The constant struggle, bolstered by the country’s storied past, has led the Iranian elite to the clear realisation that any interaction with foreign partners must only be predicated on the benefits it confers.
Iranian officials tend to say that, just like the US, their country is immune from an externally staged coup. The reason? Well, just like Washington, DC, Tehran does not have a US embassy.
These claims seem to hold water as the country is indeed shielded from the direct transatlantic influence. For almost 50 years now, the US–Iranian relations have been slightly better than those afforded by North Korea. That being said, the information exchange with the West is quite extensive, and so, there is no isolation whatsoever. The way the Iranian elite speaks the English language is at a markedly high level. That is why trying to sort out the intricacies of the Iranian public life may prove futile if viewed through the lens of – often simplistically – conventional reasoning.
None of the above, however, prevents us from looking on. The resulting observations are especially interesting given the latest flare-up in the ceaseless Iran–Israel conflict where the Iranians launched a few dozen attack drones and ballistic missiles targeting the Jewish state.
The reason said confrontation goes on and on can be conceptualised as Tehran’s conviction that Israel has no right to exist. By the way, this viewpoint is oddly echoed by some Orthodox Jews considering modern Israel as a Zionist formation, which defies God’s own will with regard to the Jewish people. In practical terms, though, the conflict has been following an arcane, however rocky, path whereby both sides have been successfully avoiding a full-on military standoff.
It is hard to tell how long it is going to be that way, but both parties to the conflict apparently do not regard a military disaster as a viable future scenario. Perhaps this is why the occasional flare-ups are seen by Iran very differently than they are viewed by Russia, Europe, Asian states or even th US.
Our take on the dramatic interstate relations is largely rooted in the stereotypes of the 20th-century European politics and boosted by the US remarks on their real intentions when it comes to Russia. These frameworks are not really well-suited to accommodate the rationale behind the processes unfolding in this important part of the world. In effect, though, these processes represent historically sound manifestations of international politics, with its constant struggle and competition that does not seek to devolve into a devastating winner-take-all battle. Why would anyone want that, seeing as the well-nuanced, non-sacrificial blend of militarism and diplomacy ultimately does the job?
Consequently, any comments on Iran’s failure to unleash a new ‘world war’ in the region following their counterstrikes against Israel that amounted to a poor showing sound incongruous both to the Iranians and to their neighbours.
The Iranians indeed attempted a never-before-seen strategy by initiating a large-scale shelling campaign against Israel from its own territory. Tel Aviv had not experienced anything like that in their relations with other countries since the early 1970s – and the Iranian campaign has had a sobering effect.
The fact that most of the UAVs and missiles were shot down does not carry much political weight as opposed to the event itself. Moreover, the successful defence was largely aided by the Americans and their allies who were quick to proclaim that without their support, Israel would have landed in much trouble. And it is the latter statement that has considerably gnawed away at Israel’s reputation as a military power.
Israel’s entire campaign against the Palestinians as well as its current confrontation with Iran is making Tel Aviv alarmingly dependent on the US as a force both refereeing these conflicts and bankrolling Israel’s military needs. Objectively, Iran stands to benefit from this dynamic as it is Israel’s regional clout while furnishing Tehran with a bargaining chip in their relations with the US.
One positive thing about Iran is that it does not mention the need to hammer out a ‘final’ agreement with either the US or Israel. To them, ‘perpetual peace’ is never on the table as a strategic prospect. Iranians do not experience the small-time exaltation over a potential ‘bright future’ of a peculiar Eastern European brand.
Two weeks ago, Iran proved its ability to carry out large-scale long-range missile attacks. And the display itself far outweighs any military implications. By unleashing a hot war on Israel, Tehran would only be counting its own losses. Indeed, the Iranians would have never sent an army to Israel, risking a retaliatory nuclear strike from Tel Aviv or a bombing campaign from the cornered Americans. By avoiding it, they have scored a palpable political victory, especially given that the Israelis did not do much to respond, save for an attack on a minor Iranian asset. No one seems interested in what the US has allowed the Israeli government to do to the Palestinians following this show of restraint.
That is why all of the trustworthy Iranian officials agree that at the end of yet another round of the Iran–Israel skirmish, the political pendulum has swung the Iranian way. And as we can see, they have good reasons to think so. Iran’s foreign policy, just as that of the Middle East countries overall, prioritises the kind of diplomacy that only allows for the limited use of force that will meet the political ends. Even the unspeakable terror Israel has been wreaking on Palestine still falls short of being a ‘war of annihilation’ waged against the Arab world. In other words, Israel’s bombing campaign against Gaza has affected Israel’s standing – and not because it has been opposed by all of the neighbouring Arab states, which has not been the case. By the looks of it, Iran is happy with this recent success of its strategic diplomacy.
Besides, Iran joining BRICS, which has been a hot topic, favoured the Islamic Republic as well. The alliance’s expansion has been above all politically motivated as a move to flaunt the group’s popularity amid the Western woes.
Iran realises that BRICS is neither a military alliance nor a strictly regulated international structure. The member states are sharing their expertise and mulling out-of-the-box solutions to the current challenges, including the creation of a new infrastructure for free trade and investment. Importantly, Tehran boasts an impressive track record of conducting the policies and building the economic ties that are impervious to Western pressure. In this regard, Iran joining BRICS is perfectly aligned with Russia’s interests.
Over the past few decades, Iran has been paying with blood for its independence with regard to the West or to the rest of the world, for that matter. This constant struggle, bolstered by the country’s storied past, has led the Iranian elite to the clear realization that any interaction with foreign partners must only be predicated on the benefits it confers. It is a convenient attitude, if you think about it, even more so considering their propensity to keep their promises and abide by the bounding agreements. However, no diplomats should be deluded into thinking that Iran would put its own interests on the line by putting someone else’s first.
Speaking of the public perception, everyone should bear in mind that Iran will always pursue its own interests. In this sense, it appears to be a model state in the kind of world order that will not favor one caste of countries at the expense of the others’ misery, a model state representing the Global Majority that is already arriving at the forefront of international politics.