Iranian government

The Iranian government's unique position and the requirement for restraint when carrying out military operations in the modern world are frequently put to the test, particularly in the context of the nuclear weapon issue. The subject of whether the nation should acquire nuclear weapons for defense is frequently seen as provocative to world society. In the struggle against Iran's nuclear weapon production, the United States is regarded as the key player. Most of the time, the Iranian government is firm, particularly when it comes to the idea that outside influence is endangering its sovereignty.
Intense discussions over Iranian foreign and defense policy frequently center on the role of religion.  As much as there are several contradictions in the formulations, a strong belief in leadership’s responsibility for the norms and religious obligations to the Muslim community exists, and religious obligations to the Muslim community. But as the paper generally appreciates, understanding and unification of neighboring states is imperative to peace and stability in the country. The combination of forces from Russian and Israel military has since empowered and magnified the Iranian troops.

The paper generally appreciates the different approaches to attaining sobriety in the nation is put into focus highlighting some of the treaties, approach to war and ideologies that characterize the structures of decision making and implementation. The stability of Iran today, and the strict foreign and defense policies could be attributed to the leadership in the country.



Introduction

Iran’s security policies are perceived as a formulation of several policies including the religious concepts of the country’s Islamic state revolution, the Iranian leadership's understanding of threats and confrontations against leadership, and particularly, the general force of the country. The leadership often argues that the prolonged Iranian national ideologies and the common involvement of the Iranian regime do influence several considerable regions in the state.

Experts insinuate that the aims of Iranian security strategies are to outshine the powerful structures within the Middle East regions. The country favors countries like Russia and its allies, like the Israel state, Saudi Arabia (S.A), as well as Sunni Muslim countries within the Arab regions. According to the countries diplomatic team, Iran sovereignty strongly characterizes its unwavering support for Shiite and the high rated Islamist movements that tend to show support for the oppressed, and argues that the state of S.A is guilty of initiating tensions.

Others, particularly the United States, interpret Iran’s motive as making an attempt to defend itself from the United States or other forces from invading and intimidating its sovereignty. The Iranian strategy might be representing a deliberate approach to enhance the country's global dominance and image or reinstate the previous sense of leadership that is a clear copy of the structures in ancient Persian Empire.

Iran commonly employs several approaches and tools in pursuing its national security policy and obligations. Most of the Iranian security protocols, theories of approach, and policy instruments are well known and embraced by most nations. These theoretical and technical approaches include a traditional approach to diplomacy, which also combines the public promotion and embrace of the Iranian norms, values, as well as interests. Iran is also seen to have financially supported politicians and leaders who facilitate the implementation of the predefined procedures. Perhaps, the significant interest with the United States decision makers is a fact that Iran’s regime does provide material and financial support to known armed and illegal groups which primarily promote acts of terror that intimidate specific country’s regional opponents. Most critics argue that Iran’s armed support to the Shiite allied governments; including Syria and Iraq, contribute to the popular resentment seen, especially among the Sunni. This paper addresses Iran’s foreign and defense policy in relation to grand strategy considering the religious obligations of the country and the political interventions from rival states. The paper generally studies the military exposure of the Iranian armory.

Iran’s Policy and Ideologies

As earlier discussed, the Iranian defense policies formulations are typically seen as an overlapping approach. In an attempt to describe some of the complications and tension observed in most of the stipulated policies, the Iranian leaders indicate that Iran currently faces constant decisions on whether it is a nation with the sovereign power to make its decisions. Some of the nuclear interferences, in particular on the nuclear weapon, tend to question the sovereignty of Iran as a state and the independence of its leaders.

The U.S insists that the Iranian leaders in most cases seem to regularly weigh the options of their revolutionary ideas and concerns based on religion. The consideration of the nuclear weapon is generally accepted as a core in the fight for superiority, and I believe access to such kind of leadership can ensure the dominance of Iran in the battlefield. The Iranian foreign policy based on the access to defensive weapons, like the nuclear-based arsenal, is widely seen as drastic and irrational. Arguments that are significantly factual and bearing in mind the possibility of harmful nuclear emissions; I find it inappropriate for the country to insist on accessing the weapon. It is crucial that we understand the threat perception and Iran's security phenomena that these leaders have to deal with.

Iran’s Security Foreign Policy and Threat Perception

The Iranian leaders are in most cases motivated and by risks. The threat to security and freedom significantly undermines their regime and their national interests as such; the leaders tend to prioritize providing workable policies and solution to the concern of the state. It is generally believed that nation tends to pose a threat to the sovereignty of the state including the countries like U.S.

