SAND 2014-19982R

Unlimited Release

August 2014

Iran’s Relations to the East: 

Nonproliferation and Regional Security in 

a Changing Southwest Asia

Dr. Muhammad Tehsin

Assistant Professor

Quaid-I-Azam University 

Islamabad, Pakistan

Cooperative Monitoring Center Occasional Paper

Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated

by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin

Company, for the United States Department of

Energy under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

4

NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, 

nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or 

assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any 

information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their 

contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect 

those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors.

The Cooperative Monitoring Center (CMC) at Sandia National Laboratories assists political and technical 

experts from around the world to acquire the technology-based tools they need to assess, design, analyze, 

and implement nonproliferation, arms control, and other cooperative security measures. As part of its 

mission, the CMC sponsors research on cooperative security and the role of technology. Reports of that 

work are provided through the Occasional Papers series. Research is conducted by Sandia staff, 

international technical experts, and visiting scholars. For additional information on the CMC’s programs, 

visit the CMC home page on the World Wide Web at <http://www.cmc.sandia.gov> or write to:

Cooperative Monitoring Center

Sandia National Laboratories

Mail Stop 1373

Albuquerque, NM 87185-1373

For specific information on this report contact:

Adriane Littlefield at the above address.

This report was prepared by Sandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque, NM 87185 and Livermore, CA 94550
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

5

Iran’s Relations to the East: 

Nonproliferation and Regional Security in 

a Changing Southwest Asia

Abstract

The nuclear agreement with Iran contains ramifications for the regional politics of Southwest

Asia. A major impact could be on policy toward Salafi jihadism, and in addressing this threat in 

a meaningful and effective way. It is this paper’s contention that the Iran nuclear agreement 

could be a contributory factor for countering Salafi jihadism. 

A permanent P5+1 (Britain, France, China, Russia, United States and Germany)-Iran agreement 

could be a regional game-changer. This is because the agreement would de-escalate the problem 

of Iran’s nuclear program, advance nonproliferation, and allow the major players to address the 

critical issue of radicalism. It would create a favorable environment for all regional states to find 

common ground in the collective identification of this key security threat. This agreement would 

facilitate concentrated focus on the threat of ideological radicalism and help the regional states 

act willingly and proactively to counter this threat. 

In support of addressing these issues, the regional states could work jointly through a Regional 

Security Forum. This would bring important regional states like Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia

into agreement on this central issue. Currently there are three main countries of concern in regard

to Salafi jihadism – Afghanistan in South Asia, and Syria and Iraq in the Middle East. A regional

security forum would demonstrate the joint resolve to work on a single-point security agenda visà-vis these states of concern. Such a collaborative effort could serve as a model for future joint 

actions in areas of common regional interest. 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

6

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my thanks to Sandia National Laboratories experts for their substantial efforts 

in discussions on topics associated with Iran’s nuclear program and the Joint Plan of Action 

(JPOA). This work would not have been possible without the support of these individuals. This 

includes Eric Wallace for critical reviews of this document; and Adriane Littlefield for her input 

provided through regular meetings, which improved the monograph substantially. I would also 

like to thank Kent L. Biringer, Michael Vannoni, and David Betsill for intellectual assistance;

and Suzanne Cordova, Sean Herring, and Candice Siebenthal for administrative support. 

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily reflect on the position of their respective institutions 

or Sandia National Laboratories.
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

7

Contents

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................................5

ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS............................................................................................................................8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................9

1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................11

2. THREAT PERCEPTIONS ..........................................................................................................................13

2.1. RADICALISM VERSUS MODERATION AND THE RISE OF SALAFI JIHADISM........................................14

2.2. UNITED STATES’ VIEW........................................................................................................................16

3. SOUTHWEST ASIAN REGIONAL SECURITY......................................................................................17

3.1. THE ROLE OF PAKISTAN .....................................................................................................................18

3.2. PROPOSAL FOR A REGIONAL SECURITY FORUM................................................................................22

4. IMPLICATIONS OF THE JOINT PLAN OF ACTION (JPOA) ............................................................24

4.1. ATTAINING A PERMANENT AGREEMENT............................................................................................25

4.2. IRAN’S DOMESTIC POLITICS...............................................................................................................27

5. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................................28

ABOUT THE AUTHOR ...........................................................................................................................................29
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

8

Acronyms and Initialisms

AEOI Atomic Energy Organization of Iran

AKP Justice and Development Party, Turkey

CBM Confidence Building Measures

EU European Union

EU3+3 France, China, Britain, Russia, United States, and Germany

Fatwa Islamic religious ruling or injunction

GCC Gulf Cooperation Council

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IRGC Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, Iran

ISAF International Security Assistance Force, Afghanistan

ISIS Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

JI Jamat-i-Islami (Islamic Party), Pakistan

JPOA Joint Plan of Action

LEU Low Enriched Uranium

MB Muslim Brotherhood

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NPT Non-Proliferation Treaty

NWFZ-ME Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East

OPCW Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

P5+1 Britain, France, China, Russia, United States, and Germany

PKK Kurdistan Worker’s Party, Turkey

PML-N Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz

PPP Pakistan People’s Party

PYD Democratic Union Party, Syria
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

9

Iran’s Relations to the East: 

Nonproliferation and Regional Security in 

a Changing Southwest Asia

Executive Summary

Iran’s relations to the East attain significance due to the rapid political changes in the Southwest 

Asian region. This paper looks at Iran both in reference to the Middle East, and also its eastern 

neighborhood, in particular, Pakistan. Over the last decade, Iran’s nuclear program has joined the 

litany of threat perceptions in Southwest Asia, a region comprising South Asia and the Middle 

East. The international community represented by the P5+1 (Britain, France, China, Russia, 

United States, and Germany) has also been concerned about the prospects of the spread of 

nuclear proliferation and regional instability.

The threat perceptions associated with Iran’s nuclear program are genuine and need to be fully 

addressed. However, the threat of Salafi jihadism is potentially more widespread and insidious. 

In view of this threat, Iran can assume a new status, provided its pursuit of nuclear weapons is 

curtailed. Iran is under the rule of a conservative clergy, but there is sufficient culture in the 

ruling circles to reject Salafi jihadism. The fact that Hezbollah is currently more focused on Syria 

is good news for Israel. The Iran nuclear agreement could lead to the calibration of the IranSaudi Arabia geopolitical competition in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Bahrain. 

The success of a nuclear deal with Iran would positively affect regional stability in Southwest 

Asia. The objective of a nuclear deal should be both nonproliferation and regional stability. A 

permanent nuclear agreement could usher in a U.S.-Iran détente from which certain long-term 

geo-strategic advantages could accrue. A détente could: De-escalate the nuclear problem by 

capping or rolling back the nuclear program to limit Iran’s breakout capability, and thereby 

advance the aims of nonproliferation; allow the major players to address the issue of radicalism 

because the agreement would increase the prospects for regional security cooperation; and last,

but not the least, it could impact the domestic political dynamics of Iran in favor of openness and 

integration with the outside world. 

Iran’s relations to the East are important in terms of regional security. The main issues between 

Iran and Pakistan are Afghanistan, Pakistan’s Middle East policy (e.g., Syria), and border 

security. A permanent agreement between Iran and the U.S. could facilitate increased IranPakistan cooperation with border security. U.S. technological cooperation on border security 

could be extended through the system of national laboratories, which have a vast and

longstanding expertise in this field.

