Security issue or security dilemma?

Recently, the United States claimed they had prevented an Iranian terrorist attack. The supposed violence-in-the-making would have been directed against the Israeli and Saudi-Arabian embassies in Washington. A faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - the country's politically influential elite army - would have been behind the plotting. The Iranian government denies all accusations, which they percieve as a framing operation set up by the United States itself. I will stay clear of declaring any truth. In stead, this article will offer a framework to analyse the tensed US-Iran relation, based on the classic notion of the safety dilemma.

A safety dilemma occurs when one state raises its military capacity and, by doing so, becomes a treath to a second state. This other state will have to decide whether to respond proportionally or to remain idle. When responding with armement, the first state may interpret this as a hostile signal undoing its initial effort; an arms race is started. Persuing the second option however means that a (percieved) risk is left unattended. This phenomenon, which involves a great deal of subjectivity, proves to be most usefull in explaining US-Iranian frictions.

Uncle Sam and president Ahmadinejad in a 'staring contest'

Let's start with the States. The US has a Cold War-era ally in the Middle East which isn't too loved by the Arab nations. This ally Israel is believed to possess nuclear arms, though it never formally confirmed or denied this. In adittion, the States supported Irak in its war against Iran back in the eighties. American support was given to Saddam Hussein (yes, the very same) because the Iranian regime wasn't too favorable for the West. This war, which continued from 1980 to 1988, is a bit forgotten by most of us but the terrible attrocities inflicted upon the Iranian people are well-remembered over there. It  is a scar that never fully healed and here is where trouble kicks in. Iran is still traumatized by its history. It still thinks that the main objective of the West concerning Iran is to install a friendly regime it can influence. Just like the one of the Shah before the Islamic Revolution. With a nuclear treath in Israel and ongoing military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran feels enclosed. The only way it sees out of this 'brutal imperialism' is a nuclear weapon of its own. Iran's nuclear program, together with its violent language when condamning Israel or the US, are only the stepping stone to the next degree of the security dilemma. Now the Iranian bomb in turn is seen as a treat to regional stability by the Americans.

The perception of both states is in this all more important than the facts. Does the US seek to overthrow the Ayatollahs? Is Iran being agressive in its nuclear program? Was a terrorist attack prevented or is it a framing operations after all? These questions might be interesting, but they do not reach the heart of the conflict. What really matters is that the US and Iran are engaged in a logic of confrontation; there is a lack of mutual trust. We aren't looking at a security issue, but rather at a security dilemma.