Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics is a well-known book on systemic theories of international politics. (5) According to Waltz, systemic constraints are interposed between state structures and policy outcomes. A state must consider the existence of systemic factors which thwart the state's efforts to translate its domestic ideological preferences into a distinctive programme of foreign policy.(6) In other words states should limit themselves from their own domestic facts. In this way each state should omit specific parts of its domestic political system from its own foreign policy. A state cannot formulate its foreign policy purely from a domestic perspective. What is the basic reason of this self-negation of states? There is a very important and structural contradiction between domestic and international systems. As is known, domestic political systems are hierarchic. Thanks to this hierarchy the state is allowed to behave ultimately freely in the domestic realm. The principle of raison d'etat alone makes state a legitimate organizer of the domestic political structure. The case is quite different in international politics since there is anarchy. The only principle is self-help.(7) There may be a kind of hierarchy in international politics. However this would not be because of a legal arrangement but this can be because of power-politics. Neither international organizations nor international law is capable enough for achieving a peaceful international order.(8)

From a different approach, states face several conditions which are produced out of their consent. The only thing they could do is to produce a cohabitation model with them. It does not to mean that no state can never change the system. It is possible. However this is a very exceptional case. At this point what Karl Marx wrote about humans and history can be used for our case: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by them, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted for the past".(9) In the same line of logic a model of relationship between state and system can be assumed.

As a corollary conclusion for the above introduction discussion; the international system determines the foreign policies of states; at the same time states survive and pursue their interests within the context of an international system. Consequently, any state which threatens the ordering principle of an international system shall be excluded. Since the international system both represents the distribution of power (military power, money etc.) and that of ideas (security, freedom, recognition, cooperation etc.), an excluded state fails to benefit from the cited systemic opportunities. There is a give-and-take logic that shapes the international system. These corollary conclusions do not necessarily entail that there is a consensus among the nations of the world on a defined system. It is so usual that many countries have been the critics of the international system. There have been always Islamic, socialist and peripheral (third world) criticism of the international system. However to a great extent it is rare to reject participation in an international system. In this context We take 'revolutionary foreign policy' as a distinctive category of foreign policy which rejects the notion of the international system from several points of view. States with a revolutionary foreign policy hesitate to be in accord with the norms and principles of the international system. To such states the basic principles of the international system is normatively erroneous. Thus, the international system is criticized as being unjust, imperialist, Euro-centric, American-led and so forth. This process is not one-way since such states are also isolated by the system.

In the light of the above theoretical discussion this article aims to analyze the evolution of Iranian foreign policy since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This discussion gained importance after the current U.S. administration's declaration of Iran being a member of axis of evil and a country that should be refrained from acting outside the international system. Accordingly its basic thesis that is Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution was highly critical of the international system. "Successful revolutionary regimes have a Revolutionary Foreign Policy. The revolutionary foreign policy will continue as far as revolution continues. But revolution does not continue indefinitely. Inevitably, there will come a phase when revolution is no longer a revolution."(10) Thus, revolutionary foreign policy means departure/isolation from the international system. However in the course of the time revolutionary spirit gives way to moderate perspectives and initiatives. This is nothing but re-entry into the international system.

During the early years of the Islamic revolution, Iran criticized, challenged and attempted to transform international system. Iran's attempts created a systemic reaction resulting in its being isolated. However in the course of time several developments in Iranian politics from Rafsancani to Khatami, Iran made a re-entrance to the system. According to Mozaffari a revolutionary foreign policy is 1) revisionist, 2) active and threatening, 3) strong value-oriented, and 4) it is led by a charismatic-revolutionary leadership.(11)

Revolutionary Foreign Policy in Iran and the Isolation

As is known, during the Shah's reign Iran was one of the most important states of the American-led regional order for a long time. The earliest shift after the revolution was to end this policy. However this did not happen easily. The Islamic Republic of Iran did also 'outlaw' the whole international system according to its new official doctrine of Islamic Shari'a. This was not an unexpected shift since the Iranian Revolution was also a reaction to the pro-American foreign policy of Shah. Iran was a natural ally of USA in the Gulf and also an important client of USA by buying billion dollars worth of military weapons. In 1972 President Nixon declared that Iran could buy any kind of weapon from the US except nuclear weapons. If we remember that the only country that had this concession in that time was Israel we can understand the extraordinary case. (12) In 1977 Shah purchased 6 billion dollars worth of weapons from the USA and also ordered a secondary purchase that made 12 billion dollars. In addition to this military partnership, Iran became a pseudo-satellite state of the US in the Gulf. The Shah was strongly criticized by the Iranian people because of providing a fertile economic country/land for Western investment in Iran. All these pro-American policies sparked the anti-Shah front's resistance. Nationalists and others were extremely uncomfortable because of this foreign policy. Besides, the anti-American discourse was very conceivable because foreign intervention has been a repulsive concept during Iranian modern history. Ann S. Lambton wrote that it is impossible to understand 19th century Iran without taking into account the intervention of Big Powers to Iran.(13) Also, Ruhullah Ramazani wrote that the Iranian Revolution was the result of two types of alienation one of, which was the general belief that the Shah made Iran an American colony.(14) As We mentioned above, Iran did not only end the pro-American foreign policy but also outlawed the whole international system.