Finally, Iran’s nuclear diplomacy over the last decade demonstrates the role of Iranian political 

culture in both the internal nuclear debate, as well as in nuclear negotiations with outside actors. 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

10

While internal politics play a role in nuclear negotiations, conversely, successful nuclear 

negotiations could have a positive effect on the future internal politics of Iran. 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

11

Iran’s Relations to the East: 

Nonproliferation and Regional Security in 

a Changing Southwest Asia

1. Introduction

Iran’s nuclear program raises concerns in the Middle East due to its possible military 

dimensions. The Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) reached between Iran and the P5+1, or EU3+3 

(Britain, France, China, Russia, United States, and Germany), on November 24, 2013, is a firststep towards a comprehensive agreement meant to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle 

East. The contiguous region of South Asia contains two nuclear weapons states in India and 

Pakistan, who are currently engaged in a debilitating nuclear arms race. The introduction of 

nuclear weapons in South Asia has not resulted in deterrence stability, thus there have been

recurring crises, although all-out war has been so far averted. It is unlikely that a nuclear 

deterrence between Iran and Israel would result in greater regional stability for the Middle East

in general. The need to avert Iran’s nuclear weapons program has resulted in the JPOA, which 

serves as a nonmilitary effort towards nonproliferation. While the fate of a permanent agreement 

on Iran’s nuclear program remains unclear, the political changes in the rest of the region are 

occurring at a fast pace. In this scenario, Iran’s relations with Pakistan will impact regional 

security in South Asia and the Middle East. This is particularly significant given the fact that a 

new problem for the future stability of regional states is Salafi jihadism.1It is important to assess 

how this problem would be dealt with in both South Asia and the Middle East. It is contended 

that once Iran’s nuclear program is brought under more intrusive verification and Iran returned to 

the international community, a regional dialogue could be initiated to control Salafi jihadism in 

Southwest Asia. 

This study attempts to answer the following questions:

1. Would a successful JPOA result in nuclear nonproliferation and regional security in 

Southwest Asia? 

2. Could the Middle East and South Asia work together to contain the threat of Salafi 

jihadism?

The hypothesis of this study:

A permanent nuclear agreement could result in nonproliferation and regional security for South 

Asia and the Middle East. Further, it could result in joint actions against the spread of Salafi 

jihadism. 

 

1 The Salafist thought espouses notions of jihad, takfir or declaration of non-Muslims and certain Muslims as 

infidels, and rejection of modernity.
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

12

This paper merges two separate, albeit interrelated issues; Iran’s nuclear deal and its impact on 

nonproliferation and regional security in the Middle East; and Iran’s relations with Pakistan, 

which draws the South Asian region into the sphere of study. Therefore, the regional area of 

interest has been demarcated as Southwest Asia, which includes both South Asia and the Middle 

East. In this paper’s view, the main issue that is instrumental in merging these two regions is 

Salafi jihadism. A successful effort to counter Salafi jihadism could improve long-term regional 

security. And the success of an Iranian nuclear agreement could serve as a contributing factor 

toward joint regional efforts aimed at countering Salafi jihadism. 

Structurally, the paper is divided into three parts: The threat perceptions prevalent in the region; 

the Southwest Asian regional security and Pakistan’s role; and finally, the expected outcomes of 

the Iranian nuclear agreement termed as the JPOA. This paper studies these three areas within 

the context of the Salafi jihadist situation facing Southwest Asia and the greater international 

community. The paper focuses and describes the pivitol, key problem affecting the region (i.e., 

Salafi jihadism) and a desired course of action to address this issue. 

Figure 1: Southwest Asia
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

13

2. Threat Perceptions

The role of threat perceptions is important in Southwest Asia since the historical trust-deficit has 

been the main obstacle to any progress toward peace. An understanding of threat perceptions is 

also important in the context of policy prescriptions because it helps in identifying the starting 

point for pursuing any policy options. A look at the major threat perceptions in the region from 

the systems view of the problem reveals that they can be divided into three major types: The 

threat perception associated with Iran’s nuclear program; the threat perception that emanates 

from growing Salafi jihadism; and the U.S. view of the region and how it impacts measures 

taken to advance regional security.

Over the last decade, Iran’s nuclear program has joined the litany of threat perceptions in 

Southwest Asia. The international community represented by the P5+1 has also been concerned 

about the prospects of the spread of nuclear proliferation and regional instability. 

For context, the regional demarcation of South Asia and the Middle East would be useful at this 

point of the paper. The countries of South Asia – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan,

Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Nepal, the Maldives and Bhutan – form a distinct geographical entity.

The region is bounded by the Himalayas to the north, the Indian Ocean and its offshoots –

the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea – to the south, and by mountains and jungles to the

east. Only in the northwest, where Afghanistan stands astride the junction of South Asia, the

Middle East, and Central Asia, does the external geographic and political frontiers fail to

coincide. The Middle East is comprised of Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, 

and Iraq. In addition, there are the Arab states bordering the Persian Gulf − Saudi Arabia, 

Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates; all of which are part of Gulf 

Cooperation Council (GCC). 

The main threat perception connected with Iran’s nuclear program is its possible military 

dimension. An Iranian nuclear weapon would pose a challenge to Israel. An Iranian nuclear 

weapons capability could alter the current situation in the Middle East to one of regional nuclear 

deterrence. The prospects of regional deterrence stability are slim due to deep mistrust arising 

out of regional complexities. So far, the example of regional nuclear deterrence in the contiguous 

region of South Asia is not very reassuring. This is due to the stability/instability paradox, and 

lack of necessary confidence-building measures. In South Asia, regional crises have not abated, 

though all-out war has been averted. The overall conclusion about regional nuclear deterrence is 

that the amount of instability remains high, unlike the example of stable global deterrence during 

the Cold War. The Cold War example, despite proxy wars and incursions, has demonstrated that 

the policy of nuclear deterrence was accompanied by peace talks on core disputes, trade 

negotiations, and arms control treaties. This model was not adopted in South Asia. And in the 

case of the Middle East, following the P5+1-Iran JPOA, there is no evidence so far that suggests 

Israel and the Arab states are prepared to engage in peace efforts with Iran. 

Furthermore, if we look at the example of sub-conventional warfare witnessed in postnuclearized South Asia, it can be assumed that the same pattern of proxy wars would be repeated 

in a nuclearized Middle East. Thus, Iran’s nuclear weapons capability would give it a carte 

blanche and a protective shield to support regional proxies (e.g., Hezbollah and Hamas) against 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

14

the interests of Israel. Even more worrisome is the looming threat of Salafi jihadism. The second 

issue is the risk of regional multipolarity of the nuclear equation, which may result from Iran’s 

nuclearization. This could happen if an Arab state (e.g., Saudi Arabia) acquires or seeks to 

acquire nuclear weapons in response to Iran. This would factor in a three-way deterrence 

situation and put the theory of rational deterrence under increased pressure due to multiple 

nuclear weapons states in the region. 

2.1. Radicalism versus Moderation and the Rise of Salafi Jihadism

The rise of Salafi jihadism signifies that the main conflict in the region is between moderates and 

radicals. The sectarian rivalry is one facet of this overarching conflict. This categorization 

accords with the general perception about regional geopolitics, which describes an axis of 

moderation comprised of GCC states and an axis of resistance/radicalism comprised of Iran and 

Syria. These two camps are positioned on opposite sides of the regional geopolitical divide. 

Moreover, this categorization is also in line with a statement made by Jordan’s King Abdullah in 

2004 that warned of a Shia crescent in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. But if the new threat of 

Salafi jihadism unites the moderate states in a single bloc, and Iran also joins this new moderate 

camp, then the traditional configuration of who is a moderate and who is a radical could undergo 

a change. 

In the Middle Eastern region, a stifling political atmosphere and worsening economic situation 

has given way to some destabilizing developments.2 As the wave of change reached neighboring 

Bahrain, Saudi Arabia sent its military to quell the predominantly Shia public demonstrations on 

its borders. In Syria, a Sunni-majority state was ruled by an Alawite (Shia sub-sect) minority. 

