By Jalil Bayat
A nearly 40-year absence of ties between Iran and the United States has culminated in misunderstandings and mistakes between the two governments and an insufficient understanding between the two societies. This is the case even among the scientific community, political experts, and analysts. U.S. experts have little knowledge of Iranian society, culture, domestic politics, institutions, and foreign policy decision-makings, and vice versa. This is also true in the case of Iranian-Americans living in the U.S. who lack accurate information on daily life and events in Iran due to migration and having spent many years away from a country which has been relentlessly changing.
One such example can be seen in a recent Foreign Affairs article titled “Iran, the Unitary State.” While acknowledging the insufficient understanding of U.S. officials and experts about Iran, it provides an incomplete analysis of Iran’s foreign policy decision-making process.
The main point made by the authors is that factionalism has no role in Iran’s security decisions, and that Iran decides as a unified state actor on this issue. They presume Iran’s role in the Aramco strikes and argue that all the pillars of power in Iran were united on this. This claim has several drawbacks.
First, the sophistication of strikes on Aramco is not a forgone conclusion of Iran’s culpability. Iran has repeatedly denied the allegations and the Houthis have explicitly claimed responsibility. No concrete evidence has been submitted on the case to date.
But all this aside, the authors have not taken into account the events of the past two years in terms of Iran’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal and its implications for the moderate faction in Iran led by President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.
If foreign politics is said to be the extension of domestic politics, factionalism has a significant impact on foreign policy approaches. How else, for instance, can the differences between Barack Obama’s policies, who signed the nuclear deal, and Donald Trump’s policies, who left the same deal, be explained? This is also true of Iran and most other countries. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the foreign policy of former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the same as the policies of Hassan Rouhani.
Of course, it is correct to say that Iran’s strategic policies are decided by the Supreme National Security Council and endorsed by the Supreme Leader prior to implementation. But this does not mean that Rouhani’s moderate government is satisfied with an acceleration of the hard-line policies of Iran over the past six months. Indeed, U.S. withdrawal from the JCOPA and its “maximum pressure” policy weakened the position of the moderates, including in the Supreme National Security Council. In other words, with escalating tensions in the region and the failure of the government’s diplomacy, the weight of the resistance forces in the council has increased, and opposition by moderates has been ineffective as decisions are taken by a majority vote.
This reality must be accepted that the Iranian political system is neither a liberal Western democracy nor a dictatorship like North Korea. It is something in-between. The political behavior of Iran’s Supreme Leader has also shown that he believes in collective wisdom and, except in rare cases, he endorses the decisions of the Supreme National Security Council. In the same way that he agreed to negotiate the nuclear deal with the U.S. in 2013, Ayatollah Khamenei also endorsed an alternative view to resist the U.S. “maximum pressure” after it pulled out of the JCPOA. There is no doubt that this view is the outcome of the Iranian establishment’s decision, but the Rouhani government’s alignment with current security-strategic policies is not by conviction but by coercion.
The dissatisfaction of his moderate cabinet is evident in Zarif’s resignation a few months ago (he subsequently returned to his post shortly thereafter), or the topic of holding a referendum repeatedly brought up by President Rouhani. Speaking at Tehran University, Rouhani said: “We have not reached a decisive answer in 41 years; some support constructive interaction with the world and some support constant confrontation; some say you waste your time speaking to the West; that we must be strong and threaten them until they are brought to their knees; others say constant confrontation will get us nowhere.”
He added: “If we still fail to come up with solutions for issues that we have been discussing for more than 40 years, we must hold a referendum.”
Some analysts in Iran believe that one of the most important points for Rouhani in holding a referendum is negotiations with the U.S.—an issue strongly opposed by hardliners. As Rouhani is presently unable to move forward with this in the structure of political decision-making (in the Supreme National Security Council), he is bringing up the topic of a referendum.
Journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi has posted on his telegram channel: “Mr Rouhani has deliberately shouted disagreements within the establishment over how to deal with Western nations to show he and his government are seeking a new deal with Europe and the U.S., but the other factions has confrontation on the agenda.”
From this viewpoint, identifying moderates such as Rouhani and Zarif with hardliners in Iran as unitary, as mentioned by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and accepted to a certain extent in the Foreign Affairs piece, is a mistake. The U.S. should see Iran as it is—a country with fundamental differences in facing the West among its leaders and population alike.
Jalil Bayat is a journalist and a PhD candidate in International Relations at Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran. He is a permanent member of the Iranian Political Science Association. He was guest researcher at the Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies Center (2015-2018).