Some of the powerful dictators like Ali Khamenei once indicate that the U.S has never recognized the Islamic-dominated revolution and in most cases seeks to frustrate it. According to Khamenei, such attempts was made through the elimination or limitation of support on domestic opposition to the regime. Khamenei argued that by imposing sanctions, and fundamental support Iranian allies like the state of S.A and Israel, the position held by the Iranian regime would weaken. Khamenei warned against the famous Western “cultural influence”, and social behaviors that were believed to be contrary to the Iranian Norms do not comport with the conventionally accepted Iran’s societal and Islamic morals and values.

There are Iranian leaders who insisted on the United States deployment and support of a relatively conspicuous armed presence, especially in the famous Persian Gulf area and significantly in other similar states neighboring the country directly disrespect by the U.S. shows malicious intentions and plan against Iran. There has always been the perception that in case Iran was to pursue policies the United States finds undesirable, the deployed military would make a deliberate advance against the sovereignty of Iran.

Further, the Iran’s leaders claimed that the U.S supported the Sunni-dominated Arabian regimes and ideologies that tend to fuel movements that are against Iran. Equally, government highlights instances where it was believed to be convincing truth to the fact that the United States has championed the creation and empowerment of the radical Sunni-dominated Islamist groups like the Islamic State that tend to support ideologies that outrightly contradict the Iranian values and believes. The structural support and rigid ideologies that strengthen the foreign policy and dominance of the system are based on the 1979 approach to leadership and national security guidance and advice. The administration appreciates that since then; the ideologies have not changed significantly and continue to influence the leadership landscape in the country.

The theory of elimination of cultural influence from the West is logical. The cultural ideologies between the two nations are always very distinct as a result; the Iranian leadership is aware of the possible dangers of infiltration of the Western culture. The approach is crucial in addressing the diversity of the two regions, but at the same time, I would question the breach of the right to religion and freedom of expression.

The Iranian Ideologies and Strategy Policies

Considerably, the well formulated 1979 thinking of ancient Iran Islamic revolution continues to dominate the current Iran's foreign policy. There is a clear documentation of the revolution that saw the overthrow of a secular and authoritarian supreme leader, commonly referred to as the Shah, who is believed to have suppressed Islam community. A different formulation was established where the ultimate power of control is interested in one powerful leader who defines and directed political and religious direction in the country. Although, currently, the ideologies tend to have a change in belief and perspective. Most of these changes break from the past and are believed to have been initiated by the need for economic incorporation.

Unlike Mohammad Khatami's approach of leadership that was dominated by liberal-pragmatic vision or in the case of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's approach of populist stance in leadership, Hassan Rouhani model of governance is bent on pursuing a rather centrist-pragmatic mission across the country. Rouhani's campaign promises did reflect a vision that championed the introduction of serious negotiations with the Western world and particularly the U.S with the aim of reducing the undesirable and unnecessary regional conflict. Further, the political campaigns advocated for an amicable solution that will ensure the prioritization of the state’s economic recovery that will guarantee the general well-being of its constituents.

The question remains whether Rouhani will manage to implement his vision, appreciating the current structural, institutional and strategic barriers that have been in existence ever since the Khatami's leadership. If Rouhani’s tenure in office is to be relatively more successful compared to his predecessors', his administration and model in leadership will have to address some of the challenges previously encountered. There are still several clashing points between the state of Iran and its neighbor and particularly the Western world- the United States. Some of these cases mainly include the nuclear controversy and confrontations.

The diverse and modernize approach to leadership does significantly conform to the current approach in global trends. The new Iranian regime tends to express consciousness of the importance of commercial awareness that is necessary for any country. I believe that proper international policies on security have to factor in the aspects of economic development. Financial independence is crucial in any sovereign state, as such; the new leadership is justified to champion for the country’s financial independence.

Iran's Nuclear and Defense policies

Iran is seen to have pursued a wide range of defense programs, including the controversial nuclear programs that tend to provoke the international community especially the U.S. Iran's nuclear program has been on the forefront in the U.S. concerns in on Iran's deals, probably because it is believed that Iran’s acquisition of a functional nuclear-based armory could eventually empower Iran to believe or understand that the country is entirely impenetrable to external military influence.