This was directly about transforming the Iranian worldview. The Iranian Revolution rejected many kinds of institutions and values of the modern world. In the words of Amr Sabet, "the Iranian Revolution reflects an Islamic response to the manifestations of modernity's value and structural impositions." (15) This reactionary spirit had been felt in every phase of the revolution because every member of the Islamists believed that they had the power of changing the world with their ideology. So, they did not refrain from labeling new enemies. Thanks to this enduring socio-psychological framework a list of new enemies, demons, and adversaries were produced. There was vehement anti-Western rhetoric. The same reactionary tendency of the Iranian Revolution influenced foreign policy. As summarized by Mansoor Moaddel it was nothing but the production of Islamic discourse at every stage of life. (16)

Parallel to these developments the 1979 Islamic Revolution gave way to a new foreign policy doctrine which is a radical critic of the modern international system. The new regime undoubtedly had a different foreign policy perception. Its aim consisted of a complete transformation of the system, replacing it with a new system and totally different from the existing one.(17) In accordance with this, the revolution introduced new concepts and values in the domain of relations with other states.(18)

We can firstly, analyze the shifts in the Iranian foreign policy connected with the idealistic tendencies of Islamists. Especially in the very early years of the Revolution, regardless of the international conjuncture Islamists had some unripe plans about the international problems of the world and the region. Unfortunately, these plans were depending not on facts but some putative arguments. Even, before the Revolution some prominent faces from Islamists openly declared that the impending revolution would not only be about the future of Iran but that of other Islamic countries. According to these leaders their revolution did not recognize any border that could prevent the success of their aims. Ali Muntazari, in September 1979, depicted the impending revolution as a general remedy for all Muslims in the region. At this point also Khomeini as the leader of the Revolution plainly defined the Iranian Revolution as the catalyst influencing change in other Islamic countries. As another example, Foreign Minister Musavi declared the revolution's most prior aim as spreading the message of Islam to every part of the world.(19) In the words of Mozaffari,

...the structure of the current international system is unjust and repressive. Thus, the existing corrupt rule must be replaced by the true Islamic order which is just, fair and virtuous. Until the realization of the sublime universe, the world remains, structurally divided into two antagonist spheres. The world of the good and the world of the evil. (20)

After the revolution, the Iranian foreign policy gained a new perception of other. In this perception other countries became a part of land to where the Iranian idealism could be injected. Article 8 of the Iranian Constitution declares this as: " In the Islamic Republic of Iran, al-amr bilma'ruf al-nahy an al-munkar is a universal and reciprocal duty that must be fulfilled by the people with respect to one another, by the government with respect to the people, and by the people with respect to the government.". Also Article 152 is clearer: " The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the rejection of all forms of domination…the defense of the rights of all Muslims…". This priority to the Islamic countries is nothing but to perceive them as Iran's natural constituency. (21) On the other hand Article 154 pointed out succinctly the new tendency in the Iranian foreign policy as follows: " …it [Iran] supports the just struggles of the mustad'afun against the mustakbirun in every corner of the globe." (22) As is understood from these articles Iran after the Revolution gained a new foreign policy perception, which had a strong tendency of intervening in some external issues. The most important article of the constitution from this view, which step by step explains this new tendency, is Article 11. The Iranian Constitution did not refrain from expressing its new orientation in such a document. Article 11 openly explains the new foreign policy logic of Iran and it also draws the methodology in order to reach the foreign policy targets.

In accordance with the sacred verse of Koran, (This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me" (23) all Muslims form a single nation, and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the duty of formulating its general policies with a view to cultivating the friendship and unity of all Muslim peoples, and it must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world." (Article 11)

Article 11 points out some related subjects. The first point is the concept of a single community. And the second point is the interesting relationship between this single community and the foreign policy of Iran. Moreover the Iranian government has the duty of unifying all Muslims according to this view. Also Article 11 gives the Iranian government the duty of striving for the cultural unity of the Muslim world. On the other hand in a broad framework the Constitution delineates how the foreign policy of the country shall be designated as follows: " framing the foreign policy of the country on the basis of Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and support to the mustad'affin of the world" in Article 3.

It is a fact that the new Shi'a political idealism, which was re-defined by Khomeini, included the aim of establishing a global system/model. So that, the new Iranian foreign policy quickly became a messianic type which was contained views about every related case from Palestine to Afghanistan.

As a second point of view, the Iranian foreign policy adopted a set of new specialties and attitudes after 1979. Not long after the revolution, most of the regional or neighboring states declared the potential threat of a possible Iranian originated expansionism (even on the base of culture) as extremely dangerous and something to be prevented. Especially the Shi'a populated regional countries such as Iraq and Bahrain felt a direct threat from Iran. In a short time this local anti-Iranism increased due to another anti-Iranist approach from the West due to problems between Iran and Western countries such as hostage crisis. Iran suddenly felt that it could be totally isolated from the region and the world. But, the Iranian leadership was really aware of the impossibility of surviving in a totally isolated stance. A type of a life zone had to be created in order to sustain the respiration of the new system.

The third new tendency in the Iranian foreign policy was preference of non-alignment. The idea of being neither western nor eastern became the slogan of the Iranian leadership. Article 152 defines this stance as "non-alignment with respect to the hegemonic superpowers." The most striking point we must note is the Islamic Revolution of Iran established its independent identity apart from the dominant value systems of both the West and the East.(24) Practically, this approach in its nature entails the idea that the world is in an illegitimate position and Iran can not take place in either of them, because being a member of either the western or eastern sphere means the invitation of the dominance by superpowers.

In sum, the new objectives of the Iranian foreign policy which were introduced can be summarized in two main principles: Iran should become a successful model of a social order based on Islamic rationality in the modern and post-modern era; The Islamic renaissance should be propagated, consolidated and enriched to become a dominant rationality in the Islamic world in order to generate its own particular social structure. (25)

Iran's challenge to the international system and regional stability received a quick response. The Reagan administration of the 1980s aimed to contain the spread of Islamic fervor. During the following years there was a complex international arms embargo on Iran. Iran then felt itself alone in its war against Iraq. The USA actively supported Iraq against Iran. Several important European states such as France also supported Iraq.(26) Iran than was perceived a threat to both international and regional stability. Accordingly due to its claimed relations with several terrorist organizations Iran was producing threats to the international system. Also in the name of exporting revolutionary Islamic ideology, Iran was blamed for destabilizing many Middle Eastern Islamic countries especially those containing Shi'a population. This was the first and the basic matter of dispute between Iran and the Arab monarchies during the Khomeini era. The tangible existence of the Shiite population in these states, especially a majority in Bahrain, increased the applicability of Iranian expansionism. In this sense, Khomeini's call for the annexation of Bahrain, attempts to overthrow the Kuwaiti and the Bahraini monarchies were committed and also Iranian backed Shi'a uprisings especially in Saudi Arabia can be shown as examples. However, the Iraqi invasion of Iran decreased the Iranian capability to destroy these monarchies. This was not the end of the Arab-Iranian confrontation; on the contrary this event deepened the confrontation. Because of the Gulf states, especially Kuwait and Saudi Arabia bankrolled Iraq during the war. This increased the Iranian antagonism towards these states.(27)

