home > by publication type > backgrounders > Iran's Multifaceted Foreign Policy
Email
| Author: | Lionel Beehner |
|---|
April 7, 2006
Iranian foreign policy choices continue to generate concern, from Tehran's nuclear posturing to its activities in Iraq to its support for U.S.-branded terrorist organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah. But where does Iran's foreign policy originate? This question becomes particularly relevant as the United States looks to begin dialogue with Iran on Iraq. The answer reveals much about the divisions within the Iranian leadership. While Iran remains suspicious of—and at times openly hostile to—U.S. ambitions in the Persian Gulf region, its foreign policy has grown more complex and nuanced since the ideological 1980s. In positions of power are moderates as well as militants, reformers as well as revolutionaries. The result is a foreign policy that, experts say, is muddled and far from monolithic. "Although Iran's hard-line leadership has maintained a remarkable unity of purpose in the face of reformist challengers, it is badly fragmented over key foreign policy issues, including the importance of nuclear weapons," wrote Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution and CFR Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh in a 2005 Foreign Affairs article.
The Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), currently headed by Ali Larijani. Larijani doubles as Iran's top negotiator on nuclear issues and enjoys close relations with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has final say over all SNSC decisions. "Decisions in Iran are made by consensus rather than decree" says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst with the International Crisis Group. "Ayatollah Khamenei rules the country much like a CEO." The SNSC is composed mostly of top officials from the ministries of foreign affairs, intelligence, and interior, as well as military leaders from the army and the Revolutionary Guards, Iran's main security apparatus formed in the wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Many of their foreign views, including those of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, were shaped by the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. "[Many of] the first-generation revolutionaries of Iran are still pursuing an ideological or kind of a defensive strategy to maintain the country's revolution," said Mahmood Sariolghalam, a professor of international relations at the National University of Iran, at a recent CFR meeting. Many of these leaders say the West, particularly the United States, was complicit in Saddam Hussein's use of chemical gas against the Iranians. Yet some experts say the orientation of Iran's "war generation" elite has shifted somewhat from the offensive posture it held during the 1980s. Then, it sought to export the Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East, by violence if necessary—but today, the elite has adopted a more defensive and pragmatic stance. Others, including some U.S. officials, say anti-Israel statements by Ahmadinejad are more reflective of the Iranian regime's true character, which would become even more worrisome if Iran acquired nuclear capabilities.
There are several, experts say. Iran's parliament, the Majlis, has the power to approve all international agreements, contracts, and treaties. But the Guardian Council, a highly influential twelve-member body of six clerics and six conservative jurists picked by the Supreme Leader, has veto power over all decisions made by the Majlis. Another body, the Expediency Council, arbitrates between the Majlis and the Guardian Council, and consults the Supreme Leader when these two bodies fail to reach agreement. The Expediency Council is chaired by former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who continues to wield considerable behind-the-scenes influence over foreign policy. Khamenei recently expanded the powers of the Expediency Council. Finally, experts say the Revolutionary Guards also play an increasingly important role in setting foreign policy. The Revolutionary Guards are reported to be training, funding, and equipping Shiite militias in southern Iraq.
No. In fact, their policies can often appear contradictory. For example, when Larijani and others say Tehran's uranium-enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, these statements are undermined, experts say, by Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the elimination of Israel. Reformists within the Majlis often accuse the executive branch of taking stances that are too confrontational. Also, Iran's foreign ministry has a sometimes conflicting agenda in Iraq with its Revolutionary Guards, particularly on the issue of Tehran's relationship with anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The foreign ministry prefers not to deal with Sadr, while the Revolutionary Guards have reportedly established close contacts with Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, and even provide his troops with financial and material support. But William Samii, an Iran expert with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, says the examples cited above are more emblematic of a lack of coordination than a rift within the ruling elite.
Ahmadinejad has some influence over foreign policy—he appoints the cabinet and the head of the SNSC—but power remains mostly in the hands of the SNSC and the Supreme Leader. "[Ahmadinejad] is a small piece of the puzzle and can be influential on the fringes, but certainly not [by] steering Iranian foreign or nuclear policy," Sadjadpour says. Experts say Ahmadinejad's controversial statements calling for Israel's elimination should not be construed as official foreign policy. "He's sort of a bull in a china shop and neophyte in foreign affairs," says Samii. "He does not have great input on [Iranian] foreign policy. But he hasn't been president six months and he's managed to alienate most of the international community." Two days after his anti-Israel comments, Khamenei came out publicly to say Iran's official policy was one of nonaggression toward all members of the United Nations. "He made it very clear: enough of this talk," Sadjadpour says. Older generations in Iran, particularly centrists like Rafsanjani and former president Mohammed Khatami, have been particularly critical of Ahmadinejad's hard-line foreign policy, as well as his "wholesale replacement of state officials," says Samii.
