The Dynamics of Iranian Politics, American-Iranian Relations - Assignment Example

As the U.S and Iran are locked in a battle for power and influence across the Middle East, Frontline video "showdown with Iran" examines the tumultuous U.S-Iran relations since 9/11. The video explains how U.S efforts to install democracy in Iraq have strengthened Iran's position as an emerging power in the Middle East. 1- Do you agree that the U.S. efforts to install democracy in Iraq have served the Iranian interests? If yes why? And if not why?  The film Showdown with Iran (Barker 2007) makes a convincing case that U.S. efforts to install democracy in Iraq have served certain Iranian interests. Whilst I agree that U.S. intervention appears on the surface to have served Iranian neoconservative interests, this issue is of greater complexity and depth than that explored in the film. 1. The dynamics of Iranian politics The 1979 Iranian Revolution promised an end to exploitation of the masses by way of an Islamisation of society, run by a theocracy who would return Iran to the traditional Islamic values of 7th Century Arabia. This political ideology has run hand-in-hand with Iran’s foreign policy strategy to ensure its national security, avoid rivalry within the Arab world and secure its geostrategic interests within the Middle East. The ideological foundation of Iranian political discourse has remained current since 1979. It has formed the basis of Iranian policy throughout U.S./coalition efforts to instill democracy in Iraq, albeit put into practice with strikingly different methodologies by the former reformist President Mohammed Khatami and current neoconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This foundation has been a matter of consistent concern to western powers: Richard Armitage, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, 2001-05 : “I am fearful of their [Iran’s] hegemonistic appetite ... I've never seen a more ethnocentric country...[and I] fear about their view of themselves on the world stage.” (Barker 2007). This had led to sanctions and other measures against the country. Iran’s political ambition to secure geostrategic interests within the Middle East is in part linked to a strong sense that an imbalance of power exists in the world order, with U.S. interests holding sway. As Hossein Shariatmadari, Editor of the Iranian Kayhan Newspaper states: “We believe that the world order must be changed.” (Barker 2007). This, when viewed in the context of western fears over Iran’s political ambition and ideological rhetoric, largely explains American/Western attempts to contain and minimize Iran’s role in the Middle East, preventing it from emerging as a regional power. 2. American – Iranian relations The film shows that Iran has a history of anti-American rhetoric dating back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. After 9/11 however, the reformist government adopted cooperative methods, offered condolences to America and attempted to improve relations between the two countries. Providing support to the U.S. in Afghanistan was in Iran’s interest to ensure national security. Unfortunately accusations of Iranian hardliners providing al Qaeda leaders refuge increased U.S. mistrust of Iran, undermined reformist cooperative attempts and in part, led weight to President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address that placed Iran as part of an “axis of evil” (Barker 2007). President Bush’s apparent desire for regime change in Iran led the reformists to push cooperative measures offering the end to the support of terrorism, conflict with Israel and Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the end of sanctions, assurance of Iranian national security and the prevention of a forced regime change. American doubts as to reformists capabilities of delivering such claims meant that no response was given. America’s snub to Iran humiliated the reformist government. This snub, combined with their failure to achieve Islamic social justice and increasing threats of military action against Iran effectively ended the reform era: H. Amirahmadi: “The mood in Teheran was a fearful mood, a frightening mood. Iranian government had almost 100 percent come to the conclusion that after Iraq, it is their turn. And they wanted to prevent that at any price.” (Barker 2007). Despite this, when announcements were made of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran was initially, highly supportive. It was extremely concerned however, about America’s lack of intelligence on socio-politics of the region. 