The Challenges of Iran’s Foreign Policy after the Islamic Revolution

ანოტაცია

This article examines the transformation of Iran's foreign policy and international relations in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It also reconstructs the pre-revolutionary period, focusing on U.S.-Iran relations and demonstrating the extent to which the two states were bound by a close strategic partnership. The study analyzes the reorientation of Iran's external behavior following the Revolution, a process that began in earnest with the U.S. embassy hostage crisis and has continued to shape bilateral relations up to the present day. The article places particular emphasis on the evolution of U.S.-Iran relations, the formation and consolidation of anti-American ideology, and the gradual institutionalization of a sanctions-based regime. It offers an in-depth examination of how pre-revolutionary Iran, under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, came to occupy the position of one of the United States' principal strategic partners in the Middle East. This partnership rested on far-reaching political, economic, and military cooperation, including U.S.-UK involvement in the 1953 coup, support for the peaceful development of nuclear energy under the "Atoms for Peace" program, substantial American investment in Iran's oil sector, and extensive military-technical collaboration. The article also explores the post-revolutionary period, focusing on the systematic dissemination of the Islamic Revolution's ideas both within Iran and across the broader region. At its core, the article seeks to explain how profoundly Iran's external orientation was transformed in the wake of the Islamic Revolution. U.S.-Iran relations shifted from a de facto strategic partnership to a relationship characterized by open hostility and rivalry. From the hostage crisis onward, successive U.S. administrations progressively tightened sanctions against Iran. Under these conditions, the post-revolutionary leadership in Tehran has grounded the country's foreign policy in explicitly anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric and practice, while simultaneously deploying this ideology domestically as a key instrument for consolidating personalized, centralized rule.