Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
Volume:1 Issue: 2, Summer 2010

Iraq, as a major country in the Persian Gulf region, has traditionally played an important role with regard to stability and security in the area. However, the Ba’athist Iraq, especially under Saddam Hussein, acted in large measure as a source of instability, tension and conflict in the area. That period came to an end in 2003 with the collapse of the Ba’athist regime and the emergence of a new governance system in that country. Considering Iraq’s position in the region as well as its quite substantial potentials, this country can still play such an important role – perhaps more important than in the past – in the stability and security of the region. Characteristics of the “New Iraq”, particularly its unfolding democratic experience and governance, and a new collaborative approach to foreign policy, especially towards the neighboring countries, have raised hopes for Iraq’s prospective positive contribution to regional stability, security, convergence, and ultimate integration, based on a new pattern of engagement and collaboration among regional states and actors. Having suffered for a long period from destructive rivalry, tension and conflict, the Persian Gulf region is acutely in need of a new collaborative, indigenous mechanism to foster and promote lasting stability and security in the area – needless to say, with the active participation of all countries in the region. The present article attempts to look into the Iraqi aggressive posture and policy during the past several decades as well as into the prospects for the future based on the mutual roles and responsibilities of the “New Iraq” and the neighboring states in the Persian Gulf, from the vantage point of peaceful intentions and conduct, interaction and collaboration towards the development of a collective regional system.

This article discusses how energy diplomacy is used in today’s world to secure and promote the national and international security of nations. It focuses on the case of Iran as a major energy power. It will be argued that the emergence of energy as one of the main global concerns on the one hand and the emergence of multi-polarity in the wake of the demise of the Cold War on the other, have provided a foundation for the use of energy resources as a new means to pursue the international diplomacy of nations. In this context, the isolationist outlook in international politics advocating hard power as the main anchor for a nation’s security is rejected; instead a new approach based on the principles of engagement, participation, and partnership in the world’s mega trends is emphasized and, in fact, recommended. It is argued here that the level and degree of the meaningful role a country plays in the current world affairs and also in contributing to shaping the prospective international system is directly correlated with the level and degree of safety and security it would be able to secure for itself. In this vein, the traditional as well as modern outlooks in Iran’s energy diplomacy will be briefly examined. While the former views oil and gas resources as a source of income to be utilized – primarily – to bankroll current activities and hence, ignoring the political economy considerations of energy, the latter, fully cognizant of such considerations, is based on the new vision of engagement and partnership with global partners and calls for adoption of a comprehensive energy plan that addresses both domestic and international concerns of this sector. Based on authentic empirical evidence, the article argues that Iran is well suited to utilize its oil and gas resources and capacities in a manner to secure an appropriate place commensurate with its true potential and play a meaningful role in the international community. Achievement of such a position will undoubtedly contribute to the consolidation of the national and international security of Iran.

Hopes for changes in Iran’s foreign policy towards the United States (US from now) have been dashed times and again. It is argued in this article that ideational and situational factors are responsible for this. Ideationally speaking, the lagging dialectical gap between otherwise two complementary factors of the Islamic Republic’s ideological disposition and perspective and Iran’s mutually strategic interests with the US is the single most contributing factor in this respect. As long as the prospects for striking a “correspondence discourse” out of this “dialectical components” (ideological and strategic outlooks) remain uncertain and opaque, realistic hopes for change in Iran-US relations would remain unfulfilled. Situationally speaking, the US also needs to reconsider its anachronistic approach as well as the previous patron-client paradigm in its relation with Iran. Moreover, circumstantial events also play a significant role in tilting the weight in favor of one or the other factor. Notwithstanding the on-and-off aggravating ideological confrontation, the mutually-shared strategic interests of both countries have times and again served to ease and mitigate the post-1979 relations between them within the limits of a practically reigning “cold war.” Based upon both mutually-shared strategic interests between Iran and US and the content analysis of Iranian officials’ positions and pronouncements, it is argued here that the future foreign policy of the Islamic Republic vs. the US will unfold in a two-tiered manner; a mid-term suspicious and a long-term proactive foreign policy. Considering the high costs of lost opportunities emanating from the gap just mentioned, change in bilateral relations seems a necessity – and for both sides. That said, the main contribution of this article is to attempt a workable conceptual framework whereby the necessity of change from a mid-term “suspicious outlook” to a long-term “proactive cooperation” towards the US is portrayed.

Between 1980 and 2003 Iraq was involved in three armed conflicts; namely, the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980''s, the occupation of Kuwait in 1990-1991, and the American-led war against Iraq in 2003. These are three different conflicts with their own distinct characteristics. A comparative study on the behavior of the United Nations Security Council with regard to each of these conflicts reveals that the Security Council has had three different and notably imbalanced reactions towards these conflicts. While At the beginning of the Iran-Iraq conflict, the Council was silent for a few days and later adopted a very ineffective resolution, the approach and conduct in the second conflict was quite different. A few hours after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Council adopted a very strong resolution, under Chapter VII of the Charter. In the case of the third Persian Gulf conflict – 2003 - the Security Council was in the middle of discussions as to how to deal with the Iraqi crisis when the American and British forces started the military attacks against Baghdad. Furthermore, international humanitarian law has been violated during these conflicts on numerous occasions, most notably the use of chemical weapons by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq conflict. The Security Council''s lack of resolve to adopt necessary punitive measures against Iraq to prevent further use of chemical weapons was considered by Iraq as a green light to continue its resort and practice with a sense of impunity. As discussed in the paper, blatant lack of resolve on the part of the Security Council towards Iraq’s repeated use of chemical weapons was, as a matter of fact, the most manifest expression of the strong pro-Iraq tilt in the Council’s approach and conduct; the outward expression of alternating implicit-explicit consensus among the permanent members on how to punish the revolutionary Iran and reward a friendly Iraq. The present paper concludes that a different approach and conduct by the Council vis-à-vis Iraq ’s aggression against Iran would have most probably created a different situation and dynamism in the Persian Gulf area with all its significant repercussions and implications.

This paper is an account of the controversy between Iran and Iraq over the issue of the three Persian Gulf islands of Abu Musa and the Tunbs. It covers the time span from 1971 up to 1992 and focuses on the role of Iraq that hoisted the banner of opposition to Iran’s title to these islands, following the British withdrawal, and sought to spur the reluctant Arab conservative camp along. The paper seeks to describe how Iraq was on the driving seat on the issue at hand and how others, including the UAE, followed it reluctantly. To elucidate the point, the paper begins to review briefly the causes of enmity, real or perceived, that pitted Tehran and Baghdad against each other up to 2003. It is followed by depicting the leading role Iraq played in placing Iran’s move on the islands on the Arab agenda. It continues by reviewing the tactics Iraq used to keep the pressure on and revive the issue after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. To conclude, the paper briefly refers to the reasons for Iraq’s failure in its efforts with regard to the islands and the new circumstances in 1992 under which the UAE could take initiative for the first time on the islands issue It seeks to show that the activity and/or dormancy around the islands issue depend rather on the regional status and power politics involving regional and global major actors.

This article looks in to the issue of the Afghan drugs problems from the international security perspective. The definition of international security has evolved since the end of the cold war. In the past, there were, and there are presently, some people who perceive that only military capabilities of their rivals can pose a threat to their security. That is, while the new definition of international security has expanded to include many issues that are not necessarily in the domain of military or armed forces. In that context, drug habits that caters to the trade of illicit narcotics, and with connections to the organized crimes has become a nascent threat to international security. In recent years, the drug problem in Afghanistan has grown to a staggering proportion and its outflow threatens the security of many countries. The sheer scale of the problem and its devastating impact on regional and international security calls for a concerted effort by all in the international community, especially those who are mostly affected. However, when it comes to major anti-drug projects in Afghanistan and its adjacent regions, the stances of certain Western countries seem to be ambivalent at best. In this context, one can point to the tendencies in some of these governments making an effective cooperation with Iran in the critical fight against drugs impinging on an agreement on its nuclear dossier. That approach indeed overlooks the urgency of the problem and the scale of the threat that Afghan drugs imposes on all sides especially the Europeans. The author concludes that to find a lasting solution for this problem, it is imperative that cooperation would be based on an inclusive approach, and participation of all states, with the essential coordinating role of the United Nations.

The field of Iranian Studies was developed in the West as a means of exploring the unknown civilization of Iran in the aftermath of the Renaissance and during the political expansion of some Western countries towards East, starting from the 16th century. The establishment of Iranian Studies as a sub-field of Middle Eastern and Asian Studies resulted from practical necessities which Western nations faced in their efforts to understand the Iranian world and civilization at a time of their political advancement in the region. Throughout the twentieth century the field of Iranian Studies has advanced academically. While geopolitical balance in the region has remained essentially unaltered, and Iran has retained and even increased its geopolitical importance in the region. Thus Western interest in Iranian affairs, culture and mentality similarly increased. This paper analyses the status and focus of Iranian Studies in the West after the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1979), the role of diasporic Iranians and the significance of the field in the effort of the West to understand the Iranian Otherness and its geopolitical importance.