The Strategic-Culture Question
Are these patterns of behavior persistent enough to reflect Iranian strategic culture? In a 2001 study for the Institute for Defense Analysis and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Caroline F. Ziemke described an “introverted, intuitive, feeling” regarding Iranian “strategic personality”:
In its national and religious myth, Iran is and always has been the “Center of the Universe”—the site of . . . paradise on earth, the homeland of the world’s “global” superpower, the heart of Allah’s righteous society. But Iran has always been a center under siege: an Aryan people surrounded by Arabs and Asians, Shi’a in the predominantly Sunni Muslim community, linguistically distinct from both the Arab and Turkic peoples that surround Iran, and philosophically and intellectually separate from the Christian West and the Orthodox East. The traditional self-image of Persia as the center of the universe reflects a cultural arrogance born of its ancient roots, inventive culture and abundant natural wealth. But it also reflects a sense of deep cultural grievance—the sense that throughout its long history, Persia/Iran has been plotted against, abused, misunderstood, and prevented from achieving its full potential by a hostile, jealous, but inferior outside world.120
With a strong streak of cultural expansionism, she writes, “Iran has strived to build a cultural and/or religious buffer zone around its vision and its values.”121 In such a light, the behavior of the Islamic Republic appears less a break with the shah’s and even the more distant past, and more a continuation of a longer and deeper tradition and understanding of Iran’s rightful place in the world. This center-of-the-universe mentality is not so dissimilar from China’s Middle Kingdom mind-set. Questions about the rationality or apocalyptic visions of the current clerical leadership or Ahmadinejad must be considered as a reimagining of the past, but the hope that a change of regime would entirely end all conflict seems somewhat misplaced.
Indeed, Ziemke’s analysis is more cautious than many others’. Mehdi Khajali of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and once a seminarian at Qom in Iran, writes persuasively about the role visions of the apocalypse play in Iranian security policy. He argues that factions within the IRGC may consider themselves “soldiers of the Mahdi,” or hidden imam, whose apocalyptic return is a central theme of Shia Islam. Members of these factions “bear the responsibility of paving the way for his return,” and indeed these visions would appear to underlie Ahmadinejad’s more extreme pronouncements.122 Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, who served in the CIA and on the National Security Council staff during the Clinton administration, concluded his exhaustive memoir, history, and analysis of US-Iran policy with the observation that “the current regime in Tehran is determined to resist all foreign pressure to acquire [nuclear] weapons and, when it has done so, may revert to an aggressive, anti-status quo foreign policy that could destabilize the Middle East and threaten the vital interests of the United States and its allies.”123
As with China, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the deterrent threshold for Iran will be a high one. Also like China, the Islamic Republic is an unsatisfied power, and its strategic horizons may be more narrowly drawn—although given Iran’s links to international terrorist organizations, its ability to operate on a global scale should not be underestimated—but its sense of threat is probably greater. China has some sense that its rise is inevitable, that, if current trends continue, it will enjoy the great-power status that it considers its due. Iran appears to suffer from a kind of strategic nervousness, both because Iranian power is inherently lesser and more constrained and because the direction of the relevant current trends is harder to understand. Iran must question things such as whether the United States will remain or withdraw in Afghanistan and whether the United States will have an alternative presence in the region, perhaps in Kuwait, following the announced withdrawal from Iraq. At any rate, maintaining a credible deterrent—that is, one the Supreme Leader and the rest of the regime understand to be credible—will be a challenge.
Americans often find it difficult to appreciate the habits and traditions of US strategy making and sustaining the burdens of a world’s worth of security. This is particularly true in an environment marked by slow economic growth, a focus on federal debt and deficits, and “war weariness” over Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, President Obama is framing his force-withdrawal plans as a return to “nation-building at home.”124
A faltering moment is not the same as a long-term trend, particularly in a region that has seen rising US commitment for more than a generation. Perhaps the most succinct summary of the constant concerns of US strategy makers is found in the report of the Independent Panel on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a blue-ribbon panel named by Congress to assess the 2010 Pentagon review.125 In particular, the bipartisan panel, chaired by former Defense secretary William J. Perry and former national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, concluded:
Most obviously, the number, duration, and character of conflicts in the greater Middle East have been unanticipated. The conflict with Iraq has gone through at least five phases: the initial response to the invasion of Kuwait, Operation Desert Shield, defense of Saudi Arabia and its Gulf neighbors; Operation Desert Storm, ejection of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and crippling Saddam Hussein’s offensive capacity; the period of containment, including more than 100,000 no-fly zone sorties and the more-or-less permanent stationing of an Army brigade set of equipment in Kuwait, from 1991 through 2003; Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 2003 invasion and toppling of the Saddam regime; and the current and continuing post-invasion effort to build a viable Iraqi state, an effort that—if successful—will stretch indefinitely into an ongoing strategic partnership. But Iraq is neither the only example nor an anomaly: the American commitment to Afghanistan is in its ninth year and disengagement is likely to be many years away….
Since the removal of the Saddam regime and its bid for regional hegemony, Iran and its allies (like Syria) and terrorist proxies (like Hezbollah) have emerged as an increasingly destabilizing force in this vital region. The Iranian regime’s drive to develop a nuclear capability seems first designed to deter American influence and intervention. But it may also embolden Tehran to increase its aggression through proxies, terrorism, and other forms of irregular warfare to undermine neighboring governments, particularly the oil-rich Arab regimes. An Iranian threat, in turn, will compel these states to both accommodate Iran and consider their own nuclear and advanced conventional programs, particularly if there is doubt about U.S. capacity and commitment. This becomes a strong argument for continuing America’s long-term commitment to and presence in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.126
Preventing the rise of a hostile hegemon—be it an external power like the Soviet Union or a local regime like that of Saddam Hussein or revolutionary Iran—has become encoded in America’s strategic genes. The importance of the region and its energy reserves has not lessened as an element of the international balance of power, either. The QDR review panel also foresaw rising global competition for such resources increasing the likelihood of conflict.
The combination of the increasing demand for (particularly from a China and India on the rise) and diminishing supplies of hydrocarbons and the increasing global water scarcity will tend to link the two geopolitical trends above; that is, the turmoil in the greater Middle East will have ever-larger global consequences and attract increased interest from outside powers, both raising the potential for and perhaps the scope of instability and conflict.127
A number of common themes emerge from a quick consideration of the principles of deterrence to the particulars of the US and Iranian cases. First, the strategic competition between Washington and Tehran has been long lasting and ongoing, and is likely to increase in future; conversely, the prospects for a resolution of differences, let alone the imagined condominium, are low. Second, the competition reflects the most deeply held strategic beliefs, tenets, and doctrines of both the United States and Ir
an and involves what both countries regard as core security interests; that is, neither side is likely to step back for long from an energetic pursuit of current policies. Third, the number of specific areas and points of competition is increasing; these are best regarded as sore spots, opportunities for misunderstanding and competition to become open conflict rather than opportunities to reach accord. Fourth, the military trends appear to be shifting in Iran’s favor, not only in regard to nuclear issues but also—and what should be especially worrisome from a Washington perspective and considering the American desire to rely on conventional supremacy to achieve strategic effects—in regard to the conventional balance. Iran is in no position to defeat US forces in a traditional sense, but its ability to deny the United States the level of conventional supremacy upon which current US policy depends is within Tehran’s sight. Taken altogether, the task of deterring a nuclear Iran is extremely forbidding.