home > the cfr think tank > experts > mohamad bazzi > Expect More Adventurism from Iran
Email
| Author: | Mohamad Bazzi, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies |
|---|
August 23, 2009
Wall Street Journal
Shortly after the rigged election and popular uprising in Iran, a seductive conventional wisdom emerged in Western policy-making circles: The Iranian regime, if it survived, would be significantly weakened by internal problems and would abandon its regional ambitions. Tehran's influence in the Middle East will diminish as the hardline regime scrambles to ensure its own survival.
This is wishful thinking. The best way Iran's clerical hierarchy and military apparatus can shore up their Islamic and populist credentials, and maintain their grip on power, is to engage in more adventurism abroad.
This will further polarize the Middle East between the so-called axis of resistance (led by Iran and its allies Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas) and the axis of accommodation (Sunni Arab states allied with the U.S.). The leaders of the axis of resistance rarely miss an opportunity to portray themselves as the true defenders of the Palestinian cause, who reflect the popular will of millions of Muslims chafing under regimes that "sold out" to the United States. And having spent decades nurturing its allies in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and, more recently, in the Palestinian territories, Tehran will be loath to allow these alliances to wither.
Within Iran, the regime has chosen repression over accommodation to the opposition. It is unlikely that the ruling clique can win back its legitimacy at home, but it will try to burnish its populist credentials abroad. Otherwise, the entire facade of an axis of resistance will crumble.
Consider these events:
On July 14, a mysterious explosion destroyed a building in the southern Lebanese town of Khirbet Silim. U.N. peacekeepers blamed it on a Hezbollah weapons depot that accidentally blew up. The Shiite militant group did not appreciate the international attention. A few days later, when U.N. troops tried to search houses in the town, they were surrounded by hundreds of villagers who pelted them with rocks and forced them to withdraw.
Under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war, U.N. forces are supposed to intercept illegal-weapons shipments and raid storage sites south of the Litani River. They have rarely done so. (While Hezbollah continues its arms buildup, Israel has also violated Resolution 1701 with frequent overflights into Lebanese airspace.)
Hezbollah's leadership would not take such an aggressive stance right now unless it was sure that it had the support of the Iranian regime and security establishment. If Iran was going to reduce its regional role, then Hezbollah would want to keep a low profile instead of antagonizing Israel and the U.N.
Mr. Nasrallah also pledged that in case of another war, he will order missile strikes on Tel Aviv if Israel bombs Hezbollah's base of support: the dahiyeh, or southern suburbs of Beirut. "The equation will no longer be Tel Aviv for Beirut, but instead Tel Aviv for the dahiyeh," he thundered at his Aug. 14 rally. This is an important distinction, because during the 2006 war, Israel largely avoided bombing central Beirut, while Hezbollah refrained from firing missiles on Tel Aviv.
Israel deployed one of its Dolphin-class submarines, which can fire nuclear-armed cruise missiles, and two missile corvettes through the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea. The commander of the Iranian navy-who said the new deployments and fortifications were personally ordered by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-pledged that Iran plans a stronger presence in international waters off its southern coast "in a bid to maintain the country's might."
Its legitimacy problems notwithstanding, the Islamic Republic will find ways to reconcile the contradiction of diverting resources externally, even as it deals with an internal crisis. It has done so in the past. Iran stepped up its financial and military support for Hamas in 2006 after the group lost aid from Persian Gulf states amid an international boycott. At the time, Iran was facing an internal economic crisis, but aid to Hamas and Hezbollah continued.
This moment does present an opportunity for the Arab states to wrest some populist legitimacy from Iran. The Obama administration can help by pushing for renewed Arab-Israeli peace talks. Even incremental movement toward a peace deal can potentially weaken the axis of resistance at a time when its legitimacy is in question. The administration must also continue its outreach to Syria, which has shown new willingness to return to the Arab fold.
But President Obama should be careful not to overemphasize the notion of splitting Syria away from Iran. The Syrian-Iranian alliance has endured for more than 25 years. It cannot be undone lightly. No matter how much the U.S. and its allies might wish it, imperial Iran is not going away any time soon.
Mr. Bazzi is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a journalism professor at New York University.
This article appears in full on CFR.org by permission of its original publisher. It was originally available here
Explore the international finance regime with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
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
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.