Putting Iran under the microscope

Undoubtedly, one of the key changes on the Middle East political arena is the shift in nuclear politics with Iran being the main player in the region. Today, Iranian policy is driven by the fundamental opinion that the country needs to maintain "security isolation" and "strategic distance". This includes strengthening its military capabilities in the face of belligerent American and Israeli rhetoric. But it must not be forgotten that Iran is a country that has emerged from a revolution - the dynamics of which have not been lost.

Anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiments are the main drivers of policy in Iran. Having said that, many experts from Iran argue that the former sentiment is far more strident and prevalent in Iran's policy given the history shared by the two.

It has been pointed out at the latest conference carried out by the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies titled "Arabian Gulf Security" that there has been a shift in Iranian policies. In the 1980s, Iran was an offensive state and wanted to weaken the US and Israel. Today, it is a defensive state trying to maintain the political structure of the country in a self-protective way.

Iran currently operates in a context where it must consider regional influence and bargaining power. It is a nation reflecting on the global context in which it finds itself.

Former presidents Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami focused on economic issues and tried to change the flow of domestic politics in the country. They were not successful in bolstering fundamental changes in the Iranian apparatus.

Today, revolutionary politics still exist, especially when it comes to security policies. The new government in Iran, which came to power in June 2005, has returned to revolutionary basics, with constant promotion of Iranian nationalism and outspoken criticism of their country's enemies (i.e. the West).

Diversely covered

Some experts say all politics in Iran are domestic politics. Dr Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh H. Burke chair in strategy at the Centre for Strategic and International Relations in the US argues Iran hasn't worked out a stable structure of politics. "It's one of the most diversely covered states of the world - supreme leader, the president, the Majlis and other bodies like the expediency council. It has a structure that is extraordinarily difficult to govern and when you tie this to an economy where there is no clear policy, where even the development of the oil industry is still tied up in politics, uncertainty and problems of corruption, it's an extremely difficult situation."

Granted, the structure of politics in Iran is not very much understood. The Iranian foreign ministry hasn't been able to change the revolutionary security outlook of the nation but as simple comparison shows, this is the way things are carried out in revolutionary states. These countries are not capable of moving beyond their security fears and therefore, they do not involve neighbours in security strategies.

Having said that, there must be active engagement with Iran particularly from the Arab states; this would undoubtedly influence the security debates inside Iran and regionally.

Otherwise as someone put it to me, "the current security inertia inside Iran will proceed uninterrupted".

Dr Abdullah Al Shayji, professor of political science at the University of Kuwait, says, the Gulf states "are soft targets". There is a need to focus on what is to come especially given US hints and regional settings.

Some analysts have said Iran is a regional superpower. That assumes the country can do what it wishes in the region. The fact is Iran can't.

Weak

As accurately pointed out by Cordesman, Iran's military forces are weak, meaning, "it can't invade or intimidate the southern Gulf states without producing a reaction that will certainly be as dangerous to Iran as Iran is dangerous to the southern Gulf states". And Iran certainly is incapable of launching a military attack on the US. Efforts must be made to find and maintain an agreed upon form of mutual understanding between countries of this region.

As has been said already (but it merits repeating) US President George W. Bush's gaffes have undoubtedly secured Iran's strong regional position. But Iranian capabilities and intentions have been exaggerated.

At this point, Iran can't afford to send friendly signals to the outside world - especially when the world's superpower is threatening to launch a military strike on it. Let us not forget that Iran is neighbour to two countries which have been attacked by the US within the last 5 years. It has every right to be alert.

Unless the world participates in meaningful discussions with the Islamic republic, unless involvement of more than US proxies and allies takes place, another atrocity will be committed against yet another major Middle Eastern country.