Malfunctioning Iran a bigger risk
Riven by paranoia and factionalism, the regime has not seemed to be in control of recent events, writes Mark Almond.
Aruthless and competent Iran, with its arsenal of missiles, unforgiving ideology and network of murderous proxies, is a danger to its neighbours and the wider world. But as the West and the thousands who have taken to the streets in recent days to protest against the regime may be about to discover, a ruthless but malfunctioning Iran could be more dangerous still.
Those of us who have watched Iran over the past few decades know that coherent command-and-control structures and effective government have never been the regime’s forte. But with the catastrophic downing of the Ukrainian passenger plane, the infighting, dysfunction and paranoia have reached a deadly new crescendo. All at a moment of intense pressure.
At the best of times, the regime is a morass of competing factions, each with their own economic power bases. It is a mistake to think that President Hassan Rouhani is in charge. The elected civilian politicians jostle for influence with the Revolutionary Guards, who answer directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
Other factions represent a unique mix of clerical and economic interests. All have an intelligence arm.
But these are not the best of times. Khamenei is frail with age and not in day-to-day control when swift decisions are needed. Favourites, like the assassinated
General Qassem Soleimani, intrigue for his ear. The consequences within Iran of his death are yet to become apparent.
And there is a sense now that the regime is not in complete control of events. Witness the detention of the British ambassador after he went to a vigil for those killed by the Revolutionary Guards’ missile. Someone at the top ought surely to have told the street-level goons to avoid antagonising diplomats.
But most serious is public opinion. The regime is having to handle the angry mourning for the Iranians killed on the Ukrainian plane. This follows other anti-regime protests in November last year, and more in 2018 that targeted the role of Khamenei himself, amid a disastrous economic situation caused by the US sanctions.
Tehran does not seem able to effectively harness pro-regime opinion, either. The frenzied grief that accompanied Soleimani’s funeral, which reached a deadly end in a stampede at his burial, was almost too emotional to be channelled.
The thought that Tehran is not being run by a coherent strategic brain is unsettling. For one thing, it makes a bloody end to the protests much more likely, as a cornered regime looks to protect itself by force.
But it should also disturb the West, as it seeks to replace or revive the failed nuclear deal put in place by Barack Obama.
The chances of negotiating a revised deal were not high, even before the latest dispute over Iranian breaches. Deceit has been used by many kinds of regime, but ‘‘ketman’’ is embedded in Iran’s way of thinking. Ketman justifies deceiving the unbeliever and assures Shi’ites of God’s
Tensions are one of the few things holding the regime together, justifying a hardline reaction to any dissent.
forgiveness. Many will argue that the West was deceived by the current nuclear deal.
But the apparent malfunctioning of the regime makes a diplomatic solution to the latest crisis positively naive.
While you might assume that Iranians would have an interest in lowering geopolitical tensions in such a context, these same tensions are one of the few things holding the regime together, justifying a hardline reaction to any dissent. Moreover, Donald Trump tweeting his solidarity with protesters will not address the fears of those in Tehran who see all protesters as cats’ paws of the Great Satan.
For a long time, many in the West have persisted in seeing the Iranian regime as a clash between ‘‘good’’ moderates and ‘‘bad’’ hardliners. That was never true. They always had more in common with each other than with the West. And their constant jostling for position makes all the components of the Iranian regime inherently untrustworthy and unstable.
Until Iran changes fundamentally, therefore, unreliable and irresponsible actions can be expected. Dealing with the Islamic Republic’s realities means that making a deal that can stick is well-nigh impossible. –