Indian Council of World Affairs

Dear Friends! 

Welcome to the Panel Discussion on Reevaluating Iran amidst the turbulence in the Middle East. 

Since the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979, Iran has provided arms, training and financial support to non-state actors and proxy groups - militias and political movements in at least six countries viz., Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain. Iran has exercised both direct and indirect control over these proxy groups allowing it plausible deniability when these groups use violence while maintaining the power to have them operate in Iran’s interests. A downside for Iran has however been that these groups have also often developed their own interests which Iran did not control or direct. 

Now, for the first time since the Revolution, we are witnessing a weakening of Iran’s “axis of resistance” in the region in the wake of the Gaza War and the fall of Assad in Syria. Let’s recall that, in the first Trump Administration, one of President Trump’s top foreign policy goals was to limit Tehran’s regional influence and support for militant groups across the Middle East. I look forward to the Panel discussing if Iran has begun to perceive terrorism any differently in the region in the wake of the Gaza War and the turbulence in the Middle East. 

Domestically, President Pezeshkian is considered to be the most reform-oriented President since President Khatami. However, despite taking some initiatives such as rolling back some internet restrictions and pausing the draconian new hijab law, his Government is struggling to strike a balance with the hardliners. I hope the Panel will probe into any tangible shifts in Iranian polity with the weakening of Iranian proxies in the region when there is continuing strong hold of hardliners in the Pezeshkian Government. 

US-Iran hostility has been a defining feature of global geopolitics since the Revolution. The two have been locked into enmity, brinkmanship, vicious cycle of allegations and counter-allegations and shrill rhetoric over issues ranging from terrorism, nuclear and missile proliferation, radicalization and sanctions. Iran was designated as a terrorist country by US in 1984 under the Reagan Administration, while the Clinton Administration was the first to sanction Iran’s proxies. President Bush in 2002 in a State of the Union address labelled Iran as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ alongwith DPRK and the Iraq of that time pre-Gulf War II. Present dynamics under Trump 2.0 continue in the same tenor. Tensions are expected to continue to simmer with occasional escalation despite President Trump’s call for a new nuclear deal. 

The Gaza War brought out in full glare the shadow play and machinations between Iran and Israel for decades. For Israel, Iran has been an existential threat with its support to the proxy groups. For Iran, Israel has been a country backed by a western power which has challenged its ambition and legitimacy. Iran was the second Muslim country to recognize Israel after Turkiye under the Pahlawi dynasty, however, after the Revolution, in a quest to emerge as the leader of the Muslim World, it has maintained a cold approach towards Israel. 

It is interesting to note that the beginning of Iran’s nuclear program lies in the geo-political maneuvers of external forces and not so much from an organic need for civilian use. During the Shah’s rule, before the Revolution, the program is understood to have been encouraged by US in order to strengthen Iran’s regional role as an ally of US and Israel. Therefore, current opposition by US reflects how policies and stances change according to the changing scenarios. Iran has been a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and maintains that it has a peaceful nuclear program, however time and again it has been accused of violations in terms of levels of enrichment and under Trump 2.0 it has become more chaotic. Iran is widely considered to be nuclear capable and the Iranian nuclear issue has brought to the fore the flaws in the global non-proliferation regime based on the NPT. I hope the Panel will look at the options available to Iran on the nuclear issue – defiance? or accommodation? – especially in the context of the recent developments in the traditionally close cooperation between Russia and Iran. 

I wish to also point out that this month we have held three discussions on Syria, DPRK and Iran. It was not without design that we clubbed these together and held the discussions consecutively - for these three countries form what has been described as the ‘Axis of Evil’. While events in all these three countries have over taken, the phrase continues to persist in the memory of the International Relations community. 

There is evil in this world for sure but it doesn't reside only in these three countries. 

Labeling a people or a country evil makes for hitting the nadir in international relations. Further, operationalizing the underlying thought through promulgation of law means international relations have sunk into the Mariana trenches. This is symptomatic of a deep crisis in international relations to say the least which needs urgent attention through dialogue, diplomacy and cooperation which unfortunately continue to be in short supply today. 

Prior to President Bush's Axis of Evil, we had the labeling of Soviet Union as an ‘Evil Empire’ at the height of Cold War by President Reagan. Shortly after, a handful of years later, the Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated causing ripples in international relations whose causes and effects are still being studied. 

Use of the word “evil” in diplomatic rhetoric also symbolizes the cross-over of international relations and geopolitics into theology. Real world after all is a fusion of the battles between countries and battles between religions. If this is so, then it helps to remember that both good and evil reside within each person and the most difficult battle is really the 'battle within' and that relentless monitoring of oneself, one's actions and behaviour is key as much for states as it is for individuals to not go astray from the right path. 

No one people can be evil; no one country can be so.  If you are born, you have the right to exist, right to exist with dignity and respect - this is equally applicable to a person as to a state. As they say in Hindi, burai se nafrat karo, bure aadmi se nahin - Hate the wrong action or behaviour, not the individual or the wrong doer. That does not of course mean not to accost evil, navigate it and fear not to defeat it. 

In the discipline of International Relations and diplomacy, it helps to emphasize that no problem, no issue is unsurmountable if there is will.  And if the time is also on our side, the more the possibilities of finding good solutions. And of course that, as Bollywood never fails to tell us, good always triumphs over evil in the end. So really fikar not (worry not)- neither does the ‘Axis of Evil’ argument hold nor is evil beyond defeat. 

I look forward to a thought-provoking discussion. I wish the panelists all the best.

*****