A Solution to Middle East Crises
Undoubtedly, Iran's top priority after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is to initiate cooperation with neighbors, and restore peace and stability in the region. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has explicitly addressed this issue in his interviews, speeches and several articles published in Western and Arab media.
War against terrorism and removal of breeding grounds for structural violent in the region is another priority which can serve either as the prelude or as the outcome of regional cooperation and restoration of close ties between neighbors. This was the proposal set forth by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in his UN Speech in September 2013. It was later ratified in form of a resolution by the General Assembly in 2014.
There is no magic wand for restoring peace and stability to the Middle East. However, three steps can help us in reaching this goal: an agreed-upon theoretical framework, correct understanding of each other, and feasible, clear action plans.
First and foremost, a theoretical framework is most useful to determine the scope of cooperation, remove obstacles, and encourage contribution. Drawing on Johan Galtung's Structural Violence Theory can prompt change of myopic views in the region, remove the breeding grounds for violence and terrorism in short-term, and uproot terrorism in long-term. Four types of violence are outlined in Galtung's theory which include: economic violence, political violence, cultural violence and imperialism.
Poverty and economic inequality are key symbols of economic violence. To neutralize the breeding grounds for terrorism, any action that facilitates economic development and increases the wealth of any country or region should be supported. In this context, unconstructive actions such as expressing concern about release of Iran's frozen assets or economic development of neighbors will not be helpful. Bear in mind that no state will opt for reducing its military and security expenditures at the time of economic difficulties and it will be the citizens' welfare and employment that will suffer drops in income and economic disruption, which in turn create grounds for violence.
Absence of democratic mechanisms such as elections, and ignoring legitimate popular demands is another factor that stimulates violence. The more the attention to democratic mechanisms, the less separatist inclinations and grounds for terrorism. Iran's democratic experience goes back to one-hundred years ago and the Constitutional Movement. In that regard, Iran may have a history different from other countries of the region. Any effort for reform and political openness is valuable however.
Cultural violence that draws on identity gap is another factor that contributes to spread of violence and terrorism in the region. Any attempt to escalate religious or ethnic tensions such as the Shia-Sunni gap, or to inflate allegations such as the Shia Crescent or renews zeal for a Safavid or Ottoman Empire will foster the grounds for structural violence.
The fourth factor is what Galtung calls 'structural imperialism' and I call 'foreign intervention'. During the recent decades, foreign intervention has never been constructive. The 'divide and rule' policy and Sykes-Picot forged borders have been the legacy of colonial intervention in the region. Those interventions have been one of the main causes that violence has spread in the region, from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and creation of Mujahedeen, to support for Saddam during his invasion of Iran and Kuwait, and the wars in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
Understanding the nature of politics and state in Iran is important here. There has been intensive discussion about this, particularly after the nuclear deal was settled. Is Iran a Westphalian state? A revolutionary regime? A modern establishment? I believe that Iran is a revolutionary, yet modern and pro-stability country. It is a legitimate question to ask how these features would come together. Iran is a revolutionary regime, since it will not trade off its independence at any rate, and will not return to the pre-Revolution mode of relations with hegemons. Iran, on the other hand, is a pro-stability power, that is, it is not looking for expansion and hegemony in the Middle East. One might say that this is the official diplomatic line of every country, but there are evidence to corroborate my claim and explain why stability serves Iran's interests in the region.
From a geopolitical perspective, Iran is fully content with its population, territory, and political, economic and military power and feels no urge to satisfy its shortcomings in these areas via any expansionist policy. On the contrary, Iran believes that stability will better serve the continuation of its increasing power. Moreover, geopolitical developments of the last decade have mainly served Iran's interests, and there is no sense of necessity to change this course. Destabilizing efforts in the Middle East are pursued by those countries that suffer imbalance of power, or view themselves at the receiving end of geopolitical developments of the last decade.
Iran's constitution, in the meantime, rejects domination in all forms. Article 152 of the Islamic Republic of Iran Constitution reads: "The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it". This portrays a country that is pro-stability.
The result of these guidelines is a participatory foreign policy, one that does not seek marginalization of any major or minor actor in regional interactions, be it Qatar or Saudi Arabia. Iran views its regional partners from an equal basis, and is not seeking vassal states for itself. Iran's current foreign strategy is based on three tenets: multilateralism vs. unilateralism, independence and self-determination of countries and respect for their borders, and opposition to any form of foreign intervention.
The prerequisites for such a policy include: belief in dialogue, abstention from violence, implementation of universal anti-terrorism mechanism and avoiding selective application of such mechanisms, and finally, abstention from taking advantage of ethnic or religious cards for political purposes.
Establishing a forum for broader dialogue in the Persian Gulf region can facilitate reaching solutions. The exceptional approach towards negotiations that was implemented during nuclear talks between Iran and P5+1 and resulted in JCPOA can be used as a model for regional dialogue.
Returning stability to Middle East may seem a formidable task. Nonetheless, this is a task to be done. Through an efficient theoretical framework, correct, non-biased understanding and focus on feasible solutions, we can move towards removing or at least decreasing instability in the region.
* This piece was originally published in Iranian Diplomacy English. Alireza Miryousefi is director of Iran's Center for Middle East Studies (IPIS) and former head of the press office at Iran's Mission to the United Nations.