Tehran's Shifting Perspective on the Ukraine War

In a recent telephone conversation between Hossein Amirabdollahian, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and his Danish counterpart, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the war in Ukraine took center stage. Iranian Diplomacy had the opportunity to interview Rahman Ghahramanpour, a prominent diplomacy analyst, to gain insights into Iran's foreign policy stance. Ghahramanpour shed light on Tehran's previous claims of neutrality in the Ukraine conflict and discussed the possibility of a shift in Iran's perspective. Here are the key excerpts from the interview:

Question: Tehran has consistently expressed its opposition to the war in Ukraine and proposed a political solution. However, its neutrality has been met with skepticism. Why has Iran failed to establish itself as a significant actor despite its repeated claims?

Answer: It is essential to evaluate every political statement and diplomatic stance within its broader context. Iran's verbal positions regarding neutrality and ending the war must be viewed alongside its concrete actions. Since the war's inception, Iran has actively supported Moscow and President Putin's aggression in Ukraine. Consequently, Europe and the United States find it difficult to take Iran's claims of neutrality or its efforts to end the war seriously. Iran's practical support for Russia undermines its verbal commitments.

Question: Over the past few months, we have witnessed a clear shift in Tehran's foreign policy, evident in its engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the restoration of relations with Saudi Arabia. Could Hossein Amirabdollahian's recent position signify a new approach by Iran towards the Ukraine conflict?

Answer: There is a possibility that Iran's position is indeed evolving. Recent negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and American and European authorities, along with discussions with the European Union in New York, the Emirates, Oman, and Qatar, indicate Tehran's potential for change in its stance on the Ukraine war. Reports suggest that Iran has also engaged in negotiations in Norway. Furthermore, President Raisi's emphasis on restoring balance to foreign policy during his meeting with Iran's new ambassadors in 11 countries signifies a significant shift. The series of discreet negotiations conducted in recent weeks may have paved the way for Tehran to reassess its approach to nuclear and regional issues, including the war in Ukraine.

Question: Can we expect a genuine change in Iran's view on the Ukraine war based on the ongoing negotiations?

Answer: It is impossible to provide a definitive answer at this stage. The ongoing negotiations remain shrouded in secrecy, with limited information available to the public beyond media speculation. Until we witness tangible behavioral changes, uncertainty prevails. However, based on the available evidence and clues from recent weeks, we can entertain the possibility that the new administration's behavior change in nuclear and regional matters might extend to the Ukraine conflict.

While Iran's claims of neutrality in the Ukraine war have been met with skepticism, recent negotiations and subtle shifts in Tehran's foreign policy approach suggest the potential for a change in perspective. The outcomes of ongoing negotiations and Iran's actions in the coming months will ultimately determine whether this shift becomes a reality.

Question: Many analysts argue that Iran's support for Russia in the Ukraine war has put the country on a one-way path, as it cannot change its behavior without approval from Putin and the Kremlin. How do you respond to this?

Answer: Iran possesses a certain level of independence in its foreign policy decisions. While debates exist about the extent of its independence, recent negotiations indicate that Tehran is striving to convey a message of balanced and rational foreign policy to the international community. It is maneuvering to strengthen relations with China and Russia while also seeking to develop relations with the West and prevent the escalation of tensions.

Question: Why has Tehran changed its behavior now, particularly in relation to the war in Ukraine?

Answer: The issue of Iran's involvement in the Ukraine war has been a topic of discussion since the war's inception. Some argued that Iran should align itself with Russia to play a more significant role in a new world order shaped by Moscow's potential victory over Ukraine. However, others warned of the challenges Russia faces, including logistics, manpower, military capabilities, and political disputes. They cautioned that supporting Russia would lead Iran into a serious crisis. Over the past year and a half, these critics consistently called for a change in Iran's stance toward Russia's aggression. The recent Wagner uprising further magnified these concerns, as it highlighted potential complications in Russia's war management. With Ukraine aligning with Western countries and NATO, doubts regarding Russia's success in the war have intensified. This likely weakens the positions of Russian supporters in Iran and prompts a reassessment of their views on the war in Ukraine. Additionally, China's role in reviving Iran-Saudi Arabia relations indicates a new direction for Tehran's relations with different powers. Therefore, the statements made by Hossein Amirabdollahian and Seyed Ibrahim Raisi signify Iran's desire to convey a message of strategic independence in foreign policy. Iran aims to pursue balanced and harmonious relations with all powers, blocs, and countries, as demonstrated by behind-the-scenes negotiations with European and American officials to de-escalate tensions with the West, encompassing nuclear, regional, and potentially the war in Ukraine.

Question: In a previous discussion, you compared Turkey's behavior in the war in Ukraine to that of Iran and noted differences due to Turkey's membership in NATO and its geopolitical situation. Given the confusion in the West and the impasse in the East, what should Tehran do regarding the war in Ukraine?

