So argues the Chatham House in its report on the rise of Iranian hegemony in the Muslim world:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdfThe reasons for the growth in Iran’s regional influence are clear. Iran is the linchpin between the Middle East and Asia whose military weakness should not disguise the very real cultural, political and economic influence it wields. The US may have the upper hand in ‘hard’ power projection, but for all its ability to win military battles, the Bush administration has shown a lack of ability in planning for and mastering the subsequent peace. Iran has traditionally been a master of ‘soft’ power – the ability to use politics and culture to pursue its strategic interests. Its knowledge of the region, fluency in the languages and culture, strong historical ties and administrative skills have given Iran an advantage over the West. While the latter, both historically and currently, has sought to change and reform the Middle East, Iran tends to work with what it finds.
Iran’s prominent location affords it huge opportunities but also makes it vulnerable in a region not noted for its stability. With seven land borders with neighbouring states and an additional six maritime borders in the Gulf, Iran has frequently had to manage the consequences, including flows of refugees, from neighbouring conflicts. Since 2001, and the US-led military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has had good reason to be concerned about political instability in its neighbourhood. Too often, however, Western preoccupations with Iran’s foreign policy intentions fail to recognize Iran’s own security needs. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan to the east and the continuing insurgencies in Iraq to the west mean there is continued violence and uncertainty on Iran’s borders.
The Iranian government is particularly aggrieved that its role in taking in and later repatriating large numbers of Afghan refugees since 2001–2 has been neither acknowledged nor rewarded by the US and its allies. Iranian leaders also argue that the strong links they have with the Shi’a religious leadership and the ruling majority Shi’a parties in Iraq have had positive and modifying effects on the political situation in Iraq rather than being a major source of instability, as claimed by Western governments and commentators.
Iran feels surrounded by crises unleashed or aggravated through Western military interventions. The US not only deploys forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, it also has access to bases in Turkey, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. To the north-west of Iran, there is also instability in the Caucasus. A weakening of central government or a change of regime in Pakistan could pose a threat to Iran. Even though Iran is frequently depicted as a manipulator and instigator of violence in the broader Middle East, most recently through its military and financial support for Hizbullah and Hamas in their struggles against Israel, the Iranian regime is wary of provoking generalized chaos in the region because it is essentially conservative and seeks to maintain the status quo.
In this respect, the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has added a complication to the dynamics of Iran’s geopolitical aspirations by introducing a brand of millenarianism to the equation which even his own compatriots find alarming. This should not, however, distract from the underlying strategic advantages Iran possesses, and the fact that its regional posture owes much to its national interests and historical sense of imperial mission. A strong sense of nationalism has always coloured Iran’s domestic as well as foreign policy stances. As a proudly non-Arab and Shi’a state, Iran has a collective sense of national particularity and isolation at times of rising regional tensions that has rivalled even Israel’s perception of being encircled and under threat in a difficult neighbourhood.
The danger lies in the risk that Ahmadinejad’s confrontational politics will take succour from the perception of Western weakness in the region to become even more unshackled in ambition and, in mirroring those of his neo-conservative rivals in the US, engage in a provocation too far.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
