In the wake of former President Ebrahim Raisi’s tragic death in a helicopter crash in mid-May, Iran held snap elections that resulted in the victory of Masoud Pezeshkian. The President-elect has since published a foreign policy vision in the Tehran Times titled “My message to the new world,” which has been described as refreshing due to its departure from the zero-sum thinking that often dominates international relations discourse.

Breaking the Binary Worldview

Pezeshkian’s vision challenges the prevalent narrative in both Mainstream Media (MSM) and the Alternative Media Community (AMC) that divides the world into two camps: the West, led by the United States, and the non-West, with China at the helm. This binary worldview often leads to criticism when countries engage in diplomatic efforts across this perceived divide. Examples include the backlash faced by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban for visiting Moscow and the reaction to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington, D.C.

Iran’s New Diplomatic Stance

Traditionally, Iran has been viewed as firmly entrenched in the non-Western camp, particularly given its role in the global transition to multipolarity and the resulting tensions with Western nations. However, Pezeshkian’s article shatters this perception. He expresses a willingness to improve relations with Iran’s adversaries, provided that Iran is treated with respect and its dignity is preserved.

Key points of Pezeshkian’s foreign policy vision include:

1. Welcoming sincere efforts to reduce tensions, with a promise to reciprocate good faith.
2. Prioritizing improved relations within Iran’s home region.
3. Expanding ties with countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
4. Strengthening relationships with Russia and China.
5. Exploring potential avenues for improved relations with Western nations.

The overarching goal of this approach is to create stable international conditions conducive to peace and development.

Understanding Iran’s Political Landscape

To comprehend the significance of Pezeshkian’s vision, it’s crucial to understand Iran’s internal political dynamics:

• Pezeshkian is associated with the “reformist” school of policymakers, who advocate for gradual changes in Iranian policy both domestically and internationally.
• The “principalists,” their political counterparts, are more cautious about reforms, fearing potential corruption of the country’s values or vulnerability to foreign influence.
• Iran’s post-1979 political system is designed with numerous checks and balances to prevent radical policy shifts.
• The Supreme Leader, backed by institutions like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), serves as a safeguard against policies that might compromise Iran’s core interests.

Dispelling Misconceptions

The article emphasizes that Pezeshkian’s interest in exploring rapprochement with the West should not be misconstrued as a betrayal of Iran’s commitment to a multipolar world order. It draws parallels with China’s complex economic interdependence with Western countries and India’s multi-alignment strategy, suggesting that Iran could adopt a similarly pragmatic approach.

The Global Context

The article points out that maintaining significant ties with both Western and non-Western countries is more common than not among non-Western nations. Iran, Russia, and North Korea are exceptions primarily due to Western sanctions, not by their own choice.

While acknowledging the potential risks of economic engagement with the West, such as creating disproportionate dependencies, the article suggests that careful leadership can mitigate these risks.

Realistic Expectations

Despite Pezeshkian’s openness to improved relations with the West, the article tempers expectations, suggesting that Western reciprocation is unlikely. It notes that while many non-Western countries practice strategic autonomy in their foreign relations, Western policy often adheres more strictly to zero-sum thinking.

The Significance of Pezeshkian’s Election

The Iranian people’s choice of Pezeshkian reflects a desire for gradual reform in both domestic and foreign policies. However, the article emphasizes that Iran’s system of checks and balances will prevent any radical shifts.

Potential Outcomes

Two scenarios are presented:

1. If the West rejects Pezeshkian’s outreach (deemed more likely), Iran will likely continue on its current foreign policy trajectory.
2. If some Western nations respond positively, it could lead to increased bilateral trade and reduced tensions, but dramatic changes are unlikely.

Conclusion

Pezeshkian’s foreign policy vision represents a nuanced approach to international relations. It seeks to balance Iran’s interests in a multipolar world while remaining open to dialogue with traditional adversaries. This approach demonstrates a commitment to promoting peace and stability, even in the face of significant challenges.

Pezeshkian is pursuing this path, despite the odds stacked against a successful rapprochement with the West. It underscores that regardless of the outcome, this vision represents an important development in Iran’s approach to global diplomacy.