MADRID With Donald Trump's second arrival at the White House, it is essential to understand how the United States perceives Iran and how this political vision influences the decisions that have already been made, and those that will continue to be made, in relation to the Islamic Republic.This analysis is key to understanding the dynamics that have shaped and will continue to shape the relationship between the two countries, as well as the implications this will have for international politics.Strategic culture provides a fundamental framework for analyzing the interactions between Iran and the United States, two actors with deeply divergent approaches to foreign policy, security, and international relations.
To understand the behavior of both countries, it is necessary to examine their respective strategic cultures, which are profoundly influenced by their historical, ideological, and geopolitical contexts.Strategic culture of IranResistance and sovereignty: The 1979 Islamic Revolution established a policy of resistance against what Iran considers oppression and external intervention, particularly by Western powers.
The doctrine of "resistance" has become a central pillar of Irans strategic culture, driving the country to reject foreign influences and solidify its independence.Regional power projection: Iran has formulated a foreign policy aimed at expanding its influence in West Asia, with particular emphasis on countries such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.
To this end, it employs both diplomatic and military resources, as demonstrated by its support for groups like Hezbollah and Shiite militias in the region.Islamic Revolution and Islamic values: Iran positions itself as the defender of political Islam and the Islamic Revolution, challenging the world order led by "imperialist" powers such as the United States.
This approach promotes an alternative model to capitalism and liberal democracy, seeking to establish regional leadership based on Islamic principles.Pragmatic diplomacy: Despite its firm stance, Iran has demonstrated pragmatism in its diplomatic approach.
A prime example is the 2015 nuclear agreement with global powers, where Iran showed flexibility to preserve its national interests.
Thus, its strategic culture is not exclusively confrontational, but also adaptable when it comes to safeguarding its sovereignty and security.Strategic culture of the United StatesGlobal hegemony and leadership: The United States has adopted a foreign policy aimed at maintaining global hegemony and consolidating its role as the leader of the international system.
The doctrine of "world leadership" holds that the United States must be the primary defender of the liberal international order.Use of military power: Throughout its history, U.S.
strategy has relied significantly on its military capability, allowing it to guarantee its security, protect strategic interests, and, at times, intervene in international conflicts.
Military power is combined with a nuclear deterrence approach, aimed at preventing threats to its interests and that of its allies.
This approach has led to military interventions in various regions, such as West Asia, Afghanistan, and the Korean Peninsula.Unipolarity and diplomacy: After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States solidified its position as the sole superpower in a unipolar international system.
During this period, it sought to extend its influence and reinforce its global leadership through diplomacy, economic sanctions, strategic alliances, and cooperation in multilateral organizations such as the UN, NATO, and the WTO.
U.S.
diplomacy has been a key tool in consolidating its power and protecting its global interests.Given the differences between the strategic cultures of Iran and the United States, it is possible to understand how, in general, the latter classifies countries into two main categories: it perceives them either as "client states" or as "enemies." In this framework, countries are either seen as allies and friends of the United States or fall into a category where no significant interaction occurs, often being ignored by Washington.
From the perspective of U.S.
foreign policy, countries either align with their national interests or oppose them.
A third option in U.S.
foreign relations is generally a rare exception.Exceptionalism of Iran and the United StatesBoth nations view themselves as "exceptional," seeing themselves as distinct from others.
The United States, based on the social, economic, institutional, and political characteristics that define its society, perceives itself as a superior nation.
This perception has consolidated its role as an international power, supported by the belief in a unique historical mission that justifies its global intervention to promote its values and principles.On the other hand, the exceptionalism of the Islamic Republic of Iran is grounded in two key identity sources: Shiite Islam and Iranian nationalism.
In recent decades, Iranian leaders have also taken the stance that the country must support both Muslims and non-Muslims who suffer from oppression and colonialism.The strategic importance of Iran for the United StatesWith that in mind, it is crucial to delve into how the United States perceives Iran from a geopolitical standpoint.
From this perspective, Iran possesses characteristics that make it a country of critical strategic importance for Washington.
Its geostrategic location, with key borders in one of the most contested regions in the world, alongside its vast natural resources, particularly oil and gas, have drawn constant attention from the United States.
Iran's location in West Asia, an area considered highly relevant on the international stage, further reinforces its centrality in the United States' strategic calculations.Furthermore, Iran not only shares a border with Russia, one of the main geopolitical competitors of the United States, but it is also situated in the heart of one of the most conflict-ridden and contested regions of the planet.From this standpoint, the United States anticipates that Iran will act in alignment with its own national interests.
In this context, Washington assigns Iran the role of a "client state," meaning it expects Iran to leverage both its natural resources and strategic location to support U.S.
interests.
Should Iran reject this role, as it has done, it will be viewed as an "enemy," marking a significant shift in bilateral relations.An analysis of U.S.
security strategies over the past few decades reveals that the rise of the country as an international actor has been based on Washington's uncontested hegemony in the Americas.
According to this view, "The United States must prevent any state from achieving dominance in other regions and, through the creation of a balance of power among regional powers, should focus its efforts on balancing power between them." This principle has remained one of the pillars of U.S.
foreign policy.In contrast, the leaders of Iran, backed by their geographical location, population, material power resources, and ultimately soft power foundations such as nationalism and Shiism, consider the consolidation of a strong position in the Persian Gulf to be an inevitable destiny for the Islamic Republic of Iran.This is further compounded by a key difference in understanding the behavior of both nations: while the United States, in pursuing its objectives, does not hesitate to resort to the use of force when deemed necessary, adopting an offensive approach in its strategic culture, Iran, on the other hand, is primarily characterized by a defensive approach centered on deterrence.What should happenThe inability of the United States to bend the political will of the Islamic Republic has led to an extremely slow pace in the plans for withdrawal from the region and the pivot toward East Asia.
The primary reason for this delay lies in the U.S.
refusal to accept Iran's strategic position and its insistence on weakening the country.
This issue is unacceptable to Washington, which believes it cannot abandon the region without first weakening Iran and the Resistance Axis.Politically speaking, the very existence of the Islamic Republic represents a model that challenges the hegemonic will of the United States, making it a threat to the liberal system.For this reason, any U.S.
administration, regardless of its political affiliation, will view Iran through the lens of an "enemy state." This does not mean that diplomatic agreements cannot be reached on a case-by-case basis, as was the case during the Obama administration with the 2015 nuclear deal, but it remains a relationship defined by mistrust and rivalry.In particular, Donald Trumps return to the White House will likely bring the reimposition of the so-called "maximum pressure" strategy against Iran, as well as attempts to expand the scope of normalization agreements between Arab countries and Israel.
However, these two moves should not be seen as exceptions in Trumps relationship with Iran, but rather as part of what can be termed the "long-term strategy" of the United States to harm and weaken the Islamic Republic.