Iran Won’t Give Up on Its Revolution
Iran is a revolutionary power with hegemonic aspirations. In other words, it is a country seeking to assert its dominance in the region and it will not play by the rules. Yet, the Obama administration hopes a nuclear agreement will have a “transcendental effect” on Iran and convince it to abandon its imperial aspirations in return for a sense of normalcy.
The world has lived with hegemonic powers in the past. Russia, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain all had similar aspirations before World War I. It was such powers that pushed the world into war in 1914 and again in 1939. Nazi Germany sought to dominate Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Volga River, reducing other countries to vassal states and establishing complete military, economic and diplomatic control.
In the wake of this ruin and chaos, the post-World War II order led by the United States established rules for the international community that sought to keep such powers in check. Even today, countries with hegemonic tendencies, like China, acknowledge the legitimacy of this international order.
Iran, however, has brazenly defied this international order and continues to expand its reach. It uses an assortment of terrorism, proliferation, military proxies, and occasionally old-fashioned diplomacy to further its dominance.
Although the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is often cited as the beginning of the Iran’s imperial worldview, Iran’s hegemonic aspirations actually date back to the Safavid Dynasty of the 16th century. The Safavids sought to distance themselves from the powerful Sunni Ottoman Empire and refashioned Iran into the preeminent Shiite power (Iran became an officially Shiite country in 1502). In the ensuing centuries, Iran extended its control over Afghanistan, the “Persian” Gulf, Iraq and the southern Caucasus.
Iran halted its expansionism in the 18th century as it went into a decline after debilitating wars against the Ottomans and Russians. During the Cold War, the Shah took advantage of American backing to promote Iranian imperial power, once again. He extended financial and military support to Shiite communities and its proxies around the Middle East. In the early 1970s, for example, Iran backed the Iraqi Kurds to establish influence in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Similarly, in 1975, Musa al-Sadr, an Iranian cleric backed by the Shah, issued a fatwa declaring the Syrian Alawites, who belong to a heterodox branch of Islam, as Shiites. This act brought the Syrian Alawites into Iran’s permanent fold, with grave repercussions for today’s civil war in Syria.
In 1979, the anti-American leaders of the revolution fused their nationalist claims of past Persian glories with a millennial ideology to create a single Islamic state militancy. However, after the bloody and protracted Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the Islamic Republic realized that conventional military doctrine would no longer suffice.
In conjunction with Tehran’s doctrine of “exporting the revolution” to nearby Muslim countries, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary GuardsCorps developed asymmetric warfare tactics aimed at building Iranian influence through sectarian and political alliances.
In doing so, Iran often acted as the guardian of the broader Shiite community in places such as Bahrain and Yemen. Iran has established a carefully crafted network of Shiite militias: Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis and Iraq’s Badr Corps, among others. Moreover, Iran controls the Shiite clerical establishment and financial networks throughout the Middle East.
Iran is not bound exclusively by sectarian politics. It has also befriended belligerent Sunni actors across the Middle East to bolster its regional status. To this end, Tehran has developed strong ties with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Iran has even made inroads into Sunni Sudan, which they have used to transport weapons to Gaza.
At times, Iran does not care for Muslims, or even Shiites — in the southern Caucasus, Iran has allied itself with Christian Armenia against the Shiite-majority Azerbaijan, which is pro-American. Ultimately, it is not religion but imperial ambition that drives Iranian foreign policy.
History offers few examples of bringing such powers into the international system. Revolutionary hegemonic powers combine the imperialist lust for “lebensraum” seen in Wilhelmine Germany with a religious or millennial worldview that rejects the principles of the classic international order.
In February 2013, Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader and the ultimate decision maker in areas of foreign and military policy, called the negotiations with the West a deceptive trick, proudly adding: “I am not a diplomat. I am a revolutionary.” Ayatollah Khamanei will blame Mr. Rouhani if the negotiations fail or move in a direction that he does not like. His legitimacy stems from the Iranian revolutionary project, and any compromise would be an admission that he does not believe in that narrative of world history.
Iran’s imperial ambitions are not new. Under the Safavids, the Shah and the mullahs alike, Tehran has vied for regional domination. Do not expect Iran to compromise its principles any time soon.
Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute. James F. Jeffrey is the former American ambassador to Iraq, Turkey, and Albania. Mehdi Khalaji is a Shiite theologian and is writing a political biography of Iran’s supreme leader.
related posts
-
Getting Leverage Over Iran
Thomas Friedman wrote an interesting article on the Cold War between the US and Iran. He writes: When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush [...]
-
Iran Can Only Be Stopped in Iran
With regards to the Hezbollah-Lebanon-Doha debacle, and the article by Barry Rubin that I blogged about here, I received some interesting comments from Ami Isseroff, who runs MideastWeb and who I consider one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking analysts on the Middle East: There is no use comparing everything bad that happens to Munich. [...]
-
Reality Check on Iran
Can policy makers and strategists be really so naive? The Ahmedinejad regime has turned Iran’s right to nuclear development into a national mantra. Only its Islamic fundamentalism and its ideology of spreading their revolution stand above their nuclear ambition. And yet diplomats seem to think they can sway Iran into a set of incentives to [...]
-
The Problem with Iran
What is the problem with the Iranian regime? Just this last week the Washington Post reported that yet again the Iranian government had sponsored a contest and released a book that caricatured the Holocaust. No matter what political position any person or country may hold, mocking a human tragedy and fomenting racism against any peoples [...]
-
Why “Deterrence” May Not Apply to Iran
My Dad used to really admire Charles Krauthammer’s writing. When I was younger, so did I. I am not sure if my views evolved, or if he become far more conservative than I recalled, but over the last decade, I find him to be so immersed in an inflexible right-wing ideology lacking any subtlety that [...]
Comments are closed.