Furthermore, Syria was the only regional ally of Iran. Thus, Syria became the foremost 

battleground between Iran on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia and Turkey on the other. As the 

conflict progressed, the specter of Salafi jihadism threatened to cause region-wide damage.3

Turkey realized this threat, and is currently trying to pull away from the Syria situation. Saudi 

Arabia and Jordan are increasingly becoming concerned about internal and external security visà-vis this threat. 

In South Asia, Salafi jihadism poses an existential and ideological threat to the state of Pakistan.4

The problem also extends to India, due to attacks carried out by groups of Pakistani origin, as 

well as by India’s indigenous groups influenced by this ideology. The growth of Salafi jihadism 

in Afghanistan and Syria is detrimental to the general security situation in South Asia and the 

Middle East. Afghanistan’s criticality is both geopolitical and ideological. Afghanistan lies at the 

crossroads of South Asia and the Middle East, so much so that there is some confusion about 

which region in which it falls. Ideologically, it is the modern incarnation of the ancient land of 

Greater Khorasan,5 which is the center of certain Islamic traditions of apocalyptic revolution, 

 

2 There were two main destabilizing developments. The first was Salafi jihadism in Syria, and the second was the 

Arab Spring, which was met with the sectarian fault lines within the region.

3 Entous, Adam and Julian E. Barnes, “John Kerry, US Military Clash on Approach to Syria’s Rebels: Pentagon 

Opposes Direct Military Intervention Against Assad,” The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2014.

4 Taliban, a variant of Salafi jihadists came into power in Afghanistan in 1996, and the Pakistani Taliban, another 

Salafi jihadist variant, have been waging an insurgency in Pakistan since 2001, which was intensified in 2007.

5 Historically, Greater Khorasan included the eastern part of Iran and some parts of Central Asia, known as Western 

Khorasan and Afghanistan was known as Eastern Khorasan.
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

15

viewed as authentic by Salafi jihadists. For instance, Khorasan is the area that the tradition of 

‘black banners’ is attributed.6 Afghanistan could become the hub of Salafi jihadism once the U.S. 

pulls out in a post-NATO withdrawal scenario.

The Salafist thought espouses notions of Jihad, takfir (declaration of non-Muslims and certain 

Muslims as infidels), and rejection of modernity. The phenomenon of Salafi jihadism can be 

thought of spreading via the “butterfly effect.”

7

This ratchet mechanism of phenomenal growth 

has been evidenced in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Inside Iran, the Salafists exist in 

Kurdistan, Baluchistan among its Arab population, and in cities like Tehran and Isfahan. The 

Salafist presence in the country is an important factor in Iran designating them as a national 

security threat.8

The Saudi Arabian perceptions about Iran can be seen in reference to both regional geopolitics 

and national interest. In terms of national interest, Saudi Arabia is concerned about the safety of 

the Straits of Hormuz. Also, Iran’s return to full oil production would reduce Saudi oil hegemony 

in the Persian Gulf. In terms of regional geopolitics, Saudi Arabia remains wary of Iranian 

political hegemony in the region. Finally, Saudi Arabia seeks reduced Iranian influence in all 

regional theatres of existing or potential conflict. 

Iran’s threat perceptions originate from the needs of both regime survival and regional 

preponderance. The national psyche is shaped by the paranoia caused by the 1953 royalist coup 

against nationalist leader Mohammad Mosaddegh, the eight years-long Iran-Iraq War, and fears 

of forcible regime change by the U.S. As far as Salafi jihadism is concerned, Iran reckons this 

threat as existential. Iran fears Salafist encirclement via Salafist ascendency in states around it 

and would likely be amenable to joining a regional security architecture focused on countering 

it’s growth. The two major post-September 11th events of regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq 

were in Iran’s favor. Now as these two wars are winding down (Iraq withdrawal is complete and 

Afghanistan drawdown is underway) and the threat of Salafi jihadism is growing, Iran should 

realize that it would be better off without the albatross of nuclear controversy hanging around its 

neck.

On the nuclear issue, Iran’s threat perceptions vary across the three main political factions:

Conservatives, reformists, and pragmatists. The range of views oscillates between conservatives 

and reformists, while the pragmatists try to find a middle position on most issues. Each faction 

views Iran’s regional and global role in its own image. The conservatives believe that Iran should 

opt for isolation through defiance on the nuclear issue, and the reformists seek integration with 

the outside world through nuclear compliance. The conservatives believe that the regional and 

global antagonists seek regime change in Iran, while reformists believe that policy change is the 

objective of the outside world. In terms of policy prescriptions, the conservatives hold the view 

that Iran should attain security through nuclear prowess amidst growing regional uncertainty, and 

 

6

Soufan, Ali, “Prologue,” The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda, W.W. 

Norton & Co., 2011.

7

In chaos theory, the “butterfly effect” is the role of an initial state in which a small change can result in large 

differences in a later state. The term was coined by Lorenz, Edward, in “Predictability: Does the Flap of a 

Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?” Cam: MIT, 1972.

8 Khalaji, Mehdi, “Salafism as a National Security Threat for Iran”, Policy Watch 2211, The Washington Institute, 

Feb 20, 2014. 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

16

the reformists seek to pursue economic progress through regional and global integration, while 

emphasizing Iran’s nuclear rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

2.2. United States’ View

There are three main strands of Political Islam in the Muslim World: The Islamist political 

parties – Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), 

and Pakistan’s Jamat-i-Islami (JI); Salafists of the Saudi brand; and the al-Qaeda, which supports 

violence and is seen in a negative light by the United States. However, the U.S. view of Political 

Islam is incomplete, and that is why it has been difficult for them to understand the fact that al 

Qaeda maintains ideological, and in some cases, allegedly maintains administrative links with 

the MB-AKP-JI trio. There is incomplete understanding of the reasons behind the 2013 coup

d’état led by General El-Sisi in Egypt. Similarly, it is difficult for the U.S. to understand the 

grassroots opposition to AKP in Turkey. 

This incomplete U.S. view of the Muslim World has become evident in Syria. The moderate 

opposition to Assad has all, but collapsed. Only Salafi jihadists remain in the field and once they 

succeed in Syria, they could violently eliminate substantial minorities within Syria. For example, 

a significant number of Christians have not only lived in Syria under Assad, but have also 

enjoyed a high socio-economic status. Furthermore, the Salafi jihadists would also pose a threat 

to other Arab states, Israel, Europe, and the U.S., beyond the region. 

In the 1970s, there was a similar chain of events in Afghanistan. If the geopolitical aspect of 

ousting Soviets from Afghanistan is put aside, what would remain is the catastrophe at the level 

of human security. The budding Afghan civil society was badly damaged by the U.S. support of 

Salafi jihadists in their desire to rout the Soviets. Apart from the significant damage caused 

inside Afghanistan and the region, the most prominent outcome was the terrorism experienced on 

U.S. soil on September 11th, 2001. 

A disregard of security at the human level will likely be the case in Syria if U.S. support to the 

political opposition ultimately ends up strengthening the hands of the Salafist groups. There 

could be two main reasons for U.S.-Syria policy. The first is the long shadow of the Cold War. 

The bitter legacy of the Cold War still affects the U.S.-Russian relations in general, but also in 

Syria. Given Russia’s growing influence in the region, there is need for a U.S.-Russia reset vis-àvis the Middle East. This should be done regardless of recent developments in the Ukraine.9

Furthermore, the Cold War alliances created an environment in which both the superpowers 

assumed certain identities in the perceptions of Islamic states. In the post-1979 Iranian 

perception, the U.S. was the Sunni-allied superpower, whereas Russia was the Shia-allied 

superpower. This persisting perception exacerbates Iranian fears and provides Saudi Arabia with 

a sense of regional influence. Similarly, the U.S. perceptions − regarding Iran as an unstable 

actor − were formed by the 1979 revolution. These mutual perceptions are the main stumbling 

blocks in the realization of a U.S.-Iranian detente.