The Evolution of Iranian Foreign Policy and Iran's Re-entry into the System

The roots of transformation in the Iranian foreign policy can be traced back to the Rafsancani era. During his eight year period (1989-1997), Rafsancani's rule prepared Iran for a forthcoming transformation era. For this reason it would be false to read the Khatami era as independent of the previous developments. What is the importance of the Rafsancani era? In the post Iran-Iraq war period, Rafsancani gave importance to administrative reforms. In order to return to normal life a number of important administrative and management reforms were completed. Thanks to these reforms a new generation of administrators and managers came to the scene. "This new wave were younger, less dogmatic and more pragmatic than the old revolutionary guard."(28) As Mozaffari mentions this era is the origin of the cohabitation of double discourse (radical and moderate) in Iranian politics. (29) There are several important tasks about this era: the rise of technocracy, the emergence of laissez-faire economic policies, clientalism, the emergence of complex decision making process etc.(30) However it is the era of Khatami in which Iran displays a different and transforming foreign policy.

Many conservatives and clerics have criticized Khatami's new foreign policy especially for its favoring of new relationships with Europe and the US. The new Iranian foreign policy perceptions cannot be understood separately from the new democratization of the Iranian political system. Furthermore, Khatami as the leading personality, has put forward a well-prepared philosophy in order to explain his actions. According to Khatami, we can talk about three separate periods in Iranian foreign policy up to the present. The main issue during the first period was to preserve the revolution and the system. In describing this stage, he used the words: "the age of attempts to safeguard the revolution and the system." (31) So; it could be said that all of the unprecedented and rigid cautions both in foreign policy and domestic politics in this period should be understood regarding the conditions of this first period. No one can claim they were the unchangeable principles of the Islamic Republic. Again, according to Khatami, the second period started after the Iraq-Iran War. In his words, " That is to say, a system that has been preserved with such difficulty requires development and construction." And the third period, which Iran is in now, can be named as the period of stabilization of the system.(32) So; President Khatami has based his new policies upon his understanding of the nature of this third period. What has happened in Iran must be understood as not a distortion from the substantial revolutionary principles but as part of the natural outcome which necessitates a stabilization of the system, according to Khatami.

In addition, Khatami's new foreign policy depends on a detailed philosophy. For example in his famous United Nations General Assembly speech he gave important clues about this philosophy. According to Khatami "[….] Humanity has suffered massively over these centuries from discrimination and anguish. Survivors are still among us who testify to the incalculable destruction caused by the two World Wars…and …despite the birth of the United Nations - a positive achievement for mankind - true peace based of justice remains a scarcity." (33) It is clearly seen in these opinions that Khatami shares the ideals of the common person. He did not refrain from talking about the UN as a positive achievement for mankind. Besides, according to Khatami, the history of humankind is the history of liberty.(34) And also the importance of moral values cannot be neglected, because "the hand of God granted humankind history, will and freedom of choice; the image of God provided him culture, spirituality and liberty; and the spirit of God bestowed upon him life and vitality." (35)

President Khatami even underlined the importance of the struggle against such common threats as terrorism. In the same United Nations speech he said: "honest and sincere efforts to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including state terrorism, constitute another important priority for the Government of the Islamic Republic."(36) According to Khatami, only by these kinds of peaceful policies, can humanity achieve a peaceful World. The 20th Century was not only an age of violence and human suffering but also an era which saw the rise and fall of totalitarian regimes. (37) According to Khatami: "despite the efforts of American politicians to impose their will onto others", "international relations are in the process of transition from the previous bi-polar system to a new stage of history." (38) On the above-mentioned basis, Khatami has constructed a new foreign policy orientation. This new orientation, firstly, has no eternal enemy in the same way that the early revolutionary orientation did. In fact, there are still many important threats to the regional stability including Israel and the US, according to the Iranians. But Khatami and his followers are not as keen on drawing unchangeable lines between Iran and the other countries.

As a related issue, it must be noted that Khatami's Iran has completely changed some of its traditional perceptions of other countries. First of all, the concept of "relations" has gained importance. According to this shift, Iranians have admitted that the core aim of foreign policy is establishing healthy relations with others. Unfortunately, traditional religious reservations about the concept of "other" have left this stance to the moderates. For example, while it is generally now perceived in Iran that establishing healthy relationships with other states is positive, one cannot look for such a step toward Israel. Again, in the traditional clerical perception, many kinds of bilateral or multilateral agreements can be blamed for opening the country of Iran to foreign dominances including intervention or imperialism.

According to the famous Iranian expert Ruhullah K. Ramazani, Khatami's endeavours toward the integration of Iran within the global system will decrease the tension between Iran and the foreign powers. The fine point here is that there is a direct relationship between this goal and the democratization of the Iranian political system. So, Khatami's reforms can also be read as a completion of the above mentioned foreign policy goal.(39) For this reason, Iran's foreign policy manner, in general, has changed in a clear form under the presidency of Khatami. Many traditional discourses have been abandoned and new orientations have been accepted. Former eternal enemies have become negotiating and trading partners. This clear shift in foreign policy has also started an internal conflict between liberals and the clerics in the country. Pro-Khatami groups have been accused of betraying the spirit of revolution. In spite of severe critiques by conservatives and the clerics, President Khatami has pursued the implementation of his new foreign policy orientation. Due to this decisiveness, Iran adopted a new foreign policy approach in the late 90s. But the important point that we have to search for is whether this new approach will change the foreign policy doctrine of the Iranian governmental system. The Khatami bloc has been persistent in implementing their foreign policy principles but it is not clear that the system will permit a large-scale change in ideology toward the foreign powers.