Sadjadpour says Khamenei plays a more influential role in Iranian foreign affairs now than at any point in his seventeen-year reign. According to Iran's constitution, the Supreme Leader serves as commander-in-chief of the armed and police forces; the head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), the state ministry in control of television and radio; and leader of the country's judiciary. Most important, "he's the person steering the Iranian nuclear ship," Sadjadpour says. "But if you look at his track record the last seventeen years, he's been someone who has wanted neither confrontation nor accommodation with the West." Sariolghalam likens Iran's stance to that of the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev, saying, "[The policy] is not to provoke the United States nor intervene in Iraq but to maintain some degree of conflict." Khamenei, Samii says, also has the power to transfer authority to anyone or any office he deems necessary. The Supreme Leader also has representatives within all of Iran's governing bodies who report back to him.
Its greatest fear, experts say, is the threat posed by UN Security Council sanctions, which might further cripple Iran's economy and cut off investment. Iran's economy is dependent on outside investors and overly reliant on its energy sector. More than 90 percent of Iranians receive their income from the state. Although Iran, buoyed by high oil prices, has $40 billion in foreign exchange reserves, its economy suffers from high unemployment and rampant inflation. "What we've seen from the Iranians over the last fifteen years is that they are hypersensitive to threats to their economy," said Brookings' Middle East expert Pollack at a recent CFR meeting. And the Supreme Leader is aware of this, Sadjadpour says. "He realizes Iran is dependent on foreign investment, must have good relations with the outside world, and cannot survive in isolation."
Officially, Tehran and Washington have had no formal diplomatic relations since the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. In the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration dealt clandestinely with Iran by selling the regime arms in exchange for Americans held hostage in Lebanon. There has also been some low-level cooperation between Washington and Tehran on antidrug policies, counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, and anti-oil-smuggling efforts in Iraq. More recently, in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, Iran reportedly made an overture to U.S. officials to begin what former U.S. policymaker Flynt Leverett says was "a diplomatic process intended to resolve on a comprehensive basis all the bilateral differences between the United States and Iran." The Americans, preoccupied with Iraq, rebuffed the offer. "There was skepticism that this was a serious Iranian offer and not an overture from the highest levels in Iran," Sadjadpour says.
In recent weeks, Larijani has indicated a willingness to engage U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad on the issue of Iraq. Others in Iran have also expressed a desire to deal directly with Washington, instead of through proxies like Russia or the so-called EU-3, on the nuclear issue. "It's better to negotiate with the Great Satan than with little Satans," said Ali Zadsar, a member of Iran's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, as reported by RFE/RL. On Iraq, the Bush administration has approved such talks with Iran but no schedule has been set.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
Start-Up Nation addresses the trillion-dollar question: How is it that Israel—a country of 7.1 million, only sixty years old, surrounded by enemies— produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK? With the insights of geopolitical experts and investors, the authors examine this nation’s adversity-driven culture to answer this question and offer prescriptions for a global economy on the rebound.
In Forces of Fortune, Vali Nasr presents a paradigm-changing revelation that will transform the understanding of the Muslim world at large. He reveals that there is a vital but unseen rising force in the Islamic world—a new business-minded middle class—that is building a vibrant new Muslim world economy and that holds the key to winning the cold war against Iran and extremists.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba's unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
Complete list of CFR Books
The report of this bipartisan Task Force of distinguished leaders and experts represents a strong consensus on the importance of repairing America's immigration policy. It makes the case that maintaining America's political and economic leadership depends on attracting talented and hard-working immigrants, and on securing the country's borders in a smart, effective, and humane way.
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
Identifying international threats and acting on them may be the most difficult job for U.S. policymakers. This report
provides an actionable road map for managing international threats before they erupt into crises and makes a strong case that preventive action is not a luxury but a necessity.
For more than a decade, the United States has mostly watched from the sidelines as Asian countries organize themselves into an alphabet soup of new multilateral groups. In this report, the authors review the relationship between pan-Asian and trans-Pacific institutions and suggest policy guidelines for a new U.S. approach to this new Asian landscape.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.