Yves here. Americans are parochial and particularly so with respect to Iran. Reporting is limited and for the obvious reasons, heavily spun. The fact that a single commentator, Mohammed Marandi, has as much sway as he does, by virtue of his perfect American English as well as his skill in interviews, is a testament to how much those of us in the West seem to need to be spoon-fed new information about the Middle East. That is not to denigrate Das’ discussion below but to highlight that even this high-level discussion is likely to prove illuminating precisely because the powers that be have been successful in keeping the Anglosphere un- and mis-informed about Iran.
By Satyajit Das, a former banker and author of numerous technical works on derivatives and several general titles: Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives (2006 and 2010), Extreme Money: The Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk (2011) and A Banquet of Consequence – Reloaded (2021). ). His latest book is on ecotourism – Wild Quests: Journeys into Ecotourism and the Future for Animals (2024). Jointly published by Naked Capitalism and the New Indian Express Online.
Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History by Vali Nasr, Princeton University Press
Iran is an oddity – a non-Arab Muslim nation, global leader of the Shite sect, and the strategically located Eastern boundary of the Middle East. It is one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations dating back to the 5th millennium BC which reached its zenith in the Persian or Achaemenid Empire, once the largest in the ancient world, covering much of Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia.
Iran’s modern history is complicated. The rule of the authoritarian Reza Shah was ended in 1941 by an allied invasion to secure Iranian oil fields and a major route for Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union. In 1943, the Allied Tehran Declaration guaranteed Iran’s post-war independence and sought to create a constitutional monarchy under young Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Political instability followed. In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq’s popular nationalization of the British-owned oil industry triggered the Abadan Crisis culminating in a joint US and UK orchestrated coup in 1953, managed by the CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt. Mosaddeq, who was arrested and tried for treason, was replaced by the Shah who returned from a brief exile.
Under the Shah, Iran evolved into an autocracy aligning itself with American and the West. The SAVAK, the notorious Iranian secret police, relied on arbitrary arrests, torture and killings to maintain the Shah’s reign in the face of increasing opposition, led by the clergy, headed by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who had been exiled in 1964. The 1978 Revolution overthrew the absolute monarchy replacing it with the current Islamic Republic.
Vali Nasr’s Iran’s Grand Strategy examines the evolution of Iran since the 1979 revolution. It follows books such as Michael Axworthy’s 2014 Revolutionary Iran: A History of the Islamic Republic and Laura Secor’s 2016 Children of Paradise: The Struggle for the Soul of Iran.
Axworthy’s meticulous history revealed the Republic’s surprising modernity. It showed the country’s highly educated workforce and technological capabilities, despite sanctions, in weapons manufacture, including its nuclear program, and for political manipulation and surveillance. Secor’s coverage of religious thinkers, politicians, activists and writers provided an affecting picture of Iranians. It showed the competing forces of Westoxication, a term coined by Jalal Al-e-Ahmad signifying self-loathing worship of the West, and national pride in the values of the Revolution. The books revealed the Iranian clerics’ unexpected wide reading including Marx, the Frankfurt School and French de-constructivists. The late Ayatollah Khomeini once defended his repressive rule in terms of Greek political philosophy: “As Aristotle and Plato argued some men are born to govern, others to be governed, a few are aware, and the rest are sheep”.
Nasr He argues that Iranian geopolitics is less driven by ideology than assumed. Instead, policy is shaped by the 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions and nearly destroyed the economy consuming two-thirds of the country’s income. Khomeini likened his acceptance of the ceasefire with Iraq to being forced to drink poison.
The war confirmed the regime’s mistrust of America, which supported Iraq in the war. It reinforced the fear of US-led regime change replacing the Islamic Republic with the Shah’s descendants or other system. Vali Nasr downplays the role of Western powers in Prime Minister Mossadegh’s overthrow. Other historians have argued that most Iranians saw the Shah as a Western puppet and resented the contribution of the US and the UK in returning the Shah to power after the coup. Iranian concern about a repetition of 1953 was one factor behind the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979 which has colored the relationship between the two countries since.
These pressures underlie Iran’s calculated and pragmatic ‘grand strategy of resistance’. Khomeini and his successor Ali Khamenei understood Iran’s weakness especially its lack of conventional military capabilities which was difficult to overcome due to a weak economy and international isolation. Rather than exporting revolution, Iran sought to oppose American hegemony and, optimistically, outlast and exhaust the US and its allies in order to preserve the Republic.
The strategy relied on rallying Iranians with a mixture of nationalist and revolutionary ideas alongside a careful military strategy, mainly devised by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The latter involved forward defense and creating Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’. It involved sponsoring state and non-state actors in the Middle East, such as Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Syrian Alawite regime, the Houthis in Yemen as well as engaging opportunistically with other often short-lived groups. The idea was that these elements, aligned with Iran but simultaneously pursuing their own domestic aims, would distract and occupy its enemies and assist with its defense if needed.
In parallel, Iran began building up its military capacity including drones, missiles and cyber warfare. The controversial nuclear program was designed to secure deterrence and strategic leverage through ambiguity. Institutions like the military and defense scientists became crucial to Iran.
The strategy was flexible. Iran’s agreement to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action allowed it to maintain its missile program and preserve strategic gains with the ultimately failed objective of obtaining relief from Western economic pressures. They pursued diplomatic initiatives such as the reconciliation with Saudi Arabia in 2023 and growing links with Russia and China.
The approach faced rising pressure after President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and increased sanctions. Israel with the support of the US and Gulf states assassinated key military officers (most notably General Qasem Soleimani in 2020), scientists and influential figures as well as launching cyber-attacks on its nuclear facilities.
Iran’s Grand Strategy covers events up to November 2024 and ends before the 2025 Iran war.[1] Israel attacked Iran on 13 June 2025 marking a significant escalation. Subsequently, the US joined the hostilities using its B2 stealth aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran suffered civilian casualties as well as the death of key Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists. Nuclear facilities were damaged although the extent is unclear. The fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium is unknown. The subsequent ceasefire, imposed by the US, is predicated on the “obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and remains fragile. Israel and the US have not renounced a resumption of attacks.
The attacks confirmed Iranian perceptions. There were suspicions that the US used sham negotiations and manipulated a crucial report by the IAEA, the UN nuclear oversight body, to provide cover for the attacks. It highlighted Western hypocrisy on nuclear weapons given Israel’s well-known atomic arsenal. It reinforced the view that American policy sought to maintain the Jewish state’s military advantage and, at a minimum, cripple Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made no secret of his desire for regime change in Tehran. US willingness to deploy its military assets on the side of Israel in support of its territorial and hegemonic ambitions was noted.
Iran’s future approach remains uncertain. The Republic and its proxies are weakened. Even before the 2025 attacks, the Gaza war had already degraded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime fell in December 2024. The Iranian leadership has limited options but the basic tenets of its strategy, which are linked to the survival of the Republic, are unlikely to change.
Iran, which retains nuclear expertise despite the targeted killings of its scientists, has not indicated abandonment of its programs. Given the continuing threats it faces and the knowledge that the US and Israel would not have dared attack if it possessed nuclear armaments, it might now be tempted to weaponize. It is likely to move its program underground. Iran has stopped cooperation with the IAEA and may withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The “12-day war” illustrated that the Jewish state is vulnerable to Iranian missiles and needed extensive US support and intervention. Tel-Aviv cannot, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted, sustain a war of attrition. Iran may seek patiently to rebuild its capabilities and proxies. It might seek to garner support, both political and military, from China, Russia and its Gulf neighbours who increasingly mistrust the US and Israel.
The risk is that the US and Israel back Iran into a corner. Military strategist Sun-Tzu cautioned against pushing an opponent to the point of no return: “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” The West arrogantly ignores that a desperate enemy is a dangerous one. Suffering and martyrdom based around the persecution of believers is a key theme of Shiite Islam shaping its theology and political visions. In the war with Iraq, Iran sent children to walk across minefields to clear paths for their soldiers.
Nasr’s makes the point that the West’s understanding of Iran is inadequate and outdated. Sun-Tzu stressed the need for knowledge: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” As US and its allies’ interventions from Vietnam onwards have demonstrated, there is an inability to see the world other than from a Western perspective and a tendency to underestimate under-equipped, weak and determined opponents.
The confrontation with Iran began seven decades ago and is not over. Iran remains a complex challenge which unless a negotiated modus vivendi can be reached will cause a major conflagration.
Copyright © 2025 Satyajit Das All Rights Reserved
Jointly published by www.nakedcapitalism.com and the New Indian Express Online.
[1] For an update on the developments see Vali Nasr’s article for Foreign Affairs https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/new-balance-power-middle-east-iran
5 comments
Comments are closed.
Some indication of Iranian intentions will be seen by their response to the Lebanese Cabinet decision to disarm Hezbollah, will they continue to let them whither on the vine ? This is of course orchestrated by Mr Witkoff in his travels.
We need to know what accommodations Iran came to with China and Russia recently, shown by the military shipments both are making to Iran. Knowing what we do of Mr Putin’s ideas a commitment about nuclear matters will have been on the agenda. They will have to give up more autonomy than they have been willing to so far to go under the unofficial umbrella. If they seek real protection a Belarus type settlement would be needed.
You can’t push on a string.
The loss of Syria greatly complicated Iran’s supply lines to Hezbollah.
Nasr’s makes the point that the West’s understanding of Iran is inadequate and outdated.
Indeed. I wonder if anyone in D.C. understands how the U.S. of A. screwed up its relationship with Iran by involving itself in the coup d’état against Mossedegh — back in the early 1950s.
I recall reading an analysis of the Islamic revolution by a scholar who had lived many years in the West. He remarked that one of the aspects of the revolution that amazed him was that the U S of A had turned the most pro-American country in the Middle East into an adversary. So I’d add that the West keeps squandering whatever knowledge it manages to acquire.
The fact is that a country with five thousand years of history, that speaks the Persian language — once the lingua franca from Turkey to Bengal, that hasn’t been colonized, and that has its own artistic and literary tradition, isn’t going to fragment and submit.
Heck, even Persian cookery has an influence that extends from Turkey to Bengal.
One of the reasons for the sturdiness of Iranian identity turns out to be Shia Islam. This is not an accident, and it also complicates the structure of the government (and the structure of the Islamic Republic is indeed complicated) and U.S. bafflement at Islam.
Here’s a Wiki article on the forced conversion from Sunni to Shia Islam by the Safavids as part of their empire building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam#
I ran across this historic episode by chance. I note that forcing millions to convert does not align with some opinions that the Islamic world is a greenhouse of tolerance. As the last paragraph points out, there are some similarities to the Reformation (think, oh, Henry VIII).
For me, the greatest value of this piece lies in the way that it makes plain the extreme difficulty that Iran finds itself in. (A gloss on the state of the economy could have filled out this picture more roundly.)
The left take on Iran that I have absorbed through the years, from the likes of MR and other reading, is that the overthrow of Mossadegh was not only unforgivable but completely in keeping with a US and Western foreign policy that has been much more cutthroat than American liberals ever cared to notice, and that (as another reader notes) a great deal of sympathy toward the US on the part of a highly cultured Iranian people was squandered. That–further–when you wipe out the socialist alternative (always the number one enemy of our ruling interests, R or D), you get–as capitalism fails people once more–a turn to the right and embrace of fundamentalism as at least containing some cultural resonance/identity through which to view one’s antagonists and the onslaught of mindless consumerism, which is what we sell. With fundamentalism and dictatorship always preferred to socialism by the US.
The irony that Israel descends from the veneer of Israeli ‘democracy’ to fundamentalism now, in a state that give only Jews political power. . . and that, finally, we do. . .
What is not said is the effect of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s pro-natalist policies. The Iranian population was forced up at a massive pace, which greatly impoverished the average Iranian. And of course, that makes resources like water and anergy etc. so much more costly. Yes, the government has eased up on the forced population growth, although demographic momentum means that the population is still growing, and they have yet to develop the resources etc. to accommodate this massive population increase. In particular, after is coming into short supply, and guess what? More people does not make it rain harder.