Answer: Your question is pertinent, and I'd like to approach it from a different angle. Unfortunately, in our country, instead of engaging in constructive discussions about critical issues that directly impact our security and national interests, debates and conflicting opinions often revolve around political whims and animosities. This limited space hinders thorough investigation, analysis, and understanding of sensitive matters that profoundly affect the fate, security, and national interests of 85 million people. It seems that there is a lack of coordination among authorities, officials, institutions, and organizations, with each holding their own positions and views. It is crucial to subject these opinions to collective scrutiny to determine their accuracy or flaws.

Question: Regarding the war in Ukraine, can you provide more detailed insights?

Answer: Certainly. Just a few weeks ago, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former foreign minister of Iran, shared a brief note shedding light on the current state of international relations and foreign policy. However, it is crucial to examine whether any universities, experts, analysts, institutions, or organizations have critically scrutinized and challenged Zarif's claims to assess the validity and accuracy of these assertions.

To address your previous question about Iran's behavior in the current situation, considering the impasse in the East and the confusion in the West regarding the Ukraine war and the new world order that has emerged over the past year and a half, we must engage in a series of analyses, reviews, meetings, dialogues, consultations, and conflicting opinions. Each university professor, analyst, and observer presents their own perspective in press interviews. However, what is lacking is a comprehensive effort to aggregate these opinions. There should be a platform for policy-making on the war in Ukraine, and all other significant matters, involving political, academic, and media circles.

The statements made by experts today were likely expressed three months ago, six months ago, a year ago, and even at the outset of the Ukraine war. So, why has the Islamic Republic of Iran altered its foreign policy behavior now, resulting in changes in nuclear policy, regional affairs, and other domains? The shift occurred because it was recognized that there was no ideological consensus within the country. However, recently, authorities have come to realize that even impartial experts share the same assessment and have reached a consensus that if the current situation persists, an uncontrollable crisis will arise.

Therefore, it is imperative to investigate, analyze, and critique such sensitive and important issues that directly impact our national security, interests, and the well-being of our people. Additionally, it is essential to establish and maintain a consensus on these matters. The consensus of opinion should serve as the foundation for decision-making. Hence, independent media outlets and virtual spaces should facilitate serious discussions and investigations into how Iran should navigate its foreign policy during this critical period.

Furthermore, once a consensus is reached, capable individuals must be entrusted with translating that consensus into action. Unfortunately, there is a lack of institutions and qualified individuals who can effectively implement consensus-based decisions. Consequently, foreign policy agendas often change. The constant turnover of advisory institutions, experts, and even within the government itself contributes to this issue. To overcome these challenges, we need experts who specialize in specific regions, such as Central Asia, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, America, Europe, and more, and who can provide accurate assessments over a multi-year period. These experts can then offer sound advice to foreign policy decision-makers.

In conclusion, it is essential to acknowledge that addressing sensitive and vital foreign policy issues that impact the fate of an entire nation requires critical dialogue, analysis, and collective engagement. It is not a task that can be accomplished by a single individual, a think tank, organization, institution, ministry, or any single entity. Given the rapid and unpredictable events occurring worldwide on a daily basis, extensive expert work is necessary to cover, analyze, and evaluate news and various issues across all geopolitical realms. This work should incorporate conflicting opinions, academic insights, expert analyses, and media perspectives.

Question: You have made valid points, but I believe there is an important aspect that may have been overlooked, either intentionally or unintentionally—internal policy. Some analysts argue that Tehran is attempting to stabilize its domestic situation by making concessions externally. Do you agree with this assessment?

Answer: Unfortunately, foreign policy in developing countries, including Iran, often exhibits a reactive approach to regional and international events rather than a proactive and strategic approach. This can be attributed to a lack of proper understanding, evaluation, and anticipation of regional developments within the realm of diplomacy. Instead, there is a tendency to react to situations as they unfold. For instance, despite receiving some prior warnings, Tehran was caught unaware by the Wagner Group's rebellion. Therefore, I concur with your statement that internal dynamics and the reactionary nature of foreign policy have played a significant role.

I previously mentioned that when a consensus of opinion is formed, it often fails to translate into effective decision-making within institutions and ministries. This is where many foreign policy analysts argue for an inseparable link between foreign and domestic policies, perceiving foreign policy as an extension of domestic affairs.

Consequently, these two realms should not be treated as separate entities. It is challenging to find a country that successfully navigates global politics while grappling with internal fragmentation, fragility, and socio-economic challenges. Consider North Korea and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, yet they have not been influential in shaping global decisions. Similarly, Egypt, despite Abdel Fattah Sisi's efforts to bolster its international standing, remains hampered by its current internal situation. Cairo is not regarded as a serious player within the Islamic, Arab, or international communities. Hence, a country's strength in the international arena is closely tied to its domestic stability. A government facing internal conflicts, problems, and instability, constantly engaged in addressing domestic challenges, cannot effectively pursue strategic and long-term foreign policy goals. Diplomacy requires a foundation of internal peace and stability.