 |
Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, November 11, 2006. (Reuters Photo) |
There are three focal issues that dominate any debate on the Islamic Republic of Iran: First, the nature of the Iranian political system; second, how the Iranian regime views the other; and third, the foreign policy that has been in effect since 1979.
In order to gain a better understanding of the Islamic Republic, it is important to analyze the Iranian foreign policy as, on the one hand, it is the way through which we can assess the relationship between religion and politics in the Islamic Republic, and, on the other, it is important to understand the impact of Iranian foreign policy on regional and international security.
According to what is spelled out in the constitution, Iranian foreign policy is made according to a number of fundamental principles: First, rejecting all forms of external domination; second, preserving Iran's independence and territorial integrity; third, defending the rights of all Muslims without allying with hegemonic powers; and fourth, maintaining peaceful relations with all non-belligerent states.
These principles have been guiding Iranian foreign policy since the Islamic Revolution; nevertheless, a pragmatic approach is adopted by decision makers in Iran sometimes due to regional and international developments.
In light of these principles, it is easy to understand the Islamic Republic's foreign policy and its support for Islamic resistance movements around the world. Also, they make the so-called concept of exporting the revolution — widely held in the 1980s —clearer.
| The majority of Iranian politicians believe that moving towards the East is less risky than building relations with the West. |
It can be argued that Iran's endeavors to portray itself as the center of the Muslim World is an attempt to gain worldwide Muslim support, which gives it more legitimacy in the face of regional and international challenges. However, the principles guiding Iranian foreign policy have created real enemies for Iran — as the Islamic Republic calls them. Such an animosity has paved the way for the current confrontation between Iran and Western powers.
The United States and some European countries consider Iran and its foreign policy "the greatest threat to security and stability in the Middle East." On the other hand, the Islamic regime in Tehran regards the West in general and the United States in particular as "the enemies of Islam and Iran."
Such animosity dominated the Islamic Republic's relations with the West, an animosity that became more intense during the eight-year-war between Iran and Iraq due to the Western support for Iraq. There was a widely held belief among Iranians that the backing that Iraq received for the period of the war could be attributed to the Islamic nature of the Iranian regime.
In this context, it becomes understandable why Iranians are heading towards the East rather than the West. Such a predisposition can be perceived as a response to: First, the cultural attack on the basic principles of the Islamic Revolution; and second, the notorious history of British and US intervention in Iran in the 20th century, not to mention the US-backed overthrow of Prime Minster Mohammed Mossadaq, who wanted to nationalize Iranian oil production, in 1953.
The majority of Iranian politicians believe that moving towards the East is less risky than building relations with the West with its hegemonic tendencies. Hence, Iran considers China a model that should be followed. The successive leading figures in the Iranian political system, including Khamenei, Rafsanjani, and Ahmadinejad, have embraced this belief.
Furthermore, Iran has been moving rapidly towards Latin America and Africa, succeeding in building strong relations with a number of Latin American and African countries, including Cuba and Venezuela. By pursuing such a policy, Iranian politicians aim at strengthening the economy as well as alleviating the pressure exercised by the West and the United States.
Iranian politicians can be divided into four main categories: Classics, conservatives, reformists, and neo-conservatives. Almost all Iranian politicians, except for a group of reformists, agree on the abovementioned principles; a group of reformist politicians believe that it is necessary to maintain relations with the West, arguing that Iranian foreign policy is distorting Iran's image. Hence, they call for a serious review of Iranian foreign policy.
| What Khatami did was perceived as a "radical change" in Iranian foreign policy. |
Over the eight years that preceded Ahmadinejad's ascendance to power, Mohammed Khatami's foreign policy was mostly driven by two goals: first, creating strong links between domestic issues and foreign policy; and second, improving Iran's relations with the world through the policy of détente and mutual respect.
Khatami was successful in improving both the image of the Ayatollahs as well as the image of Iran. The new positive impression of the Islamic Republic helped it become a very important player in both the Middle East and the world. By 2001, Khatami's initiative, Dialogue Between Civilizations, bestowed much respect upon Iran and its president. The new relaxed atmosphere helped replacing the previously existing belief that Iranian foreign policy was "closely connected to — and indeed an extension of — policies and priorities of the theocratic regime and its dominant elite." (Zeba)
What Khatami did was perceived as a "radical change" in Iranian foreign policy. Such a change had a deep impact on Iran's relations with a number of European countries, such as France, Spain, Greece, and Italy. As a result, he was the first Iranian president to be received in these countries since the 1979 Revolution. Khatami's new approach towards the West resulted in moving Iran's nuclear program away from the spotlight, giving it less importance in Iran-EU talks.
| Although the president has some space for maneuvering, his authority is still limited. |
The presidential election held in June 2005 has shown that the new Iranian leadership will not follow the footsteps of Khatami. Winning the Iranian ninth presidential election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decided to pursue a new policy, shifting his focus to the East as well as Latin America. Also, he revived the fiery rhetoric of Israel and the Holocaust, which totally disappeared during Khatami's presidency.
Iranian foreign policy under Ahmadinejad has proved itself to be a constant source of problems on both the regional and international levels. The rapid political developments in the domestic arena have spilled over into Iranian foreign policy.
The question that poses itself after each presidential election is about the changes in the Iranian foreign policy. This question is viable; however, it reflects a misunderstanding of the Iranian political system.
Although the president has some space for maneuvering, his authority is still limited. The limitations on the president's authority were manifested in Ayatollah Khamenei's appointment of Kamal Kharazi, who embraces ideas different from those of Ahmadinejad, as Foreign Minister.
Thus, Iranian policy makers are obliged to offer answers for dozens of questions on a large number of critical issues, such as Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, which makes them face every time the dilemma of ideology and pragmatism. However, it seems that the foreign policy currently adopted by Iranian decision makers is dragging the Islamic Republic towards a confrontation with the West. And as events unfold, the forthcoming days will bring more to Iran, in particular, and the Middle East, in general.
References:
- Moshaver, Zeba. "Revolution, Theocratic Leadership and Iran's Foreign Policy: Implications for Iran-EU Relations." International Affairs, Vol.3, No.2, Winter 2003, p. 283.
- Kariman, Kamil. Iran's Foreign Diplomacy in the Era of Reforms.
- Bellaigue, Christopher de. "Iran's Last Chance for Reform." The Washington Quarterly, Autumn 2001, pp. 76-79.
- Iran (Daily newspaper). 13 August 2004.
|
