The Foundations of the 'System's' Decision-Making in Interaction with the West

The Leader of the Islamic Republic, in explaining and justifying his positions regarding negotiations with the West, states: "We have repeatedly said that if you retreat on the nuclear issue, they will bring up the missile issue; if you retreat further, they will raise the issue of support for resistance; if you continue to retreat, they will bring up human rights; and then, if you accept their criteria, they will go after the elimination of religious criteria in governance." (October 20, 2016) Ali Khamenei completely denied any negotiations with the US government in the 1990s. In the 2000s, the shared interests of the US and the Islamic Republic in Iraq brought both sides to the negotiating table. After that, the nuclear issue made these negotiations unavoidable. Today, he no longer denies the principle of negotiation as he did in the past but rather discusses its manner. Ayatollah Khamenei wants to enter the sea of negotiations without getting his feet wet, just as he intervenes daily in Iran's political sea (to the extent of criticizing the invitation of an individual to attend a scientific conference) and is always demanding from society and officials. For this reason, while negotiating with Western governments—through the Foreign Ministry—he led the opposition to the negotiations. In this regard, as in other matters of the country, while he holds the management of the details, he appears in the role of the opposition so that he is never in a position to be accountable and shifts the costs onto others while appropriating the credits for himself. The points of contention he mentions clearly outline four issues of disagreement between Western societies and governments and the Islamic Republic: 1) the production of weapons of mass destruction, 2) the Islamic Republic's state terrorism (which he calls 'resistance') and defense of terrorist states and groups, 3) systematic and institutional violations of international commitments by the government, including human rights in the Islamic Republic, and 4) authoritarianism and totalitarianism of the religious government. Khamenei's advice against retreating on these four issues and his expression of Western governments' intentions are noteworthy in clarifying the Islamic Republic's strategy in negotiations with Western states. Ayatollah Khamenei wants to enter the sea of negotiations without getting his feet wet, just as he intervenes daily in Iran's political sea (to the extent of criticizing the invitation of an individual to attend a scientific conference) and is always demanding from society and officials. For this reason, while negotiating with Western governments—through the Foreign Ministry—he led the opposition to the negotiations. In this regard, as in other matters of the country, while he holds the management of the details, he appears in the role of the opposition so that he is never in a position to be accountable and shifts the costs onto others while appropriating the credits for himself. This positioning of Khamenei can be examined on three levels: his understanding and perspective regarding the Islamic Republic. If we invert the above statement in terms of the priorities of the Leader of the Islamic Republic, we conclude that for him, in order of priority, the criteria and values of the religious government (implementation of Sharia, the absolute power of Shiite clergy embodied in the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, special privileges for Shiite clergy and their loyalists, and the concentration of power, wealth, and status in the ruling class), systematic and institutional violations of human rights (which he views as Western and a tool of pressure on anti-Western states and movements), resistance (the front that the Islamic Republic and its proxy groups and allied states form to fight against Western governments and opponents of the Islamic Republic who are perceived as Western agents), the Islamic Republic's missiles (tools for expanding the Islamic Republic's dominance and its proxy groups in Yemen, Lebanon, and Gaza), and finally the nuclear program, which aims at global management and becoming a superpower, still remains in the strategic outlook of the system, and the JCPOA has only postponed it. Thus, the Islamic Republic is summarized in the cultural engineering of society to impose the lifestyle and intellectual foundations of the clergy, the permanent and institutional violation of human rights, expansionism, and the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Khamenei has only temporarily halted the construction of nuclear weapons but does not want to concede on other issues. The Islamic Republic is thus summarized in the cultural engineering of society to impose the lifestyle and intellectual foundations of the clergy, the permanent and institutional violation of human rights, expansionism, and the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Khamenei has only temporarily halted the construction of nuclear weapons but does not want to concede on other issues. His understanding and perspective regarding the foundations of the West's confrontation with authoritarian regimes lead him to believe that the ultimate goal of Western states is to overthrow the Islamic Republic, as they do not consider this regime amendable or reformable (he is well aware that he has blocked every path to reform). Hundreds