Please read the original article “Iran, the Unitary State” apparently trying to portrait Iran as a unitary state. And the other one in response. Which one is scientific? It could be science against science so much that each trying to prove absolutely opposite claims. Which one is based on fact and which one based on claims which are already beefed-up by RT based on unknown sources (Iran had attacked Aramco-which naturally remains a claim for a real scientist but the so-called scientists portray them as fact and even don’t mentions the ‘fact’ that they are still ‘claims’!), these journalistic claims are later being used by MIC think (for) tanks to cook bigger claims “Iran a Unitary State”. Apparently to demonize and legitimize further Militarism involvement in the issue. This is how the triangle of MIC, Media and to think (for) tanks Joint-venture works! The same way they did to the legitimate war on Iraq. Sadly, we realize it has been their usual everyday business concept for thousands of years! Making enemies go in war with!
From another aspect, generally, we can say that those trying to simplify issues as black and white are essentially far from being a scholar as the essence of being a scholar is to give attention to minor variations and differences. In fact, this is the attitude of journalists or those who want or are benefitted by serving emotions instead of wisdom. Back to the original article, you will see the answer in the affiliations of the authors. Both are affiliated with military-related institutions that are naturally getting more funds by such propaganda. Really disappointing how the people who consider themselves as scholars write against the science and in favor of emotions in a journalistic manner for the behest of their affiliated Militarists!
Kooshy
Iran is at war. Those who bring up referendum as a solution to this war are feeble-minded people.
I will ask you the following:
Does the Iranian adult population, voting in a referendum, have the right to surrender Iran to the United States?
Does one have a right to sell oneself and one’s progeny into slavery?
If Rouhani and Khamenei want to improve the political situation in Iran, they can restore the electoral laws to what obtained in 1980. Khatami tried to so but the effort was crushed by Khamenei.
All: none of you have understood the meaning of “Unitary State”. Read the WiKi page for the start.
And then ask yourselves “What is a state?”
FYI, Iran has a constitution, which by overwhelming continued participation in voting majority of people of Iran have constitutionally approved the government that represent, regardless if Pompeo, or a minority like you approve or not.
This approved constitution like any other democratic system has been in place for decades now and has mechanism for having a national referendum and voting, if legally and constitutionally this mechanism is triggered for a national vote it’s fine with me.
Iran is in war and you are right on that. The war imposed on Iran for last 40 years is not an ideological war it’s a geo-strategic war that a self assumed empire see it as an existential threat to her hegemony. Nothing will change this without continued attritional resistance against the aggressor.
Some Iranian expatriates as well as so called humanitarian liberal imperialists like Barbara Slavin and other think thankers are complaining why Iran shout off the access to Worldwide internet access while Iran cities were under enemy’ fire. Iran has every right to limit access to internet while in war with an enemy that has no barrier for her inhumanity. As far as I am concerned all these expatriates and the US officials and think thankers that don’t like Iran’s behavior can go and FT.
I hope that is a conclusive reply
FYI,
This article’ author is responding to the writeup in FP “Iran the unitary state, authored by two paid expatriate Iranians working for US military think tanks (AKA war planners) he is not responding to Wikipedia’s description of term. If there is misuse or yet abuse of this term is because of the so-called rand and naval school scholars not the author of this article here.
Secondly who gives a Fig to what Wikipedia’ description is. The author’ argument against the FP’ biased legitimization of Iranian governing system IMO is valid and on point. Even based on your own earlier comments, Iran is not a unitary state as argued in FP propaganda writeup.
All security decisions in Iran is made through SNSC which is chaired by the president, speaker of parliament, judiciary, military branches, foreign and interior ministers, etc. As has been seen and experienced Iran’s foreign and internal polices and policy making postures have been tremendously changed and varied by change of the presidents and their faction’ afflictions i.e. Ahmadinejad, Khatami, Rouhani, Rafsanjani, although supreme leader and military under his command view an posture did not change much. IMO, author’s point is valid arguing against this paid Rand corporation propagandists. What’s wrong, you start tripping again.
TRYING TO BE WISE, I enjoyed and agree with your comments on this thread, thank you
Kooshy
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran does not give the electorate the right to dissolve the Iranian state or to abridge her sovereignty: through referenda or legislation.
Wars must be fought and endured. Rouhani was wrong to mention the idea of referendum at the current junction. This is the time for men like Agha Mohammed Khan of Qajar and not Shah Sultan Hussein.
Wikipedia’s descrption is correct and both authors are wrong.