The Iranian Puzzle

Form Approved
Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED

2. REPORT TYPE
2009 00-00-2009 to 00-00-2009
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
The Iranian Puzzle Piece: Understanding Iran in the Global Context 5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
Marine Corps University,3079 Moreell Avenue,Quantico,VA,22134
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITORS ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITORS REPORT

NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 116
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
the Iranian
PUZZLE Piece
Understanding Iran in the Global Context
Marine Corps University

Quantico, Virginia
2009
Edited by Amin Tarzi

Note on Transliteration
In this work, an attempt has been made to simplify transliteration
of non-Latin terms and names. As such, the system does not strictly
follow any of the standard transliteration systems commonly in use
in academic works in the United States. With exception of some
proper names, the use of diacritical marks has been limited to few
cases. Moreover, in this work, the Arabic and Persian consonant is not
transliterated; however, the vowel that is attached to the consenant has
been represented by that vowel. For example, Ali, not Ali; or Masud,
not Masud. When terms of Arabic origin are used in reference of Iran,
the Persian transliteration has been adopted, such as mojahedin, not
mujahidin; or sayyed, not sayyid.
Terms and names which have become Anglicized in major dictionaries
of the English language, such as Quran, are not transliterated.
Likewise, terms such as mullah are used in place of mulla. Names
which have common usage but are not transliterated are used in their
familiarized form, such as Saddam Hussein.
Marine Corps University Press

3079 Moreell Avenue
Quantico, Virginia
22134
1st Printing, 2009
ii
Contents
Note on Transliteration..................................................................ii
Foreword
By Major General Donald R. Gardner, USMC (Ret)....................................v
Introduction
By Amin Tarzi............................................................................................1
Chapter One: Iran Under Ahmadinejad
By Ali M. Ansari.......................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Talking to Tehran: With Whom,
About What, and How?
By Karim Sadjadpour................................................................................21
Chapter Three: When U.S.-Iranian Negotiations Start: A Primer
By Ronald E. Neumann.............................................................................39
Chapter Four: The Iranian Nuclear Issue
By Simon Shercliff......................................................................................49
Chapter Five: Irans Policies and Iraq
By Mohsen M. Milani...............................................................................57
Chapter Six: Iran in the Israeli Threat Perception
By Gerald M. Steinberg..............................................................................71
Epilogue: The 2009 Iranian Presidential Election
and Its Implications
By Karim Sadjadpour................................................................................83
Glossary.........................................................................................91
Acknowledgments.........................................................................97
Contributors ...............................................................................100
Index............................................................................................102
Illustrations
Map of Iran.....................................................................................iv
Iranian Power Structure................................................................10
iii
iv
Foreword
Major General (Ret) Donald R. Gardner
T his book contains the collected work from The Iranian Puzzle
Piece: Understanding Iran in the Global Context. This one-day
international symposium, held at Marine Corps University (MCU),
was cohosted by MCU and the Marine Corps University Foundation
and was coordinated by the Marine Corps Universitys Middle East
Studies (MES) that was established in 2007.
MCU is a world-class educational institution focused on the art and
science of war and is fully engaged in and dedicated to its students
professional military education. Through educational forums like the
Iranian Puzzle Piece, MCU develops the professional competence
of Marines and other leaders. Knowledge can be a powerful weapon
for the 21st-century Marine. It was under this prerogative that MCU
initiated the MES to help educate and prepare the next generation of
leaders and war-fighters for the missions ahead.
The purpose of MES is to broaden the understanding of the Middle
East and to assess emerging issues in the region that affect the
Department of Defense, specifically the Marine Corps. The MES
focused its initial efforts on Iran, providing a balanced assessment of
Iran in terms of all diplomatic, information, military, and economic
areas of influence. The MES supports the University and the Marine
Corps by conducting lectures, seminars, and briefings on Iran and its
foreign policy.
The symposium from which these essays originated offered a forum
to enhance the overall understanding of Iran, exploring its internal
dynamics, regional perspectives, and extra-regional factors and
examining its near-term political and strategic options and their
potential impact on the United States and the Marine Corps. This
event joined together colleagues from the Armed Services, joint,
v
Foreword
interagency, coalition partners, and security communities and explored

various perspectives to help develop an understanding of the role
played by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the global community.
I would sincerely like to thank our distinguished authors and speakers
whose expertise and insight made the Iranian Puzzle Piece an
absolute success and this timely publication possible.
Donald R. Gardner
Major General, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired)
President Emeritus, Marine Corps University
vi
Introduction
Amin Tarzi
The legendary period of Persian history begins far back in the mists
of time. It is the custom to assume that legend means fiction; but his-
torians are now beginning to perceive that the legends of a nation
are often not only more interesting and poetic than what is called
its authentic history, but that they really suggest actual facts, while
nothing can be more fascinating than the study of such legends. No
country has more attractive legends than Persia; and to judge from
them we cannot avoid the conclusion that no nation now existing
has such a continuous vitality as the old land of Cyrus and Xerxes.
Samuel G. W. Benjamin
First U.S. Minister to Persia1
T he Islamic Republic of Iran, birthed from the legendary Persian

Empire, remains the complex blend of fact and narrative described
by Benjamin in 1902. It is this complexity that shapes Iranian national
identity, policies, and strategies and defines its relations with others.
The web of fact and fiction; history and legend; reality and perception
bodes well for poetry, but it presents a challenge for political decision
making in an international arena where waters are already muddied.
A symposium at Marine Corps University, The Iranian Puzzle Piece:
Understanding Iran in the Global Context, held in September 2008,
sought to clarify the watersto examine the puzzle piece labeled
Iran and understand how it fits into the larger, global puzzle. Out of
that symposium came these papers, which provide insight into the
multifaceted nature of Iran and its regime, examine the feasibility and
possible outcomes of official engagement of the regime, and discuss
the domestic, regional, and international implications of Irans
nuclear ambitions.
1. Samuel G. W. Benjamin, The Story of Persia (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons,
1902), 1.
1
Introduction
It is the pursuit of nuclear technology that has catapulted Iran to center

stage. Escalated tensions in the region as well as internationally have
prompted calls for engagement and, at the same time, stern warnings
and sanctions. How the game plays out determines if this becomes
a potential conflict flashpoint or if Iran becomes a responsible,
transforming partner in the region and beyond. To ensure the latter
instead of the former requires a deep understanding of Irans power
structures and the grievances that thwart rapprochement to determine
with whom and about what to speak, a thorough analysis of the Irans
nuclear posture to avoid premature detonation of this explosive issue,
and an appreciation for Irans potential in the region to influence its
choices to positive ends.
With Whom to Talk?

In his chapter on dialogue between the United States and Iran, Karim
Sadjadpour argues the futility of the isolationist position but recognizes
the challenges facing the United States in discerning with whom or
which center of power to engage. The overlapping and complicated
power structure of the Islamic Republic was intentionally designed in
1979 to obfuscate lines of authority and ensure no single entity became
powerful enough to bend to foreign pressure, resulting in a myriad of
power centers, none with supreme authority. While decision-making
processes remain ambiguous, both Sadjadpour and Mohsen M. Milani,
in his chapter on Irans policy toward Iraq, maintain that the Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hoseyni Khamenei has the most power
within the Iranian political structure; however, both note that he may
not act in isolation like Irans last monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah
Pahlavi, whose reign ended with the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Khameneis role in the controversial presidential election held on 12
June 2009 has further complicated this discussion. The election pitted
three candidates against the incumbent, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Other
candidates included Mir-Hoseyn Musavi, a former prime minister;
Mohsen Rezaei, a former commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard
Corps; and Mehdi Karrubi, former speaker of the Iranian parliament
2
Amin Tarzi
(Majles). Preelection predictions were that if Khamenei stayed neutral

and did not intervene on behalf of his protg Ahmadinejad, Musavi
would win. However, as pointed out by Ali M. Ansari in his chapter
on Ahmadinejad, Khameneis preelection support of Ahmadinejads
policies and presidency revealed his political leanings. Sadjadpours
prediction that Khamenei would heavily influence the electoral
outcome materialized as the events of June 2009 unfolded.
By placing his office and his person on the side of Ahmadinejad
rather than acting as an impartial judge in the controversial elections,
Khamenei has bogged down the office of the supreme leader with
political minutia and raised further questions about his objectivity and
apolitical position. Khameneis backing of Ahmadinejad is not new,
and as Ansari explains, does not have its roots in ideology but rather
in an attempt to consolidate power within the Iranian power structure.
Khamenei has been seen to largely endorse Ahmadinejads first-term
governmental reforms and his policies, even as other conservatives
and a large number of Iranians find themselves farther apart from
Ahmadinejads policies and ideological worldview. For Khamenei,
this partnership may prove costly. He has alienated a large number
of his peers and traditional supporters, and his ability to make tough
decisions on Irans foreign relations and policies is being called into
question. This short-term victory may have long-term negative effects
on his or his offices position of supremacy in Irans decision-making
process. Khamenei did not follow Milanis advice to remain neutral in
the electoral process so that his position would be secure. So now the
questions remain: is Khamenei the person with whom the U.S. should
engage, or has the pendulum of power begun to swing?
What Should the Parties Discuss?

If or when negotiations between the United States and Iran occur,
determining the agenda will be a tricky endeavor. Ronald E. Neumann
cautions, in his chapter on U.S.-Iranian negotiations, that it is important
to keep in mind the almost irreconcilable positions of the parties.
One countrys desired outcome is anathema to the other. While the
3
Introduction
commonalities are few, the list of grievances, both historical and current,
is long, the latest entry being the accusations made by the Iranian
regime against a number of Western countries for alleged involvement
in the post-election protests and demonstrations. Neumann recounts
the myriad of hurdleshistorical misunderstandings, suspicion, legal
battles, and internal domestic oppositionthat both parties will face
and have to overcome on the path to rapprochement. While daunting,
Neumann sees value in pursuing negotiations, if only to chip away at
the hardened positions to slowly improve relations.
There are many deal breakers for both Iran and the United States.
Three of the most intractable are Irans rejection of Israels right to exist;
its support for terrorism; and of course the nuclear issue. Neumann
describes Irans nuclear posture and its continued support of terrorism
as the major issues, adding that there are numerous other issues as
potentially intractable. Sadjadpour lists Irans position on Israel as the
greatest obstacle to improved relations, as he notes belligerency toward
Israel is one of three ideological symbols of the Islamic Republic, and
he sees the nuclear and Israeli issues as inextricably linked. Gerald
M. Steinberg, in his chapter on Iran in the Israeli threat perception,
explains Irans support for Hezbollah and Hamas and its nuclear
ambitions as manifestations of the existential threat Israel continues
to face from the Iranian regime. This threat has been in existence since
the 1979 Islamic Revolution and is perceived to be escalating with the
rise of Irans nuclear ambitions. He cautions that Israel is considering
all options to counter this threat.
Khamenei illustrated his distaste for any hint of niceties toward Israel in
his public rebuking of Ahmadinejad in July 2009, this just shortly after
having backed him in the elections. As part of his new government,
Ahmadinejad appointed his sons father-in-law, Esfandiar Rahim
Mashaii, as his first vice president. The first vice president wields a
degree of power within Irans power structure, leading cabinet sessions
in the absence of the president. Khamenei, however, issued a decree
ordering Ahmadinejad to remove Mashaii from his post and asserting
4
Amin Tarzi
he has no place in the current cabinet.2 According to Tehran Times,

in 2008 while serving as director of Irans Cultural Heritage, Tourism
and Handicrafts Organization, Mashaii had said, Iran is a friend of
the Israeli people, which violated the official Iranian position on the
Zionist regimethe name by which Iran refers to Israel.3 This simple
remark about friendship between peoples could not be tolerated by
Khamenei and those around him, as it is seen as legitimizing Israel.
That said, there may be an opportunity for Iran to revisit its stance
on Israel if it is determined to be expedient to the regime. Milani
discusses Irans use of maslehat (expediency) as a tool to weigh the
costs and benefits of potential actions and provides examples of how
maslehat has been employed in recent history to ensure the regimes
objectives are fulfilled. Sadjadpour believes that the regime may
change its position regarding the legitimacy of the Israeli state if the
Palestinians reach an agreed path forward, which the regime could
justify by invoking maslehat.
Irans Nuclear Program

Despite Iranian assurances otherwise, the international community
believes Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. Simon
Shercliff, in his chapter on the Iranian nuclear issue, explains that this
is a result of the huge mistrust of Iranian intentions and motivations
and a complete disconnect between Iranian civilian needs and
technological pursuits. And despite U.S. assurances that the U.S. does
not seek regime change, Iran is convinced otherwise. So suspicion is
alive and well on all fronts. Shercliff asserts, however, that regardless of
Irans stated motivations, intentions, and claims of scientific progress,
the international community is right to be concerned about Irans
nuclear activities. Sadjadpour contends that resolution of this issue will
first require the United States and Iran to settle broader diplomatic
2. Leader Has Ordered President to Dismiss Rahim-Mashaii: Top MP, Tehran Times,
22 July 2009 (http:www.tehrantimes.com/NCms/2007.asp?code=199282).
3. Ibid.
5
Introduction
challenges, which as stated above will prove challenging and require

profound and mature diplomacy on both sides.
Sadjadpour points out that the devil is in the details. The most
significant detail is that of time. Once the nuclear cat is out of the
bag, paradigms shift, and there is no turning back. Time is influencing
the direction of both the existing multilateral diplomatic approach
regarding Irans nuclear programE3+3, comprised of China, France,
Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United Statesand
other potential advocates of Iran changing its course. As such, Shercliff
advocates for forcing Irans hand, compelling Iran to choose between
cooperation and confrontation before it is too late. Neumann promotes
a two-pronged approach, borrowing former Israeli Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabins strategy of negotiating as if there is no fighting and
fighting as if there are no talks. Neither talks nor pressures should
restrict the employment of the other, as a balance between the two
ensures a more successful outcome.
Steinberg affirms Neumanns recommended approach, noting that
Israels policy is to consider all available options to resolve Irans nuclear
issue while pursuing a diplomatic solution. However, in the end, as
time pressures build, patience for a lengthy diplomatic process may
wane, or the process will be overcome by events. Steinberg, in closing,
provides an ominous yet realistic assessment of Israeli perceptions vis-
-vis Irans threat:
Overall, the Iranian nuclear threat has reinforced the realism
that forms the Israeli approach to security threats. While there
is still hope that international action, including serious sanc-
tions, will stop Iran before the nuclear finish line, this is by no
means assured. Proposals by foreign diplomats and academics
suggesting that alliances such as North Atlantic Treaty Or-
ganization (NATO) membership for Israel could provide a
sufficient response to an Iranian nuclear capability, or that a
defense treaty with the United States would be important in
this respect, are not likely to be seen as effective by Israelis.
6
Amin Tarzi
The U.S. is seen as weakened economically and overcommitted

in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the weakness of European mem-
bers of NATO, particularly with respect to security, reinforces
the skepticism. While there are many complexities, the possi-
bility for a preventive Israeli military strike remains significant.
Ali-Akbar Salehi, the newly appointed director of the Atomic Energy
Organization of Iran, called for closure of his countrys nuclear dossier
on 19 July 2009, citing completion of all required legal and technical
discussions and noting that any remaining concerns are undocumented
and unsubstantiated.4 If Salehis actions are indicative of what
Ahmadinejads nuclear posture will be during his second presidential
term, the possibility of confrontation instead of cooperation is so much
more real. In facing this reality, creativity and maturity need to prevail
to avoid an escalation that leads to a no-win endgame.
Irans Regional Ambitions

Complicating matters further are Irans calculations that a nuclear
capability will help it fulfill its regional ambitions. Salehi, when saying
that the importance of Irans status in the region is obvious,5 echoes
the sentiments of a broad segment of Iranian society. He talks of Iran
possessing the golden key in the region. This key to which he alludes
has physical and historical attributes. Irans geostrategic position and
its imperial legacy propel Iran to pursue regional hegemony.
Iran is the only country with access to the Caucuses, Middle East,
Central and South Asia, the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the
open seas. From a hydrocarbon perspective, with its location and vast
amounts of oil and natural gas, Iran has the potential of being one of
the most, if not the most, influential supplier and transportation hub
of oil and gas not only in the region, but also in the global market.
However, as Sadjadpour points out, Iranian assets have been plagued
4. Irans Nuclear Dossier Must be Closed: AEOI Director, Tehran Times, 19 July 2009
(http:www.tehrantimes.com/NCms/2007.asp?code=199120).
5. Ibid.
7
Introduction
by mismanagement, and this, coupled with the sanctions and political

tensions, has resulted in Iran becoming a perennial underperformer.
Shercliff posits that Iran could assume its natural position as the key
country in hydrocarbon production, transportation, and politics if it
would accept the refreshed E3+3 package, which remains on the
table since offered in June 2008.
Beyond geography, Irans narrative of Persian expansionism and
destined leadership in the region, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi
Khomeinis message of spreading the revolution and establishing
the Islamic Republics preeminence, continues to resonate with the
Iranian population.6 This imperial collective identity remains and has
been reinvigorated with the removal of the Saddam Hussein and the
Taliban. Milani argues that this shift in regional politics has expedited
Irans regional ambitions and that the current situations in Afghanistan
and Iraq present an opportunity for cooperation between the United
States and Iran, assuming that the two parties can overcome their
inherent distrust and recognize that their strategic interests lie on the
same path forward. It would appear that some of these fears have yet
to be conquered, as Sadjadpour indicates that Iran continues to be
identified as the principal source of instability in Iraq.
One voice absent from this discussion is that of Irans Arab neighbors,
due to a late cancellation of the Arab presenter at the symposium. The
Arab states should not be expected to take sitting down Irans regional
ambitions and its interest and influence in Iraq. Irans involvement in
Iraq and Lebanon and with Palestinian groups such as Hamas, coupled
with its nuclear pursuits, has created noise in many Arab capitals.
Ahmadinejads 2007 offer to help fill the security vacuum that would
be created when Western forces leave Iraq remains on the table and
has been met with skepticism and suspicion from Irans neighbors.7
6. Ray Takeyh, Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic (New York:
Times Books, 2006), 11. Takeyh uses Arab states rather than all of Irans neighboring states.
7. See Amin Tarzi, The Worlds Ninth Nuclear Power: Irans Ambitions in the Middle
East and Beyond, Turkish Policy Quarterly 6 (Summer 2007): 63 (http://www.turkishpolicy.
com/images/stories/2007-02-centraleurasia/TPQ2007-2-tarzi.pdf).
8
Amin Tarzi
As Ansari notes, the apparent rise in Iranian regional influence,

spanning from Lebanon to Afghanistan, has emboldened Iran, and
Milani reminds readers of the power that perception wields in politics.
As Iran plans its course, it needs to recognize how the region and
the world perceive its regional ambitions and pursuit of nuclear
technology. Irans posturing toward Israel and its fiery politics take on
a new dimension when coupled with the threat of a nuclear weapons
capability. Iran needs to employ maslehat to determine its course of
action and to ensure that the outcome affords Iran the prestige and
status it desires and deserves. We want Iran to calculate what I think
is a fair assessment that if the U.S. extends a defense umbrella over the
region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in
the Gulf, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Phuket,
Thailand, in July 2009. Its unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or
safer, because they wont be able to intimidate and dominate, as they
apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon.8
The authors expertise and in-depth analysis broaden and deepen
the available discourse on Iran and provide context and guidance for
confronting the Iranian nuclear issue. As revealed through their work,
the Iranian puzzle piece is complex and demands close examination to
ascertain its rightful place within the global puzzle.
8. Mark Landler, Clinton Hints at Defense Umbrella to Deter Iran, New York Times,
23 July 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/world/asia/23diplo.html?).
9
10
Chapter 1
Iran Under Ahmadinejad
Ali M. Ansari
M ahmud Ahmadinejad was elected as the president of the

Islamic Republic of Iran in 2005 promising to rid the
government of the corruption that had accrued since the death of
Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini in 1989, to pursue social and
economic justice, and to return to the values of the early revolution.
Armed with the self-confidence of a man immersed in religious
convictions and an unshakable self belief, Ahmadinejad approached
government with the reckless abandon of an iconoclast. It was an
approach that proved as popular with the disenfranchised as much
as it horrified the intellectual and bureaucratic elite, many of whom
were likewise dismayed by the failures of the Islamic Republicand
the unaccountability of the revolutionary organs in particularbut
felt that wholesale overhaul portended by the incoming president
threatened to undermine the very foundations of a somewhat fragile
political and economic system.
While it is true that Ahmadinejad found himself facing the natural
inertia of any established system, he nonetheless spent the better part
of the first term of his presidency reshaping the government of the
Islamic Republic in his own image, in large measure supported by the
office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hoseyni Khamenei,
for whom Ahmadinejads public obsequiousness and ideological
world view have proven attractive. Perhaps more importantly, the
dramatic rise in oil prices enabled Ahmadinejad to play the role of
populist and to disguise the many fissures within the system under
a torrent of oil money, which he injected into the economy with
very little rhyme or reason.1 Iranian economists protested that this
1. The price of crude oil rose from $35 per barrel in January 2005 to highs of around
$140 during the summer of 2008, only to fall back to around $35 by the end of the year.
Historical oil price data here and throughout the article is from U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Information Agency, Petroleum Navigator (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/
hist/wtotworldw.htm).
11
Chapter 1: Iran Under Ahmadinejad
lack of planning simply ensured a massive and unplanned injection

of capital into an economy that could not sustain it, fueling inflation
and a housing boom, which, in a scenario familiar to the West, has
encouraged people to believe that real economic growth has in fact
been taking place. They further warned that the drawing down of the
oil reserve fundbuilt up by the administration of former president
Sayyed Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005)and the development
of budgets dependent on ever higher receipts from oil would simply
make the economy more vulnerable to a sudden reduction in the oil
price. Ahmadinejad, buoyed by his own apparent popularity and an
international environment that appeared to flaunt American failure in
the region, dismissed these and other criticisms of his administration
as the idle ranting of orthodox thinkers who had failed to appreciate
his innate and instinctive genius.
Ahmadinejad is a product of the Khatami reform movement in more
ways than one.2 In an obvious sense, his emergence, and the ideals he
represents, reflect a complete rejection of the reform process and the
personality of Khatami in particular. Ahmadinejad himself takes the
distinction further by distancing himself not only from Khatami but from
the administration of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
(1989-1997), to whom he ascribes much of the economic ills of the
country. Yet as Ahmadinejads presidency rejects much of the economic
policy and planning of the previous sixteen years, his populism also
reflects a profound desire to overturn the popularity of his immediate
predecessor, a popularity that the hard right in Iran has resented and
regarded as a perversion of the true values of the revolution. Defining
these values and debating the legacy of the founder of the revolution,
Ayatollah Khomeini, have been the stock and trade of the politics of
the Islamic Revolution, and the claim that Rafsanjani and Khatami
represented a loss of revolutionary focus is dubious to say the least.
2. Editors Note: The reform movement (1997-2005) was the political momentum
behind President Khatamis terms in office. The movement promised to bring greater freedom
and democracy to Iranian politics and government, and the failure of its efforts has given
strength to its conservative detractors. See Ray Takeyh, Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in
the Islamic Republic (New York: Times Books, 2006), 44-45.
12
Ali M. Ansari
One of the striking anomalies of the hard right Principle-ist challenge

is that it does not have the support of many of Khomeinis closest
supporters, allies, and family members.3 Indeed, the Principle-
ist challenge can be better interpreted as the attempt by Khamenei
to supplant the founder of the revolution as the leading light of
revolutionary ideology. It is quite clear that there is a tight and highly
dependent relationship between Khamenei and the Principle-ist
faction. This is not simply an ideological relationship, but a partnership
in the consolidation of power, and it is important to recognize this
relationship as one of mutual dependence.This interdependence explains
the continued and critical support provided by the supreme leader for
the president and his government, even when other conservatives have
increasingly criticized the presidents incoherent policies.
Another factor also helps explain this support, and it reflects the
personality of the supreme leader as much as his political relationship
with Ahmadinejad. Khamenei is haunted by the example of the last
shah, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who is generally considered
to have lost his throne through indecisiveness and weakness.
Consequently, Khamenei has sought to overcompensate for what
is generally regarded to be his political and theological weakness
by appearing and behaving in a manner that is both interventionist
and resolute. In such a climate, considerable credence is given to not
changing ones mind and to appearing consistent. The immediate
consequence of this approach, of course, is that Khamenei is likely to
continue supporting Ahmadinejad long after most observers consider
it prudent or necessary. This support is mutual, and in rejecting his
predecessors policies, Ahmadinejad emphatically allied himself with
the supreme leader, to whom he has shown an unprecedented public
deference. If Rafsanjani and Khatami enjoyed difficult relationships
3. Editors Note: The Principle-ists are the religious and social conservative factions
that opposed the liberal policies of former President Khatami. They arose as the result of
Khatamis reform efforts and are now a considerable political conservative force. See Ali
M. Ansari, Iran Under Ahmadinejad: The Politics of Confrontation. Adelphi Paper 393.
(Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge for the International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2007), 32;
Raz Zimmt, The 2008 Iranian Parliamentary Elections: A Triumph of the System, Middle
East Review of International Affairs 12 (June 2008): 41-43.
13
with Khamenei, whom they regarded as little more than the first
among equals, if that, Ahmadinejadin public at leasthas been very
clear about the nature of the hierarchy.
Ahmadinejads domestic agenda and the realignment of power
were ably facilitated by highly fortuitous circumstances both with
respect to the economy and the international environment. In 2005,
Ahmadinejad inherited a nuclear crisis, which, after two years of
tortuous negotiations, had not reached a satisfactory conclusion. The
details of this process can be found elsewhere, but suffice it to say
that both Iran and the parties with which it negotiated share the
blame for the failure of progress by 2005.4 It is with no little irony
that it was only at this late date that the Europeans had convinced the
United States to take a much more visible role in the negotiations, at
the very time when the inauguration of Ahmadinejad represented a
shift away from negotiations for the Iranians encouraged not only by
the failures of the Khatami administration, but also by the realization
that the U.S. position in the Middle East was no longer as robust or
confident as it had been in 2003. Ahmadinejad argued that Iran could
only achieve the results it wanted by being robust and confrontational,
that the willingness to compromise was taken as a sign of weakness
of the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, and perhaps
most importantly, that by 2005, Americas room for maneuver was
considerably more limited.
There were many within the Iranian political elite who accepted this
general assessment, arguing that Khatamis good will had largely been
rejected and that the United States only respected force. Ahmadinejads
approach was reinforced by a world view that took this analysis a stage
further. While some viewed the change to a more confrontational
stance as tactical rather than strategica means to securing an end
for Ahmadinejad, this shift represented deeper ideological convictions
that drew on a Marxist understanding of global politics that pointed
4. For the nuclear issue, see Simon Shercliffs essay, which is chapter 4 of this book,
as well as the International Atomic Energy Agencys site, In Focus: IAEA and Iran (http://
www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml).
14
Ali M. Ansari
to the inevitable collapse of capitalism. For Ahmadinejad, the politics

of confrontation was not a means to a redefined relationship, but a
means to revolutionizing the international system in Irans favor. Such
a grandiose vision, which was derided and ridiculed by his political
opponents, struck a chord with an overwhelmingly nationalistic
population eager for international stature and success. Indeed, for
all his religious heterodoxy, Ahmadinejad found nationalism and its
accompanying rhetoric far more intoxicating for both the Iranian
public and for himself.
With the apparent growth in Iranian power throughout the region,
from Afghanistan to Lebanona consequence of Western incoherence
more than real Iranian strengthAhmadinejads belief in himself
seemed justified and became contagious. The more people believed, the
more the critics were silenced, and the more Ahmadinejads self belief
was reinforced. Much is said about Ahmadinejads incorruptibility,
especially in contrast to some members of the political elite, yet while
this may allude to financial probity (an aspect that has come under
increasing scrutiny of late), it was very clear from quite early in his
presidency that Ahmadinejad was easily overcome by the possibilities
and perks of power. This bent was not only reflected in his highly
personal choices for government posts, with officials chosen mainly
for the personal loyalty to the man (Ahmadinejad) and mission rather
than professional competence, but also in his obvious contempt for
what remained of process and procedure. Ahmadinejads disdain for
the Majles (the Iranian parliament) was especially irksome to the hard-
line deputies who had done so much to see him elected. Rather than
face questions in parliament, Ahmadinejad was far happier playing
the role of leader, either on the world stage in front of an international
media, who seemingly thirsted after his every statement, or in lavish
provincial tours in which he performed for adoring masses in increasing
desperation for some sort of hope and salvation. Ahmadinejad clearly
relished the role, and a dependency culture emerged between a people
in need and a leader who craved attention.
15
Facilitating this process was the availability of enormous amounts

of oil revenue. When Khatami came into office in 1997, oil stood at
approximately $17 per barrel. It had dropped to the $10-12 range by
the spring of 1998. Consequently, Khatami was forced to approach the
economy with a degree of prudence and austerity. The lack of finance
meant that he was unable to push through many of the ideas he had
envisaged for the transformation of the Iranian economy. Ultimately,
Khatamis economic legacy was managing a bad economy well, and
as oil prices gradually rose, he left a growing oil reserve fund to be set
aside for possible downturns in the economy and for investment in
large infrastructural projects.
Ahmadinejad entered office with oil at around $60 a barrel and
without much idea of economic planning or policy. Khatami had left
a strategic plan for the next twenty years, although it was so vague as
to allow any subsequent president considerable room for maneuver.
Ahmadinejad and his allies, who were eager to consolidate power and
to eradicate the popularity of Khatami among the people, used the
funds to effectively buy the public. The days of austerity were over;
oil money was provided to every citizen. The availability of such large
amounts of money also allowed Ahmadinejad to indulge in theatrical
politics on a scale not seen since the days of the last shah. Not only did
he embark on a series of expensive provincial tours, he also used these
meet the people expeditions to distribute cash, raise salaries, and
announce dramatic initiatives, many of which had not been budgeted
or were administratively difficult to achieve.
In the early days of his presidency, criticism of these adventures in the
countryside was relatively muted, but it did not take long for contrary
voices to be heard. Both conservatives and professionals raised concerns
over Ahmadinejads policies, including an extensive critique of his lack
of economic planning issued by fifty-seven economists, who warned
of the dire consequences of the massive injection of liquidity into the
economy.5 More damning than their economic critique, which warned
5. Namah-ye chaharome eqtesad-danan be rais-e jomhur [Fourth Letter of Economists

to the President], Mardom-Salari, 22 December 2007 (http://www.mordomsalari.com/
Template1/Article.aspx?AID=2397).
16
Ali M. Ansari
of high inflation and property speculation, was their observation that

the president seemed uninterested in any professional advice, appeared
to appoint officials on the basis of ideology, and moreover, boasted
about his instinctive and anti-intellectual approach to government.
Ahmadinejad not only dismissed such comments but also sought
to present himself as a new type of revolutionary intellectual with
access to radical ideas. One of his supporters argued that people did
not understand the president because he moved at the speed of a
phantom jet, with the idea clearly being that Ahmadinejad operated
on an altogether different plane of thought.
The antiestablishment posture worked for a time, but problems were
bound to arise once the masses, whose loyalty he craved, began to suffer
through the high inflation his policies were promoting. Ahmadinejad
sought to ascribe these problems to international sanctions, but few
commentators within the country believed this argument. When the
Majles criticized the rise in prices of everyday goods, Ahmadinejad
simply resorted to a swift dismissal of the criticisms as either politically
unfounded or ignorant. His ability to remain on this path depended
on two factors: the continued support of the supreme leader, who had
effectively entered into a dependent relationship with him; and the
continued rise in the price of oil. Indeed, even government officials
and ostensible allies of the president grew weary and warned of the
excessive dependence on rising oil prices. In April 2008, Interior
Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, a noted hard-liner, resigned his
post, citing differences that were later revealed to be concerns that the
president had illegally raided the oil reserve fund.
News that the oil reserve fund has been severely depleted over the
last few years has come as a considerable shock to Iranians. While
precise figures remain vague, the inadvertent leak from a government
minister that the fund stood at $9 billion in the fall of 2008 resulted in
immediate attempts at damage limitation control from the government,
which countered with an estimate of $25 billion.6 This figure still
is considerably lower than the $82 billion that the government was
6. Iran: Oil under $60 Troubling for the Economy, Fars New Agency, 4 November
2008 (http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8708141516).
17
calculated to have had in March 2008, which would have provided a

financial cushion in case of an oil price drop.7 Indeed, although they
publicly gloated at the collapse of Western financial institutions in
September, it took little more than four weeks for Iranian officials
to realize that the consequences of this global economic downturn
would affect Iran in a concomitant deflation of the oil bubble. Within
weeks, the price of oil dropped to below $60 a barrel, the price that
had greeted Ahmadinejad on his inauguration, creating a situation for
which the president had no answer.
Not surprisingly, recriminations followed. A particularly combative
and boisterous Majles decided to impeach the minister of interior,
Ali Kordan, for professing to hold an honorary doctorate from the
University of Oxford. The impeachment is significant for a number of
reasons. Ahmadinejad has to lose but one more minister (to dismissal
or impeachment) to force a vote of confidence in his entire cabinet.
Perhaps more importantly, it is no longer clear who will manage the
forthcoming presidential elections ( June 2009). Indeed, some are
speculating that a combination of economic woes, a change of guard
in the White House, and general disillusionment with Ahmadinejad
among former allies, let alone the populace at large, will result in an
opening up of the political contest.
Powerful voices in support of a renewed Khatami candidacy are already
being heard.8 However, much depends not only on developments in
the economy, but on the attitude of the supreme leader, who finds
himself in an increasingly awkward position. Most recently, he yet
again came out in support of Ahmadinejad and his policies, thereby
tying himself most emphatically to the cause. He can of course change
his mind, if events force him to do so, but like all weak men, he places
7. Chip Cummins and Farnaz Fassihi, Weaker Oil May Crimp Irans Spending, Wall Street
Journal Online, 25 October 2008 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122489443738668849.
html).
8. Editors Note: Khatami was the leading pro-reform candidate for the presidency until
he withdrew from the race on 16 March 2009 citing the need for unity among reformists and
pledging his support for former Prime Minister Mir-Hoseyn Musavi.
18
Ali M. Ansari
unusual emphasis on not changing his mind, confusing stubbornness

with strength. In short, it will take a remarkable economic shock to
shift him, and even then, it may be too late.
19
20
Chapter 2
Talking to Tehran: With Whom,
About What, and How?
Karim Sadjadpour
T he long-standing policy debate about whether or not to engage

Iran is now futile. In the post-September 11 world, Iran is integral
to several issues of critical importance to the foreign policy of the
United States, namely Iraq,Afghanistan, Arab-Israeli peace,terrorism,
nuclear proliferation, and energy security. Shunning Iran will not
ameliorate any of these issues, and confronting Iran militarily will
exacerbate all of them. The only remaining option is talking to Tehran.
The devil, however, is in the details. With whom in Iran should the
U.S.talk? What should the U.S. talk to them about? And how should
the U.S. talk to them?
For the last several years, U.S. policy toward Iran has focused almost
exclusively on short-term tactics at the expense of a coherent strategy.
The results are self-evident: today Iran is more repressive, its nuclear
stance has grown more defiant, and its support for extremist groups
has increased. This chapter will focus less on ways to punish troubling
Iranian behavior and more on a strategy that attempts to modify
Iranian policies, allay the long-standing enmity between Washington
and Tehran, and facilitate internal political reform with Iran. It begins
with four fundamental premises:1
1. Talking to Iran does not imply offering concessions, in no
way implies appeasement of troubling Iranian behavior, and
does not preclude efforts to simultaneously counter Iranian in-
fluence and policies that are problematic.
1. For a discussion of some of these premises, also see Ronald E. Neumanns essay,
which is chapter 3 of this book.
21
Chapter 2: Talking to Tehran: With Whom, About What, and How?
2. The Islamic Republic is not on the verge of collapse, and any

reform movement will require time to revive. Abrupt political
change in Tehran is unlikely and would not necessarily be an
improvement on the status quo, as the only groups that are
both organized and armed in Iran are the Islamic Revolution
Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij militia. More liberal po-
litical groups are unorganized and unarmed.
3. U.S. concerns about the Iranian behaviorwhether it is nu-
clear ambitions, opposition to Israel, or support for extremist
groupswill not be allayed as long as the status quo regime is
in power in Tehran and its relations with Washington remain
adversarial. In the current context, U.S. concerns that Iran is
pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program will remain
even if Iran were to announce suspension of uranium enrich-
ment activities tomorrow.
4. The greatest impact Washington can have to help advance
the causes of democracy, civil society, and human rights in Iran
are policies that facilitate, rather than impede, Irans path to
modernization. Improved Iranian ties with the United States
are a prerequisite to Irans reintegration into the global econo-
my, which would expedite internal political and economic re-
form in Iran and dilute rather than fortify hard-liners control
of power.
I. Who to Talk to
There is good reason why policy makers have often struggled to
understand where and how power is wielded in Tehran. From the
Islamic Republics inception in 1979, the revolutions father, Ayatollah
Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, aimed to set up the governments power
structure in a way that would make it impervious to foreign influence.
This meant creating multiple power centers whose competition would
provide checks and balances to prevent one branch or individual from
becoming too powerful and susceptible to outside influence. The result
22
Karim Sadjadpour
has been frequent political paralysis, an inability to make big decisions,

and a tendency to muddle along with entrenched policies.
The Power of Khamenei
While three decades later it remains difficult to discern why and
how important decisions are made in Tehran, what can be said with
confidence is that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khamenei
is Irans most powerful man. He may not make decisions unilaterally,
but no major decisions can be taken without his consent. As supreme
leader, he has constitutional authority over the main levers of state,
namely the judiciary, military, and media. He also has effective control
over the countrys second most powerful institution, the Guardian
Council, a twelve-member body (all of whom are directly or indirectly
appointed by him) that has the authority to vet all electoral candidates
and veto any parliamentary decisions.
Various domestic factors have made Khameneis role in the
consensus-building process greater than ever before: 1) a vast
network of commissars stationed in strategic posts throughout
government bureaucracies, dedicated to enforcing his authority; 2)
the rapidly rising political and economic influence of the IRGC,
whose top leaders are directly appointed by Khamenei; 3) the political
disillusionment and disengagement of Irans young population,
prompted by the unfulfilled expectations of the reformist era;2 4) the
2005 election of hard-line President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who
trounced Khameneis chief rival, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani, in a second-round runoff; and 5) the conservative-
dominated parliament, headed by Khamenei loyalist Ali Ardashir
Larijani. Individuals who are either directly appointed by Khamenei
or unfailingly obsequious to him currently lead the most influential
institutions in Irans byzantine power structure.
2. Editors Note: The reform movement (1997-2005) was the political momentum
behind President Khatamis terms in office. The movement promised to bring greater freedom
and democracy to Iranian politics and government, and the failure of its efforts has given
strength to its conservative detractors. See Ray Takeyh, Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in
the Islamic Republic (New York: Times Books, 2006), 44-45.
23
Externally, up to the fall of 2008, soaring oil prices together with

Irans expanded regional influence has given the Islamic Republic
unprecedented power vis--vis the United States, offering Khamenei
and Irans hard-liners a newfound confidence. Irans virtual encirclement
by U.S. forces, efforts by the administration of U.S. President George W.
Bush to promote democracy in Iran, and repeated threats of military
action have combined to create a highly securitized atmosphere,
allowing Tehrans hard-liners a further pretext to silence dissent and
limit political and social freedoms.
While these factors are dynamicoil prices may drop further, the
state of Iraq may improve still, and Ahmadinejad may not be reelected
presidentfor the foreseeable future, Iran will remain a vital influence
on major U.S. interests, and Khamenei will continue to be the most
critical figure in Iran.
What Does Khamenei Want?
Advocates of engagement often speak of the need for a bold U.S.
gesture, a Nixon to China approach. Before this can happen,
however, a fundamental question needs clarification: does Ayatollah
Khamenei genuinely seek a modus vivendi with Washington? Or is
enmity toward the United States necessary to retain the ideals of the
revolution and the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic?
Khameneis nineteen-year track record depicts a risk-averse leader
courting neither confrontation nor accommodation with the West
who is also saturated with mistrust.3 He believes that Irans strategic
location and energy resources are too valuable to the United States to
be controlled by an independent-minded Islamic government, hence
Washington aspires to go back to the patron-client relationship
existing at the time of the shah. In this context, whether U.S. officials
announce they want to have a dialogue with Iran or to isolate it,
Khamenei presumes nefarious intentions.
3. Editors Note: Khamenei has been the supreme leader of Iran since 1989. Prior to this,
he was the president of Iran from 1981 to 1989.
24
Karim Sadjadpour
At the same time, the role of ideology and political expediency in

Khameneis anti-American worldview cannot be discounted. A
conciliatory approach toward the United States and a nonbelligerent
approach toward Israel would be parting ways with two of the three
ideological symbols of the Islamic Republic (the other being the
mandatory hejab for women). For Khamenei, if the Islamic revolution
was all about momentous change, the years since have been about
maintaining the revolutionary status quo. Nor is Khameneis rationale
purely ideological; his writings and speeches suggest that he agrees
with Western advocates who argue that were Iran to open up to the
United States, such engagement would spur major cultural, political,
and economic reform.
For these reasons, as long as Khamenei remains supreme leader, a
fundamental shift in Iranian domestic and foreign policy appears
unlikely. Given that his selection as leader was based on his fealty to
revolutionary ideals and the vision of Khomeiniwhose political views
crystallized in the anti-imperialist heyday of the 1960s and 70sthe
chances of Khamenei being willing or able to reinvent himself at the
age of seventy do not appear strong.
II. What to Talk About

There are few nations in the world with which the United States
has less reason to quarrel or more compatible interests than Iran.
. . . There is no American geopolitical motivation for hostility be-
tween Iran and the United States. . . . Iran is destined to play
a vitalin some circumstances, decisiverole in the [Persian]
Gulf and in the Islamic world. A prudent American government
needs no instruction on the desirability of improving relations
with Iran.
Henry A. Kissinger, Does American Need a Foreign Policy?4
4. Henry A. Kissinger, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for
the 21st Century (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 196.
25
Iran scholars often debate to what degree the countrys foreign policy
is driven by national interests as opposed to revolutionary ideology.
Examples of each abound. Invoking Islamic solidarity to support
the Palestinian cause is consistent with Irans revolutionary ideology,
while ignoring Islamic solidarity in Chechnya for fear of antagonizing
Russia is consistent with Iranian national interests.
Another interpretation of Iranian foreign policy is that it is a by-product
of U.S.-Iran relations. According to this line of thinking, Iran is not
inherently opposed to America, but it is driven by a sense of insecurity
vis--vis the United States. Hence, when U.S.-Iran relations are most
adversarialas they have been the last several yearsTehran strives to
make life difficult for the United States as a means of protecting itself.
Irans friendship with Venezuelas Hugo Chavez can be explained in
this context.
The task of the U.S. President Barack H. Obamas administration
should be to test whether a refined, conciliatory U.S. approach could
compel Tehran to dilute, or perhaps even abandon, the revolutionary,
anti-American aspect of its foreign policy in favor of a more
cooperative working relationship with Washington. A survey of the
issues of broad concern between the two countriesIraq, Afghanistan,
nuclear proliferation, terrorism, energy security, and Arab-Israeli
peaceunderscores former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissingers
argument that Washington and Tehran have much in common:
Iraq
While U.S. and Iranian interests in Iraq are certainly not identical, a
good argument can be made that Washington has more overlapping
interests with Tehran in Iraq than with any of Iraqs other neighbors:
Stability. Instability and carnage provide more fertile ground for
radical Salafist groupssuch as al-Qaedawho are violently opposed
to American, Iranian, and Shiite influence, and would also create an
influx of Iraqi refugees to Iran.
26
Karim Sadjadpour
Territorial Integrity. The implications of a partitioned Iraqnamely an

independent Iraqi Kurdistanare serious for Iran, which has its own
disaffected Kurdish community. At the same time, both Washington
and Tehran can live with a degree of Kurdish autonomy, which makes
Turkey very uncomfortable.
Sectarian Harmony. Given its quest to be the vanguard of the largely
Sunni-Arab Middle East, the last thing Iran wants to do is project
Shiite power or stir Sunni resentment throughout the region.
Democracy. Given the Shiite demographic majority, Iran feels confident
that elections are the best vehicle to assert its interests.5 Fearing Shiite
ascendancy in Baghdad, U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and
Kuwait are far more concerned about a democratic Iraq.
Despite these overlapping interests, Irans role in Iraq has been at best
schizophrenic and at worst nefarious. Both U.S. military personnel
and Iraqi officials have described Iran as a primary source of instability.
From Tehrans perspective, given that one of the underlying premises
of the 2003 U.S.-led Iraq war was to change the political culture of the
Middle East, it made little sense to Iran for it to play a cooperative or
passive role in Iraq. On the contrary, believing that the United States
was intent on installing in Baghdad a pro-American puppet regime
sympathetic to Israel and hostile to Iran, Tehran had an incentive
to try to make life difficult for the United States and ensure that its
friends ascended to positions of power.
Afghanistan
Likewise in Afghanistan, Washington has more overlapping interests
with Tehran than it does with allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia:
Stability and economic reconstruction. Having accommodated more
than 2 million Afghan refugees, Tehran does not stand to gain from
5. Editors Note: According to the Central Intelligence Agencys World Factbook,

Shiites make up 60-65 percent of Iraqs population. They comprise 89 percent of Irans
population (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/).
27
continued strife in Afghanistan and has sought to play a leading role

in the countrys reconstruction, ranking among the top ten aid donors.
Counter-narcotics. With one of the highest incidence of drug addiction
in the world and a strict penal code prohibiting drug use, Iran has been
highly vigilant in policing drug traffickers.6
Support for the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. While
it has not abandoned its support for other allies in Afghanistan, Iran
has been supportive of the Karzai government and made numerous
pledges of security and economic cooperation.
Opposition to the Taliban. Iran nearly fought a war against the inherently
anti-Shiite Taliban in 1998 and supported the opposition Northern
Alliance long before September 11.
Similar to Iraq, however, in an effort to make life difficult for the United
States, Tehrans behavior has been at times schizophrenic and counter
to its own national interests. Iranian state radio programs broadcast
in Afghanistan have referred to Karzai as the stooge of the U.S., but
most egregious are accusations that Iran has provided support to its
old nemesis the Taliban.7
Nuclear Proliferation
The impetus for Irans nuclear ambitions remains nebulous. Is the
countrys clerical leadership fixed on acquiring a nuclear weapons
capability in order to dominate the Middle East and threaten Israel?
Is Iran a misunderstood and vulnerable nation driven by a need to
protect itself from unstable neighbors and a hostile U.S. government?
Or is Iran simply moving forward with its nuclear program to gain
leverage with the United States?8

Iran remains one of the primary transshipment routes for Southwest Asian heroin to
Europe; suffers one of the highest opiate addiction rates in the world, and has an increasing
problem with synthetic drugs (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
fields/2086.html?countryName=Iran&countryCode=IR&regionCode=me&#IR).
7. For example, see Amin Tarzi, The Worlds Ninth Nuclear Power: Irans Ambitions in
the Middle East and Beyond, Turkish Policy Quarterly 6 (Summer 2007): 61-65.
8. For more on the nuclear issue see, Simon Shercliffs essay, which is chapter
4 of this book.
28
Karim Sadjadpour
While threat perception, geopolitics, and national pride are important

facets of Irans nuclear ambitions, the nuclear issue is more a symptom
of the deep mistrust between Washington and Tehran than the
underlying cause of tension. The United States has no confidence that
Irans intentions are peaceful and believes that in light of Tehrans past
nuclear indiscretions, hostility toward Israel, and support for extremist
groups, it should not be permitted to enrich uranium (the process
required for both a civilian nuclear energy program and a weapons
program). Iran is equally convinced that Washington is opposed to its
technological advancement and is using the nuclear issue as a pretext
to confront it.
Ultimately, the nuclear issue will never be fully resolved absent a
broader diplomatic accommodation between the two sides, wherein
the United States alters its approach to Iran and Tehran alters its
approach toward Israel. If there is one common goal that both the
United States and Iran share, it is the avoidance of nuclear arms race
in the Middle East.
Arab-Israeli Conflict
The greatest impediment to an improvement in U.S.-Iran relations
is Tehrans position toward Israel. Whereas regarding the prospect
of normalized relations with the United States, Iranian leaders have
sometimes allowed room for ambiguity, Tehrans public rejection of
the Jewish state has always been vociferous and unequivocal.
Irans policy is a two-pronged approach of armed resistance as a prelude
to a popular referendum. Reasoning that the Zionists have not pulled
out of even a single square meter of occupied territories as a result of
negotiation,9 Tehran openly supports militant groups such as Hamas
and Islamic Jihad. But rather than seek Israels physical destruction,
Irans proposed solution is a scenario whereby all inhabitants of Israel
and the occupied territoriesJewish, Muslim, and Christianwould
be given a vote to determine the countrys future outlook. Given that
Palestiniansincluding those in refugee campsnow constitute a
9. Karim Sadjadpour, Reading Khamenei: The World View of Irans Most Powerful
Leader (Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2008), 20.
29
demographic majority, Iran believes that a popular referendum would

lead to the Jewish states political dissolution.10
Yet behind Tehrans seemingly intractable position, an important
caveat exists: Irans leaders have long made it clear that they will accept
any territorial solution agreed upon by the Palestinians.
Energy Security
With the worlds second-largest oil and natural gas reserves, Irans
importance to the global energy market is self-evident.11 Yet a variety
of factorsmismanagement, sanctions, and political tensionhave
made Iran a perennial underperformer. Its oil output, around 4.2
million barrels per day, is far below the 6 million barrels it produced
prior to the revolution, and while it has 15 percent of the worlds
natural gas reserves, it has only 2 percent of total production.12
Notwithstanding the political implications, the benefits of a U.S.
energy relationship with Iran would be numerous. For one, energy
cooperation between the two countries would decrease the political risk
premium currently in established oil prices; increased Iranian supply
to the market would likely reduce cost; and development of Iranian
national gas reserves and pipelines would weaken the tremendous
leverage Russia currently holds over Europe.
There are economic imperatives for Iran to cooperate with the
United States as well. Given the combination of heavily subsidized
10. Editors Note: This takes into account UN Resolution 242, which some argue grants
Palestinian refugees the Right of Return. This resolution is not recognized by Israel, and as
Ruth Lapidoth has written, Neither under the international conventions, nor under the major
UN resolutions, nor under the relevant agreements between the parties, do the Palestinian
refugees have a right to return to Israel. Ruth Lapidoth, Do Palestinian Refugees Have
a Right to Return to Israel? Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Web site, 15 January 2001
(http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Do+Palestinian
+Refugees+Have+a+Right+to+Return+to.htm).
11. Editors Note: According to the U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information
Administration, Iran holds the worlds third-largest proven oil reserves and the worlds
second-largest natural gas reserves. Energy Information Administration, Iran Energy
Profile (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=IR).
12. Ibid.
30
Karim Sadjadpour
gasoline, rising domestic consumption, and stagnating or decreasing

production due to infrastructure deterioration, Irans oil exports are
projected to drop.13 If the trends continueincreased consumption
and decreased outputIran could conceivably be on the path to
being a net oil importer.
Such a situation would force very painful decisions. Either the regime
would have to cut gasoline subsidiesa difficult task for a president
who ran on a populist platformor the leadership would have to alter
its policies to attract rather than repel outside investment. Most likely
it will require a combination of both.
Terrorism
For more than a decade, Iran has been atop the State Departments list
of state sponsors of terror, due mainly to its support for Hezbollah
and the Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Absent
either a Palestinian-Israeli settlement or a U.S.-Iranian diplomatic
accommodation, this situation will likely continue. At the same time,
however, Iran and the United States share a common enemy in the
inherently anti-Shiite al-Qaeda.
III. How to Talk to Iran

The long-standing taboo about talking to America has seemingly
been broken in Tehran. While just five years ago, individuals could be
imprisoned in Iran for advocating dialogue with the United States,
today Irans president has written open letters to former President
Bush and challenged him to debates.
Nonetheless, there are a variety of reasons why even a sincere, sustained
American attempt to dialogue with Tehran may not bear fruit:
Iran produces 4.7 million barrels of oil per day and consumes 1.6. The country also produces
111.9 billion cubic meters of natural gas and consumes 111.8 billion cubic meters (https://
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/IR.html).
31
Historically, the Islamic Republic has tended to make dif-

ficult decisions only under duress. Intoxicated by their new-
found standing, Irans hard-liners may not feel compelled to
make any compromises.
Paralyzed by the competing ambitions of various factions
and institutions, the Islamic Republic may prove incapable
of reaching an internal consensus, falling back on long-en-
trenched policies.
Unconvinced of U.S. intentions, the regime may shun in-
creased ties with Washington, believing it to be a Trojan horse
for a counterrevolution.
Fearful of the unpredictable domestic change that an open-
ing with the United States might catalyze, Irans leadership
may well perceive reconciliation with Washington as an exis-
tential threat.
To ensure the greatest possible chance of success, there are eight useful
prescriptions the Obama administration should keep in mind when
dealing with Iran:
1. Build Confidence on Areas of Common Interest
In the past, the one issue on which there is intense disagreement and
seemingly no common groundthe Israeli-Palestinian conflicthas
dominated the context of the U.S.-Iranian relationship and set the
underlying tenor of distrust and ill will between the two sides.
Given that the fundamental source of tension between Washington
and Tehran is mutual mistrust, confidence will be easier to build on
areas of common interest, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed
to areas of little or no common interest, such as the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict or the nuclear issue. The Obama administration should seek
to resume the U.S.-Iran discussions that the Bush administration
initiated in Baghdad, while opening a similar channel of discussion
32
Karim Sadjadpour
in Kabul. Ideally, these talks can be gradually, quietly expanded to

encompass the broader areas of contention.
2. Begin Cautiously
Timing is important. It is inadvisable for President Obama to immediately
adopt a comprehensive engagement approach that could enhance
Ahmadinejads chances of reelection in Irans June 2009 presidential
elections.14
If there is one thing that Ahmadinejads presidency has proven, it is
that the institution of president in Iran has real power, influence, and
responsibilities. Since his tenure began in August 2005, he has used
that influence to amplify objectionable Iranian foreign practices, while
domestically, he has curtailed political and social freedoms and shown
a flagrant disregard for human rights. While Ahmadinejads reelection
would not entirely preclude the prospect of a U.S.-Iran diplomatic
breakthrough, his mere presence could present an insurmountable obstacle
to confidence-building with Tehran.
To be clear, even without a major U.S. overture, there is a decent likelihood
that Ahmadinejad could be reelected. For one, a combination of political
inertia and name recognition has helped incumbents win Irans last three
presidential elections. More importantly, elections in Iran are not free and
open, and this particular election will be strongly influenced by the wishes
of the supreme leaderwho has been generally supportive of Ahmadinejad.
Nonetheless, just as his election in 2005 shocked the most seasoned
observers, Ahmadinejads defeat in 2009 is certainly a possibility. Given
his considerable mismanagement of the economy, it will be difficult for
Ahmadinejad to run on the platform of economic justice and populism
14. Editors Note: In March 2009, U.S. President Barack H. Obama made an address to the
people and leaders of Iran, who were celebrating Nowruz. Nowruz is the commemoration of the
spring equinox in the northern hemisphere and is celebrated as the beginning of the new year in the
Iranian world. In the address, Obama made a request that the two nations (Iran and the U.S.) begin
a practice of constructive engagement. (Online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/
Videotaped-Remarks-by-The-President-in-Celebration-of-Nowruz/).
33
that got him elected in 2005. A major overture from the United
States before the elections take place could redeem Ahmadinejads
management style and increase his popularity, both in the eyes of the
public and political elites, particularly Khamenei. For this reason, it is
better to begin with cautious, limited engagement until Irans domestic
situation is clearer.
3. Deal with Those Who Hold Power
Successful engagement will require a direct channel of communication
with the supreme leaders office, such as former Foreign Minister Ali
Akbar Velayati, one of Khameneis chief foreign policy advisors, or
perhaps ultimately with the leader himself.
Khamenei must be convinced that the United States is prepared to
recognize and respect the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic and must
be disabused of his conviction that U.S. policy is to bring about regime
change, not negotiate behavior change. What is more, Khamenei will
never agree to any arrangement in which Iran is expected to publicly
retreat or admit defeat, nor can he be forced to compromise through
pressure alone. Besides the issue of saving face, he believes deeply
that compromising in the face of pressure is counterproductive, as it
projects weakness and only encourages greater pressure.
4. Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick
The Obama administration should heed the wisdom of former U.S.
President Theodore Roosevelt. While in the context of domestic
U.S. politics, threatening violence against Iran has become a way of
appearing tough on national security for Democrats and Republicans
alike. In the last five years, such rhetoric has empowered Tehrans hard-
liners and aggrandizedIrans stature on the streets of Cairo, Amman,
and even Jakarta as the Muslim worlds only brave, anti-imperialist
nation that speaks truth to power. What is more, when oil prices jump
with each threat against Iran, Irans nuclear program and its financial
patronage of Hezbollah and Hamas become less costly.
34
Karim Sadjadpour
With its weekly death to America diatribes, the Iranian government

is certainly complicit in engaging in bellicose rhetoric. The United
States need not take its behavioral cues from an insecure, repressive,
undemocratic regime. Instead of reciprocating a culture of threats and
name-calling, the Obama administration should project the dignity
and poise of a superpower rather than allow the Iranian regime to
define the tenor of the public discourse. A rhetorically hostile U.S.
approach allows Irans leadership to paint the United States as an
aggressor, both internationally and domestically, and absolve itself
from responsibility for its largely self-inflicted isolation and soiled
international reputation.
5. Do Not Let the Spoilers Set the Tenor
Though small in number, powerful cliques, both within Iran and
among Irans Arab allies, have entrenched economic and political
interests in preventing U.S.-Iran reconciliation. Domestically, these
actors recognize that improved Iranian ties with Washington would
likely induce political and economic reforms and competition that
would undermine the quasi-monopolies they enjoy in isolation.
Among Irans Arab allies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, the prospect
of a U.S-Iranian accommodation could mean an end to their primary
source of funding. For this reason, when and if a serious dialogue
commences, the spoilers will likely attempt to torpedo confidence-
building efforts.
Their tactics vary. They may issue belligerent rhetoric, target U.S.
soldiers and interests in Iraq or Afghanistan, or see to it that a
shipment of arms originating from Iran on its way to south Lebanon
or Gaza is discovered. Their intention is to leave fingerprints in order
to sabotage any chance of a diplomatic breakthrough.
If Washington ceases dialogue or confidence-building with Tehran in
retaliation for an egregious act committed by the spoilers, they will
have achieved their goal.
35
6. Be Discreet
When it comes to U.S.-Iranian interaction, empirical evidence has
shown that covert discussions outside of public earshot have a greater
success rate. Building confidence in the public realm will be difficult,
as politicians from both sides will likely feel the need to issue harsh
rhetoric in order to maintain appearances. In addition, the likelihood
that spoilers can torpedo the process either through malicious rhetoric
or action is more limited if they do not know about it.15
Recognizing that their regional influence derives in large part due to
their defiance of the United States, Iran would likely prefer not to
publicly advertise its discussions with the Americans.
7. Keep International Coalition Intact
More than any other actor, the United States has the capability to
influence Iranian behavior, both for better and for worse. To the extent
possible, however, it is essential that Washington attempt to maintain
a common international approach toward Iran, especially regarding
the nuclear issue. Tehran is highly adept at identifying and exploiting
rifts in the international community, and diplomatic efforts to check
Irans nuclear ambitions will unravel if key countries approach Iran
with competing red lines.
A common European Union-U.S. approach is imperative. Given their
divergent national interests, it may not be possible to unite China
and Russia behind the U.S. position, although Moscow certainly has
an interest in avoiding the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran within
missile range. A more robust U.S. effort at direct dialogue with Tehran
would assuage international concerns about U.S. intentions and send
the signal to the EU, Moscow, and Beijing that the United States is
serious about reaching a diplomatic resolution to this dispute, which
will likely strengthen the health of the coalition.
15. For a different opinion on secrecy during negotiations, see Ronald Neumanns essay,
which is chapter 3 of this book.
36
Karim Sadjadpour
8. Have Realistic Expectations

Around the same time President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009,
the Iranian revolution marked its thirty-year anniversary. Throughout
these last three decades, the U.S.-Iran relationship has been mired in
deep-seated mistrust and ill will on a myriad of issues. Mindful of this
mutual skepticism, results will not be instantaneous. Such antagonism
will not melt away after one, two, or even six meetings. The initial pace
will likely be painfully slow as each side ascertains whether the other
truly has good intentions.
37
38
Chapter 3
When U.S.-Iranian Negotiations Start:
A Primer
Ronald E. Neumann
W hether the United States should talk to Iran is fiercely debated.

Rarely discussed are the obstacles a U.S. administration will
face, and issues it must be prepared for, when the time does come to
talk. Yet success or failure may well turn on just such matters.
Talking with enemies is a long tradition in diplomacy. This is so
because unless defeat of the enemy is likely, some compromise is
eventually needed. If total victory seems unlikely, discourse is useful.
However, negotiations are not an end in themselves and may reveal
that resolution is not possible. Nor are negotiations an alternative to
conflict; both can be pursued simultaneously. Indeed, that was exactly
how the United States negotiated independence from Great Britain.
But that analogy should remind us that one may have conflict and
discussions continuing side by side for long periods.
Advocates of talks tend to point to opportunities missed. Recent books
have noted particularly an Iranian offer in May 2003 to enter into
comprehensive talks.1 Writers have pointed to the interests in common
and suggested the possibility of a grand bargain.2 That is one possible
outcome. But to attempt to reach a bargain without adequate advance
reflection on how to overcome the problems that must be dealt with
along the way is unlikely to lead to successful negotiations. And failure
may be politically painful.
1. See Tarita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the
United States (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007); and Barbara Slavin, Bitter
Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation (New York:
St. Martins Press, 2007).
2. The question of dealing with Iran on issues of common interest is addressed by Karim
Sadjadpour in chapter 2 of this book.
39
Chapter 3: When U.S. - Iranian Negotiations Start: A Primer
True, there are some common interests, including the potential for
stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. And each side has things to offer the
other, including an end to support for terrorism and development of
Irans oil and gas resources without the impediment of U.S. hostility.
However, it is important to remember is that each side wants things
that the other will be most loath to concede. To reach an agreement,
the United States will have to cut through massive amounts of
suspicion, misunderstanding, legal obstacles, and the domestic political
opposition each side will face.
Suspicions
That the United States does not trust Iran needs little proof. It is
worth understanding that they may be equally mistrustful. The Iranian
government believed the George H.W. Bush administration would
open talks after the hostages in Lebanon were released, but that
did not happen. The Six-plus-Two talks led to Iranian cooperation
in negotiating the Afghan peace arrangements of the Bonn Accord
but withered thereafter.3 The Iranian offer of 2003 appears to have
met without even the courtesy of a response. For Iran, the present
demand for nuclear preconditions to talk may look very much like a
continuation of a familiar pattern in which U.S. willingness to engage
disappears once U.S. goals are achieved. This does not mean that a deal
cannot be reached, but it does suggest that preconditions will be hard
to achieve and that Iran will seek guarantees from the United States,
and vice versa.
Domestic suspicions and political opposition will complicate matters
for each side. There remain Iranian elements with a deeply entrenched
ideological opposition to talking with the United States. Talks
themselves, and any arrangement reached, will potentially be a political
stick that various Iranian opposition elements will find convenient to
attack whoever is conducting the talks. Whatever the complexion of
3. These talks involved Afghanistans six neighboring countries plus the United States
and Russia.
40
Ronald E. Neumann
the Iranian government that enters into talks, it will be aware of this.
Thus the domestic pressures on the Iranian side to reach a deal that
can be justified as heavily in favor of Iran will be large.
The same will be true in reverse for a U.S. administration. Particularly
after the disputed Iranian presidential election, there will be many in
the U.S. domestic political arena ready to criticize the fact of talks,
and even more any outcome that seems to reward terrorism or to
surrender U.S. positions, especially on the nuclear issue. Finding an
agreement that each side can defend successfully to its own domestic
critics is going to be intensely difficult. The concessions needed by
one side will be exactly the giveaways for which the other will be
attacked. In the Americans case, this issue will be intensified by the
probability that some issues to be settled may need legislation either to
provide new arrangements or to remove old sanctions.
The Larger Issues

What one might call the major issues are much discussed in this book.
In this chapter, it suffices to note them briefly. The biggest is of course
the nuclear issue.4 Close behind it comes Iranian support for terrorism,
particularly for Hezbollah and Hamas.5 For the Iranians, these groups
are major geostrategic allies. While changes in Iraq and Afghanistan
have removed major threats to Iran, it has no trusted friends on its
borders. Iran is distrusted by the Sunni Arab regimes of the region
and worries that U.S. troops could use its forces on Irans borders for a
future attack. What level of U.S. concessions would Iran ask for from
the United States for Iran to surrender or weaken ties to its allies? It
is not known.
Then there is Iranian support for insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For Iran, these issues look different. Fighting two wars ties up the
United States and reduces the odds that it will use force against Iran.
4. See Simon Shercliffs essay, which is chapter 4 in this book.

5. Editors Note: For more on Irans support of Hezbollah and Hamas and its perception
within Israel, see Gerald M. Steinbergs essay, which is chapter 6 in this book.
41
What manner of guarantees will Iran seek to reduce what it may see
as a potential threat from the United States? It is doubtful that Iran
would simply trust promises from the U.S. as sufficient and equally
doubtful that the U.S. would willingly give Iran a voice in limiting
American troop numbers or deployments in either country.
None of this is meant to suggest that answers cannot be found over
time. It is simply a reminder that finding solutions to the major issues
in a bargain will be difficult, and that the odds of failure or impasse are
at least as good as those of success.
The Lesser Issues

There are a host of issues on which Iran has been insisting for many
years. Each could be a deal breaker for a U.S. administration. One
is the Iranian demand for the payment of the so-called frozen
accounts held by the United States since the hostage affair in Tehran
(4 November 1979 to 29 January 1981). In reality, there are no bank
accounts as such. All of the blocked accounts were released at the time
of the Algiers declaration that settled the hostage crisis.6 There may
be some limited funds held by the U.S. Treasury. However, most of
what is at issue are Iranian claims for payments made for U.S. military
equipment either never built or never delivered. In many cases, the
money went to U.S. contractors in settlement of claims. The claims
now amount to between $20 and $30 billion, depending on interest
calculations. There are some 1,100 such cases. In the 30 years since the
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal at The Hague went to work to
resolve disputed claims (as part of the Algiers Accords that freed the
hostages), only 130 of these cases have been submitted to the tribunal,
and none of them have been heard or resolved.7 Expecting the tribunal
process to resolve these 1,100 cases in anything like the time needed
for a political settlement is unrealistic. So too is an expectation that the
Iranians are likely to accept waiting many more years for one of their
6. Editors Note: For a review of U.S.-Iranian relations, including the hostage crisis, see
Kenneth Katzman, U.S.-Iranian Relations: An Analytic Compendium of U.S. Policies, Laws
and Regulations (Washington, D.C.: Atlantic Council of the United States, 1999).
7. For an overview and a database of the claims, see the site for the Iran-United States
Claims Tribunal (http://www.iusct.org/).
42
Ronald E. Neumann
largest (and politically most sensitive) issues to be resolved. Assuming

at least some of the Iranian claims are sustained, the U.S. paying them
may require the use of appropriated funds. Congress may not agree.
Additionally, the Iranians have brought new claims for damages
inflicted by U.S. sanctions that they claim are in violation of the
Algiers Accords. They have also alleged that U.S. covert actions have
caused damages and that these too are in violation of the accords. It is
not known whether these are serious claims or bargaining positions.
Another particularly troubling issue will be the private claims of U.S.
citizens upheld by U.S. courts against Iran on grounds of terrorism.
Some estimates of these claims put them in the neighborhood of $16
billion in compensatory damages and perhaps another $25 billion in
punitive damages. An additional $50 billion or so in such judgments
relate to Iranian actions in Iraq.8
Iran has never recognized U.S. jurisdiction. It is unlikely to do so now
and still less likely to pay such claims. Unless the issue is settled, a wide
variety of U.S. and international businesses and even some international
organizations could find their assets under threat in the United States
for settlement of these damages. It is highly unlikely that Iran would
close a deal on other matters and leave itself vulnerable to pressure
from this source.
There would be no shortage of congressional voices ready to defend
American citizens and U.S. court judgments from giveaways to
terrorists. An American administration that begins negotiations
would be well-advised to have thought through this issue and found
some negotiating ideas.
Other troublesome issues may arise. The Iranians previously wanted
the United States to turn over leaders from the Mujahdin-e-Khalq
8. I am indebted to the Legal Advisors office at the U.S. Department of State for
background on these legal issues. Figures are estimates, but the order of magnitude makes
the point.
43
(MEK) that are held in loose confinement in Camp Ashraf in Iraq.9

Forced turnover would probably be illegal under international law
be, opposed by human rights groups, and meet with at least some
congressional opposition. MEK leaders have officially passed into
Iraqi custody, but the Iranians may believe that the United States will
be unable to control the Iraqis and, thus, this issue may not yet be
removed from the debate. But that is not yet certain, and so far it
remains an Iranian counter to U.S. requests for the surrender of al-
Qaeda members held by Iran.
The Legal Structure

Some U.S. sanctions on Iran have been codified in law, while others
are contained in a series of executive orders.10 While in theory the
executive branch has considerable freedom to change these sanctions,
there will be a variety of forces intent on maintaining them, and
they may lobby intensely for congressional action to put more of the
sanctions into laws. Interested parties will range from committed
proponents of overthrowing the Iranian regime to California pistachio
growers wanting to protect their market.11
A U.S. administration that reaches a deal with Iran will have to
persuade Congress to remove sanctions or not extend them over
executive branch statements that their intent has been met. This in
turn will increase pressures on the administration to show it has gained
9. Editors Note: According to Acting Deputy Department Spokesman Gordon Duguid

of the U.S. State Department, the disposition of Camp Ashraf was given a full transfer to the
responsibility of the Iraqis on February the 20th [2009]. He went on to say, responsibility
for resolving the situation at the camp rests with the Government of Iraq at this time. For
the full statement, see the Daily Press Briefing, 30 March 2009 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/
prs/dpb/2009/03/120983.htm).
10. Relevant laws and executive orders are summarized by the U.S. Department of the
Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, in a January 2009 document, Iran: What You
Need to Know about U.S. Economic Sanctions (http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/
ofac/programs/iran/iran.pdf).
11. When sanctions on Iranian pistachios were lifted during the Clinton administrations
effort to reach out to Iran, California growers managed in effect to maintain them through
intensive lobbying that retained prohibitive duties dating from 1985 based on an allegation of
dumping. See John Lancaster, Pistachio Diplomacy, Washington Post, 23 March 2000; and
Scott Peterson, Irans Prized, and Political, Nuts, Christian Science Monitor, 2 December
1999. I am also indebted to professors W. Scott Harrop and Rouhollah K. Ramazani for
further updates.
44
Ronald E. Neumann
a victory in the negotiations. Grand bargains and one-sided victories

are uneasy bedfellows.
Negotiating Styles and Starting Points

With so many domestic political perils awaiting, there may be a desire
for secret talks. This was a repeated idea when Iran flirted with contacts
during the Clinton administration.12 It may be again.13 However, it
is a temptation that should be avoided since the probability of leaks
from one side or the other is high, and the results are usually to put
one or both governments on the defensive with domestic critics. The
United States may, and probably should, try to keep the content of
negotiations under wraps but should avoid the vulnerability of trying
to keep the talks themselves secret.
The secrecy issue is but one example of the difference in styles and
starting points between Washington and Tehran. While a new
U.S. administration may have different tactics, the U.S. tendency
in negotiations has usually been to precede them with extensive
interdepartmental negotiations (the interagency process). Departments
of State, Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice are likely to have
different views in regard to negotiations with Iran. This is akin to
negotiating with oneself before negotiating with others.
The result is that U.S. negotiators often lack flexibility, and negotiations
can stall for long periods while the U.S. government fights within
itself. Some administrations have tried to avoid this by negotiating
in great secrecy from most of the government. Sometimes this works.
U.S. Secretaries of State James A. Baker III and Henry A. Kissinger
were masterful in this regard. But poorly handled, the results of such
an approach produced the Iran-Contra scandal, complete with a key-
12. I was Iran Country Director for part of this time. Our answer that we could
only pledge best efforts at confidentiality but not promise it was for us an honest answer,
recognizing the probability of leaks. The Iranians seemed to regard the response as a trap,
leaving us free to leak on purpose to weaken them at a time of our choosing.
13. Editors Note: See also Karim Sadjadpours essay, chapter 2 of this book.
45
shaped cake and a Bible.14 Only strong presidential leadership can

steer through such problems.
American negotiators tend to start from interests. The inclination is
to list what is wanted and what can be given and then to try it out
on representatives of the other side. From their reactions, negotiators
then try to judge how to repackage the deal and what shifts they may
have to accommodate. Having watched Iranians negotiate off and
on for three decades, my guess is that the Iranian style will be very
different. They will hold out vaguely worded promises in return for
specific concessions, and later, the promises may dissolve when one
tries to grasp them. Deals may seem close, only to fall apart as new
demands or issues are advanced.
Americans may see such tactics as bad faith. For the Iranians, it is a
matter of testing to see how firm or weak the other side is, whether it
can be manipulated, and whether it is in so much of a hurry to reach
agreement that it will make foolish concessions.
Iranians place great emphasis on respect. Persian culture has
complicated and deeply ingrained habits of speech and manners to
show respect for person and position in social interaction that are very
foreign to American habits of frankness and direct speech. Ignorant
negotiators can easily find themselves at cross purposes, particularly
since the overheated public rhetoric in each countrys domestic
discourse is unlikely to be controllable. The Iranian government is likely
to react harshlyin American eyes perhaps disproportionatelyto
phrases like Axis of Evil. Misunderstandings arising from these
stylistic differences can arouse anger and confusion.
This Iranian style is all the more likely if they misunderstand a U.S.
decision to negotiate after years of refusal. Iranian analysis is likely
14. Editors Note: These operations [Iran-Contra] were the provision of assistance to
the military activities of the Nicaraguan contra rebels during an October 1984 to October
1986 prohibition on such aid, and the sale of U.S. arms to Iran in contravention of stated U.S.
policy and in possible violation of arms-export controls. See Lawrence E. Walsh, Final
Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, 4 August 1993 (online at http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/).
46
Ronald E. Neumann
to be along the lines that when the United States felt strong, it made
demands. Now that it is in trouble in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and
in seeking an Arab-Israeli peace, it is weak and willing to pay heavily
for Iranian support. Simply working through such preconceptions
may be very time consuming and frustrating for the unprepared.
What to Do
The preceding catalogue of difficulties suggests neither that negotiations
should not take place, nor that they cannot succeed. It does suggest
certain conclusions.
First, negotiations must have strong presidential support and guidance.
Without this, they will flounder in a morass of interagency differences,
leaks, and domestic pressures.
Second, talks should be preceded by careful consideration within the
administration of how far the United States might go in meeting
Iranian demands. It is probably unwise to try for full interagency
agreement, as it is likely to come at the cost of inflexible negotiating
positions. But a president should have some idea of the problems
negotiations will encounter and the price he might have to pay.
Third, the American public and the Congress need to be told frankly
not only why the United States and Iran are talking, but that we expect
talks to be long, possibly lasting years, that they will be difficult, and
that essential interests will not be forfeited.
Fourth, neither talks nor pressures should be hostage to the other. To
paraphrase former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the United
States needs to negotiate as if there were no conflict and struggle
as if there were no talks. The alternatives are either failed talks or a
position of great weakness if every confrontation is hobbled by fears
that it will undermine talks. The Iranians have mastered this quite
traditional method of diplomacy, and the United States and its allies
must do likewise.
47
Fifth, it is advisable to start slowly, exploring with the Iranians where

there may be areas suitable for agreement. There have not been bilateral
negotiations about a broad range of issues for years. Guesswork
constitutes much of what Americans assume in the Iranian position,
and the same is true of the Iranian assumptions. Haste will only convey
weakness and misestimating of what is possible. Proceedings should
be neither timid nor harsh, but should proceed slowly, identifying
issues and problems, and trying to understand the Iranians and repay
them in kind. Only from such a process can negotiators judge whether
to pursue a great bargain or a series of smaller steps and agreements.
Finally, managing complicated allied relationships will not be an easy
task. Americas European allies, and even the Russians and Chinese,
have been partners in joint positions toward Iran. The Gulf Arabs fear
Iranian claims to hegemony in the Persian Gulf. Israel has strong views
about the danger Iran poses for Israeli security. If U.S. consultation
is deemed too little, suspicion will be intense and have ramifications
in many other areas. If consultation is too broad, negotiations may
become hostage to too many conflicting views, a circumstance that
also would surely invite leaks.
It is not possible to reduce the difficult process of allied consultations
to a set of propositions. But it is necessary to remember to manage the
process carefully.
In the end, negotiations are worthwhile. At a minimum, they are likely
to clear away misconceptions and improve the conditions for eventual
improvements. So long as proceedings are undertaken carefully, without
a sense of pressure, and with an eye fixed on the above cautions, even
an unsuccessful effort need not be costly. And who knows, there might
be success. The potential rewards in regional stability are great enough
to warrant considerable efforts.
48
Chapter 4
The Iranian Nuclear Issue
Simon Shercliff
Goal: An Iran Without Nuclear Weapons
T he Iranian nuclear issue has not been far from the top of the
international agenda since late 2002, when important but
hitherto secret aspects of the Iranian program were first brought
to the attention of the general public. The issue is simple: whatever
the reality of Irans motivations, intentions, and scientific progress,
there are fundamental reasons to be concerned about Irans activities
involving uranium enrichment and heavy water projects. The concern
of the British government is that these proliferation-sensitive
activities, like plutonium reprocessing, could become part of a nuclear
weapons program.
The goal of the British government is to ensure that Iran does not
build a nuclear weapon. London believes that the best way to do this
is by securing an Iranian suspension of proliferation-sensitive nuclear
activities until the international community can be satisfied that Irans
intentions are indeed peaceful, as the Iranians claim. The United
Kingdom and its allies are not trying to stop Iran from constructing
power reactors that will generate electricity as part of a peaceful,
civilian nuclear program.
Why Are We Worried?

Our concern, shared formally with members of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors and the
United Nations (UN) Security Council and informally with almost
every other country in the world, is that the Iranian regime wants
to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. This concern is rooted in
the huge confidence deficit felt by the international community in
Irans intentions. This lack of confidence stems in large measure from
49
Chapter 4: The Iranian Nuclear Issue
the inability to understand Irans urgent determination to develop

uranium enrichment and heavy water projects for which it currently
has no apparent civilian need, but which would give it the capabilities
to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon.
The Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does
allow its nonnuclear-weapon state parties to develop sensitive fuel cycle
technologies, but only if they are properly declared and safeguarded.1
Iran has fallen short compared to other countries in this last regard.
It has been found in past noncompliance with the treatys safeguards
obligations and has continued to be much less than fully cooperative
with the IAEA. This is another major reason for the confidence deficit
in Irans intentions.
The international community has many questions about why Iran is in
such a hurry to develop its enrichment program. Enrichment facilities
are expensive, and most operators of civilian nuclear power stations
contract their fuel supply from elsewhere for this reason, particularly if
they only have a few power reactors. Iran has only one civilian nuclear
power station, which is being built in Bushehr by the Russians. It
is not yet completed. The Russians have guaranteed the fuel supply
for the first ten years of Bushehrs operation, with the prospect of
continued supply beyond that period. No one is trying to prevent the
Russians from completing construction on the Bushehr plant or from
supplying its fuel.
There are two other reasons for concern. First, prior to 2002, Iran
deliberately concealed the proliferation-sensitive elements of its nuclear
program for almost twenty years. It did so in clear contravention of
its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA under the
NPT, and it has never been able to explain why.2 Second, once the
1. Editors Note: The Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into
force in 1970 and currently has 187 member states. The United Nations site has information
about the treaty as well as the full text (http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/).
2. Editors Note: According to the IAEA site, Safeguards are activities by which
the IAEA can verify that a State is living up to its international commitments not to use
nuclear programs for nuclear-weapons purposes. See IAEA, IAEA Safeguards Overview:
Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols (http://www.iaea.org/
Publications/Factsheets/English/sg_overview.html).
50
Simon Shercliff
IAEA inspectors were permitted into Iran, under great international

pressure, to assess the hitherto secret aspects of Irans nuclear
program, they uncovered evidence that called into question Irans
activity relating to what the IAEA itself has called possible military
dimensions to Irans nuclear program.3 Iran is still refusing to answer
these questions. These and other concerns create the confidence deficit
that the international community feels about Irans intentions.
The IAEA, in its report on Irans nuclear program (19 November 2008),
repeated its frustration that Iran is still not sufficiently cooperating.4
Moreover, according to this report, Iran had almost 4,000 centrifuges
being fed with uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas, and all the indications
are that it intends to install additional centrifuges.5 The report showed
that Iran has already enriched 630 kilograms of low enriched uranium
(LEU). It also makes clear that Iran is still refusing to implement the
Additional Protocol, which it has already signed.6
3. Editors Note: See IAEA, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement

and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007),
1803 (2008), and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report by the Director
General, GOV/2008/59, 19 November 2008 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/
Board/2008/gov2008-59.pdf). See also that organizations site, In Focus: IAEA and Iran,
which includes an archive of reports, statements, and UN resolutions (http://www.iaea.org/
NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml).
4. Editors Note: See IAEA, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement
and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007),
1803 (2008), and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report by the Director
General, GOV/2008/59, 19 November 2008 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/
Board/2008/gov2008-59.pdf).
5. Editors Note: According to a report issued by the IAEA director general On 1
February 2009, 3936 centrifuges were being fed with UF6; 1476 centrifuges were installed
and under vacuum, and an additional 125 centrifuges were installed but not under vacuum.
See IAEA, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of
Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the
Islamic Republic of Iran, Report by the Director General, GOV/2009/8, 19 February 2009
(http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-8.pdf).
6. Editors Note: According to the IAEA site, the Additional Protocol is a legal document
complementing comprehensive safeguards agreements. The measures enable the IAEA not
only to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material but also to provide assurances
as to the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in a state. See IAEA, IAEA
Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols
(http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/sg_overview.html). For Irans signing
of the Additional Protocol on 18 December 2003, see the IAEA site (http://www.iaea.org/
NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html).
51
This lack of cooperation inevitably leads to the suspicion that Iran

does not want to provide the IAEA with the greater information
and access that an Additional Protocol would give compared to Irans
Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the agency.
The director general of the IAEA, Mohamed M. ElBaradei, observed
in September 2008 that only through the expeditious resolution
of these outstanding issues can doubts arising there from about the
exclusively peaceful nature of Irans nuclear programme be dispelled,
particularly in light of many years of clandestine activities by Iran.7
Notwithstanding its Obligations, What is the
Problem with Iran Having a Nuclear Weapon?
Irans development of a nuclear weapon would have dangerous
consequences in an already unstable region. Iran might be emboldened
to exert its influence even more than it is already doing. Other countries
in the region would consider acquiring their own nuclear capabilities,
driven by their own mistrust of Irans intentions. Iranian possession
of a nuclear weapon also could do great damage to regional security
and to the NPT, which remains the cornerstone of the international
nuclear nonproliferation regime.
What About Allowing Limited Enrichment on

Iranian Soil, which They Seem to Want?
Many experts believe that if Iran is allowed to continue with developing
uranium enrichment technology, even on a small scale, this experience
would enable them to replicate the technology elsewhere in a covert
military program.8 It is worth noting that when the United Kingdom
developed its own centrifuge enrichment program, it ran a sixteen-
7. Editors Note: See IAEA, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and
relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), and 1803
(2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report by the Director General, GOV/2008/38, 15
September 2008 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-38.pdf).
8. Editors Note: For examples, see Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt, The Last
Resort: Consequences of Preventative Military Action against Iran. Policy Focus, no. 84.
(Washington D.C.: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2008; online at http://www.
washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus84.pdf); and Kori Schake, Dealing with a
Nuclear Iran, Policy Review 142 (April and May 2007; online at http://www.hoover.org/
publications/policyreview/6848072.html).
52
Simon Shercliff
centrifuge cascade for two years before moving to larger cascades. It

was this very limited program that allowed us to take significant steps
toward mastering the processes and technology.
In addition, as has been pointed out by some experts, if Iran is permitted
to continue small-scale enrichment, the IAEA would be hindered in its
efforts to detect clandestine enrichment activity because procurement
of the necessary materials for a clandestine program could be masked
by legitimate procurement for the permitted program.9
Iran has already produced 630 kilograms of UF6 enriched to 3.5
percent LEU. Unless there is a suspension of its production soon, it
may not be long before Iran has generated sufficient LEU to enable it
to produce, after further enrichment, enough highly enriched uranium
(HEU) for a first weapon. These developments reinforce the need for
us to move fast toward our goal: regaining Iranian suspension of its
program until we can be sure of its intentions.
So What Are We Doing About It?

In confronting this challenge, we are up against a self-confident,
ideological regime. It senses that the West currently is overburdened
in Iraq and Afghanistan and unwilling or unable to challenge Iran in
a meaningful way. Until recently, with oil at $140-plus per barrel, it
was flush with cash.10 But Iran too is now suffering with the downturn
in the international financial situation, and sanctions are biting. Our
need is to present the Iranian decision-making machineryconfusing
and opaque though it iswith an absolutely clear choice between
cooperation and confrontation with the international community. The
best policy is the classic diplomatic approach of carrots and sticks.
This is the so-called dual-track policy, settled on and implemented
by the UN Security Council at the instigation of the E3+3 (United
Kingdom, United States, France, Germany, Russia, and China).
9. Ibid.
10. Editors Note: This refers to oil prices in June-July 2008. See U.S. Department of
Energy, Energy Information Agency, Petroleum Navigator (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/
pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm).
53
Iran does have a choice between confronting or cooperating. It is clear

that some in the regime worry that the price of confrontation is too
high. Others are interested in the benefits a good relationship with
the international community can bring. We need to continue making
plain this choice in order to achieve the eventual goal.
Why Do We Think Such an Approach Will Work?

First, some in the Iranian regime, unlike in Saddam Husseins Iraq or
Kim Jong-ils North Korea, want to be respectable. The regime goes
to great lengths to present its nuclear program as legal. This means
that censure by international organizations like the IAEA and UN
Security Council, and the international unanimity we have worked
hard to maintain through the E3+3, are powerful points of pressure in
their own right.
Second, Iran, while far from being an ideal democracy, does have
a system that allows for some differences of opinion and in which
there are competing voices and power centers. There is, therefore,
considerable debate within the country on the regimes handling of
the nuclear file, often in public, and there may be opportunities to
exploit this debate to our advantage.
Third, Iran has a young, open society, and the majority of its people
aspire to reintegrate with the world. This offers us the opportunities
through our policies to influence political debates and create bottom-
up pressures.
Fourth, we have things that Iran needs, including the technology that
it needs to develop and meet the needs of its young population.
How Does the Policy Work?

Sustained, unanimous diplomatic pressure is one powerful tool at our
disposal. Iran has consistently and incorrectly calculated that it can
divide the international community. It thought that China and Russia
would never allow them to be referred to the UN Security Council.
54
Simon Shercliff
Once there, they thought that China and Russia would never allow
the adoption of sanctions against them. In fact, the Security Council
has now adopted five mandatory resolutions on Iran.11
Sanctions and economic pressures are another important tool. They
affect the debate at different levels. Ordinary Iranians worry about the
impact of inflation and growing unemployment. The financial sector
is suffering from financial sanctions. The politically influential bazaari
(merchant) class are finding it increasingly expensive and difficult to
do business as access to international credit dries up. Many European
banks have stopped dealing with Iran. In the United Kingdom, for
example, Iranian banks no longer have access to clearance in sterling.
Finally, we see real nervousness about the impact of de facto sanctions.
Irans aging oil industry is creaking, with production declining. The
future depends on the development of Irans enormous gas reserves, but
to do so will require both technology and major foreign investment.
The political class and technocrats worry about how Iran is going to
pay the bills and provide for its people, 70 percent of whom are under
age thirty, in a few years time.
So while we have not yet persuaded them to stop enriching, pressures
are building. The European Union (EU) has already applied measures
complementary to, and exceeding, UN Security Council Resolution
(UNSCR) 1803.12 Measures that both processes have so far yielded
include: designating banks; making further travel bans and asset
freezes; limiting export credits; imposing export bans on sensitive
dual-use items; and conducting cargo inspections for Irans national
airline and shipping line. But we must still do more, and do it urgently.
11. Editors Note: Four UNSCR resolutions were adopted unanimously: 1737 (2006);
1747 (2007); 1803 (2008); 1835 (2008). A fifth, 1696 (2006) was passed with a vote of
fourteen in favor, and one (Qatar) opposed. All of the resolutions can be found online through
both the UN (http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm) and the IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/
NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml).
12. Editors Note: UNSCR 1803 (March 2008) called for Iran to abide by the NPT
(http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/unsc_res1803-2008.pdf).
55
While increasing pressure is important, the other strand of our policy is
the carrots. Sharpening the choice for Iranian decision-makers means
demonstrating that there is a price to be paid for unacceptable policies,
but also that there is a way out if the regime modifies its behavior. That
means continuing to hold out the offer of a new relationship if Iran
modifies its policies. The package that the E3+3 first proposed in June
2006with the U.S. administrations supportremains on the table
and was refreshed in June 2008. This offer includes providing help
to Iran to build power reactors for the generation of electricity and
guaranteeing supplies of nuclear fuel for them. It also would extend
significant political and economic benefits, including a trade and
cooperation agreement and strategic energy partnership with the EU,
the lifting of sanctions in some areas crucial to the Iranian economy,
and the chance to discuss regional security issues with the six as a
whole, including the United States.
Conclusion
Our approach should remain one of using a combination of pressure
and incentives to persuade the Iranians to change their behavior.
There are always frustrations with such an approach, but we believe
that, if vigorously pursued, this approach can still offer the best way of
achieving our ultimate goal: an Iran without nuclear weapons.
56
Chapter 5
Reflections on Irans Policy Toward Iraq
Mohsen M. Milani
T here are hardly any disagreements among experts that the Islamic
Republic of Iran is an influential and important foreign power in
post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. At dispute is the extent of that power as
well as Irans intentions and objectives. On one hand, there are those
who maintain that Iraq is lost to Iran. Saudi Arabias foreign minister,
Saud al-Faisal, was quoted in 2006 as saying that we are handing the
whole country [Iraq] to Iran without reason.1 A 2007 report by the
British Chatham House concluded that Iran has superseded the U.S.
as the most influential power in Iraq.2 On the other hand, the Islamic
Republic of Iran insists that Iran is well-intentioned and a natural
ally of the new Iraq and that Iranian policy toward that country is
designed solely to support the territorial integrity of Iraq and its
political independence and economic prosperity. Tehran rejects as
propaganda the assertion that it interferes in Iraqs internal affairs.
Although both of these extreme perspectives contain elements of
truth, neither does justice in accurately depicting Irans strategic goals
or its actual power inside Iraq. This chapter briefly identifies some of
Irans main strategic goals toward the new Iraq without discussing
the mechanisms, the tactics, and the channels Tehran is employing to
achieve them. First, though, here are a few general comments about
the nature of Irans regional policies, placing Irans policy toward Iraq
in a proper context and framework.
1. Saud al-Faisal quoted in Megan K. Stack and Borzou Daragahi, Iran Was on Edge;
Now Its on Top, Los Angeles Times, 18 February 2006 (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/
feb/18/world/fg-iranrising18).
2. Gareth R.V. Stansfield, Accepting Realities in Iraq (briefing paper, Chatham House,
London, 2007), 8 (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/501/).
57
Chapter 5: Reflections on Irans Policy Toward Iraq
I. Is Iranian Foreign Policy Made by Mad