of examples of economic and military cooperation between Western states and authoritarian regimes do not apply to this view of Khamenei. For him, the Obama administration, which sends secret letters to Khamenei, constantly invites the Islamic Republic to reform, sends $1.7 billion in cash, and fundamentally considers the overthrow of other regimes outside its foreign policy principles, acts no differently than the Bush and Reagan administrations and the neoconservatives. He even views the nuclear negotiations as a step towards overthrowing the regime because if the 'system' concedes on the nuclear program, the first step towards the final overthrow of the regime has been taken. From Khamenei's perspective, there are only two forces in today's world: arrogance (Western states led by the United States) and resistance against it (led by the Islamic Republic). For this reason, he and his propaganda apparatus portray ISIS as a tool of Western states (while a war is ongoing between the two) because if there is a force against the Islamic Republic, it must be Western, Western-created, or allied with the West. Khamenei understands the world in the dichotomy of Islam (his government and value system) and the West (all that is vile and ugly). His prescriptive conclusion from the two sets of descriptive propositions about the Islamic Republic and the West (although one can never logically reach a prescription from two descriptions) is that one must fight against hostile states with every possible tool. Accordingly, in the courts of the Islamic Republic, individuals are accused of having relations with hostile states merely for holding American residency and passports, long prison sentences are considered for them, IRGC boats fire missiles near American ships in international waters, 'Death to Israel' is written on long-range missiles, and even weapons are provided to former enemies (like the Taliban) to kill American soldiers. Shiite Islamists have well absorbed Lenin's theory of imperialism (the irredeemable nature of capitalist imperialism against the working class) and, considering the essence of the capitalist system, issue a fatwa on the eternal enmity between the United States and the Islamic Republic. With this perspective, Khamenei considers any compromise with Western states as retreat and deems any coexistence impossible. In his ideological view, peaceful coexistence based on common interests means retreating the front of 'truth' in front of the front of falsehood and falling for the deception of infiltrating elements. This means perpetual war and conflict until one side completely eliminates the other. If the Islamic Republic is summarized in the governance of the clergy, opposition to human rights, expansionism, and the production and use of weapons of mass destruction, and the West seeks to overthrow the Islamic government (Khamenei even extends this to opposing the essence of Islam), it is natural to avoid negotiations with this 'inherent enemy' as much as possible, and even in negotiation conditions, it should be assumed that they will violate their commitments and that they ultimately want to enslave and possess others. Therefore, one must fight to the last stronghold and avoid negotiations unless the 'front of truth' is on the verge of destruction. The Islamic Republic will seize every opportunity to challenge Western forces in the region, anti-Western rhetoric and speeches in the government's propaganda apparatus will continue, and political and media activists will be prosecuted with charges related to 'infiltration.' Ali Khamenei is oblivious to this basic principle of realpolitik that negotiating parties, despite having different and multiple programs and expectations, may prioritize some of them. Therefore, halting the Islamic Republic's programs for producing weapons of mass destruction has been and remains a priority, and if they succeed in this matter, they will naturally move on to their next demand. The Islamic Republic has, in fact, pursued its goals in the Middle East within this framework. He also fails to understand that individuals, groups, and states cannot be blamed for prioritizing their goals (with the diversity they have). Of course, he is either mistaken in believing that Western states ultimately do not want a religious government or finds it beneficial for himself to remain mistaken. Countries that can cooperate with Saudi Arabia can also have such relations with the Islamic Republic, provided that their embassies are safe from attacks and their citizens are safe from hostage-taking and their cities from bombings and terrorist operations. Western human rights criticisms have usually not harmed economic and military relations. Future of Iran-West Relations Considering the above statements, those seeking to normalize relations between Iran and the West are at least in Khamenei's era beating water in a mortar, unless pressures such as oil and banking sanctions are imposed on the Islamic Republic, which seems unlikely in the next five years. The above statements mean that the hostage-taking of Western and dual-national citizens and holding them for bargaining will continue, the Islamic Republic will seize every opportunity to challenge Western forces in the region, anti-Western rhetoric and speeches in the government's propaganda apparatus will continue, and political and media activists will be prosecuted with charges related to 'infiltration.'