3. Regional politics – Iraq and the Middle East America’s ignorance of Iraqi and Irani politics was of great concern to Iranian reformist leaders, as American leaders admit, R. Armitage: “They [Iran] had a good sense of the competing tensions and the ethnic strife, sectarian strife that did exist and was kept from boiling because of the lid of Saddam Hussein.” (Barker 2007). Many Iraqi opposition leaders ostracized under the Saddam regime had close ties to Iran having been based there in exile. It is unsurprising then given America’s lack of regional-politico knowledge that Iran felt strongly that it should be included in the formation of a new Iraqi government. H. R Asefi: “We believe the American should … listen to other people advices, because the American are far from the region. They do not know the region. They do not know the delicacy of the region.” (Barker 2007). American snubs to Iranian offers of assistance were an additional nail in the coffin of the reformist movement. By 2005 the neoconservatives had gained power in Iran. U.S. threats of military action against Iran and invasion of Iraq were believed by many to be the fundamental cause of a neoconservative rise to power. The coming to power of Iraqi Shia groups [the “Shia Revival”], ethnic Kurds [who also hold strong links with Iran] and the new fervor of Iran’s “Islamic movement” alarmed the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East who had large Shia minorities and were fearful of internal conflict. Countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Bahrain are believed to have privately supported Sunni insurgents who attack and suppress Shia groups. Inevitably Shi’ite militia retaliated, with backing argued to be from Iran, leading to sectarian conflict and weakening America’s position in the region. A closer analysis reveals that this both serves and hinders the short-term geostrategic interests of neoconservative Iran. It serves their interests by undermining the U.S. policy of excluding Iran from Iraqi politics but increases Arab rivalry. Sustained political, sectarian, ideological and ethnic unrest in the region will only serve to harm Iranian national security and geostrategic interests in the long-term. Furthermore, the presence of coalition forces in the Middle East is viewed by many as a form of modern imperialism. For the Islamic movement, fighting the imposition of western ideologies is key to national security and Iraq effectively became the battleground for Sunni vs. Shia, Iran/Islam vs. U.S. ideologies. With the threat of regime change in Iran and the invasion of Iraq America and the reformists failed to ensure Iran’s geostrategic and national security interests. This led to a worsening of Iranian – western relations and the fall of the reformist political movement. The irony of Pres. Bush’s desire for regime change in Iran is that a new political order did surface, but not quite as expected; a neoconservative and staunchly anti-American political order came to power instead. America’s struggle to install democracy in Iraq has served to weaken it on the world stage, tilting the balance of the world order. Iran’s hand in weakening America through the support of Iraqi politicians and Shi’ite militia has emboldened the neoconservative leadership, strengthened Iran’s position in the Middle East and increased the perceived power of Iran on the world stage. U.S. intervention in Iran has effectively served the short-term interests and agenda of the neoconservative Iranian government. It remains to be seen if it shall serve their interests in the long-term. 2- With the respect to the current war In Iraq what roles does Iran play in this conflict?  Iran plays a multifaceted role in the current Iraqi war. First and foremost, Iran has a strong influence over the internal politics of Iraq. Iran’s anti-American stance impacts upon Iraqi attitudes to America and its presence in their country. This makes America’s battle of hearts and minds significantly harder. Iran’s influence in Iraq stems from strong ties between Iran and Iraqi Shia groups. Many Shia’s previously exiled under the Ba’athist regime found safe harbor in Iran. Shia politicians continue to receive Iranian support and are strongly influenced by, even dependent upon Iran. This strong allegiance to Iran is lent further weight by the fact that 60% of the Iraqi population are Shia. Another darker role played by Iran in the current war is their covert support of Shi’ite miltia. As previously discussed, it is clear that conflict between Shia and Sunni militia factions in Iraq is as much about political ideologies as it is religious ones. This is however, a short-term strategy to undermine U.S./coalition efforts in the country. From prior to the invasion of Iraq onwards, Iran’s strong links to Shia factions and greater regional knowledge meant that they have held superior intelligence on Iraq to western nations. The role of Iran’s continued intelligence operations in Iraq is to counter American intelligence and further Iranian interests. It is in Iran’s interests to ensure the long-term stability of Iraq. At present they are [on the surface at least] performing a balanced political role in the war torn region to secure long-term regional stability, thus preventing the spread of ethnic, ideological and sectarian violence. This is in order to ensure the national security and foreign policy goals of Iran. This could however, be undermined if Iran’s short-term strategy/role of militia support continues. 