In recent weeks Iran has conducted two tests of medium-range ballistic missiles. These missiles were test-fired from northern Iran towards targets 1400 kilometres to the south. As these provocative actions took place weeks after the implementation of the controversial Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding Iran’s nuclear program, there are many around the world who find this deeply worrying.
While the missile tests on their own are troubling enough, Iranian media reported that the missiles were painted with a message stating that “The Zionist regime should be wiped from the pages of history.” This was originally a quotation from the Ayatollah Khomeini, the late leader of the Islamic Revolution, and was notoriously repeated by former President Ahmadinejad.
Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh was quoted by Iranian state media as saying that the missiles would have sufficient range to hit targets in Israel. However, Iranian news source Khabar Online quoted him later as clarifying that the missiles were for defensive purposes only. According to Iranian authorities, they are meant to show Iran’s “deterrence power.” Furthermore, the Iranian government emphasizes that these missiles were conventional weapons and not capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
The distinction is indeed important. UN Resolution 2231 “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” If these missiles were capable of carrying nuclear warheads—and some say that they are “inherently capable” of doing so—then it would be considered a violation of the JCPOA. However, as Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif pointed out, “It doesn’t call upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles, or ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads … it calls upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles that were ‘designed’ to be capable.” Zarif argued that Iran has never used missiles offensively.
This blatant sabre-rattling, coming so soon after the monumental implementation of the JCPOA, underlines the rift between fundamentalists and moderates in Iran. There was great controversy over the deal in Iran, with some conservatives believing that Iran was capitulating to the West by agreeing to reduce the nuclear program drastically. However, the deal had widespread support in Iran, and moderate and reformist candidates made great gains in recent elections. Thus, it is likely that hardliners—who hold a great deal of power—are making these displays of strength and defiance in order to undermine the cautious and incremental improvements in Iran’s relationship with the rest of the world. These people are highly skeptical of the West and are worried that Iran will be damaged by foreign influences. There have been open disagreements between these factions and President Rouhani’s more moderate government.
At the end of February Iran elected a new Parliament and Assembly of Experts (the body that chooses the Supreme Leader.) While most of the more reformist candidates were disqualified, a coalition of moderates and reformists has performed much better than expected; in fact, in the capital city of Tehran, none of the 30 parliamentary seats went to conservative candidates. The conservative Islamic Revolutionary Guard, who carried out the missile tests, are under the control of the Supreme Leader and not the president. The current president is popular and likely to be re-elected. Meanwhile, the current leader Ayatollah Khomeini is old and himself says that he is unlikely to live many more years. Because of the success of moderate candidates in the elections, there is a possibility that his successor will be less conservative, and that these factions may lose some of their current status in the future.
While the responses from the West have been strongly worded, political consequences have been minimal. On the other hand, there have been many calls for increased sanctions from officials around the world. The situation is politically controversial, with many criticizing President Obama for the relatively mild response. There are suggestions, mainly from Republicans, that U.S. officials are afraid to jeopardize the recent nuclear agreement by being tough on Iran, and that Iran is testing the waters and may violate the JCPOA in the future. Thus far there have been no additional sanctions or other substantial consequences to Iran, either from the UN or from America.
The political situation in Iran is delicate, and Iran’s relationship with the West, particularly the United States, is a highly partisan issue on both sides. In America the presidential elections are dominating the news; it is common knowledge that the result, which is impossible to predict at this time, will have a drastic effect in American official attitudes towards Iran. What is more, besides Iran’s recent elections discussed above, there will be another presidential election next year. Plus there is likely to be a new Supreme Leader before long. Thus, in the near future, the political landscape of both countries is likely to change. Hopefully, saner heads will prevail.
Leave a Reply