By Behzad
Khoshandam
Despite lack
of official interactions, relations between Iran and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) continued in 2015 in spite of differences in nature,
ideology, approaches and goals on the two sides.
Image Attribute: Iran and NATO Cross-Flags
While NATO was
trying to have Iran's cooperation on the basis of band-wagoning model in 2015,
it trod the path of practical and covert hostility against Iran and
took remarkable steps in this regard.
Such issues as
the Iran
deal; relative confrontation between Russia, Turkey
and NATO; creating security in Euroatlantic and
the Middle
East regions; NATO’s missile defense shield; the crisis in Yemen;
the quality of global anti-Daesh coalition; extension of NATO forces’ mission
in Afghanistan; the fight against terrorism;
and the presence of NATO in the periphery of Iran were among common
denominators between Iran and NATO in 2015.
Although due
to the nature, level, scope and very vast expanse of developments in the Middle
East and North Africa (MENA)
in 2015, NATO tried to make the most of Iran's geopolitical standing
and soft power in line with international and regional developments, the
Islamic Republic’s strategy continued to be a function of the issue
of securitization. Therefore, no profound, sustained, institutional and
multilateral cooperation could develop between Iran and NATO in a serious
manner.
Failure to
achieve the goals pursued through deployment of NATO missile
defense system in 2015, mostly due to purposive action and serious
opposition from Russia,
was taken and announced by the West as Iran-based failure of the system.
Following the Lisbon
summit (in 2010), NATO was making strenuous efforts to deploy this system.
Continuation of tensions in relations between Russia and NATO in 2015 further
confirmed the hypotheses that most efforts by NATO within the international
system are at odds with the goals pursued by Russia and China,
not Iran, and are aimed at strengthening strategic influence of the Western
front in international and regional developments by taking advantage
of NATO as a tool.
NATO’s
aggressive reactions such as welcoming the membership of Montenegro,
as well as its aggressive actions in the face of Russia’s operations in the Crimea
Peninsula, Ukraine and Syria in
late 2015, show that Russia has accepted that following new global
developments, including the Arab
Spring, relative compliance and purposive partnership with NATO in issues
related to the Arab Spring, including de facto acceptance of Operation Unified
Protector in Libya, has not be able to meet a maximum degree of Moscow’s
interests. As a result, Russia’s aggressive behavior in Syria is
some sort of aggressive and preventive reaction in the face of the West-based
and NATO-based coalition’s measures in Russia’s spheres of influence in 2015.
NATO was among
those organizations and institutions that
welcomed and lauded Iran's
nuclear deal and the new approach adopted by the United Nations Security
Council (UNSC)
to Iran in 2015. Perhaps the reason why NATO welcomed the Iran
deal is rooted in its willingness to have Iran as a partner for the
Western front and also in NATO’s concerns about Iran's possible inclination
toward an Asian-based and
security-based order like the one promoted by the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO).
Iran's more serious inclination toward SCO in 2015 and its willingness to
become a full member of this international body has not gone unnoticed by NATO.
Turkey’s
interactions with and inclination toward NATO in 2015 can be of interest to
Iran. Turkey’s provocative and instrumentalist behavior in resorting to NATO
for the regulation of relations with international and regional actors, trends
and interactions, especially Ankara’s effort to get NATO’s support for
its strange downing of a Sukhoi Su-24 Russian bomber over Syria in
last 2015, can be considered at odds with Iran-based approaches to regional order.
As for creating
security in Euroatlantic and the Middle
East regions, NATO staged one of its biggest
military maneuvers in October and November 2015 over a vast area covering
the Mediterranean, Portugal, Spain and Italy, in order to bolster operational
capabilities of its combat and offensive forces. However, in reaction to Daesh
threat, as one of the most important global threats, NATO took no new,
innovative and creative steps but only lent its support to the Western
coalition’s operations against Daesh. Of course, NATO’s measures are at
loggerheads with Iran's large-scale, impartial, long-term and operational
approach vis-à-vis Daesh. Although by supporting the United Nations Security
Council Resolution 2249, NATO has
apparently thrown its weight behind measures taken in this regard, in reality,
NATO’s practical steps are aimed at facilitating activities of militant and
suppressive groups across the Middle
East.
In addition,
NATO conducted partnership programs in 2015 in such regions as the
Mediterranean, the Levant, Iraq,
with Arab
countries, with member states of the (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council [(P)GCC],
in the Persian
Gulf, with countries in Central Asia and Caucasus, and with Pakistan, while
extending its military presence in
Afghanistan up to the end of 2016. In doing so, NATO proved that this
international alliance is bent on serious confrontation with such major Asian
actors as Russia,
China and Iran in
South and West Asia in 2015.
On the whole,
the year 2015 was a time for continued clash of interests, values, goals and
approaches between Iran and NATO at both international and regional levels. If
the existing equations, variables and goals remain unchanged, continuation of
this situation between these two actors is predictable for years and even
decades far beyond 2015. Therefore, in case of the continuation of NATO’s
strategic hostility in the face of impartial approaches in Iran's foreign
policy, the organization could see serious and new developments in its
operations and functions with regard to global affairs beyond the year 2015.
About The Author:
Behzad Khoshandam, Ph.D. in International Relations & Expert on International Issues
Key Words: Iran,
NATO, 2015, Hostility, Security, Euroatlantic Region, Middle East Region,
Missile Defense System, Russia, Aggressive Reactions, Crimea Peninsula,
Ukraine, Syria, United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Turkey, Daesh, Persian
Gulf, Central Asia, Caucasus, Pakistan, Khoshandam
This article was originally published at IranReview.org on Jan 3, 2016.
All rights reserved by the Original Publisher.
More By
Behzad Khoshandam: