Ownership goes beyond states
Soft power as important in validating Iran’s claim to trio Islands
This article explores the concept of ownership in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and suggests that certain changes are necessary in this regard. The main hypothesis is that, in addition to formal and legal ownership of its territories and islands, Iran also needs to establish spiritual and intellectual ownership of sorts — something that could be termed “reclaimed ownership”. The article argues that we need to gradually change our understanding of “ownership”. As Iranians, our modern perspective on our country often focuses on nationalist criteria that are relatively recent, whereas Iran’s history spans thousands of years. Moreover, we tend to think of ownership in physical or territorial terms, but it would be beneficial to shift towards a form of ownership that is relational and spiritual. While possession is a personal matter, ownership, in essence, is a relational concept. It is defined as a legal relation between an individual and a thing. It is important to note that this perspective pertains to a future in which Western schemes against Iran have diminished and the country has assumed a high level of regional power. Therefore, in the current environment where tensions run high, this discussion is intended solely to deepen understanding, without immediate practical or operational implications.
By Seyed Javad Tahaei
Researcher at
Center for
Strategic Research
Rethinking Iran
In general, Iran is not a country that can be defined by military or hard power. Throughout history, Iran has been more of a cultural and spiritual reality than a political or military power. Therefore, at this time, it is better to broaden our understanding of our collective identity. We need to understand who we are and what we can strive to become.
The main idea is that concepts like power, security, influence, and ownership, which are often linked with the term ‘national,’ do not align well with the cultural and ethical essence of Iran’s history. Iran cannot act as a military superpower or have the kind of influence beyond its borders in the way that countries such as the United Kingdom have. Moreover, Iran’s diverse and multifaceted social reality makes it difficult for the Iranian government to act swiftly and effectively.
Historically, Iran has often been synonymous with having a robust culture and a weak government. Specifically, since the advent of Shia Islam, Iranian culture has been able to smooth challenges that might have arisen from Iran’s geopolitical position, transforming the country into a cultural authority in the world rather than a regional political power. Iranians have focused more on interacting with, attracting, understanding, and even admiring the ‘other’. This ability to admire others has been a key factor in establishing Iran’s cultural authority.
According to this view, Iranians can be effective cultural influencers, but they cannot be effective political dominators. Aggressive policies and enmity towards neighboring nations, instead of strengthening Iran, harm its cultural potential. History shows that Iran has always flourished through relationships and interaction with others, not through enmity and border-setting.
From this perspective, current policies that are based on national ownership and displays of power, although valid, lack maturity and depth. Displays of territorial pride and national anger might satisfy some feelings in the short term, but in the long term, they hinder the spread of Iranian culture.
Iranians should move towards opening themselves up to neighbors and presenting a cultural image that predates the era of nationalism. Our neighbors should see Iran as a cultural reality, not as a hard power ready for military action. The Iranian government should strive for neighbors to see the Iranian people, rather than an image of Iran’s nationalistic state. In foreign policy, we should showcase the historical Iran that was open to interaction and attraction, not the modern Iran that has been focused more on defining and separating itself from others.
Modern Iran, due to its tendencies towards domination and thoughts of achieving superiority, has diverged from its authentic path. The Islamic Republic of Iran was formed to end this trend, but this project has not yet been fully realized. Iran is better defined through its interaction and recognition of others, rather than through border-setting and differentiation.
If this perspective is correct, it can be concluded that Iran should be defined more as a cultural and spiritual reality. The more the Iranian government allows cultural-social activities of the society to take the lead, the more it represents the real history of Iran. A deeper understanding of Iran’s cultural potential in pre-modern periods can increase the confidence and openness of Iranian diplomacy, providing new solutions for various issues.
Ownership: A fresh outlook
According to Hannah Arendt, concepts like ownership and class do not fully capture the realities of the modern world; rather, they are interpretations that limit our understanding of these topics. Throughout the twentieth century, the concept of ownership was caught in a dichotomy: liberals believed that the goal of politics should be to protect personal ownership, while socialists argued that liberation from personal ownership would automatically lead to improved political life.
In this discussion, ownership for us is more of a philosophical concept rather than a political or social one. Iran’s ownership of certain territories and islands is indisputable, but the key question is how to exercise this ownership. As Vincent stated, ownership for use is better than ownership that is just for power. In other words, legal and physical ownership is only part of what ownership entails; true ownership is achieved when it is accompanied by initiatives and practical actions after acquiring it. These actions demonstrate that we not only own something but also actively use and develop it.
When someone truly possesses something, there should be calmness and confidence in their actions. If ownership is properly established, our behavior should be positive and creative rather than tense and reactive. If ownership does not lead to development and real life, it is incomplete. For example, the more a barren land is cultivated, the stronger the ownership over it becomes.
Ownership should be such that it leads to initiative and creativity. If the government can act creatively and proactively in foreign affairs, its policy will not be limited to security and legal matters alone. The stronger the ownership, the more the government can distance itself from what it owns while still feeling secure. In contrast, the weaker the ownership, the more it needs to display power.
Excessive emphasis on ownership can be a sign of weakness. Complete ownership does not need to be displayed because if it becomes a matter of awareness, it may lead to questions and doubts. When we truly own something, it becomes part of our identity and existence.
Ownership helps us achieve freedom. Philosophers like Walter Lippmann and Friedrich Hayek have argued that ownership is the foundation of freedom. Through ownership, humans can enter history and civilization and expand their living space. Ludwig von Mises also stated that private property and civilization are inextricably linked.