 

9 An example is provided by Israel-Russia relations, which are valued by both states for their strategic importance in 

view of the Salafi jihadist threat. See Saunders, Paul J., “Israel-Russia ties strong despite Ukraine”, Al Monitor,

April 7, 2014. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/israel-russia-strategic-ties-ukraine.html. 

Accessed on April 17, 2014. 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

17

The second possible reason behind the U.S. policy approach towards Syria is the security of 

Israel. Currently, the main opposition to Israel is Lebanon (via the Hezbollah), which has been 

diverted away from Israel to Syria. However, the growing power of Salafi jihadism in Syria 

poses a long-term threat to Israel that might be significantly more serious than Hezbollah or even 

Iran, which is ruled by a conservative clerical regime. 

In view of possible rapprochement with Iran, the U.S. would have to strike a balance in its policy 

towards Iran and Saudi Arabia. By reaching a deal with Iran, the U.S. would not be betraying 

allies in the region. After all, under the Twin Pillars policy, when Iran was a strategic ally of the 

U.S., it was not viewed as a betrayal of Saudi Arabia.10 However, a necessary U.S. condition of 

permanent settlement with Iran would be for Iran to assuage regional fears by pursuing status 

quo, as opposed to revisionist policies. This is similar to when the U.S. opened up to India at the 

end of the Cold War and de-hyphenated its relationships with India and Pakistan, which was not 

seen as a betrayal of Pakistan. However, after the Indo-U.S. rapprochement, the Pakistani hopes 

for Indian interest in the resolution of the core dispute of Kashmir − through the good offices of 

the U.S. − were not realized and remain a cause for some heartburn in Pakistan. In a similar 

perspective, Iran’s entire regional role (nuclear, conventional, and sub-conventional) needs to be 

accounted by the U.S. in order to instill confidence among the Arab states. 

An end to the Iranian nuclear weapons program could become a factor in regional stability. If the 

U.S. establishes a permanent nuclear agreement with Iran, it also draws itself closer into the fight 

against Salafi jihadists. Consequently, Iran will have to deal with both U.S.-oriented groups and 

Iran-oriented groups. The U.S. and Iran need to recognize and come to the conclusion that Salafi 

jihadism is fundamentally wrong and not just wrong because they are ‘currently’ fighting one or 

the other. 

3. Southwest Asian Regional Security

The regional threat perceptions associated with Iran’s nuclear program are genuine and need to 

be fully addressed. However, the threat of Salafi jihadism is potentially more widespread and 

insidious. In view of this threat, Iran can assume a new status provided its pursuit of nuclear 

weapons is curtailed. Iran is under the rule of a conservative clergy, and there is sufficient culture 

in the ruling circles to reject Salafi jihadism. The fact that Hezbollah is more focused on Syria is 

good news for Israel. Similarly, an Iran nuclear agreement could lead to the calibration of an 

Iran-Saudi Arabia area-of-influence competition in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Bahrain. 

An effective method of dealing with the emerging security challenges would be a regional 

security regime through a joint forum where all major states (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, and 

Pakistan) can ensure that Salafi jihadism is prevented from undermining their sovereignty and 

stability. Through such a security forum, the U.S. could reassure Saudi Arabia, support Pakistan, 

engage Iran, and avoid a short-term solution in Syria. Such a forum could work out a formula for 

Syria and devise a framework for post-NATO withdrawal Afghanistan. 

 

10 Pollack, Kenneth M., “Securing the Gulf,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003. 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

18

A permanent Iran nuclear deal is not a sufficient condition for regional peace and security, but it 

is a necessary one. The deal also provides an opportunity to work with Iran on other regional 

challenges. Conversely, the breakdown of a nuclear deal would adversely affect regional 

stability. The objective of an effective nuclear deal should be both nonproliferation and regional 

stability. Although these are two separate tracks, progress with one would affect the other. Even 

if the nuclear deal breaks down, the regional challenges are unlikely to go away.

A positive outcome of the JPOA can have a useful effect in molding Iran’s regional role. Iran’s 

regional influence is the overriding concern of Saudi Arabia, while Israel is more concerned with 

nonproliferation. And, regional security is not possible without dealing with Salafi jihadism. 

However, it is also not possible for the U.S. and Iran, along with regional states, to jointly work 

toward eradication of Salafi jihadism unless Iran’s nuclear problem is resolved to the satisfaction 

of all parties.

In addition, the South Asian states are not comfortable with the prospect of Iranian nuclear 

weapons in the region. India wishes to see Iran as a non-nuclear weapons state.11 Pakistan has 

had longstanding ties with Iran, but in recent times, there has been an estrangement due to 

violence against Shias in Pakistan, its close ties to Saudi Arabia, and disagreements over 

Afghanistan and Iran’s ties with India. Pakistan would also be, in principle, uncomfortable to be 

positioned in the midst of two Nuclear Weapons States (i.e., Iran and India). As for Iran’s 

motivations for nuclearization, while the psychological impact of living in a nuclear 

neighborhood might have played a general role; there is no evidence to suggest that Pakistan’s 

nuclear capability had any specific role in forming Iranian nuclear intentions. Finally, PakistanIran relations have experienced an adverse trend regarding Afghanistan, and more recently, over 

border issues, but they cannot be characterized as hostile. 

3.1. The Role of Pakistan

Pakistan, though not located inside the Middle East, is still too close to be insulated from 

developments there. At a psychosocial level, Pakistanis wholeheartedly accept influences from 

the Middle East. There are three significant friends of Pakistan in the Middle Eastern region; 

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Within Pakistan, there are three mindsets in competition for 

political ascendency: Inside the governmental circles (i.e., civil-military) the prevalent mindset is 

that of nationalism; and among different sections of the civil society, there is internationalism 

and Islamism. The Islamists are in favor of Pakistan’s ties with Saudi Arabia, internationalists 

look favorably upon Iran, and nationalists admire Turkey. But out of the three states, it is only 

Iran with which Pakistan shares a common border. 

Pakistan generally follows the lead of Saudi Arabia in matters related to the Middle East (e.g., 

the Palestinian issue); however, Pakistan’s Iran perspective might not be totally in sync with 

Saudi Arabia. After all, Iran and Pakistan share a common border. Iran was the first state to 

recognize Pakistan after its formation and it provided material and moral support to Pakistan in 

all its wars with India. The cultural influence of Iran − through the Persian language − has 

historically been pervasive, and now continues through Khana-e-Farhang (cultural centers) in 

 

11 Dikshit, Sandeep, “Iran nuclear deal consistent with our stand, says India”. The Hindu. Nov 24, 2013. 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

19

various Pakistani cities. The national poet of Pakistan, Allama Iqbal wrote most of his poetry in 

Persian, and in Iran he is known as Iqbal-e-Lahori (Iqbal of Lahore).12 However, the cultural 

exchanges between Iran and Pakistan mostly belong to the realm of high culture. This stands in 

contrast to the equally pervasive cultural influences from Saudi Arabia, which generally relate to 

the popular classes through the madrassah culture. 

Pakistan approves of Iran’s nuclear program sans military capability. A permanent U.S.-Iran 

nuclear agreement would remove economic sanctions on Iran and allow Pakistan to pursue the 

Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project. And more importantly, it would allow Iran to exercise its 

influence in post-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, which could help Pakistan and Iran 

jointly restrain the influence of Salafi jihadism in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Unfortunately, the recent trends in Iran-Pakistan relations have been downward. It is Pakistan’s 

dilemma that as the U.S. and Iran draw closer, Pakistan appears to be drawing away from both.

