A Profile in Defiance

Note: For those of us who think a war between the U.S. and Iran is harmful to the interests of both and, particularly, to most Iranian-Americans, the following excerpts may be of some use. Of course, as you may guess, I do not agree with some of its contents, but you have to assess their merits and shortcomings for yourselves.

............................................

Author: Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies
Spring 2006The National Interest

Nowhere has this new ideological determinism been more evident than in perceptions of America. For the aging mullahs such as Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the more pragmatic head of the Expediency Council, Hashemi Rafsanjani, America remained the dominant actor in Iran’s melodrama. For the those hardliners (Ahmadinejad’s group), the United States was the source of all of Iran’s problems, while for the older generation of more pragmatist conservatives it was the solution to the theocracy’s mounting dilemmas. In either depiction, America was central to Iran’s affairs. Given that this cohort came into political maturity during the reign of the shah and his close alliance with the United States, was engaged in a revolutionary struggle that was defined by its opposition to America, and then led a state often in conflict with Washington, it was natural that they were obsessed with the United States.

In terms of their international perspective, Ahmadinejad’s generation of conservatives does not share its elders’ preoccupation with America. Their insularity and their ideology-laden assumptions about America as a pernicious, imperial power lessen their enthusiasm for coming to terms with a country long depicted as the “Great Satan.” Even a cursory examination of the younger hardliners’ speeches reveals much about their view of international relations: that power in the international system is flowing eastward. As Ali Larijani, the head of the Supreme National Security Council, noted, “There are certain big states in the Eastern Hemisphere such as Russia, China and India. These states can play a balancing role in today’s world.” In a similar vein, another stalwart of the new conservatives, the current mayor of Tehran, Muhammad Qalibaf, declared, “In the current international arena we see the emergence of South Asia. And if we do not take advantage of that, we will lose.” From the perspective of the new Right, globalization does not imply capitulating to the United States but cultivating relations with emerging power centers on the global landscape. It is hoped that such an “eastern orientation” might just obviate the need to come to terms with the United States.

In a stark contrast to their elders, the war generation displays a unique degree of indifference and passivity toward America. Ahmadinejad emphasized this point, stressing, “Our nation is continuing in path of progress and on this path has no significant need for the United States.” The notion that Iran should offer concessions on important national priorities for the sake of American benevolence has a limited appeal to Iran’s new leaders. After a quarter of a century of hostility, war and sanctions, Iran’s emerging leadership class is looking east, where its human rights record and proliferation tendencies are not particularly disturbing to its commercial partners.

In Ahmadinejad’s pantheon of angels and devils, Israel maintains an important position. During one of the usual gatherings of radicals, reactionaries and militants from across the Middle East (which are all too familiar to observers of the Islamic Republic), Ahmadinejad issued his infamous call for the eradication of Israel. Far from being chastened by the international outcry, he followed up his outrageous remarks by calling the Holocaust a “myth.” For a politician that had advocated the pan-Islamic dimension of Khomeini’s revolution, the flagrant attack on Israel was a natural, even routine affair. After all, one of the core pillars of Khomeini’s vision was the notion that Israel was an illegitimate entity and an imperial infringement on the Islamic realm.
However, beyond the glare of publicity and international condemnation, what was missed about Ahmadinejad’s speech was his attempt to reverse the reformist policy adjustment on Israel. Under the Khatami regime, Iran had gradually moved beyond some of its pathologies about Israel and stressed that it would be willing to countenance a peace compact acceptable to the Palestinians. As I noted in a previous article for The National Interest, the Iranian pragmatists were not going to be “more Palestinian than the Palestinians.”

In contrast, Ahmadinejad declared, “Anybody who takes a step toward Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations’ fury.” In essence, Iran’s president was suggesting that the Islamic Republic, on behalf of the entire Islamic community, would no longer be prepared to accept a peace treaty that was endorsed by the Palestinian officials and the Arab states. Indeed, Iran would not just continue its assistance to radical Palestinian groups determined to scuttle any peace treaty, but would potentially renew its earlier policy of seeking to subvert Arab regimes that normalized ties with the Jewish state.

At a time when the Middle East peace process appeared in tatters, Ahmadinejad may have perceived a unique opportunity to exploit the Palestinian cause to assert his influence on larger regional deliberations. Iran could use its opposition to the peace process to burnish its Islamist credentials and gain popularity with the Arab street, in turn allowing Iran to have an impact on regional issues. By embracing an inflammatory posture toward Israel, Ahmadinejad sought to press the theocratic regime, with its increasing penchant for diplomacy rather than confrontation, toward a more defiant international outlook.

