Is Iran Turning East?

• Author: Jalali, Lyes Mauni

Are China and Iran about to become strategic partners? Or does the West have nothing to worry about? What might be called the "alarmist" view is that Iran and China have concluded a strategic pact which binds them for a quarter of a century touching a wide range of domains, not only oil and gas, but also military, intelligence, and connectivity to China's Belt and Road Initiative. By this token, Iran's "pivot to the East" represents a permanent shift in its strategic posture, ensuring an era of competition with the West. The basis of this view is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was leaked in June 2020, which purports to be a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Roadmap between the governments of Iran and China. This eighteen-page document exists in three languages (Farsi, Mandarin, English), but only the Farsi version has been released. The $400 billion deal struck between Beijing and Tehran was officially announced in late March of 2021.

The second view might be termed the "assuager" view and it posits that no Iran-China rapprochement is in the works; It's business as usual in the world of great power politics, and what is uppermost in the minds of the Chinese leadership is how to restore normalcy in its trade relationship with the United States ($550 billion annually versus $25 billion with Iran). As for the "China-Iran" deal, this is merely posturing and chest-thumping on the part of Iranian authorities attempting to sway public opinion at home; to persuade the Iranian people that it is not about to crumble and that it does have options other than the United States.

On these views, similar policy trajectories emerge--each inhospitable to a "clean return" to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The implication of the first view is that Tehran and Beijing (and Moscow too) have a common strategic interest in containing and countering U.S. military preeminence and will seek to do so in a hard-nosed manner. Amid this posture, the United States is best served with a policy of isolating Iran and seeking a "longer and stronger agreement" that would deal with other "deeply problematic" issues.

Similarly, the second view reasons that given that no permanent strategic partnership is in the works, nor is a long-term partnership likely to emerge, it is best to dispense with the 2015 JCPOA, and to negotiate new terms better suited for the current security landscape. Hence, whatever diplomatic leverage has emanated from President Donald Trump's "maximum pressure" policy should be the basis for negotiating a new comprehensive agreement which addresses the concerns of U.S. regional allies (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel), failing which sanctions must persist, including secondary sanctions (deterring third parties from conducting business with Iran), and if Iran continues to pose security concerns, all options ought to be on the table.

Aside from hindering nuclear diplomacy, these worldviews signify the likelihood of longer-term difficulties between Washington and Tehran. Indeed, if Tehran is seen as being steered by Beijing, or alternately if it is conceived of as a middling power lost at sea, the pathologies of the American national security establishment will have little other to do--rightly so--than to land on a mixture of bellicose threats and minor adjustments. But strategists in Washington who have taken to these views have been too intoxicated by old ways of practicing international politics: an incessant obsession with maintaining "credibility" and paying lip service to a "rules-based" order. These tendencies have come at the cost of clear-eyed thinking on Iran.

Blessed with decades of prosperity and security, we have lost the tradition of thinking geopolitically about international politics (as practiced by Alfred Mahan, Walter Lippmann, George Kennan, and Henry Kissinger). It is this habit of mind that is much needed in an assessment of Iran--an awareness of the nature of change in global politics and a sense of what opportunities and difficulties present themselves accordingly.

On this approach, there is a third view which grows from a middle-ground understanding of the Iran-China strategic context. This view suggests that Iran has neither fully committed to the "East Pivot," nor will it do so if it can get an agreement with the West. But failing an agreement with the West, Tehran will fully commit to China. The policy implication of this view--if one accepts "strategic competition" as the guiding principle on China--is that the Biden administration should "test the opposite premise" of isolating Tehran, "by restoring nuclear diplomacy, lowering regional tensions, and forging new arrangements." Crucially, to accomplish this vision, a "fast timeline" of re-joining the 2015 Iran deal is necessary--but far from sufficient.

This paper elaborates on this third view. First, I outline China's strategic interest in Iran. Second, I lay out Iran's strategic interest with regard to China and the West. Third, I address what the United States' response should be in view of this strategic context. Ultimately, I argue that the national interest is best served with prudent diplomacy towards Iran, that it's best to avoid the risk of pushing Iran further into China's arms, and that a "clean return" to the JCPOA as soon as a feasible re-entry solution is found is critical. Then and only then can the shift to tackling regional instability (proxies and missiles) occur. Of greater significance, such an opening...