By Dr. Miklos K. Radvanyi
The Islamic Republic of Iran is impossible to understand if it is viewed almost exclusively through the Western lens of formal institutions because the real political, military, economic, financial, and cultural power lie in obscure as well as overlapping institutional networks. In reality, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a hybrid political system, in which an abnormal government and a militarized religious tyranny have been operating simultaneously. This two-headed monster has expanded uranium enrichment, reduced cooperation with international monitoring mechanisms, and deepened strategic partnerships with non-Western powers, mainly with Beijing as well as Moscow. By believing that coercive economic pressures with limited military actions could be an effective substitute for a comprehensive strategy, the White House woefully ignored the historical Iranian autocracy, militarism, and its suspicion of foreigners in general, and the West in particular. Moreover, since 1979, the Mullahcracy’s foreign policy has been characterized by soaring ambitions that have exceeded the Islamic Republic’s overall capabilities. Historically, Iran has been more than a country. Throughout its long existence it had been a remarkable civilization too. At the same time, Iran has had the feeling that it has a “special place” in the world, coupled with a “special mission.” It was Islamized in the seventh century. It became a minority Shi’a sect in the seventeenth century.
Therefore, it always wanted to stand out as a great regional power. However, its national tragedy has always been not this sense of self-identity, but the fact that its resources never matched its illusory objectives. Consequently, it has always been in a war to achieve these objectives, but it never could, because other states have always been more powerful. As a consequence, the Mullahs have resorted to extreme terror. As long as the revolutionary fervor lasted, this terror did work. Yet, the Islamic Republic’s Mullahcracy hit a wall around the turn of the century. First, the result was stagnation, and then the gulf of spectacular demise took command. The gulf with the West and even with the other Arab states has widened. Presently, the Islamic Republic’s opponents have superior technology, greater economic growth, and stronger military. Finally, the worst part of the Mullahcracy’s catastrophic dynamic is that instead of building a strong state, they created a personalized religious tyranny. Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran is an irreversibly failed state. More specifically, Khomenei’s dream has completely hollowed out. What remains is a corrupt, barbaric, prevaricating pseudo-religious tyranny that is terrible in everything. Thus, the Mullahcracy cannot provide security for its people, cannot feed its people, cannot educate its people, and it cannot even guarantee its own survival.
The Mullahcracy knows that they cannot stop their cart from plunging into the merciless abyss of history. They know that there is no escape from this catastrophe. Plainly speaking, they are cornered. Historically, a cornered state had always been unpredictable, reckless, and is willing to suffer enormous losses to the annihilative end. Even Sun Tzu’s famed “golden bridge” will not be a solution to retreat. Unambiguously, this ancient concept cannot be the foundation of diplomacy and successful negotiations. Continuing on the paths of ambiguous war and hopeless diplomacy will never yield a peaceful result. The only solution to get out of the complex spiral of the presently existing diplomatic paralysis is a coherently unambigious strategy that leads – as quickly as possible – to the demise of the Iranian Mullahcracy.
This strategy must start with establishing total control over the Strait of Hormuz because it is not only strategically very important, but because of its worldwide symbolism. It also falls under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982. Contrary to the Mullahcracy’s claim, the Strait of Hormuz qualifies as an international Strait because it connects one area of the high seas, or Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with another, it is used continuously for international navigation, and it is indispensable to global commerce. Legally, the special status of the Strait of Hormuz equals the legal status of the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Gibraltar, and the Turkish Straits. In this respect, the crucial legal concept is “transit passage.” Unlike innocent passage, transit passage provides ships and aircraft considerably broader rights.
Transit passage includes uninterrupted navigation, overflight, normal operation of ships, submerged transit by submarines, and free movement of military vessels. Coastal states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot suspend passage. It is illegal because the Strait of Hormuz has always been an international Strait, therefore, the doctrine of transit passage applies. More specifically, the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot suspend navigation, cannot require foreign ships to obtain prior permission for transit, and cannot interrupt passage. Moreover, mining the Strait violates freedom of navigation, customary maritime law, and various de Hague rules governing naval warfare. Finally, Tehran’s argument that the closure of the Strait is justified under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter as an act of self-defense is completely bogus because self-defense requires an armed attack, necessity, and proportionality. The same applies to the Sultanate of Oman too.
The next element toward a coherent Iran strategy must be the recognition that any promised or actual changes by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the past have followed a familiar path: the more changes appear to be, the more things remain the same. Clearly, real changes should come from below because they would never come from above. For this reason, it would be a gross strategic blunder to rely on diplomacy and sign documents with the current leadership.
Ultimately, a coherent strategy cannot conflate Iran with the tyrannical rule of a Supreme Leader. Leaving this twisted false constitutional situation intact, would strengthen tyranny instead of being the engine of a fundamentally transformative change toward a democratic Iran, either as a Republic, or a Constitutional Monarchy.