While Iran has a parliament and president, like many western nations, its political structure is far more opaque. From the Supreme Leader to influential religious councils, understanding Iran’s leadership presents a challenge in and of itself. This challenge has been highlighted by a number of high profile events where it was unclear who had the final say in important Iranian policy decisions. Read on to learn how the Iran leadership was developed, how it is currently structured, and how that leadership defines itself both domestically and abroad.

The Revolution and Aftermath

The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was years in the making; its origins go back to at least to 1953. During that year, the CIA helped overthrow the recently elected prime minister in favor of the Shah, who had Western leanings and was an opponent of Soviet-style communism. While the Shah honored his loyalty to the United States, he was less kind to his own people, frequently imprisoning and even torturing those opposing him.

This set the stage for the revolution of 1979. This movement was led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who returned from Paris where he had been exiled during the Shah’s rise. In place of the Shah’s one-party government, the Ayatollah installed his own based on Islamic teachings, placing himself as the country’s Supreme Leader. The new emphasis on strict adherence to Islam meant a rollback on the Shah’s few, more liberal reforms concerning the economy and women’s rights.

The following video details the specifics of the Iranian Revolution:

The Shah, who had come to power following World War II, ruled as the head of a constitutional monarchy with himself as the final arbiter. When he was deposed by Khomeini the democratic institutions that had existed were kept, however, any power they had was drained. In the new system, Khomeini ruled as the unquestioned leader of his own government which focused heavily on instilling Islamic concepts and resisting interaction with Western nations he viewed as corrupting Iran. The next sections will detail the unelected and elected elements of Khomeini’s Iran and how they are structured so that his power is virtually unchallenged.

Unelected Officials

Similar to the U.S. government, part of Iran’s government is appointed, independent of any elections. In the Iranian case, however, this aspect of the government is unquestionably the most powerful part, including many important institutions.

The Supreme Leader

As the final decision maker, the Supreme Leader has either direct or indirect control over nearly the entire government because his primary responsibility is to maintain the continued existence of the Islamic State of Iran. To ensure this, the Ayatollah has power over all three branches of government, the military, and even the state-run media. He also has power or influence on virtually every other political institution, the economy, and major policy decisions. In other words then, the Supreme Leader is the undisputed power in the Iranian regime.

The person who spearheaded the 1979 revolution and the first to hold this all important office was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini founded the state and defined his role in it by championing four key characteristics, “justice, independence, self-sufficiency, and Islamic Piety.” Khomeini also offered a religious justification for the office, believing he held the place on earth of a 12th Imam, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammed who has since gone into hiding. Khomeini died in 1989 with no appointed successor.

The man who succeeded him and the current supreme leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has served in this position since 1989 making him the second longest current ruler in the Middle East. Khamenei was a longtime loyalist to Khomeini and also served two terms as Iran’s president before outmaneuvering rivals for the coveted Supreme Leader position.

The Guardian Council

Next in Iran’s unelected hierarchy is the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council is arguably the most important Iranian institution aside from the Supreme Leader. The council has the final say on legislation passed by the parliament and maintains the ability to determine which candidates are eligible to run for public office in the parliament, presidency, and the Assembly of Experts. There are 12 members, six chosen by the Supreme Leader and six chosen by the judiciary and confirmed by parliament. The members of this group serve six-year terms. This group’s ability to evaluate legislation is part of its role that is similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court evaluates laws based on their adherence to the U.S. Constitution, the Guardian Council determines whether laws are compliant with both Iran’s constitution and Islamic law.

The Expediency Council

The Expediency Council serves as advisors to the Supreme Leader, much as the cabinet does to the president. This assembly is directly appointed by the Supreme Leader and consists of highly regarded political, social, and religious authorities. Aside from advising the Supreme Leader, this body’s main responsibility is to act as the final arbiter in disputes between the Parliament and Guardian Council. In 2005, it was also granted sweeping powers by the Supreme Leader over all branches of the government.

The Judiciary

Iran’s judiciary is a multi-tiered system of courts tasked with overseeing the enforcement of the law and settling grievances among Iranian citizens. The Supreme Leader has a considerable amount of control over the judiciary as he appoints its leader, who then appoints the head of the Supreme Court and the top public prosecutor. There are three main branches of the judiciary, the public courts, the revolutionary courts, and the special clerical court. While the public court deals with criminal and civil matters, the latter two courts deal with everything else.