After the disintegration of the USSR, Iran has found a large interest area around itself. The end of the Cold War created various opportunities for Iran. Yet, Iranians have clearly understood that they have to accommodate their country according to changing global perspectives, because with the dawn of the Cold War Era the global system adopted a new mentality in which a single country who chooses refection is faced with isolation.

An isolated Iran could not cope with other countries in the former Russian zone to acquire different economic and political benefits. Quickly after the end of Cold War, Iranians understood that they had to change their perspectives in foreign policy in order to become an effective regional actor, because, Iran could rescue itself from an isolated position by expanding toward the new independent Caucasian and Central Asian states in terms of economy and politics. Since Iranians have been adopting this idea, they could be also be well aware of the fact that they came across an unprecedented area in which they could be influential economically and also culturally since the 1979 Revolution. Especially the new independent states in Central Asia have become a new interest area of Iran and Iranians made enormous efforts and preparations in order to be effective in this interest zone.(40)

The end of the Cold War also spurred the adoption of various new perceptions in Iranian political life. Thanks to these changes the need for reform has quickly become a daily agenda. The former strict political discourse in foreign policy had been abolished and a new conciliatory one was coined in order to become an effective actor in the region.

On the other hand there is the big emerging political system of Western Europe; The EU has been another reason that caused a need for change in Iran. The European Union with its enormous political and economic power has become one of the most important actors of the global system in the last two decades. Iranians have clearly understood that without some sort of cooperation with the European Union members it would be impossible to invite foreign investment as well as to transfer technology to their country.

The relations between Iran and the EU have improved after the EU decision (23 March 1998) over Iran last year. The European Union's decision to improve ties with Iran and lift the ban on high-level contacts was vital in this process. As is known, the tension between the EU and Iran originated from the killing of four Kurdish dissidents in the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin in 1992. (41) After the verdict by the German court, the EU pushed a ban on high-level contacts with Iran during the next 11 months. Foreign Minister Kemal Kharazzi stated " We welcome the EU decision as a positive measure and a sign of a proper understanding of Iran's latest developments and its important regional status." Kharazzi also added, " Many problems existing between the two sides can be resolved. We are very much prepared to co-operate with the EU states on the basis of mutuality of interests and based on issues of world interests." (42) Quickly after the EU decision British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook made a statement parallel to Kharazzi. Cook said, " We believe that a policy of general exclusion and isolation of Iran from the global economy and political society would be counterproductive." Cook also said that the recent decision was also the product of new Khatami led government's intentions about the more constructive exchanges with the EU. On the other hand The Council in its decision also underlined that impending contacts with Iran should be comprehensive, leading to a dialogue on both the areas of concern…and on issues of mutual interest. (43) The Iranian officials, quickly after this communiqué released on February 23, made different statements that they supported the new page between EU and Iran. But the interesting points raised by Iranian officials were the two actors that could damage the EU-Iran cordial ties: Israel and the USA. (44)

In 1997, quickly after the decision of the EU to suspend the critical dialogue with Iran, the American government outrightly expressed its pleasure about the decision. The decision that We told about its abrogation above included important sanctions and prohibitions against Iran as prohibiting the Iranian intelligence and security personnel from travelling in EU countries. On 3 May 1997, in the editorial of the Voice of America it was said that there had not been any basis for continuation of the critical dialogue between the EU and Iran. Also, it was stated that the Iranian government had attempted to undermine the Middle East peace process and had sought to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Also the editorial underlined an interesting point, referring to James Rubin, of the isolation of Iran from the world as a necessity because of its posing danger and threat to all of its neighbours and those beyond Iran's borders. (45)

President Khatami during his visit to the Irish foreign minister said that Iran had started a new stage in relations with the world in general and the European Union specifically, and was committed to its policy. Also, Minister David Andrews said Ireland supported Iran's call for dialogue between different civilisations. (46)

Last March, Khatami visited Italy. This has been the first official visit by an Iranian leader to a Western nation since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Italian officials gave extraordinary importance to this visit. (47) Iranians had two major aims during this visit. The first was to improve economic relations with Italy and other European countries, because Iran needs all the development options, and foreign investment it can get due to its severe economic problems. (48) The second was to make ineffective the dual containment of their country. (49) On the other hand Khatami persisted to underline the negative outcomes of an American led global system. Instead, Khatami uttered in his meetings in Italy a balanced world system, which would permit the existence of regional co-operation. (50) Khatami interpreted his visit as "The Islamic republic, having reached maturity, is more prepared to expand such relations. With good will we can have better ties." He also met Pope Paul VI in a historic meeting. Khatami in his meeting concluded that: " All the divine religions are not quintessentially different." He also added that "Islam and Europe must, by force of historical and geographic circumstances, get to know one another better, and then move on to improve their political, cultural and economic relations." (51)

During the meeting one could not escape to hear the voice of exile dissidents around the building exclaiming "Death to Khatami". Also Papacy officials gave big importance to this historic visit. The Vatican welcomed the offer of dialogue between different civilisations by Khatami. Italian newspapers also gave extraordinary importance to Khatami's visit. Many papers published Khatami's ideas about the collaboration between Europe and the Islamic world in order to foster a civil society based on universal justice and liberty.(52) Meanwhile, some related issues about the oil and gas sector were the central topics between The Iranian and Italian officials.(53) Iranian-Italian negotiations have empowered a number of Italian companies to sign contracts with Iranian partners. (54) Another important note about this visit was the American policy towards Khatami's visit. US did not criticise the visit but James Rubin said US regarded the last visit as a positive step towards mutual relations. (55)

The Iranian interest toward the Vatican did not start only with this visit. Last Christmas President Mohammed Khatami sent a Christmas message to Pope John Paul VI stressing the common ground between Islam and Christianity as a basis for global peace. In his message Khatami used some notable words: " Twenty centuries after that blessed birth…the hope still lives that the civilizing teachings of that heavenly messenger, and all other monotheistic prophets, will strengthen the basis of reconciliation among nations and create a world of peace and tranquillity." (56) As relations with Vatican were getting along, there had been several meetings between Iranian and Italian high profile officials. In March 1998, the Italian foreign minister and President Khatami met in Tehran. In this meeting one of the discussed issues was terrorism. Khatami made important statements against terrorism. He underlined the importance of rejecting terrorism or any kind of violence as a means to an end even if whether governments use it. (57)

The European approach to Iran depends on various reasons. The first point is economic. As Kenneth R. Timmerman pointed out several times, American sanctions towards Iran ironically has been excluding the Americans from The Iranian large market and this gap has been fulfilled by European firms for a good number of years. (58) In other words it would be unusual for European countries to ignore Iran a country located in the richest and most turbulent region in the world with it's a population of 70 million, and that owns about one-fourth of the world's gas and oil reserves.(59) For example the Iranian former deputy foreign minister Mahmoud Vaezi claimed that the French foreign minister Herve de Chararette told him that France "wished to become Iran's number one trading partner", because at these days (November, 1996) Iran was seeking to purchase from France communication satellites systems worth 500 million dollars, and 10 Airbus aircraft worth more than 1 billion dollars.(60) Yet, as Biancheri underlined years of isolation in which the West has tried to keep Iran cornered have not substantively changed either the country's power structure or its stance in international affairs. Besides, pressure from European oil companies and the EU has led to a relaxation of US trade restrictions against Iran.

In May 1999 "the United States and EU signed an agreement waiving US sanctions against Total, Gazprom and Petronas for their involvement in the 2 billion dollars south Pars offshore gas project in Iran." (61) Important EU members such France, Germany and Britain opposed the US sanction policy of Iran. French Foreign Ministry Director General for the Middle East Jean-Claude Cousseran openly criticised the US policy of strict Iran sanctions saying that "France is opposed to the idea of isolating the Islamic Republic".(62) Also French Premier Lionel Jospin strongly criticised the same policy saying that American laws applied in US, not in France. (63) Yet, the EU in November 1997 lodged a formal complaint against the US, at the WTO about this problem, because, Europeans believe that the Iranian leadership has evolved in a moderate direction and that the election of Khatami raised the power of moderates. (64)

Within the above context, as Kharazzi emphasized in a press interview that the Americans have been defeated in mobilizing Europeans to change their policy and bringing more pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yet, it was a number of European firms that came first to sign contracts that went against D'amato Law. Again as Kharazzi stated; "political relations are now expanding, cultural relations are expanding, economic relations are expanding. All these things confirm that American policy has not been realistic. Therefore, it is America that has to change its policy." (65)

In the same interview about the recent developments in The Iranian foreign policy Foreign Minister Kharazzi, on the Tehran Television Second Program on 5 Mar 98 Kharazzi, pointed out important inferences about The Iranian current foreign policy. He said:

All members of the European Union including Germany have come to the conclusion that they should improve relations with us and should stop criticizing us - what they used to call critical dialogue. They have decided to begin an honest and comprehensive dialogue with the Islamic Republic of Iran. (66)

During the presidency of Khatami Iran-Germany relations has also improved. In 1998 the first official German delegation arrived in Iran to study bilateral relations in a bid to enhance ties. In fact, there had been strong relationship between Iran and Germany before Khatami. Especially the years between 1990-1995 can be named as the golden age of Iranian-German ties. During the five years there had been six high profile summits between the foreign affairs ministers of two the countries. (67) Germany now remains Iran's number one trading partner. In 1995 different German firms exported more than 1.6 billion dollars worth of goods to Iran including machine tools. (68) Also according to Tarock "the German trade surplus with Iran was about 4 billion US dollars a year during the mid-1990s" and also the number of members of the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce in Tehran is more than 2000. (69)

Beyond these diplomatic events theoretically Europe has been an important political centre for Iran. According to Ramazani Iran can first of all use Europe against the USA. (70) Especially regarding dual containment or the traditional isolation policy against Iran by the USA, Iran is aware of the importance of Europe against these kinds of policies. In fact, Europe has also expressed its interest in Iran against the US. The famous D'amato Act has been a major tension factor between Europe and the USA. Secondly, since the 1979 Revolution, Europe has been a major economic partner of Iran. Also European countries lent huge debts to Iran after the end of the Iran-Iraq War. (71) On the other hand the EU has never been on the opposite side of Iranians except because of the US during the recent history of Iran. Tarock counted the reasons that ease the EU-Iranian relations: Firstly, Europe was not as deeply involved in the political affairs of Iran such as the US before the 1979 Revolution. Secondly, Khomeini could find a place (asylum) in France during the proceeding years of 1979. Thirdly, Iran from the very beginning had understood that she could not afford such a policy in which she had to cope with both Europe and the US. (72)

Also Britain and Iran have agreed to upgrade diplomatic relations by exchanging ambassadors after twenty years. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said about this event: " It opens the way for us to rebuild a healthy and mutually beneficial friendship with Iran, and to work with Iran in its path of reform and renewed openness to the outside world." (73) This important event came after Tehran's dissociation itself from Khomeini's edict for Rushdie. The Khatami government also pledged that they would not use state resources to carry out such an edict. (74) Iran has understood that the Rushdie question had become a political opportunity for Westerners against them. President Khatami in his New York visit for the opening of UN General Assembly declared that that affair had completely come to an end for Iran. (75) In return for all those developments Britain and Iran have exchanged diplomatic ambassadors after twenty years. Despite the idea by Iranians that Britain is the closest ally of the US in its Gulf policy the relations between Iran and Britain can be labeled as reasonably good.

