Missile tests are a warning shot to Iran’s moderates

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is reasserting his authority, writes Stephen Blackwell

A ballistic missile is launched and tested in Iran. Fars News via Reuters

In response to international criticism of the testing of two long-range missiles last month by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran had to remain able to defend itself against the “enemies of the revolution” in a “jungle-like world”. Ayatollah Khamenei’s strident rhetoric suggests that the lifting of international sanctions in January in accordance with last year’s deal to restrict the Iranian nuclear programme has not moderated his hostility towards the United States and its regional allies.

The IRGC’s inscription of the message “Israel must be wiped out” on one of the missiles tested left no doubt about one of their potential targets. Ayatollah Khamenei’s claim that Iran was acting within its rights was reinforced in a warning last week from a senior Iranian military official that any attempt to restrict Iran’s long-range missile capabilities would cross a “red line”.

Propaganda aside, the resumption of Iranian missile testing looks like a carefully calibrated move that exploits ambiguities in the wording of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the deal agreed between the P5+1 powers and Iran last year. As Resolution 2231 only “called upon” Iran to desist from testing missiles “designed to be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead”, the language does not therefore constitute a legal requirement.

After initially claiming that the tests in March were a “violation” of Resolution 2231, the US State Department was forced to backtrack and admit that the missile launches were only “inconsistent with” the resolution. Although a joint statement from American, British, French and German diplomats warned that the Iranian missiles were “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons”, Russian opposition has ruled out a UN Security Council condemnation of Iran. The result is that the White House will probably confine its response to further unilateral sanctions against Iranian businesses and individuals associated with the missile programme.

Tehran has thus been able to evade serious international censure by claiming that its missiles were designed purely as conventional weapons. US politicians of all shades have condemned the Obama administration for being duped by Iran. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for new international sanctions, while Republican senator Bob Corker, the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, observed: “it appears Iran can defy those restrictions with impunity fearing no pushback from the UN Security Council”.

The concerns expressed by both Democrats and Republicans suggest that US policy could significantly change after Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017. However, a decision to repudiate the deal would be a monumental step to take given the effort expended to secure the agreement last year. Unravelling the nuclear agreement not only runs the risk of provoking Iran to seek a nuclear weapon, but also of encouraging the ascendancy of hardliners bent on intensifying regional rivalries over moderates seeking greater engagement with the international community. The breakdown of the agreement would also remove what might be left of the US’s ability to leverage Russian and Chinese cooperation on regional security issues.

The most important determinant of future US policy will be Washington’s reading of the intricacies of the internal political situation in Iran. The recent missile tests took place less than two weeks after moderate politicians allied with president Hassan Rouhani made significant gains in Iranian parliamentary elections. In further comments on his website, Ayatollah Khamenei warned that those who favoured advancing Iran’s interests through diplomacy rather than the maintenance of national military prowess were acting out of “ignorance or treason”.

Ayatollah Khamenei’s willingness to authorise the IRGC to resume ballistic missile testing and risk international condemnation only a few months after the lifting of sanctions were celebrated in Iran can most plausibly be explained by internal political rivalries. The supreme leader’s invocation of the “Great Satan” and the need for intensified national resistance is intended as a warning shot at Iranian moderates looking to open up to the western powers. Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks appear to be specifically targeted at former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who had previously tweeted that “tomorrow's world is the world of dialogue not missiles”.

With the supreme leader reportedly ailing, the IRGC will have a decisive say in the country’s future direction as it agonises over the choice between engagement and confrontation. With over 120,000 military operatives and with business interests reportedly involving an annual turnover of billions of dollars, the IRGC has seen an immense accretion of political and economic power due to preferential treatment given by Mr Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With the IRGC’s role increasingly resembling that of the Janissaries who at first served and later controlled the Ottoman Sultan, the missile tests controversy perhaps reveals more about intensifying political rivalries in Tehran than it does about Iran’s readiness to defy the world.

Stephen Blackwell is an international politics and security analyst