Based the structure of the judiciary and its position beneath the Supreme Leader, many believe that it is often used as a political tool to squash dissent and maintain strict control over the people of Iran. Critics also note that the trial process in Iran is often very opaque and restrictive, allowing greater government influence.

The Revolutionary Guard

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is yet another body whose leadership is appointed by the Supreme Leader, along with the regular army. This group was created following the revolution to defend its key figures and fight its opponents. Unsurprisingly, this group only answers to the Supreme Leader. Aside from being in charge of militia branches in every town in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard has widespread influence throughout Iranian life.

The Revolutionary Guard’s special place both within the military and within Iran itself comes from its initial purpose of serving as an armed body loyal to the revolution as the regular army that had been loyal to the departed Shah. Since its inception, the guard has acquired billions of dollars from a variety of activities such as shipping, construction, defense contracts, and oil production. The group uses many of these assets to fund militant or extremist groups abroad such as Hezbollah. The Revolutionary Guard is so powerful, in fact, that some of the American and E.U. sanctions have targeted the IRGC specifically.

The two other major components of Iran’s defense forces are the army and the ministry of intelligence and security, which is essentially the Iranian CIA. All three of these groups are under the direction of the Supreme National Security Council. While this agency is again tentatively under the control of the president, in reality, the Supreme Leader possesses most of the control.

Elected Officials

Also similar to the United States, a portion of the Iranian government is elected by the people. Anyone over 18, including women, is eligible to vote. Also like in the American system, the different branches have some checks on one another.

The President and Cabinet

The presidency in Iran shares some of the characteristics of the same position in the United States. Namely, the presidential term is four years, and a president can only be elected for two consecutive terms. However, while the president, in theory, is the second most powerful person in Iran behind the supreme leader, reality suggests that the office’s power is drastically curtailed by unelected leaders. Not only does the president answer to the Guardian Council, which chooses who can run for the position in the first place, but the Supreme Leader retains final authority over most major political decisions. In fact, the President of Iran is the only executive in the world to not have control over the country’s military.

Parliament

Iran’s parliament has 290 members and is similar to most western legislatures. Notably, this body has its membership determined through popular elections. Once elected, members have the power to introduce and pass laws as well as summon and impeach cabinet ministers and the president. Once again, though, Parliament’s power and even who is eligible to run for office is determined by the Guardian Council. Unlike in the United States, the Iranian legislature is a unicameral body whose members serve four-year terms. The Iranian parliament’s sessions and its minutes are open to the public.

Assembly of Experts

The final part of Iran’s leadership that is directly elected is the Assembly of Experts. There are 86 members of this body and each one is elected to an eight-year term. To be considered, each member must be a cleric or religious leader. This group has the critical responsibility of appointing and subsequently monitoring the Supreme Leader. Members of this group are vetted first by the Guardian Council, the primary check on its influence. This group meets for only one week each year and although it has the power to depose the Supreme Leader it has never challenged any of his decisions since the Islamic Republic of Iran formed. The accompanying video gives a concise explanation of how the Iranian government is organized:

Major Challenges Facing Iran’s Leadership

Domestic Dissent

Protests in Iran became particularly significant in the 20th century, as Iranian citizens frequently spoke out against the government. For the first half of the century, this was aimed at the decadent dynastic government and later colonial masters. The resistance then focused on the Shah, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution. Following the revolution, discontent emerged in 2009 when people took to the streets to dispute then President Ahmadinejad’s reelection. In 2011, another flare-up of protests occurred concurrently with the Arab Spring revolts in nearby countries. Much of the protest again focused on the contentious 2009 elections and were led by the Green Movement.

International Relations

Political decisions in Iran are often the result of a complex process that is typically driven by the Supreme Leader. Given the nature of the Iranian government, several international concerns have significant implications for the country and how its government responds.

Possibly the most pressing concern facing Iran is its proxy war with Saudi Arabia. The two countries have effectively positioned themselves as the defenders and standard bearers of Islam, but champion different denominations. This is especially true of the Supreme Leader who feels it is his mission to lead Islam and who also views Saudi Arabia as an obstacle in the way of that. This proxy conflict threatens to turn into more direct action if Iran reneges on its nuclear deal. The video below details the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia:

The recent nuclear deal between Iran and the United States brings up another important challenge for the country. While the two groups have worked together to finalize the deal, a conflict remains. Aside from the history of distrust between both countries, Iran’s support for a number of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas–which are considered terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department–and its anti-Israel policy remain hurdles.

