IRAN’S CULTURAL FOREIGN POLICY IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTHERN CAUCASUS SINCE 1991
Abstract
Although many foreign policy strategists put Iran’s cultural policy on the forefront of its foreign policy agenda, in Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus the Islamic Republic’s emphasis on culture is diminished when compared with its security and economic foreign policies.1 Iran’s foreign policy today is shaped more by pragmatism and realpolitik than it is by revolutionary Islam and a desire to export the revolution. Tehran’s reasons for pursuing a foreign policy that relies more on pragmatism than ideology are many.
The Islamic Republic’s current foreign pol-icy objectives were molded significantly by its experiences with incorporating religious ideology into its foreign policy soon after the Islamic Revolution. A strong and coherent culturally emphasized foreign policy based on Revolutionary Is-lam as a prime motivator for geopolitical decision making was emphasized by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The influence of the Islamic Revolution in Iran clearly had a profound impact on Iran’s foreign policy objectives. As such, in its early days the Islamic Republic of Iran attempted to spread the Islamic Revolution beyond its borders into the Muslim countries of the Persian Gulf.2 However, the Islamic Revolution was not accepted by Iran’s Persian Gulf neighbors, who instead felt an existential threat on their security made by Tehran’s brand of Islam. This threat was part of Saddam Hussein’s reasoning for attacking the Islamic Republic in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988. The war had a significant impact on Iran’s domestic capabilities to provide both a sense of security as well as economic stability for its citizens. The impact of the conflict shifted Iranian thinking away from Islamic ideology and toward a foreign policy that focused on realpolitik and pragmatism. As Iran was isolated geopolitically and devoid of any influence outside the circles that supported Revolutionary Islam, the Islamic Re-public was forced to reorient its foreign policy to meet its security and economic needs. Thus, when the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, a cultural foreign policy was not at the top of Iran’s agenda in the new former Soviet south. Nor was the environment ripe for an export of the Islamic Revolution in the former Soviet re-publics. Islam had developed quite differently under the tutelage of the Soviet Union than it had developed in Iran. Soviet leaders emphasized nationalism and an overarching Soviet culture that naturally included use of the Russian language and state-sponsored atheism. Religion was not dis-mantled totally by the Soviets in the Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus, but it remained in place largely as a tool of nationalism rather than as a means of expression of piety.
The cultural impact of the Soviet Union on these countries was not limited to Islam, and the need for cultural influence came soon after in-dependence. For the countries of Central Asia nationalism was only wrought under the watchful eye of the Supreme Soviet in Moscow, while it flourished in Georgia and Armenia centuries prior to Soviet occupation. It was the Central Asian countries, therefore, that subscribed the most to the Soviet-influenced nationalism; independence brought the overarching Soviet nationalism in these countries to an end and opened the door to allow for cultural influence from countries like Iran.
Iran’s lack of use of revolutionary Islam as a cultural policy in Central Asia and the South-ern Caucasus thus stems from these two historical precedents: the lack of success in exporting the Islamic Revolution to Persian Gulf countries, and the legacy of the development of Islam under the Soviet Union. Iran’s non-pursuit of the export of the Revolution is realpolitik at its finest. Tehran now views promotion of revolutionary Islam out-side its borders as potentially destabilizing for the Islamic Republic in terms of both security and economy. Furthermore, the former Soviet republics are wary of Revolutionary Islam due to the nature of the development of Islam under the Soviet Union. In addition, Iran must check its own foreign policy desires in the context of Russia’s foreign policy needs. Iran’s restraint in exporting the Islamic Revolution is best characterized in the example of Tajikistan, where the political atmosphere was the most likely to accept an export of radical Islam. Iran could have supported the Islamist Coalition that was in power in Tajikistan, but instead chose to support the Russian-backed ex-communists.
Tehran’s tools for cultural foreign policy are not limited to revolutionary Islam and ideology,
Downloads
References
See: D. Byman et al., Iran’s Security Policy in the Post-Revolutionary Era, RAND, Santa Monica, CA, 2001,p. 7.
