U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently suggested that the Islamic Republic of Iran is moving toward a “military dictatorship.” Karim Sadjadpour suggests that, over the past decade, the political and economic influence of the Revolutionary Guard has eclipsed that of the clergy. The Revolutionary Guard is shaping Iran’s foreign policy in important arenas, including Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The Revolutionary Guard should not, however, be seen as working against or outside of the regime. Iran is moving increasingly towards a repressive dictatorial system with the Revolutionary Guard, the Supreme Leader, and President Ahmadinejad all working together.
The American domestic political reality no longer gives President Obama the luxury of patience in seeking to moderate Iran’s nuclear position. After a year of engagement, few significant gains have been made. However, the administration’s efforts to engage have demonstrated to the international community that it is Tehran, not Washington, who is the intransigent negotiator and have halted complaints about Washington’s unwillingness to engage and shown the nature of the hardliners in Iran.
Iran’s foreign policies are intimately connected to its domestic policy. The Iranian regime is currently facing its biggest existential crisis since 1979. In order to ensure their power, “Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad may welcome a [military] attack on the nuclear facilities, because it could heal the deep internal political rifts in Iran. Any military action in Iran could severely dampen or even kill the opposition movement,” notes Sadjadpour.
End of document
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.