In summing up all related points, Iran under the management of Khatami revamped its European orientation. But at this sensitive point both Europeans and Iranians are tired of American interference into the region. Besides, Iran perceives European countries as an opportunity to end its isolated position in the global context. (76)

Relations with US are somewhat difficult to talk about because of its nature. The US have been the greatest enemy for Iranians during the years after 1979. In many speeches Khomeini underlined the importance of the American threat to the Islamic regime. As Beeman wrote succinctly "For Iran the United States became the Great Satan, an external illegitimate force which continually strove to destroy the pure, internal core of the Islamic Revolution. For the United States, Iran took on another demonic form-that of the "crazy outlaw" nation whose activities were illegal, unpredictable, and irrational." (77) Today, still the clerics believe that USA is the most dangerous country to their system. But relations with the US have also changed after the presidency of Khatami. But it is still early to talk about a drastic shift in the American policy of Iran. (78) But before dealing with the reasons stemmed from the Khatami era, we have to consider the real reasons that still force both sides for further relations. As Fuller said, "Iran measures the cost in terms of the economic pain of sanctions, its inability to develop its own oil industry, the obstacles to participating more fully in the development of Caspian oil, and its own relative international isolation. The United States in turn has lost the support of most of its allies on its Iran policy, while punitive US sanctions upon allies now hinder cooperation in many other areas of broad strategic interest in the region. American oil companies are too loosing out on participation in developing Iran's energy sector, and US geopolitical goals are stymied in the region by the intractable reality of Iran's geographical presence athwart all key lines of communication across Central Asia." (79)

It was expected that the Khatami era would change something in foreign policy by Western observers. President Khatami also did what had been expected. Since the 1979 Revolution an Iranian top official for the first time uttered a word to American officials about dialogue. President Khatami called for "thoughtful dialogue" with the American people. Besides he also added as follows: "I declare my respects to the great people of the United States, and I hope that in the close future I would have a dialogue and talk with the people of America, and I hope this will not take long." (80) These words said in a news conference in Tehran caused deep anger among the clerics as it was seen in the case of the famous CNN report of Khatami. In this famous report President Khatami made unprecedented explanations about America and American people. When he was replying to the question of an Iranian originated CNN reporter Amanpour first he made his famous announcement: "I have said earlier that I respect the great American people, […] The American civilisation is worthy of respect." (81) But while Khatami was making these statements, the Supreme Religious Leader of Iran, Khamenei was retorting Khatami as follows " We do not need any talks or relations with the United States. The regime of United States is the enemy of the Islamic Republic. They are the enemy of your Islam. They are the enemy of your independence, and they are the enemy of your honour. They are trying to destroy your Islam, independence and honour." (82)

Since the beginning of the Islamic Regime the clerics like Khomeini have perceived US as the most calamitous enemy of Iran. US took its place as "the Great Satan" in the vocabulary of Khomeini and the clerics. Especially, Israel and US have been the main hallmarks of "other" during the years. Such a moderate policy, this time, toward US by Khatami has angered the clerics. These differences have been seen clearly in various platforms. Important faces from the clerics have not abstained from blaming pro-Khatami groups, even President Khatami, because of his liberal policies to US. In the last summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Tehran, the top cleric Ayatollah Khamanei opened the conference using a blaming and slanderous language. Despite Khamanei 's speech against the US, President Khatami praised Western social and technological achievements and repeated his call for dialogue between Westerners and Americans. (83) But, the conservatives keep their traditional position against the US. The debate over the relations with the US has become problematic not about foreign policy, but a reason for discussion between liberals and conservatives during the last months. On 30 January 1998 the famous Iranian Newspaper published an anti-American article which counted why America had been Iran's and the Muslim countries' number one enemy. In the same article various examples were given in order to show how the US had been a terrorist state as follows: "The United States, the only country in the world which has used an atomic bomb against humanity, has committed the biggest number of acts of terrorism, after Israel, one of the most horrible acts of US terrorism was committed in 1988 when the US Vincennes warship shot down an Iranian airbus over the Persian Gulf killing 290 passengers etc. (84) Also despite dialogue-inspiring discourses between the Iranian and the American top officials some important annoying steps from both sides encouraged conservatives in Iran.

The American Congress increased the budget of Radio Free Europe in April 2002. It is known that this radio is also propagating anti-government programs into Iran. The Clinton Administration was opposed to this decision because this new radio program could harm the tentative relations with Iran. Ali Akbar Daremi in Keyhan on 26 April 1998 criticised the Clinton administration with harsh words because of this decision. And he wrote " It was President Clinton who signed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 1996." (85) It is a fact that there is a "very strong split within the leadership, and there's two ways" in Iran today. As Kenneth Timmerman once said: "There is an incredible fight going on inside the traditional clergy between Khamanei, the supreme leader, who represents this radical anti-Western, anti-American faction, which is- has a certain popularity, and another faction which says, look, enough is enough, let's get on with our lives, and let's have a regime and a government which is more democratic and more open to the West." (86)

On the other hand, US officials also welcomed Khatami's surprising steps in a realist manner. Secretary of State Madeline Albright said about the offer for dialogue by President Khatami " Obviously, two decades of mistrust can not be erased overnight. […] The gap between us remains wide. But it is time to test the possibilities for bridging this gap." Also a top Iranian policy official on the National Security Council said "We will need to maintain a policy of seeking to constrain the dangerous behaviour of Iran while trying to see if the changes in Tehran offer an opportunity for a better long-term relationship." (87) All those meant that the US, as Anthony Lake argued, is keeping its position against Iran as perceiving her as a traditional "rogue state". According to this point of view the rogue states of the Middle East, Iran, Iraq and Libya, have to be controlled because of their "chronic inability to engage constructively with the outside world". So, the US must bear a special responsibility to "neutralise" and "contain" these "outlaw states" in her Middle East policy. (88) Thanks to the new rapprochement of both sides, the first American tourist ship arrived in Iran's main port of Bandar Abbas in last February. (89)