Reports indicated that the U.S officials also believe that a successful access of operational nuclear-based weapon Iran could fuel a war and arms race across the entire globe. Currently, Iran is perceived as one among the world's most delicate States, and it is believed that the access to a nuclear weapon might transfer nuclear technology and machinery to extremist groups. It is believed that the Israel leadership described an Iran-based nuclear armory mission as a considerably significant threat to the security of Israel as a state. The Iranian regime is generally considered to implement the JCPOA agreement, and according to the Obama Administration communication team, the nuclear threat has been averted. But the current Trump Administration is seen to question Iran's commitment to implementing the agreement openly.

The U.S. intelligence institutions have recently indicated that the international states are uncertain on Iran’s move whether it will ultimately make a decision to implements nuclear-based weapons or not. But the country’s insistence on and commitment to earlier JCPOA agreement indicate that the state has since deferred the implementation for the sake of the future of its nuclear programs. The Iranian government appreciate the leadership of Khamenei 2003 formal pronouncements was un-Islamic and inherently inconsistent with widely accepted Iran's ideology. In 2012, Khamenei did have press briefings stating that the manufacturing and use of nuclear-based weapons are henceforth illegal and against the acceptable norms. As much as the nuclear weapon mission seems to drag and bear several interfaces from international communities, there are other securities related approaches that the state of Iran implements in its Foreign and Defense Policies.

At a personal level, I believe that there is a need for nuclear deals that can put its production under control. But in most cases, it is not clear whether the United States has the moral authority to dominate the control of access to nuclear weapons. The possible arms race that could arise from the Iranian access to the nuclear arsenal is rather informative, but the forceful intervention of the US on the deal is suspect. One can argue that the United States is keen to maintain supremacy over the global countries. I find fit the approach to monitoring access to a nuclear weapon for security and this commitment should be observed from a moral angle rather than the conventional military approach.

Security cooperation, Problems and Strategies

Increasingly, the Islamic Republics’ foreign policies are products of self-interest and the need for self-preservation. In an attempt to protect Iran’s Islamic theocracy of potential threats from external regimes, the state's leadership drives the state’s approach to foreign affairs intelligently. The approach, in some cases, seems aggressive and at times pragmatic but the need to have the policies clearly evident. Recognizing the countries relative alienation from its neighboring states since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran has significantly relied on a strategy of initiating strong relationships with non-state organizations in promoting the countries interests. Although the regime supports the Sunni groups, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad groups and the Hamas, Iran's intentions of the dependence on Shia-dominated organizations has most angered its neighboring states. The practice, often intertwined with the policy of exporting the revolution, has been constructive for Iran strategically but it has also hardened its confessional bias against its neighbors.

In repeated and rather strict terms, the Iran leadership has given a stern warning that the country would take defensive military action if any attacking body attacks the sovereignty of the nation. The Iranian military powers are commonly assumed to be unable to confront, fight and defeat developed country's military force as the United States in a classic military confrontation. Arguably, the Iranian military is believed be potentially able to do significant damage to a country including the U.S. forces. The Iran military power and strategy was robust enough to defend against any conceivable aggression from her neighbors.

Equally, the Iranian forces tend to have significant relations with other military forces outside the state's neighborhood. The county’s relations with other countries like the Russian forces, North Korea, and China, have mainly zeroed on arms purchase and upgrade. Currently, Iran military and Russian troops are involved in Syria in a standard front to help the Assad regime effort against the United States funded a multi-faced arm rebellion. The two countries inter-cooperation was significantly expanded and rejuvenated in 2016 with Russian air carrier aircraft being allowed to utilize the Iran’s facilities in the western airbase to launch strikes in the Syrian capital Aleppo. These military relations appear to be the first time the Iran has granted a foreign military the privilege of using of Iranian military facilities.

Generally, the growing diplomatic relations in Iran that constitutes arming of allies does represent aspects of the countries intentions of developing asymmetric nature of warfare capabilities. It is commonly believed that arming forces helps the country expand its overall significance on the direct risk of attack; the strategy is seen to serve as a multiplier that does compensate the relatively weak force.

I tend to whole-heartedly agree with the ideology and policies that support the corporation of state in fighting as a united front. The military to military support seen among the Iranian force and the Russian troops is evident to the fact that nations can, in future, corporate to fight a common enemy. I applause the fact that the counties have made it in formulating foreign policies that ease military coordination but I would prefer the formulation of policies for a better course.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that Iran’s influence in the Middle East security deal is the impact felt across the continent and U.S. Exactly how the Iranian foreign policy has influenced the foreign policies has been less clearly cut. The religious beliefs have definitely affected the country's approach to matters relating to international relations and affairs, but they do not directly define them. The appreciation of religion is generally perceived as one of the several attributes that do fuel the country's behavior. The nuclear standoff between Iran and the U. S is also a factor that is still open and needs to be addressed.

