Essay on Shargh Newspaper - November 24, 2018 -
The original text is in Persian and the following translation was done by Ai.
One of the most key questions that is the introduction to a correct analysis of the foreign policy of a diplomatic apparatus is the question of the theoretical framework that governs it. The theories of international relations, which are derived from the opinions of innovative and influential political philosophers in the history of thought, are of course very diverse, but at the same time, in order to reach more practical aspects that have political and not necessarily academic applications, realistic and idealistic theoretical approaches can be considered as the most prominent. Realism or "power politics" which has its roots in the ideas of Hobbes and to some extent Machiavelli, and idealism in international relations which is more of a philosophy of what "should" be than what "is", and its foundation should be traced more to Kant and to some extent to Rousseau. The first is a balance based on a state of potential war, and the second relies on peace.
The foreign policy of any sovereign system can have different dimensions; Both in its discourse and what actually happens at the negotiating tables. Post-revolutionary Iran is no exception to this. What gives post-revolutionary Iran its unique form is the rapid development of its foreign policy, resulting from numerous events that set the stage for it one after another and were not necessarily established in the country's diplomatic apparatus: the occupation of the US embassy, the imposed war and the negotiations on Resolution 598, critical talks with Europe during the Sazandegi government, the de-escalation policy of the reform era and the nuclear negotiations of that time, a line that ends with the foreign policy of the eleventh and twelfth governments; a process that not only matured and experienced the young diplomats of the early days, but also built its foreign policy in a formative process.
It may be said that regardless of the content of its performance in the field of foreign policy, the country's diplomatic apparatus experienced its weakest role during the ninth and tenth governments and before the leadership of Dr. Salehi; A time when not only was the nuclear negotiations, as the most important and main file of the country, not under the control of this apparatus, but even the then president, by appointing deputies and advisors for himself, each of whom was responsible for a geographical area of the world, practically confronted the relevant ministry with unprecedented inefficiency. This was, of course, the same period when Iran, regardless of the right or wrong of the issue, received a sanctions and condemnation resolution every now and then - not only from the United States but also from Europe and especially the United Nations Security Council - and while going under Chapter VII - which could be the worst thing for a country in the Security Council - it witnessed an unprecedented consensus against it, consisting of almost all the countries of the world.
However, this office turned around in the first step with the leadership of Dr. Salehi and the proposal of courageous and self-confident ideas - namely the beginning of nuclear negotiations on the other hand - and the work with the Ministry of Mohammad Javad Zarif was completed. Of course, since the talk of the expertise, expertise and experience of the senior team of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is nothing new, I will not discuss it at this point.
But what distinguishes the foreign policy of the current era from its predecessors and makes it more mature and its successes more tangible is a multi-layered design that has determined the method of confrontation, of course, within macro-frameworks.
A calm look at the scene and type of action of the country's diplomatic apparatus during the eleventh and twelfth governments reveals that this institution has first adopted a professional and at the same time understandable language to express its positions, which, while being decisive in its main lines, never deprives itself of the ability to negotiate. In addition, at least in speech, it generally speaks of a legal, legalistic and balanced approach based on lasting peace.
But as is expected of this apparatus and its team of experts, it has also become more complex in its design of action, negotiation, and interaction with different countries, and a multi-layered design has been implemented: First, the preferred axis in the country's current foreign policy is multilateral diplomacy, which is of course a more modern and fairer approach to international relations and is more consistent with the country's official positions - regarding strengthening international institutions and the approach of international law to achieve justice among countries and transforming the principle of equality of states from an ideal into a reality on earth. But bilateral or multilateral, it seems that the country's foreign policy apparatus has divided the international arena into at least five categories in its design over the past five years, and regardless of what is officially said, it has adjusted its policies with each one in accordance with the relative situation of the two sides and acted in that direction.
