Independence without Freedom: Iran's Foreign Policy

Reflections on Iran’s Foreign Policy: Spiritual Pragmatism

[ 196 ] “Reflections on Iran’s Foreign Policy: Spiritual Pragmatism” was originally published in Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs 1, no. 1 (January 2010): 54–88. reflections on iran’s foreign policy Spiritual Pragmatism This essay suggests that the evolution of Iran’s foreign policy since the revolution in 1979 has incrementally produced an aspirational paradigm for Iran’s foreign policy makers that I call “spiritual pragmatic.” Pragmatism is conventionally viewed as the opposite of principle, whether religious, moral, or ideological. The gradual evolution of Iranian foreign policy since the Iranian Revolution, however, demonstrates that foreign policy makers have aspired to create a hybrid of pragmatism and spirituality. The conundrum of spirituality and pragmatism in history is not limited to Iran, however; it is universal. American foreign policy, for example, shows that this tension is often expressed in terms of realism verses idealism. President Richard Nixon, for example, was regarded as a realist, while President Jimmy Carter was considered an idealist. Yet American leaders seldom understand this same practicality-spirituality interaction in Iran’s foreign policy making. At times, therefore, they candidly acknowledge in private and public that they do not understand Iran’s foreignpolicy behavior, while at other times they view it as “irrational” or “paranoid.” I hope the following reflections will help to create a better understanding of Iran’s foreign policy making in the West in general and the United States in particular. the ideal of an islamic state and the reality of world politics Ayatollah Khomeini. The establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran reflected the worldview of its founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He aspired to the ultimate rise of an “Islamic world order” for the benefit of humanity. He said on December 18, 1979, “Islam is not peculiar to a country, to several countries, to a group of [people or countries] or even the Muslims. Islam has come for humanity . . . Islam wishes to bring all of humanity under the umbrella of its justice.” Spiritual Pragmatism [ 197 ] Khomeini showed in action what he meant. On January 1, 1989, for example, in a letter to the Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev he castigated the “bankrupt ideologies of the East and the West” and urged him to adopt “Islamic values for the well-being and salvation of all nations,” including the people of the Soviet Union. Yet, all revolutions mellow, or, in Kenneth N. Waltz’s words, “socialize,” to the international system. In the case of Iran, for example, the ideal of exporting revolution is not a priority of Iran today as it was in the early years of the revolution . Iran’s leaders, like those of other states, have to take serious account of the reality of world politics, as well as their spiritual principles. They encounter what I call an “international constituency.” Since the revolution, Iran’s leaders have tried to take account of the reality of this constituency by trying to adapt the pristine ideological principles of the early days of the Islamic Republic to the realities of changing world politics. The super idealist Ayatollah Khomeini himself led the way toward an aspirational paradigm of spiritual pragmatism. He sometimes changed what others called “his ideological line” (Khatti Imam) and was quite flexible in adjusting his idealistic worldview to the dictates of circumstance. He criticized ideological zealots who were beholden to fossilized ideas at the expense of the national interest. For example, in facing the realities of domestic political disarray and superpowers ’ opposition to the revolutionary regime, Khomeini told Iranians, “We must become isolated in order to become independent” (baayad monzavi shaveem taa mostaqel shaveem). But when die-hard factions opposed his decision to establish relations between Iran and Turkey and Germany, he admonished them. He cited the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who, Khomeini said, dispatched ambassadors worldwide. Subsequently, after he consolidated power, he rejected a “hermit” status for Iran in foreign affairs and told the hardliners in no uncertain terms on October 30, 1984, that their opposition to foreign relations “would mean defeat, annihilation and being buried right to the end.” Ayatollah Khomeini’s pragmatic approach to spiritual ideals is exemplified in the case of Iran’s arms deal with the United States. After the exposure of the secret deal, Iranian leaders, especially Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, vigorously denied the deal and ridiculed the surprise visit of Americans who came to Iran bearing a cake and a Bible. But the fact remains that Iran needed arms to defend itself against Iraqi...