Home World Iran: what strategic rationality?

Iran: what strategic rationality?

6
0

In an international context marked by the intensification of geopolitical rivalries and the reshaping of Eurasian balances, how can we propose an ambitious analysis of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic and the instruments of power mobilized by Tehran? This can be done with a dual objective: moving beyond strictly Western-centric interpretations of the “Iranian question” and restoring the strategic rationality of an actor often reduced, in political and media discourses, to an ideological or irrational power. This rationality is based on a foreign policy combining strategic pragmatism, revolutionary heritage, and adaptation to the structural constraints of the international system.

The Islamic Republic, inheritor of a millennia-old imperial civilization and situated at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, remains a central player in the Eurasian geopolitical “Great Game.” Endowed with vast energy resources and a strategic position between the Caspian Sea, the Gulf, and Central Asia, Iran occupies a pivotal role in the energy and commercial dynamics of the Eurasian continent. It is important to focus on the contemporary modalities of Iranian power. This includes analyzing the “grey zone” strategy, the cornerstone of the Iranian modus operandi. Tehran leverages military, political, and temporal asymmetries with its adversaries to pursue its strategic objectives. This strategy is based on the use of proxy networks, operational ambiguity, and graduated actions to keep conflicts below the threshold of open war.

This asymmetric logic extends to the regime’s cyber and informational capabilities, with the growing importance of the Iranian cyber army in cognitive warfare and digital influence operations. The use of fake accounts, disinformation campaigns, and influence operations demonstrates the regime’s adaptation to new forms of hybrid conflict. Additionally, Iran is now exploring the potential of artificial intelligence in information warfare and internal control of the digital space. It is essential to note the classic military dimension of Iranian power, evidenced by its ballistic program and nuclear dossier, highlighting the interplay between strategic deterrence and structural constraints.

The gradual integration of Iran into structures like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or the BRICS reflects the regime’s desire to be part of an emerging multipolar international order. Expanding the perspective to analyze Iran’s international relations regionally and globally reveals the diverse actions Tehran undertakes. Middle Eastern relationships illustrate the coexistence of ideological rivalries and geopolitical pragmatism. Iranian strategy towards Israel emphasizes the importance of indirect warfare logic and strategic delegation.

Relations with major powers are also crucial. Russo-Iranian and Sino-Iranian partnerships show strategic pragmatism based on the convergence of short-term interests, particularly in the context of Western sanctions and the reshaping of Eurasian trade routes. This perspective highlights Tehran’s “look East” strategy adopted since the tightening of Western sanctions. Since the end of 2025, the country has been experiencing a major political and social crisis triggered by massive protests due to economic hardship and currency devaluation. These protests, among the largest since the 1979 revolution, have been violently suppressed by authorities, resulting in thousands of deaths according to some estimates.

To this internal instability is now added a regional geopolitical escalation. Military tensions between Iran, Israel, and the United States have intensified in early 2026, leading to a significant destabilization of the Iranian political system. The death of Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, in Israeli-American strikes has ushered in a period of uncertainty regarding succession and the future of the regime, revealing the fragility of a system deemed resilient. Khamenei’s death has brought uncertainty about the regime’s future, highlighting the fragility of a system designed to function without its founder since 1979.