Conclusion

Iran has a large and complex leadership structure, which originated in the aftermath of the revolution in 1979. On one hand are democratic institutions such as the president and parliament, which are similar to American and Western models. On the other are a series of appointed offices that wield a significant portion of political power in the country. At the heart of this system lies the Supreme Leader who has control over many of the appointments and final say over virtually all of the country’s affairs. This system itself is a reaction to the previous secular regime of the Shah, which was founded upon a greater emphasis on Islamic law as well as inherent animosity toward the United States.

Iran is a mixture of theocracy and democracy, and understanding how Iran is governed and run is critical to understanding how to effectively deal with it. As history has shown, many countries, particularly the United States, have misinterpreted or misjudged the nation’s leadership.

Resources

The New York Times: 1979: Iran’s Islamic Revolution

United States Institute of Peace: The Supreme Leader

BBC News: Guide: How Iran is Ruled

Your Middle East: Iran’s Century of Protest

Global Security.org: Pasdaran: Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

The Guardian: Iran Protests See Reinvigorated Activists Take to the Streets in Thousands

Politico: The Hidden Consequences of the Oil Crash

The New York Times: U.S. and Iran Both Conflict and Converge

Encyclopedia Britannica: Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi

United States Institute of Peace: The Oil and Gas Industry

PBS: The Structure of Power in Iran

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran’s Leadership: Inside the Complex Regime appeared first on Law Street.

Despite passionate and zealous opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress, the Iran deal, negotiated by the P5+1 nations (U.S, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany), has survived and will begin to be implemented by the Obama administration. President Obama, having already secured enough Democratic votes in the Senate to sustain what was considered a prospective resolution of disapproval, also managed to garner enough votes to constitute a viable filibuster, which effectively removed the need of a presidential veto. Although the nuclear deal with Iran is perceived by many as being President Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievement, the opposition and debate surrounding the deal has not been toned down but instead magnified as the 2016 presidential candidates have made this deal a key area of debate and discord.

Since the next man or woman to occupy the Oval Office will directly decide whether to comply and continue implementation or derail it, the fate of the deal in the United States is not yet secure in the long term. Arguments for and against the Iran nuclear deal will continue to permeate politics and media from now until election day, and beyond. Read on to learn about the major arguments against the Iran deal and their counter-points–arguments that we’ll be sure to see continued as we move toward 2016.

Iranian Theocracy and Extremism

Argument Against the Deal

For those who oppose the deal, perhaps the biggest objection to entering into this agreement with Iran is the despotic nature of Iran’s regime. Critics of the deal believe that such a regime cannot be dealt with through traditional diplomatic channels. They argue that a country without a democratic grounding, mainly run by religious and ideological extremists who have vowed to destroy the United States and its allies, namely Israel, cannot be trusted and that any agreement is annulled by virtue of the extremism and radicalism of the regime.

Proponents of this view have argued that as a requisite for any deal, the U.S should demand certain concessions that alter the fundamental makeup of the regime. These concessions include the recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a state, or perhaps a change in the perennial “Great Satan” chants, which occur occasionally in Iran and disparage America. Former New York Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani agrees with this position, arguing,

You can’t negotiate with a man who is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, death to Americans…the only thing they understand, because they are insane, really, is the exercise of power.

Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, and a symbol of Iranian theocracy and anti-Americanism.

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this position, which has been put forth by supporters of the deal, is tri-faceted. First, they argue that it is unrealistic and overly demanding to expect Iran to suddenly and abruptly change such core aspects of its government. Anti-Americanism, and to a lesser extent anti-semitism, are political norms in Iran which have been guiding principles since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and have continuously shaped the evolution of the regime. Therefore, such demands would be completely unpalatable for a political elite in Iran.

Secondly, they point out that despotic regimes with interests in direct conflict with our own should not be precluded from diplomatic relations with the U.S for those reasons alone. The U.S has in the past negotiated with the communist Soviet Union, for example, and achieved detente and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Yet, the Soviet Union was arguably far more tyrannical, anti-American, and actually posed an existential threat to the U.S. Why should the U.S resist negotiating with Iran because of its political make up, if it did negotiate with the USSR?  

Lastly, they argue that these core complaints are in some senses non-threatening and toothless anyways, as Iran is more of a rational state actor than we give it credit for, and that its ideological fervor is subordinated by a recognition of its weakness relative to the United States. Iran surely understands that any attack on Israel or the U.S would provoke a military response that would depose its government and do irreparable harm to the country. Some argue that self preservation is not beyond Iran, and the chants of death to America are perhaps nothing more than political posturing.

Sanction Relief and Economics

Argument Against the Deal 

Another major criticism of the Iran nuclear deal is a natural extension of the previous criticism. Critics argue that if Iran is a theocratic despotic regime then we should expect the money that will flood into Iran upon sanction relief to be allocated to causes that are against our interests and the interests of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel.

Indeed, Iran, according to the U.S State Department, is one of only three countries in the world to sponsor terrorism and clearly pursues destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. According to a 2010 report released by the Pentagon Iran allocates between $100-200 million dollars a year to funding Hezbollah, a subversive terrorist militia based mainly in Lebanon which has caused many problems for the U.S and Israel.

All parties also agree, including the administration, that a sizable amount of the money received through sanctions relief could be channeled towards these terroristic, destabilizing pursuits. If all recognize this is true, then why should we consent to releasing this money to Iran, when we know they will use it to hurt us and some of our closest allies? Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz argues this quite emphatically, by suggesting the Obama administration will become the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism:

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this objection is also multi-faceted. First, supporters of the deal point out that irrespective of U.S decision making, Iran will get a significant amount of money through sanction relief from the rest of the international community. The rest of the P5+1  will relieve sanctions regardless of what the U.S. does. These countries have have said so publicly to American leaders and as Michael Birnbaum from the Washington Post points out, the global community has already sent delegations. Birnbaum writes,

Congress is still deciding whether to approve the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but European political and business leaders aren’t waiting for the outcome. Germany got in on the action first, with a government jet touching down at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport just five days after the deal was signed. Since then, a representative from every major European power has visited or announced plans to do so.

The global community will not follow suit with American unilateralism when it comes to this Iran deal, and so Iran will receive sanction relief either way, some of which will most likely be channeled to its destabilizing activities. Indeed, in the scenario of an American rejection of the deal, Iran will still receive the influx of money.

A second point that serves to rebut the previous objection is that the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was elected on a largely domestic economic platform. Therefore it would be unrealistic for the most moderate Iranian president in recent times to simply ignore his promises of economic reform, and not appropriate a good portion of the money coming in to domestic economic causes. President Obama expressed this point clearly in an interview with NPR when he stated the following in reference to the funds:

Their economy has been severely weakened. It would slowly and gradually improve. But a lot of that would have to be devoted to improving the lives of the people inside of Iran.

The final portion of the counter argument touted by supporters has to do with a recent historical juxtaposition of President George H. W. Bush and his son, President George W. Bush. President George H.W Bush conducted what many perceive as being one of the more successful military operations in U.S history: the Gulf War. The Gulf War was a multilateral effort through the United Nations and other great powers which successfully protected the sovereignty of Kuwait against Iraqi expansionism and belligerence under Saddam Hussein. The global community through almost universal consensus defended Kuwait from Iraq, defeating the Iraqi army.

A decade or so later, his son President George W. Bush, took a different approach to Iraq and unilaterally and in defiance to the U.N invaded and deposed the Iraqi regime and Hussein, orchestrating what many consider to be one of the least advisable, and catastrophic foreign policy initiatives since the Vietnam War. With that history in mind, those who disagree with unilaterally subverting the global community when it comes to Iran see that choice as a potential repeat of the mistake of Bush 43. America may not be able to act alone anymore. 

Conclusion

Regardless of which position is taken, the conversation regarding the deal is noteworthy and intriguing in and of itself. There has been little diplomatic or meaningful contact between Iran and the United States since the Islamic revolution, and Iran radically and indelibly pronounced its seemingly permanent departure and defiance to the United States, Europe, and Western civilization. Regardless of what transpires between now and November 2016, when the next president will either uphold or dismantle the agreement,  the United States and the global community are entering a definitive juncture in which a new relationship is forming. 

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: State Sponsors of Terrorism

Additional

Federation of American Scientists: Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran

NY Daily News: Diplomacy With Iran is Doomed Because Terrorists ‘Only Understand the Exercise of Power,’ says Rudy Giuliani

NPR: Transcript: President Obama’s Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal

Washington Post: These European Leaders and Businesses are Rushing to Do Deals with Iran

Bloomberg Business: Iran Gives Weapons to Re-Arm Hezbollah, Pentagon Says

Haaretz: Republicans Continue to Push Against Iran Nuclear Deal Despite Setbacks

PBS Frontline: The Structure of Power in Iran

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal: America Remains Divided appeared first on Law Street.