Ownership gives people identity and distinguishes them within society. This characteristic means that the development of ownership concerns not only individuals but also society as a whole. Expanding ownership brings legitimacy and influence, and the fact that ownership is inherently relational creates inequalities that are not necessarily unjust.
The order of the Leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution to build housing in the Persian Gulf islands (April 29, 2020) could be seen as the beginning of a process to strengthen Iran’s ownership of these areas. After ownership is solidified, softer policies that attract neighbors can be more beneficial.
In summary, Iran’s interactive and inviting policies on various issues indicate that Iran has reached the stage of complete ownership of its assets. This type of ownership transforms from a legal and objective process to a cultural and human reality. In other words, the more Iranian territories are built and inhabited, and life flows through them, the stronger Iran’s ownership becomes.
Ultimately, ownership becomes complete when it is accompanied by interaction and participation. The goal is for Iran’s ownership of territories and islands to be subconsciously accepted by opposing governments, and to let collaboration and interaction prevail, instead of displaying power. With increased cooperation and joint activities, misunderstandings will diminish, paving the way for better relationships.
The solution to Iran’s foreign policy issues lies mainly within the issues themselves and through direct engagement with neighbors. This engagement should be driven more by the Iranian people and culture than by power and politics. This approach helps us move from hard and formal ownership to cultural and human ownership, strengthening Iran’s cultural influence in the region.
Ultimately, belief in the cultural potential of Iran and its people makes direct engagement with neighboring countries possible without the need for displays of power or national symbols. Iranians carry their historical identity and culture with them wherever they go and need no additional displays. The main goal is for Iran to break free from the intellectual constraints of its modern era and return to its true place.
Solution to problem
The goal is for Iranian culture and people to influence the surrounding regions rather than focusing solely on the politics and government of Iran. To achieve this goal, engagement with neighbors and even countries that have differences with Iran is essential — though this should follow initiatives such as developing housing on the Persian Gulf islands. Expanding Iranian culture and strengthening ownership is only possible through interaction, not the use of force (except in exceptional circumstances). If a small country, despite obstacles, is ready to engage with Iran, it doesn’t matter if it boasts more economic benefits in some areas. In Iranian culture, there are values greater than money and material benefit — such as the idea that the “selfness” of us is more important than our interests.
The ideal situation is for all of Iran’s foreign policies to become symbols of cooperation and public diplomacy. Accordingly, Iran’s foreign policy in dealing with misunderstandings could be based on the idea that “The selfness of us is more important than the issue of disagreement.” Therefore, ownership can be exercised jointly through cooperation with others.
This is the same idea Aristotle expressed: It is better “for property to be private and its use communal”. Thus, the aim of Iran’s foreign policy should be to let the ancient popular and regional flow of life prevail over everything. In such a scenario, no group would benefit more than the Iranians.
As the flow of everyday life expands, misunderstandings may not completely disappear, but they will gradually weaken. Instead of focusing on solving the problem, we should drain its energy and weaken its relevance. We often tend to solve problems by using power, thus eliminating them. However, the reality is that a problem rarely has only one solution. Problems can be delayed, neutralized, or transferred to other areas. The important thing is not to see the problem the way our enemies want us to.
If, during engagement and cooperation, concerns about the other side escalate, action should be taken carefully and decisively — but in a way that allows cooperation to resume. Action should be brief, decisive, and without excessive destruction — merely to demonstrate Iran’s strength, after which cooperation should be re-established. However, it is preferable that this stage never arises as the need to display power signifies failure in achieving foreign policy goals — goals that are more cultural than political or bureaucratic.
Overall, Iran should emphasize its cultural and spiritual depth rather than displaying military and political power. Iran’s history shows more cultural finesse and depth than physical power, and this characteristic comes with greater responsibility.
The more Iran exerts power in the region, the more it dries up the collective life of Iranians and makes it undesirable.
Our understanding of ownership is still immature. Legal and physical ownership is just possession, not complete ownership. True ownership is complete when it leads to interaction and connection and is actively used.
Under normal circumstances, we should keep Aristotle’s idea in mind — that the best arrangement is for property to be private and its use communal. Specifically, for border territories like islands, it is better for ownership to be such that neighboring countries are also involved, creating closer bilateral relationships.
To achieve lasting and peaceful ownership, we must recognize that this path is two-way. Peace is a collective product and cannot be achieved alone. Complete ownership is achieved through recognition by others, not merely through unilateral displays of power and emphasizing over and over.
In general, using violent power for ownership leads to future conflict and hostility. Real security for Iran is not in its own hands but in the hands of its neighbors. In a hostile environment, ownership will never become a stable and accepted reality.
Based on what has been discussed, the more Iran emphasizes displays of power, the more it ultimately harms itself as this approach keeps Iran’s ownership of its territories incomplete and feeling vulnerable.
Thus, we reach a surprising conclusion: while Iran may possess a territory, strengthening this ownership depends on cooperation with neighbors. Neighbors are the main foundation for improving and consolidating Iran’s ownership of its assets. To achieve this, the more Iran’s hard power and influence grow, the more it must move towards gentleness and cooperation, using more grassroots and non-governmental methods. This engagement should continue until the issues in foreign policy reach a favorable resolution.
This perspective becomes practical when the Iranian government becomes stronger and Iranian society becomes more efficient. These conditions will only materialize when Iran’s resistance to Western pressures in the Middle East yields favorable results, leading not to a reduction but an expansion of Iran’s choices. The empowerment and strengthening of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a prerequisite for adopting policies of cooperation and friendship, which were also emphasized by Imam Khomeini.