Analysis: Iran's external ambitions are rooted in its geography and history

Geography is a key to understanding the Iranian grand strategy and its ambitions. The strategic outlook of its current leadership is very much rooted in the country's ancient and medieval history, writes Emil Avdaliani in this analysis for commonspace.eu

In early 620s AD, the period just before the Arab invasions of the Middle East, the Sasanian Shah, Khusro II, with his large armies was besieging Constantinople, Byzantium's capital, while his armies had already occupied Egypt, Syria, Palestine and other former Byzantine lands. This was a momentous event in world history as the Iranians had not reached the Mediterranean Sea since the end of the Achaemenid Empire in 330 BC. However, Iranian success proved to be a short one, and for the next 1400 years the Iranian ambitions were checked, until the reports emerged last week that Iran-backed forces moved closer to control the Syria-Iraq border. This is an exceptional moment as Iran would again be able to have a contiguous land bridge from its proper territory, through north Iraq and Syria, right to the Mediterranean coast.

From now on, the Iranians will be able to link-up with their closest allies in Lebanon, Hezbollah. Iran is steadily transforming into a powerful geopolitical player whose influence will be projected over hundreds and maybe thousands of kilometers beyond its borders.  The South Caucasus, as a region close to Iran, will feel firsthand the changed dynamics in the Middle East.

What are the Iranian geopolitical interests, and how does the South Caucasus feature in them?

To start, geography is a key to understanding the Iranian grand strategy and its ambitions. Quite often a simple look at the geographic map of a country or region gives a perspective of what a state's interests are. Take the example of the Middle East, the geographic map of which reveals the three most visible features: Anatolia, the Arabian Peninsula and the Iranian Plateau. Each is almost synonymous with the states located on those territories: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Each has its large ambitions throughout the Middle East, and the behavior of each is more or less conditioned and moderated by its location, geographic features, neighbors, etc. However, none of those behaviors is so much contingent upon those aspects as that of modern Iran.

Iran's major population centers are surrounded by almost impregnable mountains and deserts, as well as water barriers. To the west and north-west are the Zagros Mountains, essentially separating Iran from the resource-rich and fertile Iraq. To the north the Elburz Mountains and Armenia's mountainous lands have always served as a defensive shield. The Caspian Sea in the north and the Arabian Sea in the south are yet more impregnable barriers. To the east and north-east, the harsh climate of Afghanistan and Pakistan, alongside Turkmenistan's semi-barren steppe lands, have kept Iran's provinces more or less safe (except for occasional attacks by nomadic peoples).

Therefore, this very fact of being geographically contained, and at the same time defended by geographic features, still continues to define the Iranian grand strategy from the ancient Persian empire to modern Iran. Iran's mountains and deserts have made it almost impossible to conquer and then keep the country under control.   Several great conquerors tried. The Mongols and, later on Tamerlane, successfully invaded the Iranian plateau, but in order to keep it they either had to deploy tens of thousands of troops, which they could not, or try to co-opt the local population by allowing them to participate in the governance of their country, which they did. The same goes for the most successful conqueror of Iran, Alexander the Great. Although he conquered it, in order to keep the state he co-opted the local elites. However, even then, once Alexander died, Iran quickly regained its independence.

This advantageous mountainous and desert geography has however also limited the projection of Iranian power abroad. Due to poor geographic conditions, there has been no economic or military reason to project Iranian power into Central Asia, or Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although Iranians were quite active in Georgia, Armenia and modern-day Azerbaijan until the coming of the Russians in the late 18th century, the South Caucasus Mountains, rivers and gorges limited Iran's potential. Thus, strategically, the most advantageous territory for Iran to project its power to has been the western frontier -  or modern-day Iraq (Mesopotamia) -  always rich in population and natural resources and therefore worth controlling.

Indeed, history shows how crucial Iraq has been in Iran's calculus. Take as an example the Achaemenid Empire, followed by Parthia and the Sasanian State: they all hung to Mesopotamia and even had their capital Ctesiphon located along the Euphrates River near modern-day Baghdad.

Iranians have been always worried about not allowing a foreign presence in the territories surrounding the Iranian plateau. Any foreign influence close to the heart of Iran would be a strategic weakening of the Iranian State. This leads us to Iran's modern behavior, and to why Tehran is so much interested in Iraq, the South Caucasus, Central Asia and Afghanistan. The US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Russians in Central Asia, and potential EU/NATO presence in the South Caucasus, are the worst-case scenarios that Iran has always worked hard to avoid.

The outstanding virtue of the modern Iranian State is that its strategic outlook is very much rooted in the country's ancient and medieval history. True, beyond geographic reasons explaining the need to dominate the surrounding territories, there are also historical precedents. The Achaemenid, Parthian, Sasanian, Safavid and subsequent dynasties all tried to keep Iraq, the South Caucasus, south Central Asia and parts of Afghanistan. Only the Achaemenid Empire extended its borders further in all directions, reaching the Mediterranean and Black seas. The latter would, in turn, explain Iranian involvement in modern-day Syria and Lebanon, and the race to extend its footprint to the Mediterranean coast. Moreover, Tehran's involvement in Yemen might seem to fall out of any logic, but even there it has a past precedent when in the late 570s AD., the Iranian Shahan Shah Khusro Anushirwan invaded southern parts of the Arabian Peninsula.

Geopolitical imperatives rarely change, and this is well reflected in Iran's foreign policy. Despite the changed ideological rhetoric, modern-day Iran is pursuing the same set of external policy goals as did its distant predecessors.

source:  Emil Avdaliani teaches history and international relations at Tbilisi State University and Ilia State University. He contributed this analysis for commonspace.eu

photo: The ancient Persian city of Persepolis (archive picture)

 

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.

Popular