Ahmadinejad's Foreign Policy

U.S.–Iran Confrontation in the Post-NIE World: An Analysis of Alternative Policy Options

“…46 Considering the prevalence of apocalyptic ideology (i.e., the 12th Imam) and the Shiite belief in the desirability of mass martyrdom (i.e., the 3rd Imam's mass martyrdom in Karbala) among Ahmadinejad's inner circle, a preemptive nuclear strike may not be as out of the question as one could logically posit among Marxist-Leninist regimes in the former Soviet Union and China. 47 Another bad scenario in the "do nothing" option would be if Iran used its nuclear weapons as a shield against any American military attack in order to massively intervene in Iraq to push the United States out. If this were to occur, then the question would be whether the United States would enter a war with Iran or leave Iraq.…”

Situating the "Secular": Negotiating the Boundary between Religion and Politics

“…The secular system of government is ultimately subservient to the religious leaders, as the religious councils must approve all candidates running for election, and yet President Ahmadinejad, not Ayatollah Khamenei (the Supreme Leader), is the public face of Iran in matters of state diplomacy. Simply categorizing Iran as a “theocracy” obscures the socio‐political context in which authority is divided between a largely appointed religious oligarchy and an elected parliament (Majlis), president, and Assembly of Experts as well as the extent to which different political actors are granted legitimacy by Iran’s diverse population (Kazemzadeh 2007). Such “mis‐categorization” could have negative repercussions for Western foreign policy approaches based on Western secularist assumptions regarding the division of power and authority.…”