The Foreign Policy of the Islamic Republic; Part One: From the Revolution to Fall 1360

This analysis attempts to discuss the paradigm of Iran's foreign policy and examine the drivers of continuity and change within it. The author believes that understanding the past and present of Iran's foreign policy over the past four decades can illuminate the mentalities that have influenced decision-making regarding the management of this (primarily unidimensional) policy. Therefore, the main question is what the paradigm of Iran's foreign policy is and whether there has been a paradigm shift over the past four decades. Several important questions arise in the study of Iran's foreign policy. For instance, why does the public image of this foreign policy appear frozen, unchangeable, or, in other words, static and immobile? Why do various individuals come and go as foreign ministers, yet the policies do not undergo any substantial change? Or why did the nuclear deal (JCPOA) fail to bring about the necessary changes in this foreign policy and resolve systemic disputes with the world? There are many unanswered questions: for example, if there is a major change in the governmental structure, is a change in the paradigm of Iran's foreign policy likely, or is it doomed to continue only in its 'unidimensional' form? What hopes exist for changing the current situation? Is Iran's foreign policy caught in a loop or deadlock, and does its resolution require a revolutionary transformation, and why can no one change it? Of course, it can be imagined that a direct answer to all these questions is not feasible in the three sections of this analysis, and the author hopes to provide sufficient analytical tools for the reader to draw their own conclusions. Furthermore, the aim of this examination is not to write a history of international relations or the history of developments in Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs after the revolution, although some events are mentioned as necessary. What is a paradigm? Thomas Kuhn first encountered a series of fundamental differences in his studies in sciences such as chemistry, physics, astronomy, and biology, and in order to understand the sources of those differences in scientific research, he named it a 'paradigm.' In social sciences, a paradigm can be understood as a set of criteria existing within a fluid and variable thought framework that forms over time based on an initial foundation and emerges in a new form through the acceptance of gradual change. Essentially, there is no fixed and unchanging paradigm; in other words, a paradigm is accompanied by change. A paradigm is more than an accepted model in a phenomenon. In fact, a paradigm is the logical result of change and transformation and passage through pathways that lead to the evolution of a thought. With this brief definition, evolution is a paradigm; however, a frozen belief in principles that remain constant over years and decades is not a paradigm. With this measuring tool, the initial pattern of Iran's foreign policy can be outlined, and it can be observed where and how what should be changeable has turned into a frozen belief: or has reached a loop and resisted any change. The paradigm of Iran's foreign policy In 1979, coinciding with the Iranian revolution, the world still had a bipolar nature, which arose from decades of the Cold War between superpowers. In that bipolar world, a balance of power appeared to exist, and no major changes occurred in international alignments and alliances. The Non-Aligned Movement was in the process of transformation with a framework of non-alignment towards the two poles of global power, and within the movement, there was a line moving towards the Soviet Union and another towards the United States. India had drawn closer to the Soviet Union, and Egypt to the United States. Other leaders like Cuba and Indonesia each leaned towards one of the two superpowers. In such an atmosphere, the slogan 'Neither East nor West, the Islamic Republic of Iran' emerged and gradually appeared as a political philosophy and a fundamental change in the paradigm of Iran's foreign relations before the revolution. However, this slogan lacked an executive framework and fundamental philosophy. Non-alignment, which created a new organization using international norms, opened a third line with the membership of about 70 other countries: The slogan 'Neither East nor West' resembled non-alignment, but choosing this slogan as the basis and foundation of foreign policy at a time when the movement itself was heading towards weakness made it difficult to transform it into an effective policy. A few years later, with the collapse of the bipolar system, the movement practically lost its utility. However, Iran's foreign policy slogan remained 'Neither East nor West.' Four principles of the Iranian Constitution relate to foreign policy. Article 152 - The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the denial of any form of domination and subjugation, the preservation of comprehensive independence and territorial integrity of the country, defense of the rights of all Muslims, and non-alignment towards dominating powers and peaceful mutual relations with non-belligerent states. Article 153 - Any contract that leads to foreign domination over natural and economic resources, culture, military, and other affairs of the country is prohibited. Article 154 - The Islamic Republic of Iran considers the happiness of humanity in the entire human community as its ideal and recognizes independence, freedom, and governance of rights and justice as the rights of all people in the world. Therefore, while completely refraining from any interference in the internal affairs of other nations, it supports the rightful struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors anywhere in the world. Article 155 - The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran may grant asylum to those seeking political refuge unless they are recognized as traitors and criminals according to Iranian laws. In some texts discussing the sources of Iran's foreign policy, Articles 9 and 11 have also been related to foreign policy, but in the author's opinion, these two articles only encompass the general lines of governance and discuss the indivisibility of territorial integrity and the Quranic principle of Islamic unity, which, in fact, negates territorial integrity in the concept of 'nation-state' and its specific interpretation can exacerbate international disputes. From Bahman 57 to Azar 60, eight individuals held the position of foreign minister, with Sadegh Ghotbzadeh being the record holder. Based on this, a broad interpretation of Article 154, particularly the implementation of its second part, which involves supporting a group of people on a global level against another group, contradicts 'complete abstention from any interference in the internal affairs of other nations' and can be conflict-inducing. Article 153 is also written in a way that lacks clarity and is subject to interpretation. This article has been able to and can still make any cultural, economic, optimal utilization of natural resources, and even military and security cooperation dependent on interpretation and expression, and practically cause irreparable damage to the development and progress of the country. (Refer to the aforementioned principles in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic) In contrast to these principles, there are 17 other principles that grant absolute powers to the leadership to have a role and intervene in any policymaking. Although Article 110 considers 'determining general policies' contingent upon 'consultation with the Expediency Council,' in practice, the Expediency Council has played a secondary role in many foreign policy matters, and the final decision has been subject to the approval of the leadership. An example of this can be seen in the leadership's role in approving and ratifying the nuclear agreement (JCPOA). Non-alignment, or neither East nor West? The eight-year war with Iraq completely refuted the notion that the philosophy of Iran's foreign policy is neither East nor West. Revolutionaries, with the slogan neither East nor West, seemingly stomped on the American flag, while secretly procuring military parts from the U.S. and even Israel. On the other hand, they openly met and negotiated with high-ranking Soviet officials at the highest levels. During this period, a secret agreement was made between Iranian officials and the Ronald Reagan administration regarding the sale of weapons to Iran, which was under an arms embargo. Although the revenue from the sale of arms to Iran was used to support the Contras in Nicaragua, which caused a political scandal in the U.S. and led to the prosecution of some involved. It was during this period (the first day of the Christian New Year 1989) that Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader and founder of the Islamic Republic, met with Eduard Shevardnadze, the last foreign minister of the former Soviet Union. Although Ayatollah Khomeini critiqued Marxism to some extent and left the meeting unfinished. In any case, the meetings and relationships that developed between Iran and the former Soviet Union during the Iraq war violated the principle of neither East nor West and effectively replaced the slogan 'Death to America, Death to Israel' with 'Death to America, Death to the Soviet Union.' In summary, it can be said that the paradigm of Iran's foreign policy leads to several outcomes: in declared policy, it is neither East nor West; while in practical policy, it is neither Western-nor Western.