Strategic Asia 2007-08: Domestic Political Change and Grand Strategy

Iran: Domestic Politics and Nuclear Choices

executive summary This chapter examines the domestic sources and dynamics of Iran’s nuclear program and the implications for Iran’s future political orientation. main arguments: Domestic concerns drive Iran’s nuclear program and will determine the program’s direction. International pressure will stimulate domestic debate and reappraisal of the regime’s plan of action, yet whether such pressure will change Iran’s nuclear trajectory before enrichment is mastered remains uncertain. The manner in which the nuclear issue is resolved will determine Iran’s future path, both domestically and internationally. policy implications: • Keeping a UN coalition intact entails a slow diplomatic pace. If UN sanctions prove inadequate, the U.S. may need to build a broad informal coalition, carefully coordinating with European and Asian states. • A technical solution to the nuclear issue may necessitate the U.S. devising a comprehensive package to address the broader issues of Iran’s “behavior change.” Calling for a “regime change” will not encourage Iran to be flexible. Stimulating a fundamental reappraisal of the program within Iran requires both raising the foreign policy costs of such a program and offering generous incentives to make critics of current policy more credible domestically. • If Iran persists with enrichment, the U.S. will need a containment and deterrence strategy, which would imply closer cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council states as well as with Russia and European countries. • Although a “squeeze” strategy is more effective than confrontation, the U.S. would best be prepared for regional fallout from exercising an ultimate military strike option. • The major Asian states are affected by Iran’s nuclear ambitions to differing degrees. Major economic investments in Iran from Asia, however, will not likely be forthcoming until the nuclear issue is resolved. Iran Iran: Domestic Politics and Nuclear Choices Shahram Chubin Iran’s quest for a nuclear capability is the product of domestic politics and the demands of revolutionary legitimacy rather than a strategic imperative. Like those of other states, Iran’s motivations for embarking on a nuclear trajectory are multiple and include prestige, status, and security. Yet the persistent motivator behind Iran’s nuclear program—and the one most likely to condition the program’s pace and eventual shape— is domestic politics. This chapter contends that the direction of Iran’s domestic evolution (and the country’s external orientation) will determine both whether Iran will accept constraints on its nuclear program and the program’s ultimate form. The analysis presented here argues that, apart from broad generalizations, the so-called national consensus in Iran is largely fictive and obscures a basic schism, particularly among the country’s elites. On one level, the nuclear issue symbolizes a desire shared by both the elites and public to raise Iran’s power and status. Yet on a more profound level, the nuclear issue hides differences both over what type of society Iran should strive to become (pluralistic and open versus fundamentalist and closed) and how the country should relate to the rest of the world (as a normal state versus as a revolutionary state). This leads to two very different notions regarding the uses of a nuclear option. The first notion is that a nuclear capability is a means to regularize Iran’s relations with the world, embracing both globalization and domestic reform. The second notion is that a nuclear capability can be used to both deal with the world from a position of power and to perpetuate a vision of Iran as a model of a Shahram Chubin is Director of Studies at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. He can be reached at . 302 • Strategic Asia 2007–08 revolutionary and anti-Western state. Thus, many different visions of Iran, the country’s international role, and the utility of a nuclear capability lie behind the vaunted consensus on the nuclear program. When discussing the factionalism and political infighting, which often relate to tactics and tone, it is also important to recognize the limits imposed on explicit criticism of this issue. Given the restricted nature of the “debate,” it is difficult to assess whether there is room for compromise with those who support a “nuclear rights” rubric short of allowing Iran to develop the full fuel cycle. Populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appropriation of the nuclear question as a partisan issue has further politicized the debate, exacerbating factional differences and making a solution based on compromise more difficult. Iran’s ultimate aims for the...