New questions have popped up in Iran-Pakistan relations as the recent incidents of Shia-killing in 

Pakistan have served to vitiate bilateral relations.13

The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline is also under question, as there is talk of laying an Iran-India gas 

pipeline under the sea bypassing Pakistan. The earlier proposed project of an Iran-Pakistan-India 

pipeline, known as the ‘peace pipeline,’ has been shelved. What was left of this project is the 

Iran-Pakistan pipeline, hastily signed by Pakistan in 2013 by the outgoing Pakistan People’s 

Party (PPP) government. But a question mark hangs over its fate after the Saudi-oriented 

government of Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) took over. Another question mark in bilateral 

ties is the Gwadar-Chahbahar competition.14 Iran-India relations have witnessed an upturn, as 

India is helping Iran build a road from Chahbahar to Afghanistan, thereby providing landlocked 

Afghanistan with an alternative route to the sea, apart from the sole Karachi route it has so far 

relied on. A permanent agreement on the Iran nuclear program would remove trade sanctions, 

facilitate the peace pipeline project, and thus help improve Iran-Pakistan relations.

Iran-Pakistan relations have wider regional security implications including Salafi jihadism, 

Afghanistan, and secure borders.15 The issue of border security between Iran and Pakistan has 

assumed importance in recent days. The Iran border, until recently, was the only stable border of 

Pakistan’s four borders. The Indian border is conflict-prone, the Afghan border is unreliable, and 

the Chinese border is inaccessible. That is why recent events of disturbances on Iranian border 

have been unsettling, and better border management is needed. 

 

12 Ali Shariati “Ma Wa Iqbal” (Iqbal and I), urduadab4u.blogspot.com/2011/08/ham-aur-iqbal-article-on-iqbal-bybr.html

13 In Iran there are 62 million Shias, in India 40-55 million, according to the 2001 census, and in Pakistan there are 

30-45 million Shias. The Shias make regular visits to Iran for pilgrimage to Shia holy sites, and in Pakistan their 

convoys have become targets of Salafi jihadist attacks.

14 Pakistan has been trying to develop its Arabian seaport, Gwadar, with Chinese assistance. Just 43 miles further 

along the same coastline lies Chahbahar, the Iranian port, which it has declared as a Free Trade Industrial Zone, the 

only such Middle Eastern free port outside the Persian Gulf.

15 Pakistan’s four borders include 1509 miles with Afghanistan, 325 miles with China, 1809 miles with India, and 

564 miles with Iran.
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

20

The demographic composition of the Iran-Pakistan border is based upon the encompassing 

Sistan-Balochistan region. On the Pakistani side, there is the sparsely populated and arid 

Balochistan province, which comprises around 44 percent of Pakistan’s land mass, and only five 

percent of its population. On the Iranian side, the similarly arid and sparsely populated SistanBalochistan province is the largest in size among Iran’s 31 provinces, though containing only 

two percent of its population. The majority population group on both sides is the ethnic Baloch, 

who are overwhelmingly Sunni, of the Hanafi School of jurisprudence or fiqh. 

Both Iran’s province of Sistan-Balochistan and Pakistan’s province of Balochistan are restive. 

The former because it is home to Sunni minority in Shia Iran, where they form an insignificant, 

and in some cases, persecuted minority; and the latter because it is ethnic Baloch, which is an 

inconsequential minority in the largely Punjabi, Pakistan.16 In the Sistan-Balochistan capital of 

Zahedan, an unclaimed bombing on February 17, 2007 killed 13 people, including nine Islamic 

Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) officials. In the aftermath of this incident, Iran started building 

the Iran-Pakistan barrier; a three feet thick and 10 feet high boundary wall stretching 435 miles 

from Taftan to Mand. 

The Sunni militant group active in Sistan-Balochistan province has been the Jundullah (soldiers 

of God), whose leader, Abdul Malik Rigi, was hanged by Iran in June 2010 for the militant 

group’s attacks on civilians and officials in Sistan-Balochistan. However, a new group known as 

Jaish-i-Adl claimed in November 2013 that it had assassinated a local official prosecutor in 

Sistan-Balochistan, and in October it ambushed Iranian border guards, killing 14. In response, 

Iranian authorities executed 16 rebels, eight of them were Sunni insurgents and eight were drug 

traffickers. 

An incident that caused recent diplomatic bitterness between Iran and Pakistan took place on 

February 8, 2014. According to news reports, five Iranian border security guards were captured 

and taken across the border by the relatively new group, Jaish-i-Adl. Iran sought Pakistan’s help 

in recovery of the guards, but Pakistan declared that the guards were not on its side of the border. 

As a result, the Iranians protested and the Iranian interior minister threatened to create a ‘security 

zone’ in the border region through military action. 

Interestingly, this incident occurred exactly one year after Iran and Pakistan signed a security 

agreement, under which both countries were required to cooperate in preventing and combating

the activities that posed a threat to national security of either country.17 The two interior 

ministers had signed a “bill concerning Security Cooperation Agreement between Islamic 

Republic of Iran and Republic of Pakistan,” in Tehran on February 9, 2013, to deal with border 

security and counterterrorism. 

Following the February 8th incident, an Iran-Pakistan Joint Border Commission meeting was held 

on February 21st, after a four-year interval. The Deputy Governor of Sistan-Balochistan on the 

 

16 Punjabis are the numerically largest ethnic group in Pakistan, concentrated in the Punjab province. The second 

largest is the Sindhis in the Sindh province. The third largest is Pukhtoons in the Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa, including 

Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The smallest ethnic group is the Baloch of Balochistan province. 

17 Accessible at: rc.majlis-ir/en/news/show/852240
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

21

Iranian side and the Chief Secretary of Balochistan on the Pakistani side resolved to improve

border security issues, agreeing to the extradition of captives and joint border patrolling. 

The February 8th incident highlights two issues − the Iran-Pakistan differences over border 

security and Iran’s frustration with Pakistan. The border area is remote, rugged, and sparsely 

populated. It is patrolled by Pakistan’s paramilitary Frontier Corps on the Pakistani side and 

border security guards on Iranian side; however problems with the movement of drugs and 

militants across the border ensue. Iran’s frustration with Pakistan indicates that either Iranians 

believe that the border on the Pakistani side is a lawless zone, or worse still, they think that the 

Pakistanis disregard their feelings. Iran has been strict on both drug smuggling and growing 

militancy on its border, and harbors complaints about non-cooperation of ISAF/NATO forces on 

its Afghanistan border. Furthermore, the Iranians allege that the border issues with Pakistan are, 

in fact, being instigated at the behest of Saudi Arabia because of the Syrian conflict.18 

A permanent agreement between Iran and the U.S. could facilitate increased Iran-Pakistan 

cooperation on border security. For example, U.S. cooperation in science and technology could 

be extended through national laboratories, which have vast and longstanding expertise in the 

field of border security. Nonetheless, the difficulties of managing the Iran-Pakistan border areas 

are considerable. Both ground patrolling and aerial surveillance are expensive options. In case of 

ground patrolling, there is the cost incurred by vehicle maintenance, while aerial surveillance is 

expensive and also lacks any mechanism to physically arrest border violators. 

A new question in Iran-Pakistan relations is going to be Pakistan’s tilt toward the Saudi Arabian 

position on the Syria situation. The Saudi Crown Prince visited Pakistan on February 15, 2014. 

Pakistan’s official position on Syria before this visit was one of neutrality; however, after the 

Saudi visit, Pakistan declared support for a transitional government in Syria. This signaled 

Pakistan’s alignment with the Saudi Arabian position that there should be a regime change in 

Syria. Even though Pakistan later officially rejected any policy U-turn under the direction of 

Saudi Arabia, this perception threatens to damage Pakistan’s traditional position of confessional 

(i.e., sectarian) neutrality within the wider Islamic community.

