• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Karim Sadjadpour"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Turning Up the Heat

Over the past decade, the political and economic influence of the Revolutionary Guard has eclipsed that of the clergy. The Obama administration’s call for new, targeted sanctions would target the Revolutionary Guard without undermining Iran’s opposition movement.

Link Copied
By Karim Sadjadpour
Published on Feb 15, 2010

Source: On Point with Tom Ashbrook February 15

 

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. 

About the Author

Karim Sadjadpour

Senior Fellow, Middle East Program

Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    What’s Keeping the Iranian Regime in Power—for Now

      Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour, Robin Wright

  • Q&A
    How Washington and Tehran Are Assessing Their Next Steps

      Aaron David Miller, David Petraeus, Karim Sadjadpour

Karim Sadjadpour
Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Karim Sadjadpour
Political ReformForeign PolicyNuclear PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle 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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for Russia

    Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria Conundrum

    Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.

      Vladimir Solovyov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?

    The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By Date

    Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle East

    The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.