'Iran’s Post-Cold War Foreign Policy'

This is a very interesting talk by Shireen Hunter who talks about Iran's foreign policy after the Cold War. She views Iranian leadership as pretty inept, but more importantly, as ignorant about basic realities. The main point that she makes -- which in her opinion proves that the Islamic revivalist/pan Islamic outlook of the clerical leadership is wrong -- are that Arabs will never like Iranians because they are (1) Ajam (i.e. Persian non-Arabs) and (2) Shia. Arabs are naturally distrustful of what Saddam called "fire-worshiping Persians" and that can never change, therefore why even try? She comes to the conclusion that Iran's natural allies in this region are Israel and the United States and that if Iran wants to prosper it must make peace with Israel, just as the Shah had, and counterbalance against it's Arab neighbors.

Of course, this was before the Arab Spring and the current extreme fallout that Israel has been facing as it must now deal more directly with the people of the region instead of secular westernized elites who had to repress the street in order to keep peace with Israel. However, I don't think she's right on all her assumptions and she's clearly very typically distrustful of Arabs (as a former diplomat under the Shah, what do you expect). Further, I think that Iran should be given credit for acting a lot more strategically than Hunter gives Tehran credit for; surely, a lot of that is circumstantial given America's serious blunders, but a lot of it comes from a strong base and strategic vision from the Bait-e Rahbari i.e. the Supreme Leadership in Tehran.

Nonetheless, I think Hunter makes a lot of unfortunately good points that have to be dealt with even as the region is changing so rapidly and unpredictably. Namely, her assertion that big powers don't like mid-range powers and that Iran has a basic set of strategic realities it has to recognize before it can implement sound foreign policy, not to mention the centuries long Arab-Ajam situation. But these are important questions that have to be asked and debated on a consistent basis if they are to be understood correctly.