The broader contours of Iran-Pakistan relations would be improved by Pakistani neutrality in 

Syria; and this stance should not impact the strong Pakistan-Saudi Arabia relations. According to 

a Pew Research Center survey, an unprecedented 95 percent of Pakistanis have a positive view 

of Saudi Arabia.19 Pakistan receives around four billion dollars in annual remittances from 

overseas Pakistanis based in Saudi Arabia. In the 1970s and 1980s, Pakistani troops were 

stationed in Saudi Arabia, and during the Gulf War, Pakistani troops were sent to protect Mecca 

and Medina holy sites in Saudi Arabia. Under the government of General Ziaul Haq (1977-88), 

intelligence cooperation between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia was established during the 

Afghanistan War (1979-89). Saudi Arabia also provides petroleum to Pakistan on concessional 

rates in times of crisis. However, Saudi Arabia’s influence was reduced during the recent PPP 

tenure (2008-13).

 

18 Mir, Amir, “Strains in Pak-Iran Ties,” Daily the News, April 04, 2014.

19 http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/10/17/saudi-arabias-image-falters-among-middle-east-neighbors/
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

22

The government of the PML-N assumed power in Pakistan in May 2013. The promises of 

change in Pakistan’s India and Afghan policy could not make much headway since they are 

traditionally considered the preserve of the military bureaucracy. However, a policy change has 

emerged regarding Syria, as a result of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s reliance on the Saudi 

ruling family due to Pakistan’s financial constraints. In addition, the Saudis are Sharif’s 

benefactors because they provided him sanctuary for eight years after General Pervez 

Musharraf’s military coup in 1999. 

Pakistan’s new Syria position favors Saudi Arabia, but improvement of relations with Saudi 

Arabia should not be at the cost of Iran, which is an immediate neighbor of Pakistan, and an area 

Pakistan considers important for its strategic depth. Secondly, there is the factor of the “butterfly 

effect,” as the spread of Salafi jihadism from Syria could become a headache for Pakistan. 

Considering the legacy of Iranian-Saudi rivalry, which has both sectarian and racial undertones, 

it is better for Pakistan to maintain neutrality in the same way as it remained neutral in the IranIraq War in the eighties. Pakistan’s policy during the Iran-Iraq War paid diplomatic dividends, 

with a role as neutral arbiter and peace-broker. 

 

The Saudi Arabian outreach to Pakistan on Syria demonstrates that Saudi Arabia is seeking to 

chart an autonomous course from the U.S on Syria. The prospects of joint U.S.-Saudi hegemony 

in the region were scuttled by non-violent settlements in Syria and Iran. There are reports that 

Saudi Arabia has requested military support from Pakistan (e.g., small arms). These types of 

weapons would be suitable for a battlefield like Syria. 

Given the delicate security situation in Syria, Pakistan should support the territorial integrity of 

Syria rather than the objective of regime change. Small arms transfers might not have strategic 

implications, but it would indicate that Pakistan is taking sides in the regional polarization. In the 

context of Syria, Pakistan should also remain mindful of the consequences of involvement. 

These could appear sooner, rather than later, in the form of a spreading Salafi jihadist threat, and 

implications for the internal security of Pakistan.

3.2. Proposal for a Regional Security Forum

A Regional Security Forum could help deal with two main issues in South Asia and the Middle 

East. These issues are of Salafi jihadism and the worsening regional geopolitical rivalries. 

Initially, the key states − Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan − must sit together to stabilize the 

critically weak states (e.g., Afghanistan and Syria). The failure of the Geneva process has 

demonstrated that Syria is not a problem for the UN to resolve. Similarly, Afghanistan’s post2014 uncertainty can only be improved via by key regional states. These key countries have 

stakes in regional stability and they are not mere onlookers, but actual protagonists in these 

conflict zones. Subsequently, stabilization efforts can also be undertaken for conflict-prone areas 

like Lebanon, Bahrain, and Yemen. Similarly, other major regional states like Turkey and Egypt 

can also join later. The U.S. does not have to necessarily engage directly, as they did leading the

nuclear negotiations with Iran. Rather, Saudi Arabia should be induced to take the lead role. The 

primary task for the Regional Security Forum is to engage Iran and Saudi Arabia in regional

dialogue on security; and include Pakistan as both a facilitator of the talks, and as a significant 

player in its own right in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Pakistan’s history has a precedent of such 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

23

activity when it played a role in opening up China in 1971. In case of the Middle East, Pakistan 

has the rare advantage of enjoying the confidence of both Iran and Saudi Arabia. 

The Middle East is a difficult region to manage. The current regional security architecture in the 

Middle East is based upon the Post-World War I boundaries. This regional structure is under 

immense pressure in the aftermath of the Salafi jihadist and sectarian conflagration centered on 

Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. There are also emerging intra-GCC rifts. Al-Qaeda and other Salafi 

jihadist groups would like to carve out a terrorist state in the border region of Syria and Iraq,20

which would inject instability in the region. 

Given the declared U.S. policy of Asia pivot, the main challenge for U.S. policymakers is to 

partially expand attention more broadly in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. This would 

entail improving relations with Iran, while at the same time, managing Saudi anxiety. This might 

not immediately revert to the Twin Pillars policy of the 1970s, which envisioned joint IranianSaudi Arabian support for the U.S. anti-Communist effort. However, it would require some sort 

of a modus vivendi between Iran and Saudi Arabia for apportionment of regional influence. Iran 

could also be convinced to come on board in reference to the Arab League offer of 2002 with 

Israel for permanent peace vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli issue. 

There are three broad objectives that could be met through a Regional Security Forum: a U.S.-

Russia reset in the Middle East; supporting a regional balance of power; and countering Salafi 

jihadism. On the first point, the U.S.-Russia rivalry has been managed successfully in the Middle 

East as demonstrated by the Syrian chemical weapons deal and the JPOA. They both appear to 

maintain regional status quo and remain valuable partners to regional powers − this needs to be 

institutionalized. Secondly, the U.S. interests of retaining its military forces and economic 

influence have regionally been pursued by hub-and-spoke diplomacy. In the Middle East, it 

appears sensible to uphold balance of power as opposed to direct dominance to prevent any 

single regional hegemon. A regional security forum could implement this policy in a smooth 

manner. Additionally, if the JPOA breaks down, the U.S. can consider extending nuclear 

deterrence to Saudi Arabia, and offshore balancing could continue in Bahrain. 

And finally, the regional states should realize that the regional spread of Salafi jihadism is a 

significant, amorphous, and insidious threat. Before the latest developments in Iraq, Syria, and 

Pakistan, it could be said that there were cognitive hurdles in the identification of Salafi jihadism 

as the primary threat by governments in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. This phenomenon is similar 

to the cases noted by psychologists, wherein the extremist children of conservative parents are 

not recognized as such by the parents until a terrorist incident by that child occurs. A similar 

delay in recognition of a Salafi jihadist threat was evidenced in the case of Iran, Pakistan, and 

Saudi Arabia, but that phase has passed. Now the only hurdle left is the desire to pursue 

geopolitical goals through Salafi jihadists under the principle, “the ends justify the means.” This 

rationale could be removed as a factor if Iran’s nuclear issue is resolved, and it is brought into 

the regional security framework under a forum where competing influences in Syria and Iraq, et 

 

20 “Al-Qaeda’s Resurgence in Iraq: A Threat to U.S. Interests,” Testimony by Brett McGurk, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Iran and Iraq, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington 

DC, Feb 05, 2014. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/221274.htm. Accessed on April 17, 2014. On June 10, 2014, 

Mosul in Iraq fell to the ISIS, which now controls contiguous territory on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border.
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

24

al., could be calibrated. Similarly, Iran’s positive role in Afghanistan could ameliorate Pakistan’s 

concerns about the security of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border (i.e., the Durand Line). 