Despite that Khatami is being accused of betraying the spirit of the revolution, it could be said that Mohammed Khatami's American policy is grounded on a rational basis. Khatami while talking about the dialogue between Iran and US -also says that the prevailing stance of the US in the Gulf can prevent such a dialogue. When American President Clinton said last April "Iran had been subjected by abuse from Western countries in the past and had a right to be angry." President Khatami responded that "What Clinton said…in my opinion is a new position, and if he was serious then it is possible to work around it (the new position), and future relations developed on the international scene. […] Clinton's point of view in my opinion is courageous, regardless of what its aims are or whether it is tactical." Then he added "The origin of the problem is America's traditional policy of imposing its views on others…I do not think voicing an opinion can change those traditional policies." (90) Khatami also said that he believed traditional American polices can not be changed by only statements. Even, an article published in Newsweek underlined the fine balance between the Khatami administration and US. First of all, it is clear that Khatami does not desire a quick move in the process of dialogue with US and he prefers people-to-people contacts rather than governmental contacts. Also, the US government, because of Khatami's position against the clerics in Iran, does not want to get him into trouble with hard-liners at home. (91) As Danesh said "with Iran's highest ranking official, the Ayatollah Khamanei, maintaining his [Khatami's] position both domestically and internationally, particularly in regard to the US will be impossible for Khatami to move forward without his consent." (92)

Conclusion

Khomeini founded an isolationist and revolutionary foreign policy understanding. His descendants weakened his legacy and realized gradual opening of the Iranian society into the world politics. The focus of change in Rafsanjani era was economic. He worked for the reconstruction of the country in the post war period. Khatami enlarged this change towards the democratic spheres. In the course of these eras Iranian foreign policy towards the Gulf Arab monarchies affiliated era by era. When one considers the situation today, it can be easily seen that both parties have good feelings yet with doubts towards each other. The future of the relations basically depends on possible changes in Iranian domestic politics. If Khatami and his ideas will dominate the future of Iran, it is proposed that there also be an acceleration of the relations between Iran and these monarchies.

