In the history of Iran’s foreign relations, following the emergence of modern diplomacy, the country’s foreign policy was initially shaped around survival. From almost the era of the Iran-Russia wars onward, external policies were crafted primarily to preserve the state’s existence. Over time, that approach shifted toward a strategy of development and later toward expansionism. Yet today, Iran’s foreign policy appears to have once again reverted to a phase defined solely by survival.
Hossein Salimi, Iran Daily
The shift toward a survival-centered doctrine stems from a serious theoretical fallacy in how foreign policy is understood by key actors in the field.
A review of the prevailing discourse in Iran’s foreign policy suggests that the theoretical framework guiding decision-makers and principal actors rests on four main pillars that lie at the heart of this misreading.
1. Classical realism: A view of foreign policy that reduces security exclusively to its military dimension, subordinating all other considerations to a particular understanding of security — one attainable only through military power.
2. Marxism: A perspective that portrays the world as a realm of domination, holding that the capitalist system is controlled by specific capitalists, particularly Jewish ones, who in turn use states as instruments of control.
3. The duality of good and evil: An outlook rooted in Manichaean culture, depicting the world as an arena of an endless struggle between good and evil, not grounded in monotheism, but in a perpetual conflict between opposing moral forces.
4. Dependency theory: A theory asserting that the more extensive a country’s ties with the global capitalist system, the less development it will achieve, thereby emphasizing inward-looking policies and self-sufficiency.
The convergence of these four elements has made it difficult for the country to grasp the realities of today’s international system. Some of the pillars underpinning this framework have outlived their historical relevance, while others are internally inconsistent. The very concept of security, for instance, has undergone a profound transformation. It is no longer defined solely by military capabilities or nuclear energy.
Human security and a country’s position within global value chains have emerged as key instruments in building sustainable security. Yet the prevailing theoretical framework in Iran leaves out these concepts, effectively depriving the country of the opportunity to draw on such resources.
This framework also shapes Iran’s posture in international negotiations. An exclusive focus on certain issues without considering how to integrate into global value chains or forge regional alliances aimed at sustainable security cannot ensure genuine national security. In today’s world, security takes shape in countries that are embedded in global value chains, not merely through missile arsenals or military strength.
At various historical junctures, this fallacy has exerted a decisive influence. Whenever Iran’s foreign policy has been confined to survival alone, the country has been pushed toward periods of decline or deep crisis. The current situation suggests that once again the focus of foreign policy has been narrowed to mere preservation.
The result has been a widening gap between Iran and the realities of the international system, transforming the country into a passive actor that waits on the decisions of others and merely falls back on reactive measures.
A proper understanding of foreign policy and the safeguarding of national security therefore require a theoretical framework capable of enhancing statesmen’s ability to comprehend global dynamics and engage intelligently with the international system. Without revisiting and revising this framework, an accurate reading of global realities and the design of an effective foreign policy will remain out of reach.
In other words, preserving national security today demands recognition that foreign policy is not simply about survival. It requires active and intelligent engagement with global structures, participation in value chains, and regional cooperation — capacities that the current theoretical framework in Iran does not fully possess.
