Two critical drivers – revolutionary ideological imperatives and national interest ? shape Iran?s regional security policy. The combination in turn produces a mesh of both complementary and contradictory localized policies that have continually frustrated regional and international policymakers. Ultimately, Iran?s regional security policy is designed to facilitate the goal of becoming and remaining a Middle East hegemon.
Current ideological imperatives are derived from the 1979 revolution that brought forth the Islamic Republic and its first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. These imperatives mandate policies that are anti-Israeli , anti-American, and aid the export of the Islamic Revolution (with a distinct Shiite clerical supremacy viewpoint) to its regional neighbors, primarily Sunni Arab states. The national interest requires policies that ensure access to the Persian Gulf for the critical export of Iranian oil, encourages the development of friendly neighbor states, and deters state enemies ? whether by conventional military means or the use of terrorist proxies.
National Interest
Iran?s security policy towards proximate neighbor states – Gulf countries, Afghanistan , Iraq ? -primarily reflects the pragmatism of Iranian national interest. The stability of the Persian Gulf is crucial to Iran?s economy, thus the previous overt efforts of Iran?s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to foment unrest among sizable Shiite minorities in Saudi Arabia , Bahrain and other Gulf states have diminished. Likewise, with the overthrow of enemy regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tehran has actively sought the development of friendly governments by exerting political influence (a key player in the success of Afghanistan?s formative 2001 Bonn Accord) and cultivating diplomatic relationships (hosting an Iraqi head of state for the first time since the 1960s) .
Current Iranian opposition to US policy in Iraq also stems from its national interest: the US is a rival for hegemonic power in the Middle East and committed to overthrowing Tehran?s clerical regime. Thus, despite sharing the US goal of a stable, territorial contiguous Iraq controlled by a Shiite dominated government under an inclusive democratic system, Iran continues to fund and arm Shiite militia groups that contribute to destabilizing sectarian violence. The Iranian pursuit is a policy tightrope: ensure US failure in the short term but help build a stable, friendly Iraq for the future.
The pursuit of nuclear weapons is a critical element of Iran?s regional security policy similarly born from national interest. Iran?s possession of such weapons ensures a level of security against military assaults from local enemies (Israel, American bases in Afghanistan and Iraq; an unsteady, Sunni dominated, nuclear armed Pakistan ) and nuclear power status is a key stepping stone towards Iran?s ambition of becoming a regional hegemon. Moreover, Iran may feel emboldened under its nuclear umbrella to more aggressively pursue ideological objectives through its standard asymmetric means.
Ideological Imperatives
Iran?s Israeli policy most clearly reflects the impact of ideological imperatives. The revolutionary ideology of Iran regards Israel as an illegitimate cancer of the region, and mandates support for Palestinian terrorist groups. In helping to form and sustain Lebanon?s Shiite Hezbollah , Iran exploited an opportunity to export its Islamic revolution and continue a proxy war against Israel. Similarly, at its roots the Islamic Republic?s relationship with Syria ? one of its longest standing allies – remains a marriage of convenience over a shared Israeli enemy.
The juxtaposition of cases where Iran is willing to act out of national interest and ideological imperative reveals a geographic-based reality (source). Among its immediate neighbors, Iran will act rationally to preserve its national interest, fearing proximate military confrontation or destabilization on its borders or in the Gulf. In the Levant, where geographic distance likely prevents a devastating Israeli military retaliation, Iran feels free to pursue a provocative ideological driven policy. Indeed, opposing Israel presents a best-case scenario for Iranian policymakers in that it fulfills an ideological mandate while also serving its national interest by bringing Iran legitimacy and acclaim in the Arab world (source).