The Saudi Arabian-Iranian equation is critical to a Regional Security Forum because it is multidimensional. Four dimensions can be enumerated. The first is the calibration of Saudi ArabianIranian geopolitical rivalry within the framework of the Persian-Arab identity conflict. The 

second is the sectarian dimension − Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Sunni world and Iran is the 

leader of the Shia world. This means that the establishment of a Regional Security Forum could

have broad impact in the region, and also in the rest of the Muslim world (e.g., South Asia and 

even Indonesia and Malaysia). The third is an ideological dimension with two non-violent

strands in political Islam − the Saudi Salafists and the JI-AKP-MB combination. Iran is closer to 

the latter group. The regional forum could open dialogue between these opposing camps, 

resulting in an effective channel of communications that could help manage the regional 

conflicts (even within the GCC). And finally, such a forum inside the U.S. could unite various 

political opinions with a soft corner for either of the two sides in the Middle East. An internal 

political consensus between the White House and the Congress − Democrats and Republicans −

on Middle Eastern security could also help guarantee the success of a regional forum. 

The process of initiation of the proposed Regional Security Forum could begin with IranPakistan border security, which could serve as a confidence-building measure. Then with Saudi 

Arabia’s involvement, the forum could take up Syria as its first order of business. The immediate 

regional issue for the Middle East is the meltdown of Syria. The regional insecurity is bound to 

multiply if the war spreads north and south into Turkey and Jordan. Syria enjoys symbolic 

centrality in the Middle East, as Afghanistan does in South Asia and Central Asia. Just as the 

South Asian threat perceptions would rise if the security situation in Afghanistan worsens, 

similarly the regional security architecture in the Middle East is closely tied to the fate of Syria. 

4. Implications of the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA)

The JPOA provides Iran and P5+1 a six- to ten-month time window to resolve the nuclear 

impasse. Its significance lies in its landmark role in removing the taboo since 1979 of bilateral 

interaction between Iran and the U.S. It marked the U.S. policy shift from containment to 

cautious engagement with Iran and signaled Iran’s return journey toward normalization. 

An end to the Iranian nuclear weapons program could become a factor in regional 

nonproliferation. The possible Saudi pursuit of a nuclear option would lose its raisons d’etre. It 

would also remove the possibility of Saudi Arabia seeking a nuclear umbrella, whether from the 

U.S. or Pakistan. On the part of Israel, it could convince Israel to enter into negotiations on a 

possible Nuclear-Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East (NWFZ-ME). 

If Iran were able to find a balance between national sovereignty and international responsibility, 

the nuclear agreement could help foster a nuclear safety culture in Iran. A permanent nuclear 

agreement would set a new gold standard in the field of nuclear development. It would be closer 

to the NPT central bargain of allowing civilian nuclear development to non-nuclear weapons 

states; and could lead to advancement on the flipside of the NPT central bargain by decreasing 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

25

the weapons of nuclear weapons states. This could all be accomplished by working on a

framework for NWFZ-ME. 

4.1. Attaining a Permanent Agreement

It is evident that Iran’s reason for coming to the table was economic sanctions, as Iran’s main 

sources of revenue − oil exports − were cut by half. Yet, Iran wanted to give the impression that 

its will was not forced by sanctions; so as sanctions tightened, it kept moving quickly toward a 

breakout capability. However, escalatory measures on both sides (i.e., sanctions and centrifuges), 

were worsening the situation. Under the JPOA, the paradigm shifted from escalation, to 

concessions and incentives. The nuclear program still remains deeply entrenched in the Iranian 

psyche, and Europe and the U.S. will have to offer something tangible to change its calculus in 

the ultimate analysis. For example, the P5+1’s offer of suspending sanctions on gold and 

precious metals versus closure of Fordow is not realistic.

It is important to assess whether the JPOA would result in a long-term settlement of the Iranian 

nuclear issue. The foremost common factor between the two sides is the trust-deficit. Therefore, 

both sides tend to follow the old Arab saying that, “Trust in God but tie your camel.” During the 

negotiations, the U.S. said that, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” demonstrating the 

low level of trust. Similarly, the opaqueness of the Iranian nuclear program itself is a factor of 

the political and social opaqueness of Iran. There is hardly any openness vis-à-vis Europe and the 

U.S., so much so that embassies have remained closed since 1979. The crux of the JPOA is that 

the world needs foreknowledge about Iran’s nuclear intentions. Iran has to accept that if the 

world knows about its nuclear program, it might gain insight into its politics, and may, in turn, 

get involved in some political matters. Iran has to accept that this is a state of normalcy in 

today’s interconnected world. 

A final agreement cannot go beyond the NPT. Iran has the right to enrich uranium, but under 

sufficient safeguards (monitoring of every step), to ensure that it does not move toward a 

weapons program. Lowering enrichment to a level that would be non-weapon grade21 may be an 

achievable accommodation in the final agreement, satisfying both the Western position of no 

enrichment and the Iranian position seeking the right to enrich.

The Iranians often cite Japan as a model for Iran. The Japanese system is based upon 

transparency, resulting in the deployment of an annual white paper, which communicates the 

needs and status of the nuclear program. It was the first country to sign the Additional Protocol, 

and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has spent many years in Japan under the 

Additional Protocol to ensure its program’s peaceful nature.22 Thus, Iran can begin the process of 

transparency by signing the Additional Protocol.

The permanent deal would have to include significant physical limits, the number and type of 

centrifuges, the level of permitted enrichment, stockpiles of low enriched uranium, and the 

number of enrichment facilities, as well as enhanced monitoring and verification measures. The 

 

21 Uranium needs to be enriched to 95 percent to produce nuclear weapon.

22 “The Protocol to the Agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency Regarding Safeguards in the United 

States (Treaty Doc. 107-7),” 108th Congress, 2nd session, Diane Publishing Co., 2004. p.108.
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

26

Arak facility can be changed from heavy water to light water to prevent plutonium extraction; 

and there should be alteration and unhindered access into Fordow. In this entire process, the role 

of inspections is most important because, ultimately, only inspections and verification-based 

solutions can provide the necessary limitations and transparency.

The deal is good for Iranian-oil energy consumers such as China, Japan, India, and South Korea. 

It is also good for arms suppliers, as Iran is a market for China and Russia. And at the same time, 

de-emphasizing conflict with Iran could lead to significant change in how the U.S. Navy is

deployed, and thereby, improves its regional leverage without raising troop levels. A permanent 

JPOA creates an opportunity for all parties to work on the contours of a broader framework of 

regional and nuclear security. And then there is the possibility of a lasting solution; however, the 

JPOA was born with an inherent flaw − it was signed on both sides by nuclear doves. The 

amount of nuclear latency retained by Iran at the end of the deal will determine its long-term 

sustainability and acceptability by hawks, both inside the U.S. and Iran. 

The interim deal implies that Iran could be a nuclear threshold state as long as the reaction time 

to a breakout capability is sufficient for the outside world to try to stop Iran. For this, there 

should be transparency through inspections. If the terms of the agreement hold during the 

duration of the agreement, then Iran would be treated as would any other non-nuclear weapons 

state − in good standing under the NPT. The clearest deal breaker would be if Iran goes for 

highly enriched uranium, and it could be casus belli for military action as well. If the interim deal 

breaks down, the role of the European partners, the U.S. Congress, and the four major buyers of 

Iranian oil − China, South Korea, India, and Japan − remain critical to reinstitution of sanctions. 

