Foreign Policy from Khatami to Ahmadinejad There is One Foreign Policy in Iran, which is Khamenei's Foreign Policy
This Article is part of an MA thesis: "Iran Wilayat al Faqih System of Governance and Public Policymaking" which tried to investigate the challenges that public policy in Iran is facing under Wilayat al Faqih system of governance. The article here deals with foreign policy making in Iran f rom Khatami to Ahmadinejad in regards to both Iran regional roleand Iran-U.S . relations. It sheds light on the challenges that are facing Iranian foreign policy making which can affect both the regime and the ideology of Wilayat al Faqih itself. It also, discusses series of problems that are challenging the authority of the supreme leader which resulted in a power struggle between the supreme leader (representative of the Wilayat al Faqih institution) and the president (representative of the Republican institution) inside the system of governance when it comes to policymaking. The contradictory roles between both is a result of the president limited power in formulating foreign policies, together with his ideological preferences that is different from the supreme leader. The Article concludes by stating that such power struggle between the offices may impact Iran's domestic policies but not Iranian foreign policies, as Iran is becoming a regional power.
Ideology, Interests, and Foreign Policy
Reasons for violent conflicts between states probably change with changes in the international system. For each system reflects and influences the values of its member states, and conflict within the system results from the incompatibility of those particular values. The crucial characteristic of the nation-state system is the insistence of every state to exist in sovereign equality. From this resolve national interests arise, either objectively or claimed by governments, influencing the behavior of states far more powerfully than other social interests or any other factors, ideology among them. Throughout the era of the nation-state system there has never been any doubt about the predominance of these interests. The argument for national interests as the prime mover has therefore been constant. It mirrors the enduring determination of peoples to have their state survive as an independent political entity. In contrast, the argument for ideology as a significant influence upon state behavior has been intermittent and popular when established values were challenged, as they were during revolutionary periods
Iran: Balancing east against west
Iran is using its carefully cultivated commercial and strategic relations with China, Russia, and India to counterbalance the threat of Western sanctions against its nuclear program. Is today's globalizing economy already diverse enough for this strategy to work?