MADRID – With Donald Trump in the White House for the second time, we are looking at how the United States perceives Iran, and how this political vision is shaping the decisions that have already been made and will be made regarding the Iranian issue. It is essential to understand how this affects Islamic Republic.
This analysis is key to understanding the dynamics that have shaped and continue to shape bilateral relations and the implications this has for international politics.
Strategic culture provides a basic framework for analyzing interactions between Iran and the United States, two actors with vastly different approaches to foreign policy, security, and international relations. Understanding the actions of both countries requires examining their respective strategic cultures, which are deeply influenced by historical, ideological, and geopolitical contexts.
Iranian strategic culture
Resistance and Sovereignty: The 1979 Islamic Revolution established Iran’s policy of resistance to what it considers to be oppression and external intervention, especially by Western powers. The principle of “resistance” has become a central pillar of Iran’s strategic culture, driving Iran to reject foreign influence and consolidate its independence.
Forecasting regional power: Iran has developed a foreign policy aimed at expanding its influence in West Asia, with particular emphasis on countries such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. To this end, it leverages both diplomatic and military resources, as evidenced by its support for groups like Hezbollah and Shiite militias in the region.
Islamic Revolution and Islamic Values: Iran positions itself as a champion of political Islam and Islamic revolution, challenging the world order led by “imperialist” powers such as the United States. This approach promotes an alternative model to capitalism and liberal democracy and aims to establish regional leadership based on Islamic principles.
Pragmatic Diplomacy: Despite its resolute stance, Iran has demonstrated pragmatism in its diplomatic approach. A prime example is the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, in which Iran showed flexibility to protect its national interests. Therefore, its strategic culture is not only confrontational, but also adaptive when it comes to safeguarding sovereignty and security.
US strategic culture
Global Hegemony and Leadership: The United States has adopted a foreign policy aimed at maintaining global hegemony and strengthening its role as a leader in the international system. The principle of “world leadership” holds that the United States must be the main defender of the liberal international order.
Use of military force: Throughout history, U.S. strategy has relied heavily on military force to ensure U.S. security, protect our strategic interests, and sometimes enable us to intervene in international conflicts. Military power is combined with a nuclear deterrence approach, aimed at preventing threats to its own and allied interests. This approach led to military interventions in areas as diverse as West Asia, Afghanistan, and the Korean Peninsula.
Unipolarity and diplomacy: After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States solidified its position as the sole superpower in a unipolar international system. During this period, it sought to expand its influence and strengthen its global leadership through diplomacy, economic sanctions, strategic alliances, and cooperation in multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, and the WTO. U.S. diplomacy has become an important tool for consolidating its power and protecting its global interests.
Considering the strategic cultural differences between Iran and the United States, it is easy to see how the latter generally divides the countries into two major categories. It recognizes Iran as either a “vassal state” or an “enemy.” In this framework, countries are either considered allies and friends of the United States, or placed in categories with which no significant interactions occur and are often ignored by the US government. From a U.S. foreign policy perspective, countries are either aligned with their national interests or opposed to their national interests. The third option in U.S. foreign relations is usually a rare exception.
Iran and US exceptionalism
Both countries see themselves as “exceptional” and distinct from other countries. The United States considers itself a great nation based on the social, economic, institutional, and political characteristics that define its society. This recognition strengthened its role as an international power, underpinned by a belief in its unique historical mission that justified global intervention to advance its values and principles.
On the other hand, the exceptionalism of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on two important sources of identity: Shia Islam and Iranian nationalism. In recent decades, Iranian leaders have also taken the position that the state must support both Muslims and non-Muslims suffering from oppression and colonialism.
Iran’s strategic importance to the United States
With that in mind, it is important to delve into how the United States perceives Iran from a geopolitical perspective. Seen from this perspective, Iran has characteristics that make it a country of great strategic importance to the US government. Its geostrategic location, with its important border border in one of the world’s most conflict-prone regions and its vast natural resources, including oil and gas, has always attracted attention from the United States. Iran’s position in West Asia, which is considered highly relevant in the international arena, further strengthens its centrality in US strategic calculations.
Furthermore, Iran not only borders Russia, one of the United States’ major geopolitical competitors, but is also located in the heart of one of the most conflict-ridden and conflict-prone regions on Earth.
From this perspective, the United States expects Iran to act in line with its national interests. In this context, the US has assigned Iran the role of a “vassal state,” meaning that it expects Iran to leverage both its natural resources and strategic location to support US interests. means. If Iran refuses to play this role, as it has so far, it will be seen as an “enemy” and there will be major changes in bilateral relations.
An analysis of the United States’ security strategy over the past few decades reveals that the rise of the United States as an international actor is based on Washington’s undisputed hegemony over the continental United States. According to this view, “The United States must prevent any nation from gaining an advantage in other regions, and strive to balance power among regional powers by creating a balance of power among them.” This principle remains one of the pillars of U.S. foreign policy.
In contrast, Iran’s leaders are backed by soft power bases such as geographic location, population, material power resources, and ultimately nationalism and Shiaism, and the consolidation of their strong position in the Persian Gulf is I believe this is an inevitable fate for Muslims. Republic of Iran.
This problem is further exacerbated by important differences in the two countries’ understanding of behavior. While the United States adopts an aggressive approach in its strategic culture, willing to use force when deemed necessary in pursuit of its objectives, Iran, on the other hand, primarily It is characterized by a defensive approach centered on deterrence.
what should happen
The United States’ inability to bend the Islamic Republic’s political will has slowed its plans to withdraw from the region and pivot to East Asia. The main reason for this delay is the United States’ refusal to accept Iran’s strategic position and its insistence on weakening Iran. This issue is unacceptable to Washington, which believes it cannot abandon the region without first weakening Iran and the Axis of Resistance.
Politically speaking, the very existence of the Islamic Republic is a model that challenges the hegemonic will of the United States and poses a threat to the liberal system.
Therefore, any US administration, regardless of political affiliation, will view Iran through the lens of an “enemy state.” This does not mean that diplomatic agreements cannot be reached on a case-by-case basis, as was the case during the Obama administration regarding the 2015 nuclear deal, but it remains a relationship defined by mistrust and conflict.
In particular, Donald Trump’s return to the White House is likely to result in a reimposition of the so-called “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran and an attempt to expand the scope of normalization agreements between Arab states and Israel. However, these two moves should not be seen as anomalies in President Trump’s relationship with Iran, but rather as part of what could be called a “long-term strategy” of the United States to damage and weaken the Islamic Republic. should be considered.