A similar mixture of wariness and nationalism is driving the new regime’s approach to the nuclear issue. The bitter experience of the war has led to cries of “never again”, uniting the veterans-turned-politicians behind a desire to achieve not just a credible posture of deterrence but potentially a convincing retaliatory capability. After decades of tensions with America, Iran’s reactionaries perceive that conflict with the United States is inevitable and that the only manner by which America can be deterred is through possession of the strategic weapon. Although today the United States may seem entangled in an Iraqi quagmire that tempers its ambitions, for Iran’s rulers it is still an aggressive state whose power cannot be discounted and whose intentions must not be trusted.

Given their suspicions and paranoia, the hardliners insist that American objections to Iran’s nuclear program do not stem from its concerns about proliferation, but its opposition to the character of the regime. They argue that should Iran acquiesce on the nuclear portfolio, the perfidious Americans would only search for another issue with which to coerce Iran. “The West opposes the nature of the Islamic rule. If this issue [the nuclear standoff] is resolved, then they will bring up human rights. If we solve that, they will bring up animal rights”, emphasized Ahmadinejad. Given such views, there appears no sufficient incentive to compromise on such critical national issues, since acquiescence will not measurably relieve American antagonism.
America ’s Strategy

Unfortunately, both American rhetoric and strategy have implicitly validated such perceptions. In the aftermath of September 11, Washington quickly forgave Pakistan its pervasive nuclear sins because of its tentative cooperation on the war on terrorism. In yet another gesture of power politics, the desire to buttress the evolving strategic relationship with India led the Bush Administration to absolve New Delhi of its persistent snubbing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is difficult to make the case that counter-proliferation is an important American priority when the Bush Administration is busy absolving serial nuclear proliferators of any responsibility.

Moreover, the Iranian hardliners find an unusual source for validating their suspicions: the American hawks. Too often, America’s vigilant conservatives muse that a more democratic Iran could be permitted to have an advanced nuclear infrastructure, if not an actual weapon. Robert Kagan captured this flawed reasoning best by recently claiming, “Were Iran ruled by a democratic government, even an imperfect one, we would be much less concerned about its weaponry.” Such arguments are dangerous, for they implicitly affirm Ahmadinejad’s claims that it is the regime, not its nuclear program, that the United States finds objectionable. In essence, the American hawks indulge in an inept argument that under a different regime, Iran should be permitted to violate its treaty obligations. When American conservatives say that a democratic Iran should be permitted to have nuclear weapons, then in essence they concede that a pluralistic Iran should be allowed to violate the NPT, but not an Islamic Iran. As a result, neither the Bush Administration’s discursive counter-proliferation policies nor its allies’ preposterous assertions contribute to a conclusive resolution of Iran’s nuclear impasse.

As Iran plots its nuclear strategy, the American demands that it relinquish its fuel-cycle rights granted to it by the NPT have aroused an intense nationalistic uproar. Larijani emphasized this point, stressing, “Access to nuclear technology is our right and [we] will insist on it.” As a country that has historically been the subject of foreign intervention and the imposition of various capitulation treaties, Iran is inordinately sensitive of its national prerogatives and sovereign rights. The new rulers of Iran believe they are being challenged not because of their provocations and previous treaty violations, but because of superpower bullying. In a peculiar manner, the nuclear program and Iran’s national identity have become fused in the imagination of the hardliners. To stand against an impudent America is to validate one’s revolutionary ardor and sense of nationalism. Thus, the notion of compromise and acquiescence has limited utility to Iran’s aggrieved nationalists.

It is still too early to suggest that Iran is re-entering the dark ages of the early revolutionary period. The Islamic Republic is a government ruled by factions and competing power centers. The intriguing aspect of Iran that tends to persistently puzzle Western observers is that these political factions never completely lose their influence despite poor electoral performance. The fact remains that they all represent important constituencies and have a presence in the complicated web of informal and formal institutions that govern the Islamic Republic. The pragmatic elements of the state and the reformist politicians are engaged in a subtle attempt to restrain Iran’s impetuous new president and are pressing Khamenei to curb Ahmadinejad’s ideological edges. The power plays and rivalries have hardly disappeared, as the perennially divided state is once more battling itself.

However, it is undeniable that a new, harsh political tendency led by a severe war generation has infiltrated the corridors of power. Ahmadinejad and his allied faction (with their powerful appeals to Khomeini’s legacy and open contempt for their elders’ corruption) cannot be discounted or dismissed. Although it may be difficult for a Western audience to appreciate, Ahmadinejad’s message of economic populism and nationalistic self-assertion does enjoy a level of public support, particularly among the lower classes struggling with Iran’s inequalities. A strident new voice has now enshrined itself within the landscape of the Islamic Republic, pressing Iran toward confrontation abroad and reaction at home.