• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Shahram Chubin"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Iranian Proliferation"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Is Iran a Military Threat?

Tehran’s military capabilities do not match its ambitions for recognition and status. It is cautious, defensive, and prudent in resorting to force, due as much to experience as to realism about its own limits.

Link Copied
By Shahram Chubin
Published on Apr 1, 2014

Source: Survival

Iran has been a source of international concern for decades. Its general hostility to the international system disturbs the regional order. Tehran’s initial aim of exporting the 1979 revolution, supplanted later by exporting its revolutionary model, has caused anxiety in smaller, traditional regimes. And the view that it is a belligerent state all too ready to resort to force feeds concern about its nuclear ambitions. This perspective, largely shared by Israel and some members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, is plausible but incomplete. I will argue that by orthodox standards Iran is militarily weak, and cautious, defensive and prudent in resorting to force. This is due as much to experience as to realism about its own limits. The country does not see itself as a military power or aspire to become one, even if some of its utterances and behaviour leave room for scepticism on this point.

Iran’s approach to military power and strategy should be seen in the context of its recent history and its goals. The country has little experience of war in modern times. In fact, Iranian history over the past century and a half had been free of war, until the 1980–88 conflict with Iraq, which Iranians call the ‘imposed war’. Iran has been the victim of invasions and occupations, but is itself rather passive. The CIA’s clandestine history called this Iran’s ‘modern tradition of defeat’.

Iran established a national army only recently, under the Pahlavis. The country has no martial tradition, and does not share neighbouring Turkey’s high esteem for the profession of arms. Iran did much to provoke the war with Iraq, but did not start or expect it. Tehran has avoided direct military conflict ever since, and its military expenditure is slight compared to that of its smaller Gulf neighbours.

Unlike these smaller states, Iran’s imports are limited and basic rather than modern or high-tech. Although isolated, sanctioned, contained and depicted as a military threat by some, the country has rarely threatened to use force or seen its own security in military terms. Instead, it has steadily focused on the maintenance of domestic stability and security.

Tehran does not overestimate its military power. A recent statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif reflects a widespread view within Iran: ‘do you think the US, which can destroy all our military systems with one bomb, is scared of our military system?’ This view holds that the country’s military power is deficient, and that diplomacy and commitment, or stubbornness, have allowed Tehran to run quite far on an empty tank....

The full article is published in Survival. 

About the Author

Shahram Chubin

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program

Chubin, who is based in Geneva, focuses his research on nonproliferation, terrorism, and Middle East security issues. He was director of studies at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Switzerland, from 1996 to 2009.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    Iran and the P5+1 in Moscow: Time is Running Out (Again)

      Shahram Chubin

  • In The Media
    The Revolution in Cairo is a Serious Warning for the Mullahs

      Shahram Chubin

Shahram Chubin
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program
SecurityNuclear PolicyMiddle EastIran

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.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Planetary Power: Geoengineering and the New Geopolitics of Climate Intervention
    Research
    Planetary Power: Geoengineering and the New Geopolitics of Climate Intervention

    Geoengineering is becoming a geopolitical question as much as a climate one. The way states and the private sector pursue these technologies, assess risks, and drive research increasingly appears focused on gaining a strategic edge. In a field where governance in lagging behind, Europe should keep track of the geopolitical implications if it is to develop effective regulatory frameworks.

      Olivia Lazard, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Containing Escalation in the Black Sea

    Russia is testing the waters of NATO’s mutual defense clause. What do strikes in Romanian territorial waters mean for the alliance’s posture toward Moscow?

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Does the EU Have a France Problem?

    With its public finances in shambles, the far right polling at 35 percent ahead of the 2027 presidential election, and a growing protest movement, is France’s crisis a threat to the EU’s geopolitical awakening?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • The Scramble for Europe. Russia, China, and Turkey Challenging Regional Order
    Book
    The Scramble for Europe. Russia, China, and Turkey Challenging Regional Order

    Europe is facing rising populism internally as well as external pressures from Russia, China, Turkey, and the United States.

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Greenland United States Denmark Agreement Nuuk
    Commentary
    The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of Time

    The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.

      Marc Pierini

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.