See: Ibid., p. 8.
D. Byman et al., op. cit., p. 8.
Ayatollah Allama Yahya Noori, Islamic Government and the Revolution in Iran. Royston Limited, Glasgow, 1985,p. 36.
See: M. Mesbahi, “Iran and Tajikistan,” in: Regional Power Rivalries in the New Eurasia: Russia, Turkey, and Iran,ed. by A. Rubinstein and O. Smolansky, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York, 1995, p. 115.
See: D. Byman et al., op. cit., p. 9.
Sh. Hunter, Iran after Khomeini, Praeger, New York, 1992, p. 106.
See: D. Byman et al., op. cit., pp. 8-9.
See: Sh. Hunter, op. cit., p. 115.
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Azerbaijan.
The Uzbeks, for example, were a creation of the Soviet State but became a separate cultural identity under Mos-cow’s designs.
See: Sh. Hunter, Central Asia Since Independence, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, 1996, p. 9.
Ibid., p. 10.
T. Atabaki, “The Impediments to the Development of Civil Societies in Central Asia,” in: Post-Soviet Central Asia,ed. by T. Atabaki and J. O’Kane, Tauris Academic Studies, London, 1999, p. 38.
As Armenians and Georgians would identify themselves primarily as Christians, discussions of Islam in the South-ern Caucasus for the purposes of this paper are limited to Azerbaijan, as Iranian cultural inroads to Armenia and Georgia would not involve Islam.
See: T. Pahlevan, “Iran and Central Asia,” in: Post-Soviet Central Asia, pp. 81-82.
See: E. Walker, “Islam, Islamism, and Political Order in Central Asia,” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 56,No. 2, 2003, p. 23.
See: T. Pahlevan, op. cit., p. 82.
See: M. Atkin, “Tajikistan: Reform, Reaction, and Civil War,” in: New States, New Politics: Building the Post-Soviet Nations, ed. by I. Bremmer and R. Taras, University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 1997, p. 618.
For an excellent discourse of this and other Shi’a development issues, see: S.H.M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.
See: H. Peimani, Regional Security and the Future of Central Asia: The Competition of Iran, Turkey, and Russia,Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, 1998, p. 32.
Sh. Hunter, “Iran’s Pragmatic Regional Policy,” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2003, p. 140.
See: H. Peimani, op. cit., p. 32.
See: D. Byman et al., op. cit., pp. 78-79.
Ibid., p. 13.
See: G. Winrow, “Azerbaijan and Iran,” in: Regional Power Rivalries in the New Eurasia: Russia, Turkey, and Iran,pp. 102-103.
H. Peimani, op. cit.
See: Ibidem.
See: D. Byman et al., op. cit., p. 8.
Namely, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
See: Sh. Chubin, Iran’s National Security Policy: Intentions, Capabilities & Impact, Carnegie Endowment for In-ternational Peace, Washington, 1994, p. 7.
G. Winrow, op. cit., p. 106.
See: H. Peimani, op. cit., p. 57.
See: M. Mesbahi, op. cit., p. 121.
Ibidem.
See: H. Peimani, op. cit., p. 32.
See: Ibidem.
See: H. Peimani, op. cit., p. 45.
See: Ibidem.
See: M. Mesbahi, op. cit., p. 119.
See: Ibid., p. 123.
See: E. Herzig, Iran and the former Soviet South, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 1995, p. 51.
See: A. Rubinstein, “Moscow and Tehran,” in: Regional Power Rivalries in the New Eurasia: Russia, Turkey, and Iran, p. 52.
See: H. Peimani, op. cit., pp. 57-58.
E. Herzig, “Regionalism, Iran and Central Asia,” International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 3, 2004, p. 510.
See: Ibidem.
T. Pahlevan, op. cit., p. 87.
See: E. Herzig, Iran and the Former Soviet South, p. 37.
See: Ibidem.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2007 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.