Mullahs or by Calculating Ayatollahs?
In politics, perception is sometimes more powerful than reality.
Incorrect perceptions can lead to incorrect policies, and misleading
policies can have devastating consequences. For the past few years, a
popular image has gained increasing acceptance in the American mass
media and even among some prominent academics. This perception
is labeled the mad mullah narrative in this article. Stripped to its
core, the narrative depicts Iranian leaders as dangerously irrational
and even suicidal, a cabal of mostly bearded and turbaned men who
cannot be deterred and who are obsessed with apocalyptic delusions,
imperial ambitions, and even harboring death wishes. Professor
Bernard Lewis, an erudite historian of the Near East, portrays Irans
leaders as apocalyptic believers in martyrdom: For people with this
mindset, MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction] is not a constraint;
it is an inducement.3 Many others have embellished Lewiss alarmist
assertions.4 Norman Podhoretz, for example, argued that if the
mullahs get the bomb . . . it was not they who would be deterred, but
we, because Irans Islamofascist revolutionaries are ready to die for
their beliefs and thus do not care about protecting their people.5
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejads puerile questioning of the
Holocaust, his reprehensive declaration that Israel will be wiped out
from the map of the world, and his policy of continuing to enrich
3. Bernard Lewis, Does Iran Have Something in Store, Wall Street Journal, 8 August
2006 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768).
4. See Christopher Orlet, Apocalyptic Ahmadinejad, American Spectator, 6 October
2006 (http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/06/apocalyptic-ahmadinejad); Walter R.
Newell, Why is Ahmadinejad Smiling? The Intellectual Sources of his Apocalyptic Vision,
Weekly Standard, 16 November 2006 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/
Articles/000/000/012/795hlmvk.asp); and Joel C. Rosenberg, Apocalypse Now? Is Iran
Planning a Cataclysmic Strike for August 22? National Review Online, 10 August 2006
(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWNmMWM5MjhhMzVjZTM0ZmI1ZmJlYzAx
NzU3NDEyMWI=).
5. Norman Podhoretz, Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands,
Commentary Magazine, February 2008, 11-19 (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/
viewpdf.cfm?article_id=11085).
58
Mohsen M. Milani
uranium have surely rendered the mad mullah narrative deliciously

palatable in the United States. But does the narrative accurately
explain how key foreign policy decisions are made in Tehran?
The mad mullah narrative can unquestionably mobilize American
public opinion against Irans nuclear ambitions and could be used
to justify regime change or even war with Iran. It also creates the
unambiguous impression that negotiations with Tehrans mad men
would be futile. Despite its clear benefits as a public relations strategy
to undermine the Islamic Republic, the narratives analytical utility is
limited. First, it overexaggerates the impact of certain Shiite beliefs on
Iranian policies and sometimes confuses the rhetorical pronouncements
of Iranian leaders with their actual policies. Second, the narrative
focuses mostly on Ahmadinejads religious proclivities and creates
the misleading impression that he, rather than Irans supreme leader,
Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, is the ultimate decider of
Iranian foreign policy.6
In Irans bifurcated system of governance, the popularly elected
president is a powerful force that cannot be ignored, but ultimately,
he does not determine the tenor and direction of Irans foreign and
security policies. The supreme leader alone makes those vital decisions.
Moreover, the supreme leader, and not the president, is the commander
in chief of the Iranian armed forces, including the regular armed
forces and the Pasdaran (Islamic Revolution Guard Corps [IRGC]).
The supreme leader appoints all commanders of Irans military and
paramilitary forces. All report directly to him, and all are accountable
to him, not to the president.
The supreme leader, who is unquestionably the most powerful figure
in the Islamic Republic, does not run a one-man show, however, as
Irans last monarch did. Despite all his powers, the supreme leader
must operate in a complex, fluid, and unpredictable system. To secure
his own position, he must maintain some semblance of neutrality in a
6. For an analysis of the role and ideas of Khamenei, see Karim Sadjadpour, Reading
Khamenei: The World View of Irans Most Powerful Leader (Washington D.C.: Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, 2008), as well as Sadjadpours essay in this book (chapter
2).
59
highly factionalized polity, address the needs of various interest groups,

and appease ambitious politicians and clerics.7 His most important
responsibility is in fact protecting the survival of the entire system.
The mad mullah narrative seems to put the cart in front of the horse:
Iranian policy makers formulate policy only after they determine their
goals, evaluate their resources, and assess their enemies. Only then do
they open their diverse ideological/Islamic toolbox to choose the most
appropriate religious beliefs or symbols to legitimize and ultimately
achieve their desired goals. The mad mullah narrative thus has the
order in reverse. By focusing strictly on the religious dimension of
Iranian foreign policy, the advocates of the mad mullah narrative are
destined to see the tree but miss the forest.
Most critically, the mad mullah narrative ignores that both regime
survival and expediency have played an infinitely more defining role
in Irans foreign policies than some of its leaders apocalyptic and
messianic beliefs. With the 1979 Tehran hostage crisis, former allies
Iran and the United States became bitter enemies. Since that time,
Irans top leadership, from Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini to
Ayatollah Khamenei, has consistently perceived the United States as
an existential threat.8 Ironically, both the shahs regime and the Islamic
Republic relied on an American-centric foreign policy to survive:
the former by its alliance with the United States, and the latter by its
unremitting hostility toward America.
Obsessed with regime survival, Iranian leaders have also skillfully
institutionalized maslehat, or expediency. In the convoluted vernacular
of Iranian foreign policy, maslehat can be accurately interpreted as
nothing less than a cost-benefit approach to decision making.
Interestingly, the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE),
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, profoundly debunked
7. Mehran Kamrava and Houchang Hassan-Yari offer an interesting analysis of the inner
workings of Irans factionalized system. See their Suspended Equilibrium in Irans Political
System, The Muslim World 94 (October 2004): 495-524.
8. See Barbara Slavin, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path
to Confrontation (New York: St. Martins Press, 2007).
60
Mohsen M. Milani
the key assumptions of the mad mullah narrative; instead, it offered

a nuanced and more accurate picture of how decisions are made in
Iran.9 Based on the consensus of sixteen intelligence agencies, the
controversial report concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons
program in 2003 based on a cost-benefit approachthe exact
opposite of what the mad mullah narrative suggests. Thus the report
recognizes that Iran is not run by mad mullahs, but rather by calculating
ayatollahs. There are in fact numerous other cases in which the Islamic
Republic has utilized a cost-benefit approach in making key foreign
policy decisions.
During the hostage crisis (1979-81), Khomeini ordered the release
of the hostages only after the benefits outweighed the costs.10 The
same cost-benefit approach guided his decision in approving secret
dealings with the United States and Israel, which he had called the
Great Satan and Smaller Satan, respectively. His tactical goal
was to obtain weapons in order to achieve the strategic objective
of defeating Iraq on the battlefield. Equally telling was the pivotal
moment when he faced the impossibility of victory and the growing
domestic opposition to the war Saddam Hussein had started and he
had refused to end: Khomeini said he was willing to drink from the
chalice of poison in order to sanction a cease-fire with Iraq in 1988.
He justified it as maslehat.
The same temperament of decision making continued after Khomeinis
death. During the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Tehran retained active
neutrality, although Saddam Hussein offered lucrative concessions in
an attempt to woo Tehran to side with him. Tehran also welcomed
the liberation of Kuwait, acquiesced to the presence of U.S. troops in
the region, and remained silent when Saddam massacred Iraqi Shiites.
Those decisions were made because the new president, Ali Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani, and the new supreme leader, Khamenei, did not
9. National Intelligence Council, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

(National Intelligence Estimate, November 2007; online at http://www.dni.gov/press_
releases/20071203_release.pdf).
10. See Mohsen M. Milani, The Hostage Crisis, Encyclopedia Iranica (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2004; online at http://www.iranica.com/newsite/).
61
wish to antagonize the West in the unpredictable environment of the

post-Khomeini era. Their ultimate goal was to consolidate their power.
Most interestingly, Iran did not support the Republic of Azerbaijan,

the only country besides Iran and Iraq that is predominantly Shiite,
in its conflict against the Republic of Armenia, an orthodox Christian
country (1988-94). Irans motivation was, and still is, to protect its
province of Azerbaijan against any secessionist impulse supported
by the Republic of Azerbaijan. Similarly, Tehran did not back the
Muslim Chechens against predominantly Christian Russia, whose
support Iran needed to neutralize the U.S. containment of the Islamic
Republic.
Irans strategies changed after the United States toppled the Taliban in
2001.11 In Afghanistan, the IRGC rubbed shoulders with U.S. military
advisors, providing intelligence to assist in the defeat of the Taliban.
At the same time, Iran moved opportunistically to gain strategic depth
by expanding its sphere of influence in that country.
In all the cases cited above, decisions were made after a deliberative
process; in each instance, the traits of flexibility were apparent. It
would be foolhardy to think that the Iranian leadership formulates its
foreign or nuclear policies based on such notions as the return of the
Imam or martyrdom. Such beliefs are central to Shiite consciousness,
but they cannot alone explain Iranian policies. The track record of the
Islamic Republic in the past thirty years similarly does not suggest that
the ayatollahs are suicidal, even if they support gullible masses who
commit suicidal acts, and even though Iran has sponsored terrorism in
some aspects of its foreign policy.
General John P. Abizaid, former commander of U.S. Central
Command, understands these realities about the leadership of the
Islamic Republic. He argues that while everything must be done to
prevent Iran from going nuclear, the United States is perfectly capable
11. See Mohsen M. Milani, Irans Policy Toward Afghanistan, Middle East Journal 60
(Spring 2006): 235-56.
62
Mohsen M. Milani
of containing a nuclear Iran, just as it contained the Soviet Union.12

Similar to the NIE, General Abizaid rejects the notion that Iranian
leaders are irrational or suicidal. The political ramifications of such
conclusions are rather straightforward: you can negotiate with Iran
even though you might despise the regime and its policies.
II. Irans Top Strategic Goals in Iraq
It is gradually becoming conventional wisdom in Washington that
Iran has emerged as a regional power in one of the most troubled
and strategically vital regions of the world. In an article published in
2005, I made the same argument and maintained that Iranian policy
toward Iraq needs to be analyzed and understood in the framework
of Irans emergence as a regional player.13 By removing the Taliban
and Saddam Hussein from powerIrans two nemesesthe United
States accelerated Irans drive toward being a regional power, a process
that began some years ago.14 Today, the United States and Iran are
engaged in a fierce rivalry within Central Asia, the Caucuses, and a
vast area between Afghanistan and Lebanon. That competition shapes
the direction of Iranian foreign policy in fundamental ways.
Mohsen Rezai, a former IRGC commander, reflects the dominant
view of the foreign policy establishment in Tehran when he argues
that Iran is an indispensable regional power. He wrote in 2007:
Today Iran has no meaning without Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine,
and Syria. There was a time when Iran within its [own] bor-
ders meant something, but today, Iran is the region and our
identity has now become intertwined with that of the region.
It is our principle and undisputable right to become a regional
12. David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, Washington Sees an Opportunity in Iranians
Defiance, New York Times, 27 September 2007 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htm
l?res=9E03E0DE1E3EF934A1575AC0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&&scp=1&sq=Washing
ton%20Sees%20an%20Opportunity%20in%20Iranian%E2%80%99s%20Defiance&st=cse).
13. Mohsen M. Milani, Iran, the Status Quo Power, Current History, January 2005,
30-36.
14. Ibid.
63
power. We are a nation that can play such a leadership role,

but they [the West/U.S.] would like to deprive us from play-
ing such a role.15
The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush seemed to
partially agree with Rezais analysis. In discussing the passage of
United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1747 in
March of 2007, a U.S. official confirmed that the imposed sanctions
had broader goals than just dealing with Irans nuclear program: Its
language was written to rein in what they [Security Council members]
see as Tehrans ambitions to become the dominant military power in
the Persian Gulf and across the broader Middle East.16
It is only after Iran is viewed as an emerging regional power with
its own set of priorities and objectives that an understanding of the
complexities of Irans deep involvement in Iraq today can take place.17
The remainder of this article briefly discusses five of Irans goals in
Iraq. This list is far from complete and omits some key components
of Iranian policy. It also does not address the nature of Irans support,
military or otherwise, to various groups inside Iraq, nor the complex
economic and security relations with Iraq; nor does this list address
Iranian involvement in the Attabat (the cities in southern Iraq where
the shrines of Shiite imams are located and a considerable population
of Iranians or Iraqis of Iranian descent reside). However, this list is
useful in understanding the overall themes of Iranian policy in Iraq
and may serve as guidelines for future policy makers.
The list of five goals is not based on the order of their significance or
their priority for Tehran, partly because Iranian policy toward Iraq
changes as the ground situation in Iraq changes. Moreover, Iranian
15. Iranian Students News Agency, 26 February 2007, translation by the author (http://
www.isna.ir/).
16. Thom Shanker, Security Council Votes to Tighten Iran Sanctions, New York
Times, 25 March 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/middleeast/25sanctions.
html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Security%20Council%20Votes%20to%20Tighten%20Iran%20
Sanctions&st=cse).
17. The main arguments in this section are taken from my forthcoming book chapter,
Irans Persian Gulf Policy in the Post-Saddam Era, in Ali Gheissari, ed., Contemporary
Iran: Economy, Society, Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
64
Mohsen M. Milani
policy toward Iraq is organically linked to Irans regional policies and

to its own security concerns. Chief among these concerns are the
situations in Afghanistan and Lebanon; the Arab-Israeli conflict;
Irans nuclear dispute with the West; and Tehrans perceived threat
from Washington. In short, an Iran that believes it is making progress
on these key fronts is an Iran that is more likely to collaborate with
the United States in Iraq. An Iran whose survival is perceived as
threatened, and whose security needs and growing regional influence
are both ignored and not respected, is an Iran that is more likely to
involve itself in acts of mischief against the United States in Iraq.
In Iraq, as elsewhere, Iranian policy is determined by the cost-benefit
approach. Irans first and most important strategic goal toward Iraq
is to ensure that a friendly Shiite-dominated government remains in
power in Baghdad. Irans preference seems to be a reasonably strong
federal systempowerful enough to impose internal order and
maintain cohesion, but not strong enough to pose a serious security
threat to the Islamic Republic. Iran understands that demography
in elections is destiny and has consistently called for and supported
free national elections in Iraq, convinced that the Shiite majority
will prevail. Both Washington and Tehran have thus far supported
successive Iraqi governments in the post-Saddam era; thus, there seems
to be a convergence of strategic interests between them. Among Iraqs
neighbors, and in fact among all Islamic countries, none has been as
supportive of the post-Saddam governments in Iraq as Iran has.
There are both strategic and security-related reasons for Iranian
support for establishing a friendly Iraqi government in Baghdad.
Iranian engagement in Iraq has deep historical roots that predate the
advent of Islam. Ctesiphon, one of the palaces of the Sassanid dynasty
(226-642), was located in the vicinity of present-day Baghdad. In the
Islamic period, Persians provided financial and logistical support to the
Abbasids, who overthrew the Ummayd dynasty (661-750) and moved
the capital of the Islamic empire from Damascus to Baghdad. The era
universally recognized as the golden age of Islam during the Abbasid
rule was greatly aided by great Persian thinkers: scientists like Abu
65
Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariya Razi, who discovered how to make

alcohol (ethanol); Avicenna (Ibn Sina), who is known as the prince of
physicians; and mathematicians like Abu Abdallah Muhammad ibn
Musa al-Khwarizmi, who was one of the fathers of algebra.
Iran continued to play an important role in Mesopotamia when it
was part of the Ottoman Empire. For nearly four centuries, until the
British established Iraq in 1921, the Persian Empire, as the defender
of the Shiite faith, and the Ottoman Empire, as the protector of Sunni
faith, fought numerous wars and signed more than twenty bilateral
agreements about the thorny issue of the control over Mesopotamia.
Historically, Iranian strategists looked at Mesopotamia and later Iraq
as a prized and key region to expand Iranian influence in the Middle
East as well as a dangerous land bridge for cruel invaders.
There is simply no other issue more important to Tehran than
preventing the establishment of an Iraqi government that is hostile
to Iran, be it Shiite- or Sunni-dominated. This is indeed the defining
lesson Iran has learned from its bloody, long, and devastating war
with Iraqa war that Saddam Hussein started. Not since the Twelver
Shiism was established as the state religion in Iran in 1501 has any
country inflicted as much pain, suffering, and destruction on Iran as
did Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980 to 1988. This explains why,
when the U.S. troops overthrew Saddam Hussein, Iranians from all
walks of life celebrated the historic event, some privately and many
publicly. The Iranian policy of supporting a friendly government in
Iraq, therefore, has a popular base of support within Iran. Tehran is
likely to support any Shiite government, even a highly secular one, as
long as it is not overtly hostile to Iran.
Irans second goal, which is in many ways complementary to its first, is
the empowerment of the Shiite groups. Tehran has pursued this goal
with sensitivity, determined not to alienate the Sunnis and certainly
not the Kurds. The clerical leadership in Tehran views the Iraqi Shiites
as a natural ally and sees their empowerment as a vehicle that would
facilitate the expansion of Iranian influence within Iraq, the Persian
66
Mohsen M. Milani
Gulf, and far beyond. Tehran believes that the situation in Iraq is still
fluid and that Iraq is in the first phase of a dangerous transition whose
outcome is rather uncertain and hard to predict. To be on the winning
side, therefore, Tehran is hedging its bets, supporting all Shiite
factions, albeit to different degrees, and is seeking not to alienate any
such group.
This is not to suggest that Tehrans real agenda is to establish an
Iranian-style Islamic order in Iraqfar from that. Iran understands
that the Sunni minority as well as the Kurds would vociferously and
violently reject such a Shiite theocracy. In the event of a partitioning
of Iraq along sectarian lines, this policy can of course change, and Iran
would then likely support an Iranian-style government in what could
become a new Shiistan.
Iranian support for the main Shiite groups predates the removal of
Saddam Hussein. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran helped create the
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and
trained its military wing, the Badr Brigade.18 Tehran also supported the
Al-Dawa Party.19 Those two organizations have been the most powerful
forces within the successive Iraqi governments since Saddam Hussein
was overthrown. Additionally, they are Irans most trusted allies. To
this day, Iran has maintained close and friendly relations with both and
has sought to manage and contain tensions and disagreements with
them, particularly over the issue of the future role of the United States
in Iraq and the two organizations intimate connection to the U.S.
The Shiites of Iraq are hardly homogenous and are divided along
ideological and class lines. Iran is expanding its influence among all of
18. Editors Note: The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is
an Iraqi Shiite political party founded in 1982 and is supported by Iran. The SCIRI adheres
to the tenets of Khomeinis velayat-e faqih. See Kenneth Katzman, Irans Activities and
Influence in Iraq (Congressional Research Service report for Congress, 8 November 2007;
online at http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/96430.pdf).
19. Editors Note: Al-Dawa party is an Iraqi Shiite political party that supported the
Islamic Revolution in Iran and opposed Saddam Hussein. It continues to receive support from
Tehran and are part of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite Islamist bloc. See ibid.
67
them. This explains the Iranian support for the rebel cleric, Muqtada
al-Sadr, and his Mahdi Army.20 Iran has supported Sadr not so much
because it endorses and appreciates his nationalistic and anti-Persian
sentiments, but because he can provide insurance for Tehran in case
Tehrans two favorite organizations alluded to earlier were to fail.
Moreover, al-Sadrs movement is popular among the lower-class
Shiites, particularly in Baghdad, and Tehran cannot afford to not
support them. Tehran also views al-Sadr as a potential counterforce
against the more moderate clerics, particularly Grand Ayatollah Ali al-
Husayni al-Sistani, whose views on velayat-e faqih, the philosophical
underpinning of Irans system of governance, are radically different
from Irans governing ayatollahs. Finally, Tehran has supported Sadr
because his insurgency opposed U.S. occupation and undermined the
American presence in Iraq.
Irans third goal is to reduce U.S. influence in Iraq and prevent the
United States from establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
This goal is probably the most complex of all of Irans objectives,
and its nature has changed over time. At first, the remarkably easy
U.S. victory in Iraq frightened the ayatollahs who thought Iran, as
a certified member of the Axis of Evil, might be the next target of
American wrath. That initial fear dissipated as the Iraqi insurgency
gained momentum, however, and Tehran came to the conclusion that
a U.S. invasion of Iran is no longer feasible. For years now, Tehran
appears to have made an important strategic decision to avoid any
direct military confrontation with the United States. This does not
mean or imply that Iran has not actively sought to undermine the
Americans in Iraq. It surely has. It is clear that Tehrans policy has
oscillated between the two goals of preventing the U.S. from a total
and clean victory and of avoiding any direct confrontation with the
United States.
Irans fourth goal is to expand its sphere of influence in southern Iraq.
Just as Iran has created a sphere of influence in Herat Province in
20. Editors Note: The Mahdi Army is an Iraqi Shiite paramilitary force that has opposed
the Coalition presence within post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Created in 2003 by Muqtada al-
Sadr, this group has received support from Tehran. See Ibid.
68
Mohsen M. Milani
western Afghanistan, it would like to expand its power in southern Iraq.

