama also declared the meeting with Iran and he discusses New Middle Eastern stating relations. He used the foreign policy of decision-making theory to solve the issues of Iran and the USA in the meeting that held in the USA (Pfiffner, 2005).
Deleted: Obama received the congratulation from Iran President, this shows a positive relation among both countries. Obama’s election not brought apparent changes in behaviour and policy. In the case invasion of Iran, it is path of ambiguity and dependency and for the USA it is the matter to not back down the powerful position. The main issue in both cases is the lack of trust among them.
Deleted: Anti-Americanism in Iran become an integral policy part that changes the course. Along with a lot of tensions among the USA and the Islamic Republic ha power and legitimacy. The mechanisms of the Iranian government shows foreign policy objectives are subordinate to the domestic political wrangling. The USA has publicity apologized occasion and expressed regret by the incidents. The idiosyncratic approach to the foreign policy for evaluating to be the legitimate and obstacles to be much effective and good dialogue between USA and Iran (Lempert, 2010).
Deleted: In the lacking relationship between Iran and the USA, there were conflicts among these nations. Political leaders have entrenched in the respective positions that allow flexibility. Iran diplomat involved that met the USA by the disagreement among them. US invasion of Iraq brought Iran and the USA much closer and built good relations among both countries. The conflicts were made due to the disagreement on a different decision that set mong both nations. The decision making was done among the two nations. Iran shows positive reactions towards the USA, but misunderstanding and blaming from Americans increase the conflict and it also affects the agreements among both countries (Hasenclever, Mayer, & Rittberger, 2000).
Deleted:

References

Deleted: Ferrero, C. (2013). The Iran Narrative: The Ideational Context of US Foreign Policy Decision-Making toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran and the Caucasus, 17(1).
Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., & Rittberger, V. (2000). INTEGRATING THEORIES OF INTERNATUIONAL REGIMES. Review of International Studies, 26(1), 3-33.
Lempert, R. (2010). The inevitability of theory. Calif. L. Rev, 877-2129.
Deleted: Pfiffner, J. P. (2005). Introduction: Presidential Decision Making: Rationality, Advisory Systems, and Personality. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 217-228.
Deleted: Vigil, J. M., & Coulombe, P. (2012). Intra-regional assortative sociality may be better explained by social network dynamics rather than pathogen risk avoidance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(2).