The hardliners are back in power in Iran.
And this has ramifications for our arms-control policy and world security. President Barack Obama entered the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which forced Iran to cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98 percent and reduced its gas centrifuges by two-thirds, a smart move because a rogue state like Iran doesn't need a nuclear weapon. The hardliners in Iran opposed this deal from the start, just as political conservatives opposed the deal in the United States. The Iranian hardliners said their country shouldn't trust the U.S. Of course, the Iran/US relationship has been adversarial since the country became a theocracy in 1979. Ebrahim Raisi, who captured the presidency in June, is a loyal functionary of Iran's theocratic system. He will be less likely to engage with the West.
Prior to the recent elections, Iran's presidents haven't been radicals by the standards of the country. Their foreign policies can be described as secular, liberal, and antirevolutionary for the most part, although Iran does support terrorists who target Israel and it arms proxies around the Middle East, unacceptable behavior to those who favor a more lawful world.
Iran's middle class has democratic aspirations that have manifested themselves in various political movements, as stated by Mohammad Tabaar in his story "Iran's War from Within." The country has been hit by the Covid-19 pandemic and American sanctions, and this puts a dimmer on these aspirations. The Middle East is surrounded by insecurity, giving strength to those who claim to make the country more secure, the hardliners. Tabaar gave a vision of what Iran's immediate future is: "a faction of right-wing leaders can reshape Iran's politics and society in ways that will expand the IRGC's (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) control over the country's economy, further diminish political freedoms, and yet display limited tolerance on religious and social issues. It will champion Iranian nationalism to widen its popular base domestically, while relying on Shiite and anti-American ideologies to project power regionally."
Sadly, the country is growing more isolated in the world. What's taken hold in the country seems to be a domestic version of the creeping authoritarianism in democratic countries. The country will also focus on strategic alliances with China and Russia. Iran is already in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization with the two countries.
Raisi said he will engage with the world, a strange promise for a hardliner. However, he also said that Iran will upgrade its nuclear infrastructure. Our country just left Afghanistan and the country quickly moved back into theocratic rule under the Taliban. China, Iran, and Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan, and all are interested in a more-secure Afghanistan. Russia doesn't adjoin Afghanistan, but their neighbors Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan do. U.S. relations with Russia and China are tense, but we all share a need for a secure Afghanistan that does not project instability outward. Working with China and Russia will spark some opposition but working with Iran will provoke even more.
Aside from a vague promise to engage, Raisi's leadership seems like a toxic brew for anyone who believes security is achieved through arms control, diplomacy, and the establishment of international law. However, there may be a way forward.
Rajan Menon pointed out the need for some cooperation on the part of all concerned parties in his story "Kabul has Fallen but Now What?" He stated the need for economic assistance for Afghanistan: "the Taliban will need external assistance for economic reconstruction, and no matter how objectionable its ideology may be, the poorest Afghans will suffer the most if it is denied the aid needed to rebuild and sustain the infrastructure for essential services. What's more, other countries will provide funds, and the United States will accomplish nothing by standing on the sidelines."
President Franklin Roosevelt called for a vision of world order called the "Four Policemen," referring to the U.S., China, Soviet Russia, and the United Kingdom, during World War II. This was his vision of the United Nations. The original plans were for a U.N. was of a great power concert, or the great powers would police their own hemispheres and not kill each other off in a war every 30 years or so. Many of the players in the world were just as scary then as they are now.
Our counterbalancing China and Russia are the factor driving huge defense budgets. If we can work with our adversaries to make sure Afghanistan does not project power beyond its borders and at the same time becomes more secure, it would be a success for the international community. Hopefully, Afghanistan will liberalize in time.
The project of the containment of Afghanistan through soft power could be a way to a new concert of power in a reformed UN or a successor organization that could keep geopolitical tensions to a minimum and provide quality security for the world. Perhaps the Concert of Europe, which kept a reasonable about of peace in Europe from the Napoleonic Wars until World War I, would be a model. The world's main powers, using a certain amount of cooperation, can help mold an international law to keep the peace!
Jason Sibert is the Executive Director of the Peace Economy Project