Irans rather extensive participation in Iraqs reconstruction, particularly
in the Shiite-dominated areas, is part and parcel of this policy.
The creation of spheres of influence, which include support for
formal and informal organizations, is a central component of Irans
deterrence strategy as well as a function of both its ambitions and
its threat perceptions. It is designed to deter potential aggression, to
bolster Irans regional standing, and to protect its interests. There is
also an economic dimension to this strategy: Iran seeks to become a
hub for the transit of goods and services between the Persian Gulf,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and possibly China.
Irans fifth goal is to help maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq and
to thus prevent its Balkanization. Iran, like Turkey, would not tolerate
an autonomous Kurdistan in Iraq. The creation of an independent
Kurdistan could entice Irans other ethnic minorities to establish their
own autonomous governments. This, in turn, would jeopardize Irans
own territorial integrity.
Iran is also concerned about two other key issues. One of these sources
of anxiety is the possible manipulation of the Iraqi-based Mojahedin-e
Khalq (MEK) to destabilize Iran. That organization was supported by
Saddam Hussein and operated within Iraq; its members are now under
direct American control.21 Tehran, like the United States, considers
this organization a terrorist entity. However, Tehran condemns the
U.S. failure to condemn and disarm the MEK and believes that MEK
members can be trained to destabilize Iran.
Iran also worries about the potential for U.S. manipulation of the
Qom-Najaf corridor. Historically, the seminaries, or hawzeh, in Iraq
21. Editors Note: The main MEK base is Camp Ashraf. According to Acting Deputy
Department Spokesman Gordon Duguid of the U.S. State Department, the disposition of
Camp Ashraf was given a full transfer to the responsibility of the Iraqis on February the
20th [2009]. He went on to say, responsibility for resolving the situation at the camp rests
with the Government of Iraq at this time. For full statement, see the Daily Press Briefing,
30 March 2009 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/03/120983.htm). See also Abigail
Hauslohner, Iranian Group a Source of Contention in Iraq, Time, 5 January 2009 (http://
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1869532,00.html).
69
have had a significant impact on Iranian politics. Today, there are

those in Iran, including some clerics, who either seek to democratize
or altogether reject the velayat-e faqih doctrine. These voices are often
suppressed. A powerful hawzeh in Najaf could reverse this trend.
Ayatollah Sistani, who has millions of followers in Iran, belongs
to the quietist school of Shiite thought, which rejects Khomeinis
interpretation of the velayat-e faqih doctrine. Could a Najaf hawzeh
that is unfriendly toward Irans version of the velayat-e faqih doctrine
and is supported with Iraqi petrodollars pose a significant threat to
the durability of Irans clerical government?
It appears that Iran enjoys more power in Iraq than the other neighbors
of Iraq. Still, its power is rather limited, and it is unable to determine
the future of Iraq, although it can become a spoiler and disrupt any
Western design for Iraq. Additionally, Iraqi Shiites, who are Irans
main lever of influence in Iraq, are first and foremost Iraqis and thus
will not allow Iraq to become anything more than an ally of Iranand
certainly not a proxy.
Today, Iran has clear security concerns and identifiable interests in Iraq.
The United States could simply ignore Iran and seek to marginalize it.
This path would likely lead to more instability in Iraq and the Persian
Gulf. Alternatively, the two countries could recognize each others
interests and concerns and negotiate.22 The fact that the two countries
have held a few meetings at the ambassadorial level in Iraq is a small
but prudent step in the right direction.
22. For further reading on negotiations, see the Karim Sadjadpour and Ronald E.
Neumann essays in this book (chapters 2 and 3).
70
Chapter 6
Iran in the Israeli Threat Perception
Gerald M. Steinberg
S ince independence in 1948, Israel has been faced with a complex

security environment resulting from the combination of intense
hostility and extreme asymmetry. Israels territory is very narrow,
with essentially no strategic depth. Strong and consistent responses
to attack, including asymmetrical warfare and terror campaigns, have
created a credible deterrent, contributed to the peace treaties with
Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), and prevented direct clashes with
Syria (since 1982).1
In parallel, however, the radius of the conflict has expanded far beyond
the bordering Arab states, and the Islamic regime in Iran has become
the main threat to Israeli security and regional stability. Although
Israeli relations with Iran were quite cooperative until the Islamic
revolution in 1979 and included significant strategic cooperation, this
situation has changed completely in the last three decades.2 Iran is
now seen as a triumphalist force with steadily increasing influence and
in the process of acquiring regional dominance, particularly following
the 2003 war in Iraq that removed Saddam Hussein from power.
The Iranian threat takes many forms, including the Shiite Hezbollah
force in Lebanon, which launched an attack in July 2006, and which
is armed, trained, and financed from Tehran; the Hamas organization
that controls Gaza fired thousands of rockets of increasing range
at Israel until the December 2008 Israeli response; the Iranian
alliance with Syria, which has provided support for ballistic missile
1. Gerald M. Steinberg, Israel at Sixty: Asymmetry, Vulnerability, and the Search for
Security (Jerusalem Viewpoints 564, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, June 2008; online
at http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&
FID=283&PID=1844&IID=2206).
2. David Menashri, Iran, Israel and the Middle East Conflict, Israel Affairs 12 (January
2006): 107-22; Menashri, Post-Revolutionary Politics in Iran: Religion, Society and Power
(London: Frank Cass, 2001).
71
Chapter 6: Iran in the Israeli Threat Perception
development and may have been linked to the illicit North Korean
nuclear reactor that was destroyed by Israel in September 2007; and
the Iranian nuclear weapons project and ballistic missile capabilities.3
Iranian rhetoric and statements from leaders that reflect hatred and
deny Israeli legitimacy, reinforced by military parades in Tehran
featuring missiles with signs proclaiming Wipe Israel off the Map and
Destination Tel Aviv, increase the Israeli determination to prevent
Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmud
Ahmadinejads genocidal declarations reflect a fundamentalist and
apocalyptic Islamist whose words and intentions are focused on the
destruction of Israel. The Holocaust denial conference that took place
in early 2007 in Tehran, in which Ahmadinejad played a central role,
highlighted the anti-Israeli rhetoric that has been part of the Islamic
regimes platform from the beginning. In 2001, former President Ali
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani called the establishment of Israel the
worst event in history and declared that in due time the Islamic
world will have a military nuclear device, and then the strategy of the
West would reach a dead end, since one bomb is enough to destroy all
Israel.4 Similar attention was given to bellicose statements by Irans
supreme leader, Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, such as the
cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted.5 Such statements
provided evidence of the intention, while the pursuit of nuclear
3. Editors Note: For more on the 2006 Lebanon war and the 2008 Gaza war, see Asher
Susser, The War in GazaA View from Israel (Royal United Services Institute commentary,
13 January 2009; online at http://www.rusi.org/research/studies/menap/commentary/
ref:C496C7AEB68B4A/); and Alon Ben-Meir, After GazaA Two State Solution is the
Only Option (Royal United Services Institute commentary, 26 January 2009; online at http://
www.rusi.org/research/studies/africa/commentary/ref:C497D9F21ECFCD/).
4. The Iranian broadcast agency released two versions of Rafsanjanis remarks, which
were made during a Friday sermon (on Quds, or Jerusalem Day) at a mosque on the campus
of Tehran University. See Qods Day Speech (Jerusalem Day): Chairman of Expediency
Council Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Tehran,Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio
1, 14 December 2001 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-
text.html); Iran: Expediency Council Office Says Israel Distorted its Chairmans Remarks,
2002 BBC Monitoring International Reports, 2 January 2002 (www.lexisnexis.com).
5. Iran Leader Urges Destruction of Cancerous Israel, Reuters, 15 December 2000
(http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/).
72
Gerald M. Steinberg
weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems were the evidence of

incipient capability.6
As a result, the question of how best to respond to the Iranian threat
has become the central issue on the Israeli security agenda and
also in the domestic political framework. Headlines in newspapers
frequently highlight the latest Iranian developments, including
weapons tests, exercises, and bellicose pronouncements. Israeli news,
talk shows on radio and television, and academic conferences include
frequent discussions and debates on the implications of the Iranian
nuclear threat and potential policy options for response.7 Sanctions,
a preemptive military strike, deterrence, missile defense, and the
likelihood that Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia will
follow Iran on the path to proliferation are among the topics.
International negotiations, very limited and belated sanctions, and
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection process
under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) have failed to slow or end the Iranian nuclear program. The
weakness of the United States in leading the international response,
inept European diplomacy, and the hesitation of Russia and China
have contributed to this outcome. Russia and China in particular have
emphasized their competition with the United States over threats
to their vital interests resulting from an Iranian nuclear capability.
These slow-moving international responses have given the Iranian
leaders the time necessary to expand their uranium enrichment and
plutonium production efforts. The strategy of buying time has been
very successfulfrom the Iranian perspective.
6. Ephraim Asculai, How Iran Can Attain its Nuclear Capabilityand Then Use It,
in Ephraim Kam, ed., Israel and a Nuclear Iran: Implications for Arms Control, Deterrence,
and Defense (Tel Aviv: Institute for National Security Studies, 2008), 13-32 (http://www.inss.
org.il/upload/(FILE)1216205056.pdf).
7. For more on the nuclear issue, see Simon Shercliffs essay, which is chapter 4 of
this book.
73
Prevention and Defense in Israeli Strategy

The failure of diplomacy and sanctions, to date, have revived Israeli
discussion of the Begin Doctrine, formulated in 1981 under Prime
Minister Menachem Begin, when the government acted unilaterally
to destroy the French-supplied Iraqi reactor in Osiraq after diplomatic
efforts failed to result in international action. According to the Begin
Doctrine, any state that acquires nuclear weapons and is actively
involved in promoting violence and conflict would constitute an
unacceptable threat.8 (Pakistan is not considered to be a confrontation
state and is not included in this category.) The Israeli raid that
destroyed Syrias nuclear reactor in 2007 marked a second example of
the Begin Doctrine and served as a reminder to Iran of Israeli policy
and capabilities.9
In addition, there are unconfirmed media reports regarding discussions
of options with the U.S. government.10 On 13 August 2008, the deputy
prime minister and defense minister, Ehud Barak, who also served as
prime minister and Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, declared that
our position is that no option is to be taken off the table, but in the
meantime, we have to make diplomatic progress.11
Prior to becoming Israels prime minister in March 2009, Benjamin
Netanyahu had compared the Iranian threat to that posed to Europe
by Germany in 1938, declaring that there is time to act in a variety of
ways, and all ways must be considered, and all ways that work must be
8. Haaretz, 9 June 1981, cited in Shai Feldman, The Bombing of Osiraq Revisited,
International Security 7 (Fall 1982):114-43; Gerald M. Steinberg, The Begin Doctrine and
Deterrence, in Israel in the Middle EastThe Legacy of Menachem Begin. Begin-Sadat
(BESA) Colloquia on Strategy and Diplomacy 15. (Tel Aviv: BESA Center for Strategic
Studies, 2000).
9. Editors Note: On 6 September 2007, it is believed that the Israel Air Force performed
an air strike on what some say was a Syrian nuclear reactor. For further reading on this
event, see Ephraim Asculai, Syria, the NPT, and the IAEA (INSS Insight 53, Institute for
National Security Studies, Tel Aviv, 29 April 2008; online at http://www.inss.org.il/research.
php?cat=6&incat=&read=1778).
10. Aluf Benn, U.S. Puts Brakes on Israel Plan to Hit Iran Nuclear Facilities, Haaretz
(English edition), 13 August 2008 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010938.html).
11. U.S. Against Strike on Iran: Israeli Defence Minister, AFP Worldwide, 13 August
2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hbHuCrDv8ufAXISj6SLUMFe_FxHw).
74
Gerald M. Steinberg
employed. He spoke of preemption, noting that of all the activities

required in the political, economic, and military fields, preemption is
the most difficult. For us the Jewish people, too many times in our
history we didnt see danger in time, and when we did, it was too late.12
At the same time, in considering a preventive military strike, Israelis are
aware of the differences between the two previous implementations of
the Begin Doctrine in the cases of Iraq and Syria. No single air attack
would be able to destroy the multiple elements that constitute the
Iranian nuclear program. The Iranians have learned from the Osiraq
case and have dispersed, hidden, and hardened their nuclear facilities,
making them far less vulnerable to attack.
However, the United States and Israel have also advanced significantly
in terms of intelligence, targeting, and penetration in the past quarter
century, including the development of precision long-range surface-
to-surface missiles, reducing the need for vulnerable manned aircraft
sorties. To destroy the fifteen to twenty key installations that are at
the heart of Irans nuclear weapons program, there would be no need
for ground attacks and massive waves of airborne missiles aimed at
Iranian military assets. Even if some facilities survive and others are
well hidden and are not subject to attack, the large buildings housing
the banks of centrifuges used for enrichment, as well as their very
visible power supplies and related systems, and the foundations of
the production reactor, could be damaged to the point that rebuilding
would take many years.
Regarding the bellicose Iranian threats of retaliation, many of
these are based on exaggerated military claims, including the use of
photo-enhancement techniques and announcements of nonexistent
exercises. Nevertheless, this is a factor in Israeli decision making.
12. Peter Hirschberg, Netanyahu: Its 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is
Preparing Another Holocaust, Haaretz, 14 November 2006 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/
spages/787766.html); for partial text of the speech, see Netanyahus 1938 Speech, Jewish
Current Issues, 16 November 2006 (http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2006/11/netanyahus_1938.
html).
75
Iranian capabilities include a small number of Shahab-3 missiles with

a range of 1,300 kilometers, which could be equipped with chemical
or biological agents, as well as Tehrans cooperative relationship with a
dispersed and experienced terror network.13
In parallel, Israel has been accelerating its missile defense capabilities,
including expansion of the operational Arrow system and research and
development aimed at staying ahead of the Iranian ballistic missile
deployment. As Israeli missile analyst Uzi Rubin has noted, To date,
the Arrow has scored fourteen successes in sixteen tests, a success rate
of about 88 percent. . . . The system is currently in operation by the
Air Defense Command of the Israel Air Force (IAF) in conjunction
with the U.S. Patriot system, which serves as the lower tier in a
combined two-tier missile defense array protecting most of Israels
homeland territory.14 Israel has deployed three Arrow batteries,
with eight launchers each holding six interceptors (a total of 144
Arrow interceptors). In addition, Israel deploys several Patriot PAC 2
batteries, to be upgraded to PAC 3 capabilities, providing the second
tier for its missile shield.15
Deterrence and Its Limitations

Netanyahus reference to 1938 and Nazi Germany reflects a widely
held view in Israel that a nuclear-armed Iran ruled by fanatical leaders
such as Ahmadinejad is incapable of maintaining a stable deterrence
relationship.16 This perception explains and is reinforced by the video
clips of Ahmadinejads statements, the scenes from the Holocaust
denial conference, and the attention given to Iranian boasts of military
breakthroughs. From this perspective, Israelis reject the dominant
13. For a detailed analysis, see Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt, The Last
Resort: Consequences of Preventative Military Action against Iran. Policy Focus 84.
(Washington D.C.: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2008; online at http://www.
washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus84.pdf).
14. Uzi Rubin, Missile Defense and Israels Deterrence against a Nuclear Iran,
in Kam, Israel and a Nuclear Iran, 65-81 (http://www.inss.org.il/upload/(FILE)
1216205936.pdf).
15. Barbara Opall-Rome, Israeli Defenses to Use Artificial Intelligence, Defense News,
21 January 2008 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3361962&c=FEA&s=CVS).
16. Editors Note: This perception is addressed by Mohsen M. Milani in his essay, which
is chapter 5 of this book.
76
Gerald M. Steinberg
European position that the Iranian leaders are seeking nuclear

weapons for deterrence, implying that Iran is a status quo power.
Instead, the fanatical leadership is viewed as not subject to a rational
deterrence relationship.
The attempt to apply the Cold War analogy of deterrence, based on
assured second-strike capabilities and mutual assured destruction,
to the Iranian leadership is very problematic in at least three
important dimensions:
While the United States and Soviet Union were engaged in intense
ideological confrontation, they had direct lines of communication,
including diplomatic relations and embassies. This contact was
extremely important in periods of instability that threatened the
structure of deterrence. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis,
for example, the leaders were able to assess each others intentions
and commitment and to make decisions to de-escalate the conflict.
Similarly, India and Pakistan have formal communications links,
which served to de-escalate their crisis in 2000.
1. Iranian decision makers, in contrast, have no direct or indi-
rect communication links with Israeli counterparts, increasing
the likelihood of misperception and making crisis manage-
ment extremely difficult.17
2. The very small size of Israels territorial extent makes it dif-
ficult to maintain an assured and survivable second-strike ca-
pability, which is vital to stable deterrence. The narrowness of
the Israeli borders and the ease with which they can be overrun
by conventional forces, as well as the apparent vulnerability of
a small number of bases to a first strike involving ballistic mis-
siles, increases this perceived vulnerability. In contrast, Iran has
a large territorial extent in which to disperse strategic weapons.
17. Gerald M. Steinberg, Deterrence Instability: Hizballahs Fuse to Irans Bomb

(Jerusalem Viewpoints 539, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, April 2005; online at http://
www.jcpa.org/jl/vp529.htm); Yair Evron, An Israel-Iran Balance of Nuclear Deterrence:
Seeds of Instability, in Kam, Israel and a Nuclear Iran, 47-63 (http://www.inss.org.il/
upload/ (FILE)1216205527.pdf).
77
While Israel has reportedly addressed this issue by acquiring a

small number of advanced diesel submarines, this is far from an
ideal solution to the problem.
3. In a multipolar environment in which Egypt, Algeria, Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, perhaps Syria (after the destruction of the North
Korean-built reactor) and other Arab countries can be expected
to follow the Iranian nuclear lead, stable deterrence is far more
complex than the bipolar system of the Cold War.
In addition to the absence of direct communications between Israel and
Iran, the lack of any form of significant contact is likely to create major
misunderstandings and misconceptions, which could be extremely
dangerous in a crisis. Leaders in Tehran and Jerusalem do not know
how to assess the others red lines and are not able to predict responses
to various moves and countermoves. In this situation, there would be
a strong likelihood of a spiral of destabilizing actions in which the
decision makers respond to perceived threats through worst-case
analyses without any history of interaction or expertise by which to
interpret and predict further moves.
In the murky Iranian decision-making process, the power of elected
and visible leaders and government officials is often secondary to
the power of the clerics and the supreme leader, who operate in far
greater secrecy, and whose understanding of the intricacies of stable
deterrence is likely to be low. As a result, Israeli decision makers
will have difficulty predicting Iranian policies and reactions. And
while the Israeli decision-making process is far more public, and the
governmental leaders are the key decision makers, the members of
the Iranian inner circle appear to have no understanding of Israeli
operational codes and responses to threat.18
The impact of such lack of contact and understanding was illustrated
in the 2006 Lebanon war, in which Hezbollah leader Hassan
18. See Gerald M. Steinberg, Parameters of Stable Deterrence in a Proliferated Middle

East, The Nonproliferation Review 7 (Fall-Winter 2000): 43-60 (http://cns.miis.edu/
npr/pdfs/73stein.pdf); Steinberg, Walking the Tightrope: Israeli Options in Response to
Iranian Nuclear Developments, in Judith S. Yaphe and Charles D. Lutes, Reassessing the
Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran. McNair Paper 69. (Washington, D.C.: Institute for
National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 2005; online at http://www.ndu.edu/
inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf).
78
Gerald M. Steinberg
Nasrallah, who is closely linked to the Iranian leadership, admitted

that he had totally misjudged the Israeli decision-making process
and disproportionate response. Nasrallah said that he did not expect
Israel to launch an all-out attack, including heavy bombing of South
Beirut neighborhoods in which Hezbollah had strongholds, after the
limited cross-border attack in July 2006 in which two soldiers were
kidnapped (and later found to have died), eight others were killed,
and the border area including houses and towns were subjected to
heavy bombardment.
For Israelis, however, the need for a major response was clear, and there
had been numerous public warnings to Hezbollah that were unheeded.
For Israeli leaders, such kidnappings are unacceptable. They also saw
a confrontation with Hezbollah as a means of demonstrating Israeli
power and determination to the population and decision makers
in Tehran and throughout Iran.19 Hezbollah serves as an Iranian
proxy force located on Israels northern border, and Israelis saw this
confrontation through this lens.20
Israeli Reliance on Washington and Its Limitations

Since the 1990s, when Israeli intelligence began to track accelerated
Iranian efforts to acquire the technology for producing nuclear
weapons, policy makers have maintained a low profile on this issue,
emphasizing that the threat is global and needs to be addressed
globally. In this post-Cold War period in which the United States
was the uncontested superpower and global leader, this approach
meant following the American lead and working closely with the
U.S. in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. In 2003, after the
initial phase of the second Iraqi War and U.S.-European tensions over
Middle East policy, Israel reluctantly accepted U.S. President George W.
19. Ephraim Kam, The Ayatollah, Hezbollah, and Hassan Nasrallah,

Strategic Assessment 9 (August 2006; online at http://www.inss.org.il/publications.
php?cat=25&incat=0&read=100).
20. Steinberg, Deterrence Instability.
79
Bush administrations decision to agree to European leadership in the

diplomatic efforts to contain Iran, despite recognition that the European
Union policy was unlikely to slow or end the nuclear weapons program.
Following the realization that this effort had failed, and as the United
States again became the de facto global leader on this issue, including
the sanctions process, the Israeli reliance on Washington returned to the
previous level.
In November 2007, however, the publication of a short summary
of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian nuclear
program came as a major shock and shattered Israeli confidence in,
and reliance on, American leadership. The summary, which was widely
reported in the media around the world, claimed Iran had frozen its
active efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons in 2003 and estimated
that the Iranians would not have such a capability until at least 2012.
This public document stated that the U.S. intelligence community
had high confidence that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons
program in 2003, but only moderate confidence that Tehran had not
restarted the program.21
Israeli intelligence analysts, as well as their British and French
counterparts, had reached totally different conclusions. Israeli Defense
Minister Barak stated in the wake of the NIE release that while it
is apparently true that in 2003, Iran stopped pursuing its military
nuclear program for a certain period of time, he added that in our
estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to
produce a nuclear weapon.22
A number of factors can explain the differences in assessments. Israel,
which would be the prime potential target for a nuclear Iran, cannot
afford to take the chance of underestimating the threat. Therefore, it
relies on what policy makers refer to as a worst-case analysis. This
21. Editors Note: See National Intelligence Council, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and
Capabilities (National Intelligence Estimate, November 2007; online at http://www.dni.gov/
press_releases/20071203_release.pdf).
22. Steven Erlanger and Graham Bowley, Israel Unconvinced Iran Has Dropped Nuclear
Program, New York Times, 5 December 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/
middleeast/05webreact.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Israel%20Unconvinced%20Iran%20Has%20
Dropped%20Nuclear%20Program&st=cse).
80
Gerald M. Steinberg
means that the focus is on Iranian capabilities, rather than intentions,

which can only be guessed. Using this approach, when Iran reaches the
technological potential to produce enough fissile material necessary to
make a nuclear weapon, it will be considered a nuclear state, capable
of threatening Israel with annihilation.
Israeli analysts have warned their U.S. counterparts about the potential
for a parallel black Iranian weapons program, based on a small nuclear
reactor producing plutonium, following the North Korean model,
as illustrated in Syria. Indeed, Iran is known to be constructing just
such a reactor at Arak, leaving room for another undetected facility.23
The consequences of a small, secret Iranian nuclear program are less
significant for the United States, given its massive military superiority
over Iran. Therefore, there is more room for political factors and
influence in the official U.S. estimates.
The publication of the NIE summary and the headlines proclaiming
that Iran had halted its nuclear program also had important political
consequences and greatly reduced the ability of the United States to
pressure and deter Iran through the threat of military force. Although
President Bush responded to the NIE report by reconfirming his
determination to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, Iranian
policy makers most likely concluded that the probability of attack
from the United States in the next five years had been rendered much
less credible. Given the disquiet in America over the status of the
situation in Iraq, and with an official assessment stating that Iran gave
up its program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago, it was clear
to all parties that the U.S. president would face strong opposition
to any decision ordering U.S. forces into battle again. The fear of
a potential Iranian counterattack, in the form of mass terror and
possible missile attacks against American assets in the region, serves
to increase this opposition.
The overall result of both the content of the NIE publication and
the manner in which it was suddenly released, without any prior
23. Editors Note: Arak is where Irans heavy water reactor is located.
81
consultation, has weakened Israeli reliance on American security

guarantees. As a result, a defense treaty designed to provide deterrence
against eventual Iranian nuclear capabilities has become less credible
in light of the NIE summary on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Conclusions
While Israel is clearly concerned about the potential impact of an
Iranian nuclear weapons capability and has given this threat significant
attention, in some ways, the discussions of this threat are part of the
normal Israeli environment. New developments, including Iranian
declarations regarding uranium enrichment, or missile tests, do not
affect the Israeli stock market, for example.
Overall, the Iranian nuclear threat has reinforced the realism that
forms the Israeli approach to security threats.24 While there is still hope
that international action, including serious sanctions, will stop Iran
before the nuclear finish line, this is by no means assured. Proposals
by foreign diplomats and academics suggesting that alliances such as
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership for Israel
could provide a sufficient response to an Iranian nuclear capability,
or that a defense treaty with the United States would be important
in this respect, are not likely to be seen as effective by Israelis. The
U.S. is seen as weakened economically and overcommitted in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and the weakness of European members of NATO,
particularly with respect to security, reinforces the skepticism.
While there are many complexities, the possibility of a preventive
Israeli military strike remains significant.
24. Gerald M. Steinberg, Realism, Politics and Culture in Middle East Arms Control
Negotiations, International Negotiation 10 (2005): 487-512.
82
Epilogue
The 2009 Iranian Presidential
Election and its Implications
Karim Sadjadpour
Editors Note: This piece was Karim Sadjadpours written

opening statement for his testimony before the U.S. House
Committee on Foreign Affairs on 22 July 2009.1 Sadjadpour
kindly has allowed the reproduction of his testimony to pro-
vide insight into the post-election Iranian reality. His analysis
offers perspective on how that reality has shifted the political
landscape of the Iranian puzzle piece and on the impact that
shift has on the potential for rapprochement with the United
States. The one outlier in the evolving situation is whether
there is time for the dust to settle within the Iranian politi-
cal structure before the nuclear issue reasserts its position on
center stage.
T he enormous cloud of suspicion hanging over Mahmud

Ahmadinejads 12 June 2009 presidential election victory has
produced the greatest political and popular eruptions in Iran since
the 1979 revolution. Members of the committee have surely seen the
remarkable images and amateur videosboth heroic and harrowing
that have emerged from Iran over the past five weeks.
The United States now faces a unique challenge. After 30 years of
not having official relations, we finally prepared ourselves to recognize
the legitimacy of an Iranian government, only to find that legitimacy
has arguably been squandered. Now the administration of President
Barack Obama has the difficult task of reconciling when and how to
1. A transcript and webcast of the full hearing on Iran: Recent Developments and
Implications for U.S. Policy can be found online (http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing_
notice.asp?id=1101).
83
Epilogue: The 2009 Iranian Presidential Election and its Implications
deal with a disgraced regime that presents urgent national security

challenges, while at the same time not betraying a popularly driven
movement whose success could have enormously positive implications
for the United States.
I. Implications for Iran

The Regimes Eroded Legitimacy
The events of the last six weeks have had enormous implications
for Iran. At a political level, the Islamic Republic of Iran has ceded
any pretensions of being a republic. Past Iranian governments did
not necessarily represent a wide swath of Iranian society, but they
did encompass a fairly wide swath of the Iranian political elite. If
the Ahmadinejad government maintains power, the country will be
ruled by a small cartel of hard-line clerics and nouveau riche Islamic
Republic Guard corpsman who reflect not only a relatively narrow
swath of Iranian society, but also a narrow swath of the political elite.
Along with the legitimacy of the republic, another election casualty is
the legitimacy of Irans most powerful man, Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei. For two decades, Khamenei had carefully cultivated
an image of a magnanimous guide who stays above the political fray,
allowing him to deflect responsibility for Irans deepening economic
malaise and political and social repression. Those days are now over.
In defiantly supporting Ahmadinejad, Khamenei has exposed himself
as a petty partisan. Formerly sacred red lines have been crossed, as for
the first time people have begun openly challenging Khamenei with
chants of marg bar dictatordeath to the dictator.
Despite the popular outcry, Khamenei has refused to cede any ground,
believing that compromise projects weakness and invites more pressure.
Today, his future rests largely in the hands of the regimes most elite
fighting force, the 120,000-strong Islamic Revolution Guard Corps
(IRGC). While growing fissures and dissent among senior clergy in
Qom is certainly worrisome for Khamenei, dissent and fissures among
top IRGC commanders would be fatal for him. While at the moment
84
Karim Sadjadpour
they seemingly remain loyal to him as their commander in chief, as

the economic situation continues to deteriorate and popular outrage
persists, their fidelity is not a given.
The Oppositions Plight
The popular implications have been equally enormous. At their peak,
the demonstrations in Tehran included as many as 3 million people
according to Tehran mayor Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, himself
a former senior IRGC commanderrepresenting a diverse socio-
economic swath of society, with women often at the forefront. While
the scale of the demonstrations has subsided due to the regimes skilled
use of repression, peoples sense of injustice and outrage has not.
The more hard-line elements of the Basij militia seem to truly relish
violence. People are up against an ostensibly religious government
that has shown no moral compunction, a government that blames the
murder of an innocent 26-year-old woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, on the
BBC and CIA. Every time people take to the streets, they are risking
their lives, and for every individual who takes to the streets, there are
likely hundreds if not thousands more at home who feel solidarity
with them. Nightly protest chants of Allahu Akbarreminiscent of
the 1979 revolution and meant to keep the momentum alivehave
continued unabated.
The images and videos outside of Tehran have been similarly remarkable.
In Isfahan, whose population is more traditional than that of Tehran,
the demonstrators filled up the enormous Nagsh-e Jahan Square, the
largest historic square in the world. Similar protests have taken place
in important cities like Shiraz, Tabriz, Mashhad, and Kashan. In short,
unrest has transcended age, religiosity, socio-economic status, gender,
and geography.
One problem outside of Tehran, however, is that people are often less
connected to the outside world via the Internet and satellite television,
and have less access to technologies like video phones to document
what is taking place. For this reason, there is much concern that the
85
type of repression and human rights abuses that take place outside of
the capital are much greater than that which has been documented
only in Tehran alone. Outside of major cities, the regimes repressive
apparatus can act with impunity and without accountability.
Nonetheless, the governments indiscriminate use of force and
unwillingness to compromise have not forced the opposition into
submission. Indeed, the current scale of repression has been both
politically and financially costly for the regime. In the last week alone,
former Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjania founding father of the 1979
revolutionand Mohammad Khatami have challenged the legitimacy
of the election, with the normally timid Khatami even calling for a
popular referendum. Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, the
most senior cleric in Iran, recently issued a fatwa stating that the
supreme leader is no longer fit to rule, arguably the greatest verbal
challenge to Khameneis leadership in the last 20 years.
The oppositions primary challenge at the moment is that its leadership
and brain trust are either imprisoned, under house arrest, or unable to
communicate freely. Despite the tremendous popular outrage, at the
moment there is no leadership to channel that outrage politically.
Still, the financial costs of maintaining martial law, overflowing
prisons, and media and communications blackouts are significant
for the government. According to European diplomats, the Iranian
government expends several thousand dollars per minutetens of
millions per weekto jam satellite television broadcasts from Voice of
America and BBC Persian. Given the decline in oil prices, the current
scale of repression will prove difficult to sustain for a long period.
II. Implications for U.S. Policy

Before President Obamas inauguration in January 2009, I wrote that
in charting a new strategy toward Tehran, the Obama administration
must first probe a seemingly simple but fundamental question: Why
does Iran behave the way it does? Is Iranian foreign policy rooted in
an immutable ideological opposition to the United States, or is it a
86
Karim Sadjadpour
reaction to punitive U.S. policies? Could a diplomatic U.S. approach

beget a more conciliatory Iranian response?2
The Obama administrations unsuccessful attempts to change the tone
and context of the long-fraught U.S.-Iran relationship, coupled with
the events of the last six weeks, make it abundantly clear that Tehrans
hard-line leadershipparticularly Ayatollah Khameneiviews an
adversarial U.S.-Iran relationship as politically expedient.
Whereas the George W. Bush administration unwittingly united
Irans disparate political factions against a common threat, the Obama
administrations overtures accentuated the cleavages among Tehrans
political elites. As one pragmatic conservative Iranian official noted
to me several months ago, Tehrans hard-liners were under newfound
pressure to justify their hostility towards the United States: If Iran
cant make nice with a U.S. president named Barack Hussein Obama
who is preaching mutual respect on a weekly basis and sending us
Nowruz greetings, its pretty evident that the problem lies in Tehran,
not Washington.
In light of the incredible events of the last six weeks, however, the
Obama administration should reassess several aspects of its preelection
policy toward Iran:
Dont EngageYet
When the demonstrations were at their peak, the Obama
administration prudently refrained from inserting the United States
into Irans internal political battles for fear that we would taint those
whom we aimed to help. We should continue to adhere to our policy
of noninterference in Irans internal affairs.
By prematurely engagingbefore the dust has settledwe run the risk
of implicitly endorsing an election that is still being hotly contested in
Tehran and tipping the balance in favor of the hard-liners. This would
2. Karim Sadjadpour, U.S. Engagement with Iran: A How-to Guide, Middle East
Bulletin, 25 November 2008 (http://middleeastprogress.org/2008/11/us-engagement-with-
iran-a-how-to-guide/).
87
demoralize the opposition and the millions of people who took to the
streets and who continue to reject the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad
government. It is telling that one of the popular protest chants of
recent weeks has been Death to Russia, condemnation of Moscows
early decision to recognize the election results.
While the costs of engagement in the short term are very high, the
benefits of immediate engagement are negligible. Tehran is still in
disarray, and Iranian officials have not shown any indication that they
are prepared or capable of making the types of compromises necessary
to reach an accommodation with the U.S. when it comes to the nuclear
issue or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Engagement is not a policy in itself, but rather a tool that seeks,
among other things, to curtail Irans nuclear ambitions and moderate
its regional policies. Premature engagement, however, could have
precisely the opposite effect, by sending the signal to Tehran that its
nuclear program is of such paramount importance to Washington that
it can act with impunity. Iran would not be incentivized to limit its
nuclear ambitions, but rather to expand them.
Pausing engagement until the dust has settled in Tehran does not mean
renouncing it altogether. Given Irans sizeable influence on several key
U.S. foreign policy challengesnamely Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arab-
Israeli conflict, nuclear proliferation, energy security, and terrorism
shunning Iran entirely is not a medium- or long-term option.
Dont Make Military Threats
If the events following the June elections proved one thing, it is that
the Iranian regime is not suicidal. On the contrary, it ruthlessly clings
to power and calibrates its actions accordingly. The Iranian regime, in
other words, is odious but deterrable.
Indeed, the problem we have with Iran has far more to do with the
character of the regime than the nuclear program. The reality is that
as long as Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and company are in power, we
88
Karim Sadjadpour
are never going to reach a modus vivendi which sufficiently allays our
concernsand Israelsabout Irans regional and nuclear ambitions.
Based on both recent and historical precedent, there is good reason
to believe that not only would Khamenei and Ahmadinejad not be
cowed by military threats, but that they would actually welcome
U.S. or Israel strikes in order to try and achieve the same outcome as
Saddam Husseins 1980 invasion of Irannamely, to unite squabbling
political factions against a common threat and keep agitated Iranian
minds busy with foreign quarrels.
Ahmadinejad will also attempt to draw the United States into a war
of words; we would be wise to ignore him. The Obama administration
should continue to project the dignity and poise of a superpower rather
than reciprocate the diatribes of an oppressive and undemocratic regime.
Condemn Human Rights Abuses and Help Ease
the Communications Embargo
The Obama administration should not refrain from condemning the
Iranian governments flagrant violence against its own citizenry and
wrongful detention of political prisoners. While the regime claims
only a few dozen have been killed and a few hundred imprisoned,
European embassies in Tehran and independent human rights groups
estimate that several thousand have been imprisoned and several
hundred killed. Recent history has shown that outside pressure and
condemnation works, as the regime incurs no costs for its egregious
human rights abuses when the world remains silent.
One practical way of helping the cause of human rights in Iran is
to help ease the communications embargo that Iranians are currently
experiencing. Given the fact that foreign media were forced to leave
and domestic media cannot freely report, everyday citizens bearing
witness to events, whether via video phone or even simple e-mail or
blog communication, have become very important. For this reason,
the Iranian government has implemented Internet, satellite television,
and SMS communication (text messaging) blackouts as a means of
89
preventing Iranians from communicating with one another, and also with
the outside world.
The United States and European governments, as well as NGOs and
private-sector companies, should do everything in their power to ease
this communications embargo. Companies like Siemens-Nokia, which
have provided the Iranian government sophisticated technologies used
for intelligence gathering and repression, should be publicly shamed and
encouraged to donate their business profits from deals with Iran to human
rights causes.
Dont Underestimate the Magnitude of this Moment
In an atmosphere of repression and intimidation, millions of Iranians
throughout the country, representing a diverse swath of society, have
taken to the streets since 12 June, agitating for greater political freedoms
that many of us take for granted. Having endured a repressive religious
autocracy for the last 30 years, Iran is arguably the only country in the
Muslim Middle East in which popularly driven change is not of an
Islamist, anti-American variety.
While the type of change Iranians seek may continue to prove elusive
for months, if not years, we should not underestimate the size, strength,
maturity, and resolve of this movement, nor its enormous implications.
While this movement must be driven by Iranians themselves, it should
remain a U.S. foreign policy imperative not to do anything to deter its
success or alter its trajectory. Just as Irans 1979 revolution dramatically
impacted world affairs, so could the emergence of a more moderate,
democratic Iranian government at peace with its neighbors and the
outside world.
90
Glossary
Additional Protocol-The Additional Protocol is a legal document

granting the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
complementary inspection authority to verify all nuclear activities
within a state that are provided in underlying safeguard agreements.
Assembly of ExpertsMajles-e Khobragan is a group of eighty-six
clerics directly elected by the people of Iran for eight-year terms.
Considered one of the most powerful institutions in the Islamic
Republic, the Assembly of Experts has the power to elect and review
the performance of the supreme leader and technically can remove
him from office. The Assembly of Experts candidates, similar to other
elected officials in the Islamic Republic, have to be vetted by the
Guardian Council, where the supreme leader has direct influence.
AyatollahLiterally Sign of God in Arabic/Persian, it is the title
for the high-level scholars among Shiites.
BasijThe term basij in Persian translates to mobilization. In the
Islamic Republic of Iran, the Basij, or Basij Volunteer Force (BVF),
is the collective name for a volunteer public force formed by decree
in November 1979 and accredited to the Islamic Revolution Guard
Corps (IRGC). Officially there are more than 8 million BVF members
who support the IRGCs mission of protecting the Islamic Revolution
through various organizations, both military and civilian. Apart from
the paramilitary and military organizations of the BVF, there are Basij
organizations for teachers, artists, construction workers, etc.
BazaariFrom the Persian word bazaar (market), the Bazaari class
refers to the Iranian merchant class.
Begin DoctrineIsraeli foreign policy by which Israel acts to prevent
an enemy of the State of Israel from developing weapons of mass
destruction. The policy is named for former Israeli Prime Minister
91
Glossary
Menachem Begin (1977-83), who ordered the destruction of Iraqs

Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981.
BushehrCity in Bushehr Province of Iran on the Persian Gulf coast.
Location of the Bushehr nuclear power plant.
Dawa PartyAl-Dawa (The Call) is an Iraqi Shiite political party
that was founded in 1958 and later opposed Saddam Hussein. The
party forms a part of the Shiite Islamist bloc under the collective name
of the United Iraqi Alliance. Although al-Dawa receives support from
Iran, publicly the party supports Wilayat al-Ummah (authority of the
people) as opposed to Velayat-e Faqih (authority of the jurists), the
theory of government adopted by Iran after the Islamic Revolution of
1979 based on Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeinis theories.
Expediency CouncilShort name for the Expediency Discernment
Council of the Regime (Majma-e Tashkhis-e Maslahat-e Nezam),
which was established in 1988 and now is a constitutional body meant
to discern the interests of the Islamic Republic by trying to resolve cases
of conflict between the Majles and the Guardian Council. Technically,
the Expediency Council has the task of advising the supreme leader in
strategic matters and can act as his unofficial deputies if he so elects.
The supreme leader appoints thirty members of the Expediency
Council and is also a member himself.
Guardian CouncilShort name for the Guardian Council of the
Constitution (Shura-ye Negahban-e Qanun-e Asasi), which is a twelve-
member council that approves all applicants for eligibility in Iranian
elections and determines whether laws passed by the Majles are
constitutional and based on the shariah (Islamic law). The supreme
leader appoints six of Guardian Council members, and the other six
are appointed by the Majles at the recommendation of the head of
the judiciary.
HamasIslamic Resistance Movement, or Harakat al-Muqawamat
al-Islamiyyah, is a Sunni Islamist Palestinian political and paramilitary
organization founded in 1987. It has governed the Gaza Strip of the
92
Glossary
Palestinian Territories since elected into power during the Palestinian

parliamentary elections of January 2006.
HejabArabic for cover or womans veil. Refers to the Islamic dress
code for women, especially the covering of the face.
HEUHighly Enriched Uranium is uranium with the amount of
uranium 235 isotopes (U-235) increased above 20 percent. A nuclear
weapon requires enriched uranium with U-235 assays of 90 percent
or more.
HezbollahLiterally translated the Party of God, Hezbollah
is a Shiite Islamist political and paramilitary organization based in
Lebanon. It was formed during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Since its inception, it has had strong ties to Iran. Its leaders were
influenced by the Iranian revolution and declared Ayatollah Khomeini
their leading religious authority. As a result of this relationship,
Hezbollah has received ongoing support from Iran.
HawzehThe term is derived from the Arabic word hauza (area or
territory) and refers to an area where mainly theological study takes
place. The largest and most important of these centers in Iran is located
in the city of Qom.
IAEAInternational Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna,
Austria, bills itself as the worlds center of cooperation in the nuclear
field. Established in 1957 under the auspices of the United Nations,
it works to promote safe, secure, and peaceful nuclear technologies.
IDFIsrael Defense Forces.
IRGCIslamic Revolution Guard Corps, also known as Pasdaran
(Guardians) from the organizations Persian name, Sipah-e Pasdaran-e
Inqelab-e Islami. It was established in the wake of the 1979 Islamic
Revolution in Iran with the task of protecting the newly established
order from both foreign and domestic threats. The IRGC initially
functioned as a safeguard against Irans regular military, which was
deemed as having loyalties to the ousted monarchal system. The
93
Glossary
IRGC has its own ground, air, and naval forces in addition to the Basij
and Qods Forces. Brigadier General Mohammad Ali (Aziz) Jafari has
served as commander in chief of the IRGC since September 2007.
ISCIIslamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which was known until
May 2007 as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
(SCIRI). The ISCI is an Iraqi Shiite political party that was founded
in 1982 and constitutes part of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite
Islamist bloc. As an opposition group to Saddam Hussein, many of its
leaders operated from Tehran until 2003 when Hussein was removed
from power and they were able to return to Iraq. The ISCI continues
to receive support from Iran.
LEULow Enriched Uranium is uranium with the amount of
U-235 increased less than 20 percent. LEU can be used in civil nuclear
reactors, which only require uranium that has assays of 2-5 percent
U-235.
MajlesShort for Majles-e Shrua-ye Islami (Islamic Consultative
Assembly), it is the Iranian parliament.
MEKMojahedin-e Khalq, or Peoples Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI),
is a militant Islamist-Marxist political group. The MEK was founded
in the 1960s and supported movements opposing the shah including
the 1979 Iranian Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
However, the MEK soon organized against the new Iranian theocracy,
even supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-
88). The MEK operated with relative freedom within Iraq from 1986
until the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. After the invasion, allied forces
confined the MEK to Camp Ashraf in Iraq, which has since been
turned over to Iraqi control. The MEKs political wing is the National
Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and the group continues to be
an active Iranian opposition group. Both the MEK and the NCRI
are listed in the U.S. Department of States Country Reports on
Terrorism 2008.
94
Glossary
NatanzTownship in Isfahan Province where Irans pilot fuel

enrichment plant and its main commercial-scale fuel enrichment
plant are located.
NIENational Intelligence Estimate. NIEs are the Director of
National Intelligences (DNI) most authoritative written judgments
concerning national security issues. They contain the coordinated
judgments of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the likely
course of future events.
NowruzAlso spelled Navrooz, Nawrooz, or Nawruz, literally new
day. It marks the vernal equinox, which is the first day of the calendars
used in Iran and Afghanistan. Celebrated as national holidays in Iran,
Afghanistan, and some of the Central Asian republics, the holiday is
particularly significant in Iran.
NPTTreaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which
entered force in 1970 and currently has 187 member states
Qods ForcesLiterally meaning Jerusalem forces, this is a special
unit of the IRGC that is active in organizing, training, equipping,
financing, and supporting foreign Islamic revolutionary movements.
The Qods forces are thought to facilitate and maintain contacts
with underground Islamic militant organizations throughout the
Islamic world. The groups perceived support and influence with
organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah have aided in increasing
Irans regional influence.
SalafiDerived from Arabic al-salaf al-salih (the righteous ancestors),
this is a term that was originally given to an Islamic philosophical
movement that began in the mid-19th century and advocated a
return to the origins of Islam as a countermeasure to colonialism and
the overall malaise of the Islamic world. In modern times, the term
signifies those groups of Islamists who advocate a return to Islams
origins by changing the current state structures in the Muslim world
through various means, including armed struggle and violence.
95
Glossary
Sayyed (Seyyed/ Sayyid/ Said)Derived from Arabic root sadato

be or become master, lord, or chiefthe term sayyed in Arabic means
master, sir, gentlemen, or is used as the honorific title for descendents
of Mohammad. In the Iranian world, sayyed mostly refers to the
descendents of Mohammad.
SCIRIThe Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,
known since May 2007 as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).
See ISCI.
UF6Uranium hexafluoride. UF6 is the compound used in the
process of enriching uranium.
Velayat-e FaqihAuthority of the Jurists, Ayatollah Khomeinis
theory of Islamic government where the state is governed by a faqih
(Islamic jurist).
96
Acknowledgments
This work is a compendium of essays that were presented on 17

