The United States, Europe, and Iran have devoted several months this year to reaching a nuclear agreement. The United States wants an agreement that prevents Iran from building a nuclear weapon by increasing the time it takes Iran to acquire fissile material, reducing Iran’s stockpiles of uranium, reducing the number of Iran’s centrifuges, preventing Iran from producing weapons-grade plutonium, and implementing an unprecedented inspection regime in Iran. Iran wants all sanctions lifted. So far, Iran has not agreed to the U.S. terms, and the U.S. has not lifted all sanctions (although they have lifted some). Based on the following seven Iranian motivations, the negotiations are not likely to be successful, no matter how long the talks are extended. Here are the top seven reasons Iran will keep working to develop a nuclear weapon:
- Returning to its roots
The roots of modern Iran reach back to the Islamic Revolution that toppled Shah Pahlavi in 1979. Shah Pahlavi, a dictator unpopular with many Iranians, received vast supplies of weapons and aid from the United States, which was propping him up to keep out communist influence in Iran (always the goal of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War). Furthermore, the Shah was only in power because of a coup in 1953 orchestrated by the CIA. Because the United States enabled Pahlavi to take power and stay in power, toppling him became a form of combating American influence and establishing full Iranian autonomy.
Iran’s younger leaders, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president from 2005-2013, have returned to this revolutionary spirit, according to Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh. Building on Iranian resentment towards American and U.N. sanctions, Ayatollah Khamenei intends to stand up to the Western powers by achieving nuclear power status in the same manner that his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini stood up to the West during the Iran hostage crisis. The image of “us against the world” works well for heads of state because it rallies public support behind them.
- The “war generation”
In September of 1980, Iraq attacked Iran. The ensuing war lasted eight years and resulted in over 150,000 Iranian soldiers killed, 40,000 Iranian soldiers missing in action, and 2,000 Iranian civilians killed. It ended with a U.N. mediated ceasefire. This war had an immense impact on the generation that endured it. “No single event has defined Iran’s revolutionary ideology, politics, perspectives on society and security more than the Iran-Iraq war,” wrote Iranian research analyst Behnam Ben Taleblu in the National Interest.
Though the Iranian military struggled with planning and resource allocation, many Iranians blamed the West for Iran’s failure to topple Saddam Hussein. In Taleblu’s article, Ayatollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran, is quoted as saying, “It is Saddam Hussein who on behalf of America attacked us, and if we respond to him, it will never have anything to do with the Iraqi nation, which is our brother.”
The “war generation” consists of Iranians who grew up enduring the almost decade-long war. Iran gleaned one lesson from the war: to project its power in the Middle East, it must first ensure that no foreign powers intervene. A nuclear arsenal would go a long way towards making that happen. The war generation is rising in domestic power at the expense of moderate elders.
- Iran said it would
For decades, the Iranian government has espoused nuclear development as the way for Iran to attain scientific and national greatness. Ahmadinejad even created a National Nuclear Technology Day in 2006. So heavily has the government inundated Iranians with this rhetoric that now it cannot make any significant concessions regarding its nuclear industry without incurring hefty political blowback. Were Iran to explicitly agree to de-nuclearizing, it would be telling its domestic population that it was abandoning Iran’s road to greatness, even worse that it was doing so because of Western sanctions.
- Nuclear weapons are great political capital
Nuclear development is a clear, visible goal. Uranium enrichment, new centrifuges, missile tests, all would be tangible achievements the Iranian government could show its citizens. These would signal to the Iranian people the government’s capability not only to accomplish a nationalistic goal, but its ability to do so despite U.S., Israeli, and European opposition. Furthermore, it would help excuse the government’s inability to improve economic conditions and civil liberties because these would become sacrifices made for Iranian power instead of sufferings endured because of Iran’s economic and democratic weaknesses. Whereas the former turns grievances into national pride, the latter turns the same grievances into anger at the government. Nuclear weapons are the political capital that ensures the grievances become national pride.
- Iran wants to be a hegemon
Iran wants to become a hegemon, the most powerful state in the regional system, according to Michael J. Totten of World Affairs. In a recent article, he quoted current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as saying, “Iran has (always) had a global (dimension). It was born an empire.” It cannot become a hegemon, however, with a nuclear power in the region, Israel, and several nuclear powers regularly policing the region, namely the United States, Britain, and France. If Iran ascended to the ranks of nuclear-armed countries, it would obtain the wiggle room it needs to exert its influence regionally without the interventions of non-regional powers.
- Islamist extremism as a justification for autocratic rule
The Iranian government “seeks to buttress eroding support by emphasizing its Islamic character and by equating nuclear technology with nationalistic pride,” wrote Clifton W. Sherrill, a Troy University professor and author on Iranian Islamism. According to Sherrill, Islam has been the central foundation for justifying elites’ power since the revolution in 1979, and as such, even if “some elites wanted to adopt a less ideological posture, acting in such a manner would leave them vulnerable to charges of apostasy by individuals seeking to elevate their own positions.” In essence, Iranian nationalism equals Islamism; Islamism necessitates achieving greatness for Muslims; greatness in the Iranian context is nuclear power; so Iranian Islamism equals nuclear development. This means that if Iran’s most powerful do not vehemently promote nuclear development, they will be quickly challenged by power hopefuls as not being “Islamic enough” for their position.
- “Power begs to be balanced”
Israel is believed to have 80-100 nuclear warheads, according to the Arms Control Association. The rest of the Middle East has zero nuclear warheads. This is unnatural, according to renowned international affairs scholar Kenneth Waltz. By Waltz’s reasoning, Iran wants to develop a nuclear arsenal to balance against Israel’s nuclear arsenal the same way that Pakistan developed a nuclear arsenal to balance against India’s nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, Waltz believed relations between Israel and Iran would become much more stable with an Iranian nuclear arsenal than without, just as relations between India and Pakistan have become since the two became nuclear powers. A nuclear-armed Iran, Waltz wrote, “would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.”
Negotiations
The deck is stacked against a U.S. negotiated nuclear agreement that credibly de-nuclearizes Iran. The majority of the motivations listed for Iranian nuclear development – returning to its roots, the rising war generation, living up to the regime’s nuclear rhetoric, gaining political capital, justifying autocratic rule – are domestic factors beyond the scope of the West’s negotiating power. The two remaining motivations – Iran’s bid at hegemony and Iran’s balancing effort against Israel’s nuclear arsenal – are rooted in realism, an international relations theory that is based on the anarchic nature of the international system, in other words the system’s lack of a world government that could punish aggressors the way a domestic government punishes criminals. Because negotiations with Iran will not alter the international system from realism’s anarchy, these too are above anything the West can offer.
Even if the United States, Europe, and Iran reach a deal – a major if – the deal only freezes Iran’s development at a year away from nuclear weapons capability. There are also serious concerns that Iran will not honor it. Iran has repeatedly violated agreements monitored by the International Atomic Energy Association and even expelled IAEA monitors, according to a Congressional Research Service report. It is simply in Iran’s best interest, given these seven motivations, to develop nuclear offensive capability. Barring a major regime change in Iran, it would be irrational for Iran not to pursue that course. Agreement or no agreement, Iran will get a bomb.
-By William Robinson
Photo Credit: Wikipedia
