Dr. Kharrazi is the foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This article deals with Iran’s perspective on national security within the context of its vested interests and concerns. An attempt is made to identify the interplay of these interests and concerns with the issue of regional stability. I have also made an effort to identify the areas in which Iran’s potential and capabilities can be utilized in the interest of regional as well as global peace and security.
National Security
Iran is blessed with vast territory and natural resources, a solid national identity, and a rich cultural heritage and tradition. It harbors no expansionist ambitions in the conduct of its foreign relations. As the history of the past two-and-a-half centuries in the region shows, no conflict or war has ever been initiated by Iran.
Political, economic, cultural and military factors shape the Islamic Republic’s multifaceted approach toward the issue of national security. Geopolitical imperatives, together with national development plans, have fostered Iran’s prosperity in various fields in an era of globalization, linking Iran’s national security with regional and global stability. As Iran is a major supplier of the world’s energy and has a unique position for the transit of goods and energy in the region, its national interests can be defined and articulated only in interaction with regional and global factors. Thus, any crisis or instability in a neighboring country has as immediate impact on Iran’s security. Equally, any instability in Iran will naturally have grave consequences, not only for the region but also for global peace and security. This explains why Iran pursues a policy based on the expansion of good-neighborly relations, mutual respect and confidence building.
Moreover, it shows why Iran on numerous occasions – recently in trouble spots in Central Asia and the Caucasus – has endeavored to act as a mediator and stabilizing force.
An illustration of this approach would be Iran’s constructive policy with respect to the 1991 crisis in the Persian Gulf, which helped terminate Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. In addition, Iran played a pivotal role in assisting the Afghan resistance to replace the Taliban regime.
Crisis and tension in the region are counterproductive to Iran’s national interests. Thus Iran attempts to enhance its national security only through approaches that enhance integration, inclusion and constructive engagement, rather than isolation, exclusion and confrontation. At times, this approach has been costly for Iran, as, for example, in combating drug trafficking on its eastern borders, mainly from Afghanistan, a locus of terrorism and other transnational crimes. Apart from social and economic costs, Iran has lost more than 4,000 law-enforcement personnel in the war with drug traffickers in the last 25 years. Only last year, 48 Iranian officers were killed in more than 2,300 cases of gun battles with traffickers. Indeed, Iran continues to pay a heavy price in a struggle that all members of the global community should share.
A brief review of Iran’s perspective on five salient issues – Iraq, regional stability, reform and democracy, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction – may shed light on the approach of the Islamic Republic toward national and regional security.
Iraq
Iran follows developments in Iraq with great concern. The collapse of Saddam’s regime, whose atrocities and aggressive policies caused untold misery and destruction for the Iranian nation, the Iraqi people and other countries in the region, provides a great sense of relief. It must be noted, however, that the consequences of the military intervention and occupation of Iraq by foreign forces continue to threaten the security of Iran and neighboring states. The persistent disorder and violence, coupled with the massive civilian casualties, pervasive destruction of social and economic infrastructure, and the desecration of religious sanctuaries, have reached colossal proportions. The scope and intensity of the violence have raised serious questions about the real objectives of the military invasion and occupation of Iraq. This situation is the result of underestimating the complexity of the region and the sensitivity of the Iraqi people and other Muslim nations in the region to foreign occupation.
A vital concern of Iran has been regional stability; thus it opposed the invasion of Iraq. Not only has the occupation been destructive to Iraq’s sovereignty; the ensuing insurgency with its terrorist campaign has been devastating to regional tranquility. The potential fallout from the ongoing violence is at least threefold; none of the results are compatible with Iraq’s interests. First, the insurgency is threatening Iraq’s prospects for establishing the viable government needed to coexist with its neighbors. Second, it perpetuates a justification for continuing the foreign military presence in the country. Third, the political violence increases the possibility of religious and sectarian warfare. None of these scenarios are helpful to the security and stability of Iraq’s neighbors.
Given these realities and geopolitical imperatives, Iran, not surprisingly, considers stability in Iraq as its own stability. From both ideological and pragmatic considerations, violence and chaos in Iraq run contrary to the national interests of Iran.
Indeed, had there been a democratic government in Iraq in the 1980s, the Iraqi invasion of Iran would never have transpired. Historical and cultural commonalities between the Iranian nation and the Iraqi people make it essential for Iran to lend its full support to the territorial integrity, political independence and establishment of a stable and democratic Iraq. In addition, Iran believes a multiethnic society based on tolerance is integral to a stable Iraq.
Needless to say, the economic prosperity of Iraq and the expansion of economic, trade and cultural ties between the two countries will contribute to the further flourishing of Iran’s economy, especially in its provinces that border Iraq. Iran has unequivocally expressed its readiness to provide the necessary facilities for Iraq’s private and public sectors to engage in trade and other pursuits and also to facilitate the visits of pilgrims from both sides. One may expect that such ties could empower moderate and constructive elements and contain militants.
