Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1994-06 Determinants of Iranian foreign policy : the impact of systemic, domestic and ideologic factors Kruse, James H. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/28116 DUDLEY KNOX UBKftKY NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA 93943-5101 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Determinants of Iranian Foreign Policy: The Impact of Systemic, Domestic and Ideologic Factors by James H. Kruse Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy B.S., Central Michigan University , 19 81 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 1994 11 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704- Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average i hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and comrileting and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washingon headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1 . AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 1994 Master's Thesis 4. Determinants of Iranian Foreign Policy: The Impact of Systemic. Domesuc and 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Ideologic Factors (Unclassified) 6. AUTHOR James H. Kruse 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION Monterey CA 93943-5000 REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. ABSTRACT This thesis attempts to explain the origin of state behavior in international politics, It compares the arguments of state level theorists who emphasize the decisive role that internal attributes, including domestic politics, political elite and regime ideology, to that of structuralists, who focus on the decisive impact of the structure of the international system. The difference is crucial: do we examine domestic politics in order to predict state behavior in international affairs or do we assume that any state, given its place in the international system, will act similarly without regard to these internal factors? The case study examined is Iran, from the early 1960s to 1989. During this period, the international system remained bi-polar, dominated by the U.S.-U.S.S.R. rivlary. The internal attributes of Iran changed radically, however, as a result of its 1979 revolution. With such a fundamental shift, state level theorists would expect a radical change in Iranian foreign policy. With the continuity of the international system, structuralists would expect essential continuity in Iran's external behavior. This thesis shows that despite rhetorical changes, Iranian foreign policy remained fundamentally the same under the Shah and the Ayatollah. The structural approach is a more useful guide to understanding state behavior. 14. SUBJECT TERMS International Relations, Foreign Policy, Iran 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 125 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFI- 18. SECURITY CLASSIFI- 19. SECURITY CLASSIFI- 20. LIMITATION OF CATION OF REPORT CATION OF THIS PAGE CATION OF ABSTRACT ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 ABSTRACT This thesis attempts to explain the origin of state behavior in international politics. It compares the arguments of state level theorists who emphasize the decisive role that internal attributes, including domestic politics, political elite and regime ideology, to that of structuralists, who focus on the decisive impact of the structure of the international system. The difference is crucial: do we examine domestic politics in order to predict state behavior in international affairs or do we assume that any state, given its place in the international system, will act similarly without regard to these internal factors? The case study examined is Iran, from the early 1960s to 1989. During this period, the international system remained bi-polar, dominated by the U.S.- U.S.S.R. rivlary. The internal attributes of Iran changed radically, however, as a result of its 1979 revolution. With such a fundamental shift, state level theorists would expect a radical change in Iranian foreign policy. With the continuity of the international system, structuralists would expect essential continuity in Iran's external behavior. This thesis shows that despite rhetorical changes, Iranian foreign policy remained fundamentally the same under the Shah and the Ayatollah. The structural approach is a more useful guide to understanding state behavior. 111 ~7Zjuo EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This thesis attempts to explain the origin of state behavior in international politics. It compares the arguments of state level theorists who emphasize the decisive role that internal attributes, including domestic politics, political elite and regime ideology, to that of structuralists, who discount these internal attributes, and focus instead on the decisive impact of the structure of the international system. The difference is crucial: do we examine domestic politics in order to predict state behavior in international affairs or do we assume that any state, given its place in the international system, will act similarly without regard to these internal factors? Iran provides a unique case to compare the expectations of these two theoretical orientations. Following the Islamic Revolution, there was a drastic change in the nature of the internal attributes of Iran. The character of domestic politics changed, the composition of the political elite changed and the ideology of the regime changed. The international system, however, did not change as a result of the Islamic revolution; the bipolar system that characterized the Shah's reign continued for the first ten years of the Islamic Republic. These two orientations, then, would expect radically different types of behavior in international politics from Revolutionary Iran. State level theorists would expect a fundamental change in the nature and substance of Iranian foreign policy while Structural theorists would expect major iv IDLEY KNOX LIBRARY NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA 93943-5101 continuities, with only stylistic changes from Pahlavi to Islamic Iran. Structuralists are primarily concerned with important issues dealing with national survival, and the strategies regimes develop to ensure their security. In these issues, they are clearly correct. In issues regarding state survival, neither domestic politics, composition of the political elite, nor regime ideology made any difference. When confronted with destruction of its revolutionary regime by the Iraqi invasion, Iran abandoned its efforts to isolate itself from the international system and sought arms from its most repugnant ideological enemies, the U.S., Israel and the Soviet Union. It engaged in balancing behavior, allying with Syria, a secular state based on Arab nationalism. It sought to market its oil to any nation that would purchase it, often selling on the spot market to American companies, below the posted price. Relations between Islamic Iran and the superpowers waxed and waned depending on the level of threat that Iran perceived was posed by the opposing superpower. Iran sought to undermine the forces arrayed against it in the gulf through conciliatory policies toward regimes such as the U.A.E. and Qatar that were sympathetic to its views. In short, Iran was, as predicted by structural theory, socialized by, and participated in, the international system. The case of Iran also illustrates that ideology makes little difference in the conduct of relations between nations. Whether purchasing arms, marketing its oil or soliciting financial assistance, ideology has not been a constraint on the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic. All states, including revolutionary states such as Iran, the current regime in Haiti and Islamic regimes that are threatening to emerge in various Middle Eastern states, are clearly constrained by the international system. It is certainly possible, and in some cases likely, that these states will oppose U.S. strategic or regional interests, but they are still vulnerable to traditional power politics. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY 6 A. STRUCTURAL REALISM 9 B. DECISION MAKING PROCESS 18 C. CONCLUSION 24 III. INTERNAL ATTRIBUTES OF PAHLAVI IRAN 26 A. DOMESTIC POLITICS 26 B. THE POLITICAL ELITE 31 C. IDEOLOGY 33 D. CONCLUSION 35 IV. INTERNAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC 36 A. DOMESTIC POLITICS 36 1 . The Provisional Revolutionary Government of Iran 37 2. The Bani-Sadr Presidencv 41 3. The Consolidation of Clerical Power 47 B. POLITICAL ELITE IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC 51 C. IDEOLOGY