September 2008 during a one-day symposium, The Iranian Puzzle
Piece: Understanding Iran in the Global Context, sponsored by
Marine Corps University (MCU) and the Marine Corps University
Foundation (MCUF) as part of the efforts of MCUs Middle East
Studies. I wish to thank Major General Donald R. Gardner, USMC
(Ret), under whose leadership as the president of MCU (2004-2009)
the Middle East Studies was established.
Many other Marines and civilians from MCU also made contributions
toward the organizing and execution of the symposium. In particular, a
special note of gratitude is due to Dr. Jerre W. Wilson, vice president for
academic affairs, for supervising the symposium from its infancy; to Dr.
Kurt A. Sanftleben, vice president for instructional and research support,
for providing the space and conference support; to Mary M. Lanzillotta
for her tireless and patient handling of the contractual aspects; and to
Bud Hilbmann and his team for making everything work.
The symposium was sponsored generously by MCUF from the
beginning. Special gratitude is due to Brigadier General Thomas V.
Draude, USMC (Ret), president and CEO of the foundation, and to
John R. Hales, the COO.
The symposium and the current publication would have not been
possible without the participation of the panelists, chairs, and those
who enriched the session with their contributions in the form of
questions and discussion. To the panel chairs, General Draude and Dr.
Douglas E. Streusand, professor of international relations at MCU,
thank you for making the symposium punctual and for guiding the
question-and-answer period in a manner which made the entire day
so much richer and more informative. I want to especially thank
Professor F. Gregory Gause, director of the Middle East Program
at the University of Vermont, for accepting the invitation to speak
on Irans policies in the Gulf region on short notice. General John P.
97
Acknowledgments
Abizaid, USA (Ret), opened the symposium, setting the tone for an
excellent day of discussion on the Iranian piece of the puzzling world
of the Middle East. I wish to thank him for accepting the invitation
and for setting such a high standard for the rest of the day.
Many colleagues and friends provided suggestions for topics and
speakers or facilitated meetings with the contributors. I wish to
especially recognize Professor Wolfgang F. Danspeckgruber, director
of the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton
University, and Brigadier Phil Jones, military attach, British Army
Staff in the United States, for putting me in contact with several of
the contributors to this volume and for their continued friendship
and professional camaraderie. I extend thanks to Lieutenant Colonel
Christopher C. Starling, USMC, for his help in arranging General
Abizaids participation.
To the contributors of this volume, thank you each and every one for
accepting the invitation to speak at the symposium and for submitting
your contributions. Your persistence through the stages of publication
is much appreciated. While the symposium occurred close to a year
before the publication of your contributions, I not only thank you for
your collective patience, but also for your insightfulness, which has
kept your writings relevant and forward looking. A special thank
you to Karim Sadjadpour for granting permission to publish his
congressional testimony on post-election Iran.
Kenneth H. Williams, senior editor of MCU Press, found the time
in his demanding schedule to work on this volume. This publication
would have not been possible without Mr. Williams full support and
efforts. Emily D. Funderburke of MCU Press, with assistance from
Vincent J. Martinez and W. Stephen Hill, designed the book. Special
thanks to Robin E. Joel for volunteering to design the symposium
logo, schedule, and folder. The current cover is an inspiration of her
work.
98
Acknowledgments
Erika A. Tarzi of the USMC Center for Advanced Operational

Culture Learning read and edited the introduction and the final proof
of the work and provided invaluable suggestions making it much fuller
and finer. I am indebted to Erika for her efforts on this project and am
eternally grateful for her companionship in walking this journey called
life together with me.
Last, but certainly not least, I thank Michael C. Joel for working on
every aspect of this project from the very beginning to the end. He
was instrumental in organizing the symposium, workedand often
ledthe publication process, and helped in the editing of the papers.
99
Contributors
Ali M. Ansari is professor of Iranian history and director of the Institute

for Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, and
associate fellow of the Middle East Programme, Royal Institute for
International Affairs (Chatham House). He has authored numerous
works, including Iran Under Ahmadinejad: The Politics of Confrontation
(2007); Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and
the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East (2006); and Modern Iran since
1921: The Pahlavis and After (2003).
Mohsen M. Milani is professor of politics and chair of the Department
of Government and International Affairs at the University of South
Florida in Tampa. He is currently working on a book about Irans
regional policies.
Ronald E. Neumann is president of the American Academy of
Diplomacy. Ambassador Neumann served previously as a deputy
assistant secretary of state and three times as ambassador, to Algeria,
Bahrain, and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. He was also the
director of the Office of Northern Gulf Affairs (Iran and Iraq) as well
as the principal officer in Tabriz, Iran. He is the author of The Other
War: Winning and Losing in Afghanistan (2009).
Karim Sadjadpour is an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. Previously, he served as the chief Iran analyst at the
International Crisis Group, based in Tehran and Washington, D.C. He
is author of Reading Khamenei: The World View of Irans Most Powerful
Leader (2008).
Simon Shercliff is the first secretary for counter proliferation at the
Embassy of the United Kingdom, Washington, D.C. Previously he has
served as a political officer in the British Embassy, Tehran; the chief
press officer for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; the first deputy
director of communications; and the director of communications and
press secretary for the foreign secretary.
100
Contributors
Gerald M. Steinberg heads the Political Studies Department at Bar

Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, outside of Tel Aviv. He is the
founder of the Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation
at the university and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs. Some of his recent publications include Examining
Israels NPT Exceptionality: 1998-2005 (2006); The Centrality
of Confidence Building Measures: Lessons from the Middle East
(2004); Deterrence Instability: Hizballahs Fuse to Irans Bomb
(2005); and Israel at Sixty: Asymmetry, Vulnerability, and the Search
for Security (2008).
Amin Tarzi is director of Middle East Studies at Marine Corps
University in Quantico, Virginia. He supports the university by
providing a resident scholar with expertise in Iran, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf region. His latest work, The Taliban and
the Crisis in Afghanistan (2008), is a coedited volume with Robert D.
Crews of Stanford University.
101
Index
Abizaid, John P., 62-63 Israel, 74, 80

Additional Protocol: defined, 51, 91; Basij, 10, 22, 85, 91
Iran refuses to implement, 51-52 Bazaari, 55, 91
Afghanistan: Iranian influence in, 9, 15, Begin, Menachem, 74-75, 91
26, 27-28, 32, 35, 40, 41, 62, 63, 65, Begin Doctrine, 74-75, 91
69; Nowruz in, 95; U.S. in, 7, 8, 21, Benjamin, Samuel G.W., 1
26, 27-28, 32, 35, 40, 41, 47, 53, 62, Bonn Accord, 40
63, 82, 88 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC),
Agha-Soltan, Neda: death of, 85 85, 86
Ahmadinejad, Mahmud: and 2005 Bush, George H.W.: and Iran policy, 40
election, 11, 23, 33-34; and 2009 Bush, George W.: and Iran policy, 14, 24,
election, 2-3, 18-19, 24, 33-34, 31, 32, 64, 79-80, 81, 87
83-90; denies Holocaust, 58, 72, Bushehr, Iran: site of Russian-built
76-77; and Iraq, 8; and Israel, 58- nuclear plant, 50, 91
59, 72, 76, 89; and Khamenei, 3,
11, 13-14, 34, 84-85, 88-89; and Camp Ashraf, 44
Khatami, 12, 16; and Majles, 15, Caspian Sea, 8
17, 18; nuclear ambitions of, 7, 14, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 85
76; as president of Iran, 3, 11-19, Chavez, Hugo, 26
23, 34; and U.S., 14, 33 Chechnya, Russia, 26, 62
Algeria, 73, 78 China: diplomacy with Iran, 6, 36, 48,
Algiers Accords, 42, 43 53, 54-55, 73; trade with Iran, 69;
Arab-Israeli conflict: Iran and 29-30, mentioned, 24
65; mentioned, 1, 26, 47, 88. See Clinton, Hillary Rodham: and Iran policy,
also Israel 9
Arak, Iran: location of heavy water Clinton, William J.: and Iran policy, 44,
reactor, 81 45
Armenia, 62 Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), 77
Assembly of Experts, 10, 91
Atomic Energy Organization (Iran), 7 Damascus, Syria, 65
Azerbaijan, 62 Dawa Party, 67, 92
Badr Brigade, 67 E3+3: and negotiations with Iran, 6, 8, 53,

Baker, James A., III, 45 54, 56
Barak, Ehud: on Iranian threat to Egypt, 34, 71, 73, 78
102
Index
ElBaradei, Mohamed M.: on Iranian India, 77

nuclear program, 52 International Atomic Energy Agency
European Union (EU): and negotiations (IAEA): defined, 93; and Iranian
with Iran, 36, 55-56, 80 nuclear program, 49, 50-52, 53, 54, 73,
Expediency Council, 10, 92 91
Iraq: British establish (1921), 66; and Iran,
Al-Faisal, Saud, 57 2, 8-9, 26, 27, 32, 35, 41, 43, 57-70,
France: party in talks with Iran, 6, 53; 71; Israel destroys reactor in, 74, 75,
supplies reactor to Iraq, 74 92; MEK prisoners in, 43-44, 69-70,
94; U.S. in, 7, 8-9, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28,
Gaza, 35, 71-72, 93 32, 35, 40, 47, 53, 57-70, 80, 81, 82,
Germany: party in talks with Iran, 6, 53; 88; mentioned, 54. See also Hussein,
mentioned, 74, 76 Saddam
Ghalibaf, Mohammad Bagher, 85 Iran: 2005 election in, 11, 23, 33-34; 2009
Grand Bargain, 39, 45 election in, 2-3, 4, 18, 24, 33-34, 41,
Guardian Council: defined, 10, 92; 83-90; and Afghanistan, 9, 15, 26, 27-
Khamenei and, 23 28, 32, 35, 40, 41, 62, 63, 65, 69; and
Gulf War. See Persian Gulf War G.H.W. Bush, 40; and G.W. Bush, 14,
24, 32, 64, 80, 81, 87; and China, 6, 36,
Hamas: defined, 92-93; Iran support for, 4, 48, 53, 54-55, 69, 73; and W.J. Clinton,
8, 29, 31, 34, 41, 71 44, 45; economy of, 11-12, 16-18,
Hawzeh, 70, 93 53-54, 84; and France, 6, 54, 74; and
Hejab, 25, 93 Germany, 6, 54; governmental structure
Herat Province, Afghanistan: Iranian of, 10, 22-23, 59-60; and Hamas, 4, 8,
influence in, 69 29, 31, 34, 41, 71; and Hezbollah, 4, 31,
Hezbollah: defined, 93; Iran support for, 4, 35, 41, 71, 78-79; human rights issues
31, 34, 41, 71, 78-79 in, 31, 33, 89, 90; and IAEA, 49, 50-52,
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), 53, 93 53, 54, 73, 91; and Iraq, 2, 8-9, 26, 27,
Holocaust: Ahmadinejad denies, 58, 72, 32, 35, 41, 43, 57-70, 71; and Israel, 4, 5,
76-77 6-7, 9, 22, 25, 28, 29-30, 48, 58, 71-82;
Hostage Crisis (1979-81), 42, 60, 61 and Lebanon, 8, 9, 35, 63, 65, 71, 79, 93;
Human rights: in Iran, 31, 33, 89, 90 nuclear ambitions of, 2, 3, 4, 5-7, 9, 14,
Hussein, Saddam: Dawa party opposes, 92; 21, 22, 26, 28-29, 41, 49-56, 58-59, 62-
deposed, 8, 63, 66-67, 71; Iraq after fall 63, 65, 72-82, 83, 88; and Obama, 26,
of, 57, 65, 68; and Iran-Iraq War, 61, 32-33, 34, 37, 83, 86-87, 89; oil prices
66, 89, 94; and MEK, 66, 94; nuclear and, 11-12, 16, 17-18, 24, 34, 53-54,
ambitions of, 54 86; oil and gas resources of, 7-8, 24,
30-31, 40; reform movement in, 12, 23;
103
Index
revolution in (1979), 2, 4, 8, 12, 22, 25, Khamenei, Sayyed Ali Hoseyni: and 2005
37, 71, 83, 85, 86, 90; and Russia, 6, 26, election, 23; and 2009 election, 2-3, 84-
30, 36-37, 48, 50, 54, 55, 62, 73, 88, 91; 85; and Ahmadinejad, 3, 11, 13-14, 34,
and Syria, 63, 71; and Taliban, 28; and 84-85, 88-89; and Guardian Council,
United Kingdom, 6, 49-56; and U.S. 23; and Israel, 4-5, 72-73; and Khatami,
negotiations (potential), 1-6, 21-48, 79- 13-14; and Majles, 23; and Rafsanjani,
81, 83-84, 86-90; and U.S. Congress, 43, 13-14, 23 61-62; and U.S., 25, 34, 60,
44, 47, 83; U.S. hostage crisis in (1979- 61-62, 87; as president of Iran, 24; as
81), 42, 60, 61 supreme leader of Iran, 2, 3, 13, 23-25,
Iran-Contra Scandal, 45-46 34, 59-60, 84-86, 88-89
Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), 66, 67, 89, 94 Khatami, Sayyed Mohammad: and 2009
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, 42-43 election, 18, 86; Ahmadinejad rejects
Isfahan, Iran: 2009 protests in, 85 efforts of, 12, 16; as Iranian president,
Islamic Jihad, 29, 31 12, 14, 16; and Khamenei, 13-14
Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC): Khomeini, Ruhollah Musavi: death of, 11,
in Afghanistan, 62; defined, 93-94; 61-62; ideology of, 25, 70, 92, 96; and
influence of, 23; mentioned, 2, 10, 22, Hezbollah, 93; and Iranian Revolution,
59, 63, 84, 85, 91, 95 12, 22, 94; leadership of Iran, 8, 13, 22,
Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), 94, 25; and U.S., 60, 61; and war with Iraq,
96. See also Supreme Council for the 61
Islamic Revolution in Iraq Kissinger, Henry A., 25, 45
Israel: and Ahmadinejad, 58-59, 72, 76, Kordan, Ali, 18
89; destroys Osiraq reactor, 74, 75, 92; Kurds, 27, 66, 67, 69
IDF, 74, 93; Iran as threat to, 4, 5, 6-7, Kuwait, 27, 61
9, 22, 25, 28, 29-30, 48, 58, 71-82; and
Khamenei, 4-5, 72-73; and Middle East Larijani, Ali Ardashir, 23
peace process, 21, 26, 27, 29-30, 31, 32, Lebanon: Iran and, 8, 9, 35, 63, 65, 71, 78-
47, 65, 88, 89; and U.S., 6, 61, 71-82. 79, 93; hostages in, 40; and U.S., 47, 63.
See also Arab-Israeli conflict See also Hezbollah
Israel Defense Forces (IDF), 74, 93 Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU): defined,
94; Iran produces, 51, 53
Jafari, Mohammad Ali (Aziz), 94
Jordan, 27, 34, 71 Majles: and Ahmadinejad, 15, 17, 18;
defined, 94; and Khamenei, 23;
Karrubi, Mehdi, 2 mentioned, 3, 10, 92
Karzai, Hamid, 28 Mashhad, Iran: 2009 protests in, 85
Kashan, Iran: 2009 protests in, 85 Mashaii, Esfandiar Rahim, 4
Kim Jong-il, 54 Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK): defined, 94;
104
Index
leaders held in Iraq, 43-44; and Saddam at, 74, 75, 92

Hussein, 69, 94; as threat to Iran, 69- Ottoman Empire, 66
70, 94
Montazeri, Hoseyn-Ali, 86 Pahlavi, Mohammad Reza Shah, 2, 13, 16,
Musavi, Mir-Hoseyn: and 2009 election, 24, 60, 94
2-3, 18 Pakistan, 27, 74, 77
Palestine/Palestinians, 5, 8, 26, 30, 31, 32,
An-Najaf, Iraq, 69 63, 88, 93. See also Hamas
Nasrallah, Hassan, 78-79 Pasdaran. See Islamic Revolution Guard
Natanz, Iran, 95 Corps
National Council of Resistance of Iran Persian Empire, 1, 66
(NCRI), 94 Persian Gulf, 8, 25, 48, 64, 69, 70, 92
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): 2007 Persian Gulf War (1991), 61
report on Iranian nuclear program, 80- Pour-Mohammadi, Mostafa, 17
82, 95 Principle-ists (Iran), 13
Nowruz: defined, 95; Obama sends
greetings on, 33, 87 Al-Qaeda, 26, 31, 44
Netanyahu, Benjamin: on Iranian threat to Qods Forces, 94, 95
Israel, 74-76 Qom, Iran, 70, 84, 93
Nixon, Richard M., 24
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Rabin, Yitzhak, 6, 47
(NATO), 6, 82 Rafsanjani, Ali Akbar Hashemi: and 2005
North Korea: and nuclear issues, 54, 71-72, election, 23; and 2009 election, 86; as
78, 81 Iranian president, 12, 23, 61-62; on
NPT. See Treaty on the Non-proliferation Israel, 72; and Khamenei, 14, 23, 61-62
of Nuclear Weapons Reform Movement (Iran), 12, 23
Nuclear weapons: British develop, 52-53; Rezaei, Mohsen, 2, 63-64
Iranian ambitions to develop, 2, 3, 4, Roosevelt, Theodore, 34
5-7, 9, 14, 21, 22, 26, 28-29, 41, 49-56, Rubin, Uzi, 76
58-59, 62-63, 65, 72-82, 83, 88; Israeli Russia: builds Iranian nuclear power plant,
response to threat of, 4, 5-7, 48, 71-82 50, 91; and Iran, 26, 30, 50, 55, 62, 88;
diplomatic relations with Iran, 6, 36, 48,
Obama, Barak H.: and Iran policy, 26, 32- 53, 54-55, 73. See also Soviet Union
33, 34, 35, 37, 83, 86-87, 89
Oil: Iranian resources, 7-8, 24, 30-31, 40; Al-Sadr, Muqtada, 68
price of, 11-12, 16, 17-18, 24, 34, 53-54, Salafi, 26, 95
86 Salehi, Ali-Akbar, 7
Osiraq, Iraq: Israel destroys nuclear reactor Saudi Arabia, 27, 57, 73
105
Index
Shiraz, Iran: 2009 protests in, 85 and Ahmadinejad, 14, 33; G.H.W. Bush
Siemens-Nokia: provides technology to Iran, Iran policy, 40; G.W. Bush Iran policy, 14,
90 24, 31, 32, 64, 79-80, 81, 87; CIA, 85; W.J.
Al-Sistani, Ali al-Husayni, 68, 70 Clinton Iran policy, 44, 45; Congress and
Soviet Union, 63, 77 Iran, 43, 44, 47, 83; and Iraq, 7, 8-9, 21,
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 35, 40, 47, 53, 57-70, 80,
in Iraq (SCIRI), 67, 96. See also Islamic 81, 82, 88; and Iran hostage crisis (1979-
Supreme Council of Iraq 81), 42, 60, 61; and Iran negotiations, 1-6,
Supreme Leader. See Khamenei, Sayyed Ali 21-48, 53, 79-81, 83-84, 86-90; and Iran
Hoseyni nuclear ambitions, 2, 3, 5-7, 14, 21, 22,
Syria: and Iran, 63, 71; and Israel, 71, 74, 75; 26, 28-29, 41, 49-56, 58-59, 62-63, 65,
nuclear ambitions of, 73, 74, 78, 81 73, 74, 75, 79-82, 83, 88; and Iran-U.S.
Claims Tribunal, 42-43; and Israel, 6, 61,
Tabriz, Iran: 2009 protests in, 85 71-82; and Khamenei, 25, 34, 60, 61-62,
Taliban: in Afghanistan, 8, 62, 63; Iran and, 28 87; and Khomeini, 60, 61; and Lebanon,
Tehran, Iran: 2009 protests in, 85-86, 89; 47, 63; and MEK leaders, 43-44; National
Holocaust denial conference in, 72; Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear
military parades in, 72 program (2007), 80-82, 95; Obama Iran
Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear policy, 26, 32-33, 34, 37, 83, 86-87, 89;
Weapons (NPT), 50, 55, 73, 95 Voice of America, 86
Turkey, 27, 69, 73, 78 United States Congress: and Iran, 43, 44, 47;
testimony on Iran before, 83-90
United Kingdom: establishes Iraq (1921), 66; Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6), 51, 53, 96
and Iran, 49-56; nuclear program of, 52-
53; party in talks with Iran, 6, 53; and U.S. Velayat-e Faqih, 68, 70, 92, 96
independence, 39 Velayati, Ali Akbar, 34
United Nations Security Council (UNSC): Venezuela, 26
and Iranian nuclear program, 49-50, 53- Voice of America, 86
56, 64
United States: and Afghanistan, 7, 8, 21, 26, Wilayat al-Ummah, 92
27-28, 32, 35, 40, 41, 47, 53, 62, 63, 82, 88;
106

The Iranian Puzzle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Iranian Puzzle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Iranian Puzzle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Form Approved

Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188

1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

11. SPONSOR/MONITORS REPORT

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Marine Corps University

Edited by Amin Tarzi

Marine Corps University Press

1st Printing, 2009

interagency, coalition partners, and security communities and explored

T he Islamic Republic of Iran, birthed from the legendary Persian

It is the pursuit of nuclear technology that has catapulted Iran to center

With Whom to Talk?

(Majles). Preelection predictions were that if Khamenei stayed neutral

What Should the Parties Discuss?

he has no place in the current cabinet.2 According to Tehran Times,

Irans Nuclear Program

challenges, which as stated above will prove challenging and require

The U.S. is seen as weakened economically and overcommitted

Irans Regional Ambitions

by mismanagement, and this, coupled with the sanctions and political

As Ansari notes, the apparent rise in Iranian regional influence,

M ahmud Ahmadinejad was elected as the president of the

lack of planning simply ensured a massive and unplanned injection

One of the striking anomalies of the hard right Principle-ist challenge

to the inevitable collapse of capitalism. For Ahmadinejad, the politics

Facilitating this process was the availability of enormous amounts

5. Namah-ye chaharome eqtesad-danan be rais-e jomhur [Fourth Letter of Economists

of high inflation and property speculation, was their observation that

calculated to have had in March 2008, which would have provided a

unusual emphasis on not changing his mind, confusing stubbornness

T he long-standing policy debate about whether or not to engage

2. The Islamic Republic is not on the verge of collapse, and any

has been frequent political paralysis, an inability to make big decisions,

Externally, up to the fall of 2008, soaring oil prices together with

At the same time, the role of ideology and political expediency in

II. What to Talk About

Territorial Integrity. The implications of a partitioned Iraqnamely an

5. Editors Note: According to the Central Intelligence Agencys World Factbook,

continued strife in Afghanistan and has sought to play a leading role

6. Editors Note: According to the Central Intelligence Agencys World Factbook,

While threat perception, geopolitics, and national pride are important

demographic majority, Iran believes that a popular referendum would

gasoline, rising domestic consumption, and stagnating or decreasing

III. How to Talk to Iran

Historically, the Islamic Republic has tended to make dif-

in Kabul. Ideally, these talks can be gradually, quietly expanded to

With its weekly death to America diatribes, the Iranian government

8. Have Realistic Expectations

W hether the United States should talk to Iran is fiercely debated.

The Larger Issues

4. See Simon Shercliffs essay, which is chapter 4 in this book.

The Lesser Issues