Clearly, the subject is not yet over and considering the current standoff between Iran and the United States and the threatened nuclear war evidenced by the vigorous testing of the weapons, many questions are left unanswered, and no much room is left for diplomacy. The general appreciation of the dilemma that faces the Iranian leadership and the challenges that are accompanied by lax security on the sovereignty of the state is a subject of further guide future research. The unfinished business of the nuclear deal that is under threat is one particular aspect of the study that is still open.

Generally, the subject clearly questions the new regime in the United States under the leadership of President Donald Trump which tends to frustrate the Obama administration nuclear deal with the Iranian government. As such, much is left to for future consideration on the subject.



Bibliography

Abramson, Adam J. "Is Sectarianism A Causal Factor? An Analysis of Iran-Iraq Relations, The Rise Of The Islamic State Of Syria And The Levant, And The Syrian Civil War." PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2015.

Brynen, Rex, Bahgat Korany, and Paul Noble, eds. The many Faces of National Security in the Arab World. Springer, 2016.

Byman, Daniel. Deadly Connections: States that Support Terrorism. Cambridge University, 2005.

Calabrese, John. Revolutionary Horizons: regional foreign policy in post-Khomeini Iran. Springer, 2016.

Cordesman, Anthony H., Alexander Wilner, Michael Gibbs, and Scott Modell. "US-Iranian Competition: The Gulf Military Balance-I." Center for Strategic and International Studies (2013).

Chomsky, Noam, Gilbert Achcar, and Stephan R. Shalom. Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice. Routledge, 2015.

Entessar, Nader, and Kaveh L. Afrasiabi. "The Iran Nuclear Accord and the Future of Nonproliferation: A Constructivist-Critical Approach." Brown J. World Aff. 22 (2015): 177.

Garofolo, John. "War Films in an Age of War and Cinema." A Companion to the War Film (2016): 36.

Hassan, Hussein D. "Iran: Ethnic and Religious Minorities." Library of Congress Washington Dc Congressional Research Service, 2007.

Karl, David J. "Proliferation pessimism and emerging nuclear powers." (2012).

Katzman, Kenneth. "Iran’s foreign policy." Congressional Research Service (2015): 1-36.

Kerr, Paul K., John Rollins, and Catherine A. Theohary. The stuxnet computer worm: Harbinger of an emerging warfare capability. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2010.

Kroenig, Matthew. A Time to Attack: The Looming Iranian Nuclear Threat. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Kurzman, Charles. "The Arab Spring: Ideals of the Iranian Green Movement, Methods of the Iranian Revolution." International Journal of Middle East Studies 44, no. 1 (2012): 162.

Kaplan, Robert D. "The geography of Chinese power: how far can Beijing reach on land and at sea?" Foreign Affairs (2010): 22-41.

Kaplan, Robert D. "The geography of Chinese power: how far can Beijing reach on land and at sea?" Foreign Affairs (2010): 22-41.

Nisthar, S., Vijayakumar, S., & Nufile, A. A. M. (2017). Peace and tourism: an analysis of the bidirectional relationship.

Payne, Keith B. Deterrence in the second nuclear age. University Press of Kentucky, 2015.

Seliktar, Ofira. "Assessing Iran's Nuclear Rationality: The “Eye of the Beholder” Problem." The Journal of the Middle East and Africa 2, no. 2 (2011): 188-206.

Snow, Donald M. National security for a new era. Routledge, 2015.

Strakes, Jason E. "Situating the ‘Balanced Foreign Policy’: The Role of System Structure in Azerbaijan's Multi-Vector Diplomacy." Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 15, no. 1 (2013): 37-67.

Walsh, James J. "Iran and Iraq." In Security and Bilateral Issues between Iran and its Arab Neighbours, pp. 81-122. Springer International Publishing, 2017.

Wilner, Alex S. "Apocalypse soon? Deterring nuclear Iran and its terrorist proxies." Comparative Strategy 31, no. 1 (2012): 18-40.

World Health Organization. "Country cooperation strategy for WHO and Islamic Republic of Iran: 2010–2014." (2010).

Zarif, Mohammad Javad. "What Iran wants: Iranian foreign policy in the Rouhani era." Foreign Aff. 93 (2014): 49.