Iran believes that coalition forces should give way to the development of productive relationships between Iraq and its neighbors. Indeed, U.S. misperceptions and an obsession with respect to Iran’s influence and role in Iraq are major obstacles in utilizing Iran’s potential to help the Iraqi people and the Interim Government of Iraq to restore normalcy and stability in that country. Common interests rather than differences could be instrumental in engaging regional and global actors to stabilize the situation in Iraq.
Iran believes that the Iraqi people have the right and the ability to determine their destiny. Based on this conviction, Iran was the first country in the region that welcomed the creation of the Governing Council and subsequently lent its support to the establishment of the Interim Government of Iraq. Iran was the first country in the region that supported the holding of a free and fair election in Iraq, considering it a requisite step toward the restoration of stability and sovereignty. With its participation in the Sharm El-Sheikh conference and its decision to join the final communiqué, Iran expressed its commitment to the objectives of the communiqué with respect to the political future of Iraq. Moreover, in line with its responsibility to help restore stability and security in Iraq, Iran participated in the first conference of Iraq’s neighbors, which was held in Egypt. Tehran also hosted the conference of the interior ministers of Iraq’s neighbors in late November 2004. Undoubtedly, a free, independent and prosperous Iraq with a government representing all segments of the society, including a fair representation for the Shiite majority, is compatible with Iran’s national interests. Iran insisted on and welcomed the elections of January 30, 2005, in which a majority of Iraqis participated, and it supports the wishes of Iraqi citizens for a democratic government, living prosperously in a unified nation and expecting peaceful relationships with their neighbors.
Regional Security
The collapse of the Saddam regime and the new security environment in the region render it imperative that countries around the Persian Gulf, under the U.N. umbrella, design and articulate a framework for regional security cooperation. A quarter century of war, unilateral sanctions, isolation and containment carried out by certain powers against Iran, as well as the latest militaristic adventure in Iraq, have not enhanced tranquility and stability in the region. This disastrous course must be reversed in the interest of regional and global peace and security. The establishment of this framework will help all concerned parties replace mistrust and an arms race with mutual confidence and security.
Reform and Democracy
The necessity of good governance in the light of drastic demographic changes and the pressing requirements of the new generation in the region, characterized by the emergence of complex sets of diverse and pluralistic forces, makes reform irreversible and all the more essential. The reform process, with a view toward promoting greater participation and respect for the rule of law and human rights, together with accountability and transparency, is a pressing issue in the region.
However, as the twentieth century demonstrated, states cannot simply remake the world or abbreviate historical transformation. And, as the experience of recent military intervention in our region so profoundly demonstrates, foreign armies cannot bring democracy. The illusion that reform and democracy can be dictated from outside must be abandoned. Foreign interventions as such tend to spawn resistance and undesirable outcomes. It goes without saying that this approach risks falling into irrelevance and further complicates the reform process in the countries of the region, including Iran. Indeed, a true reform process and democracy must be home-grown and country-specific, rather than imposed from outside.
Terrorism
While condemning terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, Iran has taken a comprehensive, non-discriminatory and non-selective approach toward fighting terrorism effectively. Being a victim of terrorism, including acts of terror perpetrated by the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), Iran has been actively engaged in fulfilling its responsibility in this respect. It is unfortunate that military intervention in Iraq caused the deflection of the global community’s attention from the original course of action against terrorism. As a result, terrorist groups have intensified their activities in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. The application of double standards on the part of Washington in this respect has complicated this daunting task.
The United States has given protection in Iraq, as non-combatants under the Geneva Convention, to the MEK, a group defined by the United States and European countries as terrorist. It is important to remember that misguided policies of the United States against Iran created two destructive forces in the region, namely the Saddam regime and the Taliban. Today, this new double-standard policy sets a dangerous precedent and, indeed, is a major setback to the global campaign against terrorism. Iran firmly believes that the new status given to the MEK by Washington can be a prelude to the creation of another destructive force that might equally endanger the security and interests of nations within and outside the region. This approach entails tremendous costs, not just for the United States and Iran, but for the world.
Nuclear Technology
Iran’s peaceful nuclear program cannot be addressed in isolation, without due attention to the broad concept of national security.
Iran lives in a volatile region. The outbreak of three wars in the span of a quarter century clearly demonstrates the volatility of the situation. Yet, in spite of this reality, Iran’s national-defense strategy remains a defensive one, and WMD, including nuclear weapons, have no place in it. This principled approach is based on strategic and ideological precepts. Two erroneous assumptions on the part of American officials have been advanced to justify their claims that Iran’s declared peaceful nuclear program is just a cover for developing atomic weapons. The first is that Iran is blessed with vast oil and gas resources and therefore does not need nuclear energy. The second assumes that because Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapons in all directions – the United States, Russia, Pakistan and Israel – Iranian strategists must be seeking to develop a nuclear deterrent as well. Based on the following facts and arguments, these assumptions are misleading
- Iran’s oil and gas resources are finite, and, given the current pace of energy consumption and population growth, the fossil fuels of Iran will be depleted within 20-50 years.