3- Tracking the tension between the United States and Iran: What are best/worst case scenarios facing two counties against each other.  The best case scenario between the U.S. and Iran would involve the establishment of an accord allowing the two countries to secure their strategic interests of national and regional security. Sanctions on Iran would be lifted after it had been removed from the terrorist list and certified to have no weapons of mass destruction or intentions to enrich uranium and develop a nuclear arsenal. The war in Afghanistan would end and conflicts between Israel and other Middle Eastern nations would also come to a satisfactory conclusion. In a best case scenario regional stability would be secured allowing the U.S. to have minimal physical presence in the region. A true best case scenario for the U.S. would entail the establishment of “friendly” allied nations in all Middle Eastern countries, preferably of a democratic nature. This would require the overthrow of Iran’s current regime. This would understandably be considered a worst case scenario by Iran’s current government. A worst case scenario for the two countries would involve the outbreak of war and destabilization of the Middle East. This would result in the overthrow of Iran’s current regime as per the U.S.’s wishes but would also be disastrous for the U.S. on a global political scale: “Think of U.S. going after Iran. Who is going to win? Islam.” (Barker 2007). The discovery that Iran had in fact enriched weapons grade uranium for nuclear warheads for either their own use, or for sale to terrorist groups would result in attack by the U.S. or more likely, Israel. This would result in retaliatory attacks, catapulting the entire region into warfare and possibly initiating a global holy war. Oil prices would then rocket causing global economies to crash. Any of these events would result in a lose-lose situation for the U.S., Iran, the entire Middle East and even the entire global economy. Increased sanctions could be considered part of a worst case scenario for Iran however, given that current sanctions have had little to no success in causing regime change, further sanctions are arguably of lesser concern to Iran than the threat of military action. 4- Do you think that the video is relevant to the themes of the course Middle East in World Affairs? How? And do you recommend this video for other viewers?  This video is relevant to the themes of the course Middle East in World Affairs. It highlights events in the region over the last ten years and the evolution of recent regional and inter-regional politics. The film brings elements of regional politics to light by discussing the invasion of Afghanistan and Iran’s role in aiding the United States. It goes on to discuss the underlying and covert operations of regional interests in Iraq, explaining how ideological and sectarian violence has been both encouraged and funded by neighbouring countries. The film also provides a background to the history of Iranian politics, the instigation of the war in Iraq and draws attention to the failures and misunderstandings of two vastly different ideologies, namely U.S. western ideals and the neo-conservative Islamic movement. In highlighting the U.S.’s troubled attempts to instil democracy in Iraq and influence residents of other Middle Eastern countries to oust existing regimes the film demonstrates how insufficient intelligence and opposing ideologies can clash. Leading to an increase in both regional and international political tensions. In terms of its failings, in focusing solely on the U.S. rather than including other allied countries and interested parties, the film was not sufficiently relevant to the Middle East in wider world affairs. Iran’s links to Kurdish factions and their role in Iraqi politics were not discussed in the film either. This information would provide the audience with a wider understanding of ethnic divisions in Iraq and the wider Middle East region, and their political impact. Furthermore, the film fails to draw attention to Israeli interests in Iraq and Iran, which are plenty. These could have been discussed in the film with relevance to wider geopolitical interests and religious tensions in the Middle East. The film could be interpreted by some viewers, to be quite critical of American political strategy in the Middle East. This may be of interest to audiences with liberal political leanings but could also prove offensive to others. I would recommend this film to viewers who have an interest in world affairs and seek a greater understanding of opposing views on the U.S.’s attempts to install democracy in Iraq. It would better suit viewers who are aware of the biases held by both opposing sides and who can logically evaluate the films’ message. Works Cited Barker, Greg. Showdown with Iran. WGBH Educational Foundation, 2007. Read More