Friday, Dec. 2, the Alexander Hamilton Society hosted Ilan Berman, senior vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C., to discuss the current political climate and foreign policy surrounding the nation. Berman is an expert on regional security in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Russian Federation, and has written for publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Berman introduced the topic by explaining how, prior to the recent protests, discussions about Iran had been focused on their nuclear program. However, there are many more issues for foreign political analysts to look at.
“Iran is one of those issues where everybody thinks that they know a lot, but they actually know much less than they think they do, and you get that because most of your news filtered through editors has decided for you what’s important in Iran,” Berman said. “So, for instance, up until the current protests in Iran, 80 days ago, something like that, the frame for which we were looking at Iran was 99% the Iranian nuclear program.”
Berman delved into the central questions he believes need to be asked when thinking about Iran. The first of these questions is how to define Iran. The Islamic world consists of 85% Sunni Muslims and 15% Shiite Muslims. Shiites had historically been persecuted and granted little agency within politics. However, the majority of the Iranian population is Shiite. Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the first Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeni sought to empower Shiites throughout the Middle East.
“[Khomeni] eliminated an ally of the United States, he created a model of emulation for other Islamic radicals that they’ve been following since, and he empowered the Shiites and turned them into a political force,” Berman said.
Iran is an Islamic republic whose government includes both republican institutions (such as a judiciary and a unicameral legislature) and unelected religious positions. The complex incorporation of secular and religious elements into the political system of Iran has led to complications. Berman explained that Iran vacillates between acting in a manner that is practical for their country and spreading the ideological movement it embodies.
Berman’s second central question is to consider what the Iranian regime wants. Berman discussed how — like America, China and Russia — Iran is a revisionist power. Berman argued that the Iranian government hopes to consolidate their power over their nation and the Middle East as a whole. He discussed the importance of looking at the country’s development of their nuclear weapons program alongside this notion.
“The closer Iran gets to the nuclear threshold, the less the West supports the Iranian opposition because we don’t meddle in the internal affairs of nuclear powers.”
“The closer Iran gets to the nuclear threshold, the less the West supports the Iranian opposition because we don’t meddle in the internal affairs of nuclear powers,” Berman said.
Berman stated that the third question concerns what United States foreign policy should look like regarding Iran. He described U.S. decision-making as ineffective and inconsistent.
“You go from sanctions to punish Iranian behavior, to inducements, to the lifting of sanctions and rewards for good behavior, back to sanctions, back to negotiations, so if you’re confused watching this, imagine how the Iranians feel,” Berman said.
Berman also explained that the United States has mistakenly focused all its concerns on the pace of Iran’s nuclear program.
“When we’re talking about the Iranian challenge, it’s much bigger,” Berman said. “It stems from the ideology of the regime, but it encompasses not just the nuclear program, it encompasses the fact that they have a very robust asymmetric strategy for supporting terror proxies and rejectionist groups, Shiite militias in Iraq, the Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen, the Assad regime in Syria, and so on.”
Berman continued that while the regime is willing to engage economically with the West, they will not compromise their principles. The 2015 nuclear deal lifted sanctions with the hopes that certain practices would change, but according to Berman, the results were not favorable.
“[Iran] acted more aggressively in the region, it increased its defense budget by something like 10%, it accelerated ballistic missile work,” Berman said.
The fourth central question, what the Iranian people want, returns to the central conflict between acting as a country or movement. According to Berman, Iran has a legitimacy problem— they prioritize military strength over financial wealth, and their economy is experiencing severe repercussions.
“The Iranian regime consistently, in its 43, now almost 44 year history, has chosen guns over money. It’s always regime stability, it’s always military prowess. The secondary consideration is prosperity, which is probably why the Iranians aren’t doing so well.”
“The Iranian regime consistently, in its 43, now almost 44 year history, has chosen guns over money. It’s always regime stability, it’s always military prowess. The secondary consideration is prosperity, which is probably why the Iranians aren’t doing so well,” Berman said.
An overwhelming portion of Iran’s population consists of people much younger than the leaders in government, and the number of Iranians identifying as Shiite Muslim are also declining. The protests surrounding the wearing of hijabs are not an isolated incident, Berman explained, but a symptom of larger discontent.
Sam Pasman ’25, an audience member, described his perspective on the protesters in Iran.
“I never thought their effort was going to get as far as it did. I’m actually pleasantly surprised,” Pasman said.
Despite this, Berman does not consider the proper ingredients of a revolution to be present. Berman proposed three other possibilities for the future of the Iranian regime. The first possibility, in Berman’s opinion, is a technocratic transition. While the current President of Iran is a cleric, his cabinet is filled with engineers and scientists. They may institute policies that improve the lives of everyday Iranian people, and the desire for change will ebb. Berman’s second possible scenario for the country is a protracted regime collapse. The government may stay in power but gradually lose control over vital functions, similar to the political situation in Venezuela. Berman also described the third possibility as the ‘Russia Scenario,’ which he believes is the most likely.
Daniel Russell ’25, an audience member, described what he learned after attending the talk.
“It gave me a better understanding of the balance between pragmatic statecraft and the ideological component of Iran’s regime, and really, the real distinctive part about it is the ideological bit, so seeing there could be a possibility they could take a more pragmatic approach in the future in response to current events was really something I hadn’t thought about until now,” Russell said.
According to Berman, the future of Iran is uncertain, as is its relationship with the United States. The United States is undergoing a balancing act between maintaining peaceful relations with Iran and attempting to change some of their policies. Berman urges that Iran must determine how many concessions to grant a population increasingly unfavorable towards radical beliefs of the regime in order to retain their power.