Foreign policy doctrine ...
Page 1
Engaging world without compromising main values
Ayatollah Khamenei did not oppose diplomacy itself. Rather, he argued that diplomacy should serve the broader ideals of the Islamic Revolution.
This meant pursuing what he described as proactive diplomacy. In the face of international pressure, he favored active engagement and presenting Iran’s case rather than remaining silent or adopting a passive posture.
He also emphasized public diplomacy, arguing that global public opinion, particularly across the Islamic world, could influence government policies and therefore deserved sustained attention.
Enduring external, internal challenges
Despite these strategic principles, the Leader consistently acknowledged that Iran’s foreign policy faced significant obstacles.
Externally, the greatest challenge came from pressure within the international system.
Economic sanctions and what he described as economic warfare represented the most powerful instruments used to weaken Iran’s diplomatic influence and broader national capabilities. In his view, the objective was to raise the costs of Iran’s regional policies until the country abandoned its principles or retreated from its commitment to national dignity.
At the same time, efforts by major powers, particularly the United States, to limit Iran’s regional influence were aimed at complicating Tehran’s neighborhood diplomacy by creating persistent security challenges.
He also argued that international actors often applied double standards, using one set of rules when discussing diplomacy and another when addressing deterrence, thereby placing Iran in a position of chronic international distrust.
Domestic challenges, however, were equally important.
Perhaps the most difficult task was coordinating military and security institutions with the country’s diplomatic apparatus. Without close coordination, contradictory signals could emerge, with diplomats advocating negotiations while military actions suggested escalation, or vice versa.
Managing public expectations also remained a persistent challenge. Under the strain of economic pressure, many Iranians sought both the preservation of national dignity and independence and the lifting of sanctions to improve living standards. Reconciling these competing expectations posed a difficult test for policymakers.
Finally, limited resources constrained implementation. Pursuing a strategy of regional resistance while simultaneously advancing domestic economic development required substantial financial and human capital, making effective resource management increasingly difficult under sanctions.
Overall, the late Leader’s foreign policy record can be summarized through several key initiatives and strategic priorities:
1. Engagement with international organizations: He consistently called for an active Iranian presence in regional and international institutions, including the United Nations and the SCO, as part of his broader Look to the East strategy.
2. Expanding ties with non-Western countries: He repeatedly emphasized strengthening strategic partnerships with Asian powers, particularly China and Russia, while deepening relations with neighboring states across the region.
3. Support for Axis of Resistance: Under his leadership, Iran maintained consistent political and strategic backing for allied political and armed groups across the region, including those in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, in opposition to Israeli and US policies.
4. Responding to sanctions: He directed policymakers to employ economic and diplomatic tools to counter international sanctions and reduce their impact by expanding trade through alternative markets and financial channels.
5. Playing role in resolving regional disputes: He advocated regional dialogue among the Persian Gulf states and encouraged efforts to ease tensions through regional diplomacy rather than intervention by extra-regional powers.
In the final analysis, Ayatollah Khamenei elevated Iran’s position to that of a regional power during his years in office, to the point where few major developments in the Middle East could be addressed without Iranian participation.