* Lecturers, Fatih University

Notes
1) When writing this paper, we have used the following two articles as models. Yongjin Zhang, "China's Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of Civilization," Review of International Studies 17, no. 3 (1994): 3-16; Louis J. Cantori, "Egypt Reenters the Arab System," in Robert O. Freedman, ed., The Middle East from the Iran-Contra Affair to the Intifada (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1991): 341-365. The first article provides a detailed theoretical framework and second is more a discussion on how Egypt re-entered the Arab System after a period of isolation.
2) To Synder in a rational decision-making process, the external setting is of importance. He defined the external setting as follows; "the external settings was posited as comprising such phenomena as the actions and reactions of other states, the societies for which they act, and the physical world." J. N. Rosenau, "The Premises and Promises of Decision-Making Analysis," in The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (New York; The Free Press, 1969), pp. 257-258. Also on agent-structure relationship see: Alexander E. Wendt, "The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory," International Organizations 41, no. 3 (?): 335-370.
3) Morton A. Kaplan, "Balance of Power, Bipolarity and Other Models of International Systems," American Political Science Review 51, (1957): 684-693.
4) Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1972), p. 4.
5) Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, (New York: Addison-Wesley Company; 1979), pp. 38-59.
6) A. Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism, 1990, p. 11.
7) Linklater, p. 12.
8) J.E. Doughtery and R.L. Pfaltzgraff, Contending Theories of International Relations (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1981), p. 82.
9) Cited in Gil Friedman and Harvey Starr, Agency, Structure, and International Politics From Ontology to Empirical Inquiry (London-New York: Routledge, 197), p. 3.
10) Mehdi Mozaffari, "Revolutionary, Thermidorian and Enigmatic Foreign Policy: President Khatami and the Fear of the Wave", A Presentation for the 40th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association in Washington DC, 16-20 February 1999.
11) Mozaffari, p. 4.
12) Tayyar Ari, Basra Körfezi ve Ortadogu'da Güç Dengesi 1978-1996 (Istanbul: Alfa Press, 1996), pp. 131-132.
13) Ann K. Lambton, Qajar Persia: Eleven Studies (Austin, Texas University Press, 1987), pp. 194-198.
14) Ruhullah K. Ramazani, Revolutionary Iran: Challenge and Response in the Middle East (Baltimore, J. Hopkins University Publishing, 1986), pp. 1-12.
15) Amr Sabet, "Islamic Iran: A Paradigmatic Response to Modernity," The Iranian Journal of International Affairs 7, no. 1 (Spring, 1995): 59.
16) Mansoor Moaddel, Class, Politics, and Ideology in the Iranian Revolution (New York: Colombia University Press, 1993), p. 199.
17) Mozaffari, p. 4.
18) Mohammad Ali Emami, "Iran-Arab Relations," The Iranian Journal of International Affairs 7, No. 4, (Winter, 1996): 797.
19) Ibid. p, 74.
20) Mozaffari, p. 6.
21) Anoushiravan Ehteshami, "Islamic Governance in Post-Khomeini Iran," in Abdel Salam Sidahmad-Anoshiravan Ehteshami, (eds.), Islamic Fundamentalism (Boulder: Westview Press, 1996), p. 147.
22) Mustad'afun means oppressed, mustekbirun oppressing.
23) Koran, 21:92.
24) Emami, 797.
25) Mohammad Javad Larijani, "Iran's Foreign Policy: Principles and Objectives," The Iranian Journal of International Affairs 7, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 756.
26) Shireen T. Hunter, Iran After Khomeini (New York: Praeger, 1992), pp. 113-114.
27) R. K. Ramazani, "The Emerging Arab-Iranian Rapprochement: Towards an Integrated US Policy in the Middle East?" Middle East Policy 6, no 1 (June 1998): 46
28) Mozaffari, p. 10.
29) Ibid.
30) Ibid., pp. 11-12.
31) Mohammad Khatami, Speech of Khatami in Tehran University on the Occasion of the Anniversary of the Epic of May 23, www.sums.ac.ir, 23 May 1998.
32) Ibid.
33) Mohammed Khatami, Speech at the United Nations General Assembly, www.persia.org/khatami/espeech.html .
34) Ibid.
35) Ibid.
36) Ibid.
37) Ibid.
38) Ibid.
39) Rahullah K. Ramazani, " Iran'in Tecriti Kirma Girisimi, Zaman Strateji, 23 March 1999, p. 8.
40) Bulent Aras, "Iran'in Degisen Güvenlik Dengesi Çerçevesinde Orta Asya ve Kafkasya Cumhuriyetleri ile Iliskiler," Avrasya Dosyasý 3, no. 3 (Autumn 1996): 167-169.
41) Robert Olson, The Kurdish Question and Turkish-Iranian Relations From World War I to 1998 (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 1998), pp. 67-68.
42) www.neda.net/iran-wpd/
43) Ibid.
44) "Iran-EU Ties Need Dynamic Mutual Co-operation", Tehran Times, 2 March 1998, p. 4.
45) Voice of America Radio, The Editorial of 3 May 1997.
46) IRNA, 26 January 1998.
47) "Hatemi Romayi Dagitti", Milliyet, 11 March 1999.
48) "Mr. Khatami's Trip West", Christian Science Monitor, 18 March 1999, p. 78.
49) "Iran, Avrupa ile Kaldigi Yerden," Zaman, 10 March 1999.
50) Mehmet Yýlmaz, "Açilan Iran, Kapanan Türkiye," Aksiyon, 20/26 March 1999, pp. 58-59.
51) Sarah Hapel, "Crossing an Islamic-Christian Divide," Christian Science Monitor, 12 March 1999, p. 73.
52) "Khatami Calls for Closer Ties to West", Washington Post, 10 March 1999, p. 17.
53) Boston Globe, 10 March 1999, p. 4.
54) "Iran and Turkey: Europe's Dilemma," CSIS 4, no. 2, 10 February 1999.
55) "Hatemi'den Mesaj Var," Radikal, 11 March 1999.
56) Reuters, 28 December 1998.
57) Tehran Times, 3 March 1998, p. 4.
58) Kenneth R. Timmerman, "No Time To Play Nice with Iran," Washington Times, 22 June 1998.
59) Iran holds 8.7% of world oil proven reserves and 15% of world natural gas proven reserves.
60) Kenneth Timmerman, "Denmark Takes the Lead on Iran", Wall Street Journal, 27 November 1996.
61) "Iran and Turkey…"
62) Adam Tarock, "Iran-Western Europe Relations on the Mend," British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 26, no.1 (May 1999): 46.
63) Ibid.
64) "Iran Policy 'Irresponsible, Unrealistic'," Document Number: FBIS-WORLD REPORT- -98-06, 2 Mar 1998.
65) "Iran's Foreign Minister Kharrazi Interviewed," Document Number: FBIS-WORLD REPORT-NES-98-065, 6 Mar 1998.
66) Ibid.
67) FBIS-WORLD REPORT-NES-98-134 Daily Report, 14 May 1998.
68) Wall Street Journal, 27 November 1996.
69) Tarock, 49.
70) Ramazani, " Ýran'ýn Tecriti…", p. 8.
71) Ibid. p. 8.
72) Tarock, p. 51.
73) "Britain, Iran Upgrade Raletions", AP, 28 May 1999. 8:25
74) Paul Majendie, "Britain, Iran Swap Envoys After 10-Year Rift," Reuters, 18 May 1999.
75) Tarock, p.52.
76) Eric Rouleau, "Bati'ya Açilan Iran," Zaman Strateji, 23 March 1999, p. 8.
77) William O. Beeman, "Double Demons: Cultural Impedance in US-Iranian Understanding," The Iranian Journal of International Affairs 2, no. 2/3 (Summer-Fall, 1990): 319.
78) Alireza Tajvidi, "US Policy Toward Iran: An Interview with Richard Cottam," Critique, no.11 (Fall 1997), p. 18.
79) Graham E. Fuller, "Repairing US-Iran Relations," Middle East Policy 6, no.2 (October 1998): 47.
80) John Lancaster, "Khatami Seeks US Dialogue," Washington Post, 15 December 1997, p.1.
81) Transcript of CNN's interview with President Khatami, www.persia.org/khatami/khatami06.html.
82) John Lancaster, "Head Iranian Cleric Rejects US Talks," Washington Post, 17 January 1998, p. 18.
83) ibid.
84) "American Support for Terrorism," Keyhan International, 25 January 1998, pp. 2-7.
85) "A Bigger Wall of Mistrust," Keyhan International, 26 April 1998, p.2.
86) "A Discussion about Today's Iran," www.pbs.org/newshour, 15 December 1997.
87) Thomas W. Lippman, "US Officials Offers Iran Possibility of Normal Ties," Washington Post, 18 June 1998, p.1.
88) Stephen Zunes, "The Function of Rogue States in US Middle East Policy," Middle East Policy 5, no. 2 (May 1997): 73.
89) "They are Back, But Are They Welcome?" The Economist, 27 February 1999, p. 44.
90) "Khatami Says Clinton Words Will Not Change Policy," Reuters, 24 May 1999. (12:44).
91) Melinda Liu and Christopher Dickey, "A Soft Signal From Iran Washington's Latest Power Couple Diplomacy," Newsweek, 19 January 1998. (Also the weekly wrote that the last three American presidents had been badly burned by their dealings with Tehran.)
92) "Iran's Future is in the Hands of Khatami," The Middle East Times, 20 May 1998.