 |
| Volume XIV, Summer 2007, Number 2 |
| |
ABSTRACT
Iranian National-security Debates:Factionalism and Lost Opportunities
|
| |
| Mehran Kamrava |
| |
Dr. Kamrava is professor of political science at California State University, Northridge, and is also director of the Center for International and Regional Studies at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar.
Iran’s national-security policy is a victim of the factional debates and disagreements that characterize the Islamic Republic’s political system. There are currently three main factions in Iran — the radicals, the traditionalist conservatives and the reformers — and each has its own approach and agenda in relation to the country’s national-security policy. Of the various national-security issues confronting Iranian policy makers, six tend to be more pressing than others. They include the war in Iraq, Iran’s regional standing, U.S. goals and agendas in relation to the Middle East in general and Iran in particular, relations with Hezbollah, Iranian-Hamas relations and the nuclear program. Because of the factions’ key differences in style and approach toward these issues, the “suspended equilibrium” that characterizes the larger political system often finds its way into Iranian national-security policy. The result is often “mixed signals” from Tehran or, worse yet, indecision and lost opportunities.
To better understand the nature and consequences of policy debates in Iran on national security, it helps to know the institutional arrangements of the political system, whereby multiple and overlapping centers of power often compete with one another for influence. The constitutional setup, as we shall see shortly, easily lends itself to a Balkanization of the state at the highest levels and facilitates the pursuit of competing agendas and differing policies by those in charge of state institutions. With the state already lacking institutional cohesion, factionalism and factional alliances thrive, although both the positions of the various factions on different issues and their alliances with one another change depending on the circumstances or the nature of the issues at hand. The result is the inability of the state to articulate and stick to a coherent set of policies in both the domestic and the international arenas. Meanwhile, international developments, not the least of which are U.S.-led efforts aimed at curbing both Iran’s regional influence and its nuclear program, often play determining roles in forcing the hands of one faction over another or, at times, even marginalizing one or more factions to the benefit of others.
|
| |
|
