The Third World, Global Islam and Pragmatism: Introduction

The Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the last nation states to deliberately position itself strategically and ideologically in opposition to the United States. The reasons for this lie in the history of Iran in the twentieth century and – in the view of the regime in Tehran – in the Islamic character and specifically Persian features of the country. More than thirty years after the Islamic revolution it is still unclear to many in the Western world what ideology Iran actually espouses and hence what are the principles and goals guiding Iranian foreign policy. Opinions on this subject are determined on the one hand by mistrust of an Islamic regime and fear of religious fundamentalism and on the other by surprise at the pragmatism of Iranian foreign policy.

Depending on which of these perceptions is the dominant one, this leads to two opposing assessments of Iran: either that its policies are dominated by religious irrationalism, which, in combination with Iran’s nuclear programme, constitutes a global threat – adherents of this view believe the international com- munity should rigorously oppose this programme; or the opposite view that ideology is only window dressing for a nation state acting rationally in defence of its own interests. A closer look at the main priorities of Iranian foreign policy reveals that neither of these positions is tenable as such.

Ideology and pragmatism in fact go hand in hand in Iranian foreign policy. The question of whether the Islamic Republic stands for an ideology that exploits the resources of the Iranian nation for its own ends, or whether the nation-state of Iran is using an ideological construct to boost its status in the international com- munity must ultimately go unanswered, since even in Iran itself no consensus exists on this point. What observers do agree about is that anti-Americanism forms the basis for the ideology and hence for Iranian foreign policy. A shift in this stance would obviously have far-reaching consequences for Iran’s relations with the international community, and there have in fact been repeated instances of cooperation between the United States and Iran motivated by converging interests, albeit not sufficient to bring about a break- through in relations. The reasons for the continuing distance between the two states are not only ideological but often practical. The Americans, for instance, stumble over the question of who should make con- tact with whom in Iran.

Iran’s institutional framework and how Iranian foreign policy is formulated behind the scenes are the source of considerable uncertainty in the West. How much latitude Iranian decision-makers – whether the president, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution or the general secretary of the Supreme National Security Council – have in foreign policy has been a matter of repeated speculation, although it is actually quite easy to trace the process by which a foreign policy consensus is arrived at. Of particular interest to Western observers are the latest developments on the Iranian think tank scene, which is becoming an increasingly important factor underpinning Iranian diplomacy.

Most studies seeking to explain the true nature of Iran and how it functions stress the role of Islam, specifically the dominant Shiite confession (in its revolutionary form), or the distinctly Persian features of Iranian culture. What they often overlook, how- ever, is a political discourse that is central for Iranians, namely, the Third World rhetoric from which the Iranians derive their identity and their self-image as the spearhead of developing countries. Yet it is precisely this view of the world that constitutes the real ideological sticking point between the West and Iran, since it generally leads to diametrically opposed interpretations of world events. This applies not only to the classic case of different readings of the Non- Proliferation Treaty but also to less complex issues, such as the question of whether Iran is actually isolated or not. It also explains why Iran assumes as a matter of course that its actions and behaviour will have the support of what it calls the “true inter- national community” – represented by the Non- Aligned Movement and Islamic countries – which in turn bolsters Iranian self-confidence.

For the international community Iran’s geostrategic importance means that alongside its nuclear programme the country’s regional policy is the most important element of Tehran’s foreign policy. Here two main focuses can be identified: on the one hand, Central Asia and the Caucasus and on the other, the Middle East, defined as the area stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Levant, including Egypt. Both of these regions are of equal importance for Iran, yet there are two reasons why its status and prestige are derived mainly from its activities in and vis-à-vis the Middle East: first, because in Western eyes Iran’s hostile attitude towards Israel and its rejection of American hegemony in the region constitute the greatest threat to regional security; and second, because for an important part of the Iranian elite the Middle East is of major significance for ideological and biographical reasons. Tehran’s relations with the former Soviet republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus have never carried comparable weight and have been considered secondary both by the West and by Iran – even though Iran’s security policy and economic ambitions would suggest that the Central Asian-Caucasus region should take priority.

The changes ushered in by the Arab Spring in the Middle East initially had no repercussions for Iran’s strategic position. Egypt’s return to its role as a moderate Islamic power was greeted by Iran, in some cases even lauded. The real test for Iran is Syria. The popular rebellion against the Assad regime and the decision of the Palestinian Hamas to opt out of the so-called “axis of resistance” have dealt severe ideological blows to Tehran. The long and painful agony of the Assad regime has already produced a strategic stalemate between regional and global actors. In the long term this crisis has the potential to escalate into a regional or super-regional war waged on the basis of ethnicity and confession. This would be neither in the interests of the West nor of Iran. As in the case of Afghanistan it is likely to prove impossible to resolve the Syrian crisis without the involvement of Iran. In view of the new situation in the Middle East, therefore, a review of relations with Iran would seem advisable, making a resolution of the nuclear issue all the more urgent.

Read the full paper.