If we put the countries that have a completely normal relationship with Iran - not so close that their policies have a reciprocal effect on each other, neither enemies nor allies, and basically there are no major interests in between - in the first layer of this division, the approach that governs these relations can be considered extremely classic: a policy of promoting national interests based on mutual respect, which of course can also be placed in this layer of most countries in the world. Representative offices are mainly responsible for maintaining and possibly promoting these relations, and if higher-level visits do occur, most of the compliments and formalities between governments can be expected from them. Even some neighbors, whose relations between them, while very important, are calm and whose capacity for raising their level and volume is not seen, can be included in this category.
The second level of this analysis can be assigned to countries in which Iran has influence or power through various intermediaries: these intermediaries can be political and international, military and strategic, economic and commercial, or even through a common worldview. It is clear that the list of the most important countries that have this type of close relationship can be started with Iraq and Syria. A component called Iran can easily be effective in the politics and economy of these countries, and of course, this issue, although it can be denied, cannot be hidden. In addition to the costs that may have a strategic justification, these relationships have benefits even in the economic field for Iran: for example, the zero trade tariff that has been included exclusively for all Iranian-made goods entering Syria is one of them.
The third layer of the division of states is related to allies without necessarily being known as such. It is clear that at the top of the list of this layer of division is Russia, with which relations are at the highest level. After that, perhaps we can mention China, Turkey, and countries like this, and even India; Countries whose political weight in the world is not less than Iran in terms of power elements and as a result, in addition to close relations for the purpose of synergizing national interests, in cases that can be security, economic or any other, they become parties to joint action. Such as what led to trilateral cooperation with Turkey and Russia in the case of Syria, or an issue such as the development of Chabahar Port, which upgraded relations with India from normal relations and oil exports and also marginalized a country of the level and size of Afghanistan.
The fourth layer, however, is a layer in a completely opposite direction: the approach that the Iranian government has adopted towards countries such as the United States (this is the case at the present time), Saudi Arabia and Israel, which do everything to confront each other, is a more realistic and power-based approach. Of course, small countries such as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates can also be added to these names on the periphery. In this case, the current foreign policy is based exactly on the texts of first-rate realism and it is difficult to introduce any theoretical objections to it. This approach does not consider compromise with the opposing country that has adopted expansionist policies.
And finally, there is the fifth and final layer, which can be more attributed to the current relationship between the diplomatic apparatus and the European Union, and that is the idealistic de-escalation policy based on mutual understanding and respect and maximum adherence to agreements, which is carried out in order to remain in an atmosphere of moderation based on lasting peace and to avoid tensions such as sanctions, etc. It is for this reason that today's Europe is no longer deceived by possible sabotage in this relationship, nor intimidated by America's frown on adherence to the JCPOA.
It is clear that examples of fluidity can also be observed among these categories: whether it is the events of the internal politics of countries that may shift power between their intellectuals and conservatives and transform the level of relations and the ruling approach, regardless of official and theoretical positions - such as what happened in the United States itself, which moved the Obama administration, which could be assessed as being in the fifth layer, to the fourth layer, or examples such as Canada, which is leaning more towards Europe - or through the actions of the United States and its new government, which may change the trade relations of countries such as South Korea.
In any case, one cannot rightly expect any other behavior from an independent state that is partly dependent on ideology. However, during the Rouhani era, Iran showed the world, and best of all to the Europeans, that if the other side adopts a Kantian and dialogue-oriented approach, it will pursue its national interests not through tension but solely through negotiation.
This is why it is easy to see that despite the propaganda and threats of the United States, Iran, which was once unjustly under attack from all over the world due to its different approach or whatever, is today considered legitimate and committed by most countries in the world, international organizations, and institutions such as SWIFT. Whether they can or not, their position and political will in the current turmoil is to support Iran and an agreement to which their commitment has been confirmed many times.
For this reason, and due to this multi-layered and proportionate game, various events in the international arena, from the Khashoggi murder case to the issue of US trade tariffs with China and Europe, tilt the playing field in favor of Iran.
Shargh Daily link
File