- Iran earns a major part of its hard currency through oil and gas exports.
- Economic factors as well as energy security make it necessary for Iran to diversify its national programs aimed at meeting the energy needs of coming generations. Moreover, the profits from oil for the production of petrochemicals are definitely higher than exporting oil as a raw material and secure remarkable added value for the country. In this context, Iran’s need for peaceful nuclear energy was even recognized by the United States in a memo in 1978, when the State Department underlined that Iran needed to diversify its sources of energy, including in the nuclear field. That memo stated that the United States was encouraged by Iran’s efforts to expand its non-oil energy base and was hopeful that the U.S.-Iran nuclear-energy agreement would be concluded soon and that American companies would be able to play a role in Iran’s nuclear-energy projects.
- Diversification of Iran’s fuel energy and optimal utilization of its oil and gas resources are compatible not only with the national interests of Iran, but also with global needs in regard to energy security for the next decades.
- It is true that Iran has neighbors with abundant nuclear weapons, but this does not mean Iran must follow suit. In fact, the predominant view among Iranian decision makers is that possession or pursuit of nuclear weapons would only undermine Iranian security. Viable security for Iran can be attained only through inclusion and regional and global engagement.
- Iran today is the strongest country in its immediate neighborhood. To promote confidence in its relationships with its neighbors and to diminish concerns and suspicions emanating largely from its size and the regional power disparities, Iran does not need to seek a nuclear-weapons option to augment its influence. This option runs contrary to the strategic approach of Iran to protect its regional interests through confidence-building measures.
- The nuclear-weapons option is an approach that would be prohibitively expensive, draining the limited economic resources of the country.
- More globally, Iran, with its current state of technological development and military capability, cannot reasonably rely on nuclear deterrence against its adversaries in the international arena or in the wider region of the Middle East. Iran deeply believes that the costs of developing nuclear weapons heavily outweigh the possible benefits.
- A religious decree issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, prohibiting the development and use of nuclear weapons constitutes a serious ideological restriction against weapons of mass destruction.
As a member-state of all non-proliferation and disarmament instruments, and mindful of the obligations and rights derived from these instruments, Iran attaches utmost importance to the rights of states to develop technology for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Indeed, Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is a step in this direction. It represents a national project geared toward strengthening the scientific and technological infrastructure of the country. Blessed with the entire nation’s support, all of Iran’s governments over the recent decades have pursued this task in conformity with international obligations. Indeed, our nation views this program and its development as a symbol of national dignity, making it imperative for any government to comply with this legitimate national demand.
To address any concerns of the international community with regard to the nature of its nuclear program, and to enhance confidence, Iran has been in full and transparent cooperation with the IAEA. Iran has signed the Additional Protocol and was fully implementing it even before its ratification by parliament. In this context, Iran has undertaken commitments well beyond its contractual obligations, including voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment. After over 800 person-days of intrusive inspection of Iran’s nuclear sites, the IAEA found no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear military program. Yet, in spite of this reality, certain circles continue to advance their unsubstantiated claims against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
To promote confidence at the international level in regard to this program, Iran initiated negotiations with France, Germany and Britain to reach long-term assurances on nuclear cooperation and transparency. The Paris agreement signed between Iran and the three major European countries in
November 2004 and the outcome of the last meeting of the Board of Governors of the IAEA signify the importance of dialogue and engagement in addressing the legitimate concerns of the parties. Indeed, this process showed, once again, that pressure and intimidation do not represent a viable solution to this matter, because Iran cannot accept any pressure and coercive measures directed at compromising its legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Given the enormous investment by Iran in the peaceful application of nuclear technology, the voluntary suspension of legitimate uranium-enrichment activities has been costly. Hence, in the framework of ongoing negotiations between Iran and the European countries, time is of the utmost importance for Iran. The success of negotiations of this kind hinges upon the sober understanding of mutual sensitivities.
Conclusion
It should be stressed that what the region needs is a new security paradigm taking into account the vested national interests of countries in the region. This paradigm would cultivate inclusion and integration, utilizing regional capabilities in the interest of peace and stability at the national, regional and global levels. The old security paradigm advocated by certain powers in this region tends to sow discord and conflict rather than nurture peace and stability. The national interests of Iran compel it to explore all possible ways to peacefully resolve any conflict in this region. Iran values this approach, conceptually and practically. It continues to act judiciously and stands ready to shoulder its responsibility in this respect.
Middle East Policy is fully accessible through the Wiley Online Library
Click below to subscribe to the online or print edition of Middle East Policy and gain access to all journal content.