By Atiq Ullah
Ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979, the regime in Tehran has consistently been seen as a significant threat to global peace, particularly by the United States and its allies.
This view was significantly strengthened during the Bush administration, which famously labeled Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil.” The breakdown of diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States following the revolution and the 444-day hostage crisis further intensified this hostile relationship. Iran’s opposition to Israel and its anti-Western rhetoric have also contributed to negative perceptions in the West.
However, a closer examination reveals that many of Iran’s external actions are driven by a sense of existential threat and a desire to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Despite these underlying motivations, the narrative of Iran as a threat persists, shaped by historical events, ideological differences, and geopolitical amenities.
The Iranian regime has adopted an anti-Western and anti-Israeli stance, which is primarily influenced by the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government of Muhammad Mossadegh by US and British intelligence agencies (MI5 and CIA) in response to Mossadegh’s policies of nationalizing oil.
The intervention of Western powers in Iran’s internal affairs has caused resentment among the country’s middle and working classes. Additionally, Arab states accused the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, of exporting the revolution to neighboring countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. Fearing this threat, the Arab monarchies sought to weaken the new Iranian regime. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, made efforts to destabilize the Iranian government with the support of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, even though Saudi Arabia did not fully support Saddam’s Ba’athist regime. These tensions led to the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted for a decade and ultimately resulted in Iraq’s defeat, strengthening the pillars of the Iranian revolution.
In response to the Iran-Iraq war and perceived threats, Iran took security-oriented actions to protect its territorial integrity and enhance its strategic depth. The perceived threats from outside actors led Iran to participate in the nuclear race and establish a network of militias encircling hostile states, while also supporting friendly regimes in the Middle East.
Iran has been supporting the Bashar Al Asad regime in Syria, as a response to civil unrest and the threat of ISIS (Islamic State of Syria and Iraq) in this country. Iran has provided arms, funding, and training to various proxy militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestine to oppose the allies of the United States, particularly Israel, in the Middle East. In response, the United States heavily sanctioned Iran, which is now the most sanctioned country in the world, after Russia. Meanwhile, Israel has been involved in the killing of high-profile Iranian members, including scientists and military personnel of Iran and its Axis of Resistance.
The United States has deeply emphasized Iran’s threat to world peace, to U.S. interests, and to the state of Israel. However, the Western narrative, and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and especially toward Iran, is deeply influenced by powerful lobbies in the United States.
Theoretical Landscaping
The constructivist theory in International Relations explains the role of ideas, beliefs, moral values and identities in shaping an actor’s behavior. According to this theory, threats are not objective realities but are socially constructed through discourse and interactions.
Therefore, the perception of the Iranian threat does not reflect Iran’s material or nonmaterial capabilities but is shaped by how various actors discuss and interpret Iran’s perceived actions. This approach highlights that the view of Iran as a threat is constructed through specific rhetorical strategies and practices used by states and other influential actors. Characterizing Iran as a threat involves using specific narratives and framing techniques.
The United States, Israel, and Gulf Salafi or Sunni-dominated monarchial states use rhetoric that highlights Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, efforts to stabilize the region, and support for militia groups. These narratives often portray Iran as a significant destabilizing actor in the Middle East. These rhetorical strategies shape international perceptions of Iran and can influence public opinion and policy decisions. These states’ identities, values, norms, and interests further shape their perceptions of the Iranian threat. For instance, historical enmities between Iran and monarchical states and ideological and strategic rivalries contribute to a more negative portrayal of Iran. Constructivist theory advocates that these identities are not static but evolve through social interactions and discourses.
Consequently, the perceived threat from Iran is closely linked to the constructed identities of these states and their strategic interests in the region. Empirically, important insights emerge when rhetorical assertions are compared with actual evidence regarding Iran’s capabilities and intentions. For example, evaluating the Iranian nuclear program or its participation in regional conflicts can help determine whether the presented threat corresponds with the existing empirical evidence. Instances such as the negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal offer specific illustrations of how rhetoric and reality interact and impact international policy.
Iran: A Defensive Realist
Through the lens of defensive realism, the actions of Iran are primarily driven by security concerns rather than expansionist ambitions. Defensive realism posits that states pursue different measures to survive and prioritize security in the anarchic world in response to perceived threats. In the case of Iran, the overwhelming support for proxy networks and its nuclear program are the efforts of Iran to deter perceived threats from hostile neighbors and global Western powers.
The perceived threats are rooted in the historical interventions of external powers in Iranian domestic affairs. At the same time, Gulf states and Israel accuse Iran of flexing its muscles to dominate the region, which fits the offensive realism of John Mearsheimer. When someone compares the capabilities of great powers with Iran, Iran does not fit into regional hegemonic designs.
All potential hegemony in history expanded their geographical territories, like Germany forcefully annexed Alsace Loraine, the United States expanded its geography towards the West through Manifest destiny and Monroe doctrine, and Imperial Japan expanded its influence towards Manchuria and South East Asia. The annexation of lands gives the potential to the states to dominate the region; influencing Arab states through proxies is far different from annexing territories. Potential hegemonic states had immense production capabilities and modern technology. For example, from 1903 to 1914, Germans dominated Europe in producing iron and other goods. Compared to Iran, it would have barely fulfilled the domestic needs of the population. Therefore, Iran positioned itself defensively rather than offensively. Iran aims to secure itself from any potential aggression and employs proxies to deter potential aggressors.
Iran: A Threat to World Peace?
The Western powers often portray Iran as a threat to world peace. Western scholars argue that Iran’s nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. However, this concern could be more applicable to Pakistan due to its political instability and troubled civil-military relationship.
Iran is the country that spends the least on its military, and it has never supported ultra-religious extremist organizations like ISIS. In contrast, Saudi Arabia has actively supported these groups to promote its Salafi ideology in the region. Saudi Arabia is the highest military spender in the Middle East, and Iran is far behind in terms of modern weapon capabilities compared to Gulf states.
Other concerns about the Iranian threat stem from its support of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. However, Iran claims that it supports these organizations against US-Israeli aggression in Palestine. Iran is rarely ranked among the countries that support terrorism worldwide, even in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is seen as the leading country supporting terrorist organizations among Muslim states. Conversely, Iran provided economic support to the Kurds in their fight against ISIS during the Syrian civil war.
The actions of Iran are primarily motivated by defensive concerns, whether it is their nuclear program or their support of proxies in the region. During the Iran-Iraq war, the US invited top Iraqi scientists for training in nuclear physics, which Iran perceived as an existential threat to its integrity. In response, Iran intensified its nuclear program.
However, during the Obama administration, the P5+1 countries (US, UK, China, Russia, France, and Germany) signed a nuclear deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015. The agreement aimed to halt uranium enrichment to weapon-producing levels and ensure that Iran’s nuclear program would remain peaceful. Nevertheless, the US government under Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal and imposed sanctions against Iran due to the intense pressure of Israeli lobbies.
Conclusion
The portrayal of Iran as a significant threat to world peace is heavily influenced by historical events, ideological narratives, and geopolitical rivalries rather than ground realities. The rhetoric propagated by the United States and its allies has constructed an image of Iran as a destabilizing actor in the Middle East. However, an objective examination through the lenses of constructivist theory and defensive realism reveals that Iran’s actions are primarily security oriented and the need to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity in an anarchic international system where no higher authority is above states.
While Iran’s support for proxy groups and its nuclear ambitions are regarded with suspicion, these actions can be understood as defensive measures against perceived external threats from its arch rivals Israel and Saudi Arabia. Thus, the portrayal of the Iranian threat is not a reflection of Iran’s behavior but a complex construction shaped by a mixture of strategic, geopolitical interests, historical hostilities, and ideological disagreements.
Author: Atiq Ullah – Expert in Middle East politics, digital international relations and security studies, currently pursuing a BSC (Hons) in International Relations.