Moving from containment to cautious engagement, is an important role in handling Iran’s return 

to the international community if a permanent nuclear agreement is reached with the U.S., in 

addition to Europe, which has traditionally considered Iran to fall within its area of influence due 

to extensive geographical linkages. Iran sent its first ever internet message of greetings outside 

Iran to the University of Vienna, Austria, in 1992. Europe, because of geographical proximity 

and its soft power, can set the social standards and their compliance would advance the cause of 

human rights and social wellbeing in Iran. Also, Japan can play a role, since Iran seeks to 

emulate them in scientific development. 

Three important points during negotiations for a permanent nuclear agreement:

1. Iran cannot be allowed to create gaps between Europe and the U.S., which could break 

international consensus and prevent renewed sanctions on Iran.

2. The final agreement should include the possible military dimensions of the nuclear 

program; the JPOA does not.

3. The degree of nuclear latency in the final agreement should be low enough to give the 

West reaction time in case Iran moves toward breakout capability.

The breakdown of the JPOA could result in: 

 Strengthening of conservatives inside Iran, 

 Worsening of economic ties and border security between Iran and Pakistan,
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

27

 Saudi attempts to acquire its own nuclear deterrent, 

 Continuance of the regional role of Salafi jihadism, 

 Renewed U.S. sanctions on Iran, and 

 Possible Israeli strikes on Iran.

4.2. Iran’s Domestic Politics

Whether the JPOA results in a rapprochement between Iran and the U.S. depends much upon 

Iran’s internal political dynamics. But it is also significant that a U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement 

could result in long-term effects upon the future of Iranian domestic politics. The Iranian 

political outlook has been noted to be receptive to the U.S. actions and even internal political 

developments in the U.S. For instance, the Iranians elected the hardliner Mahmud Ahmedinejad 

when George W. Bush was President, and elected the pragmatic Hassan Rouhani during Barack 

Obama’s Presidency.23

The Iranian political system is quasi-democratic, as there are both elected and unelected officials 

in the Iranian decision-making system. And, there are different factions across the Iranian 

political spectrum ranging from conservatives, to pragmatists, to reformists. While the buck 

stops with the Supreme Leader, the regular elections have resulted in gradual maturation of 

electoral politics. In the run-up to the 2013 presidential elections, the reformist camp (e.g., 

former President Khatami) presented a united front and withdrew all but one of its candidates 

just 72 hours prior to voting, leaving only Hassan Rouhani, who had emerged as the most 

winnable candidate in opposition to the conservative party. This tactic revealed the larger 

political reality of Iran, which is that a two-party system has practically emerged as a result of 

electoral alliances. 

Iran’s political culture is characterized by different factions, which are in disagreement over 

Iran’s role and purpose in the world, and the mechanism to achieve its national objectives. These 

factions are given legal cover through the Iranian Constitution, which gives parallel authority to 

both elected and unelected officials. The elected President and Parliament vie for power with an 

unelected Supreme Leader, the judiciary, and the IRGC. In matters of national security and 

foreign policy, the latter group has greater leverage due to the veto power of the Supreme 

Leader. Nonetheless, the presidency is an important platform within the Iranian political 

structure due to its elected status. 

Considering that it is always hard to tone down religious rhetoric, or reverse religious extremist 

decrees, Rouhani has a difficult balancing act ahead of him. In terms of the importance of 

gestures in Iran’s identity and political culture, the nuclear conservatives and pragmatists share 

religious discourse, and nuclear pragmatists and reformists share nationalist discourse. In this 

milieu, the role of the Fatwa, or religious decree, opposing nuclear weapons is critical, as this 

can be used to turn public opinion in favor of a peaceful program. Iran’s nuclear program is 

presented as national progress in science and technology, not as a pan-Islamic effort to counter 

Christian-Jewish-Hindu power in the world, as the Pakistanis did by presenting their weapons 

 

23 This parallel between the U.S. and Iranian election results was pointed out by Dr. Faraj Ghanbari during Q & A 

session at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, on April 23, 2014. 
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

28

capability as the ‘Islamic bomb.’ This feeling should be carried forward through the Fatwa to 

ensure the peaceful nature of program. Finally, the most significant long-term impact of a 

successful JPOA could be the impact upon the power equation and equilibrium between political 

actors inside Iran. This could have long-term implications for Iran’s political behavior and 

regional posture.

In addition to Iran’s decentralized political system and divergent views, which make nuclear 

negotiations difficult, there is the factor of bureaucratic politics. The Atomic Energy 

Organization of Iran (AEOI) and the IRGC are theoretically considered supporters of expanding 

the nuclear program. The influence of nuclear conservatives (e.g., former president 

Ahmedinejad) has been demonstrated even after the signing of the JPOA. The Parliament 

(Majlis) has drafted legislation to increase uranium enrichment levels to 60 percent for nuclearpowered submarines should the U.S. Congress pass additional sanctions against Iran.24

Furthermore, Iran announced development of new and improved centrifuges, tested long-range 

ballistic missiles,25 and announced that an Iranian frigate was in the North Atlantic Ocean, 

approaching U.S. maritime borders. The latter announcement has, however, since been 

rescinded.26 Soon after the interim deal, Foreign Minister Zarif stated, “Enrichment is an 

inseparable part of (Iran’s) nuclear program. None of the nuclear facilities will be shut down.” 

Furthermore, “All of our confidence building activities and commitments are reversible, and we 

can undo them in a matter of a few weeks.”27 These actions and statements were clearly attempts 

to appease the nuclear conservatives. In spite of the fact that the nuclear conservatives hold a 

veto over national security affairs, the ruling pragmatists (e.g., President Rouhani) can sell the 

nuclear deal to the Iranian public if the economic benefits are palpable to them. 

5. Conclusion

The problem with Iran’s nuclear program encompasses two conundrums: Possible military 

dimensions of the nuclear program; and Iran’s regional role. Iran’s nuclear issue can be resolved 

through the twin factors of inculcation of trust and robust verification. The interim deal outlined 

by the JPOA lays out limited conditions for both sides. On the Iranian side it entails slowing 

down uranium enrichment to prevent a possible breakout capability. On the P5+1 side, it entails 

lifting some of the strict economic sanctions on Iran. However, working out a permanent 

agreement will need to have a much broader framework. The guarantee of an Iranian peaceful 

pursuit of nuclear capability can best be offered by Iran through the adoption of the IAEA 

Additional Protocol. It would allow announced and unannounced inspections of declared and 

undeclared sites, providing P5+1 the best assurance in regards to Iranian nuclear intentions.

 

24 Wilfried Buchta, Who Rules Iran? The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic (Washington D.C.: Washington 

Institute and Konrad Adenaur Stiftung, 2000), pp. 47-48

25 Accessible at, thediplomat.com/2014/02/iran-tests-long-range-ballistic-missiles/

26 “Iran scraps plan to send warships to Atlantic: Fars,” Reuters, April 13, 2014

27 Zarif: We Are Ready to Start Negotiations for a Final Solution, Fars News Agency, November 24, 2013. 

http://www.farsnews.com/newstext,php?nn=13920903001672
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

29

Then there is the question of Iran’s regional role. A permanent nuclear agreement supports Iran’s 

normalization and return to the global community of states as a regular member. It implies 

potential replacement of Israel’s nuclear hegemony and Arab Sunni hegemony with a Balance of 

Power situation involving Iran. The most important questions in this scenario are: What does it 

entail for regional states? What does such an agreement entail for the U.S.? The central point in 

this context is Iran’s posture: Is it a status quo power or a revisionist power? This brings Iran’s 

domestic political dynamics into play. For Iran’s return to normalization, it would have to 

convince both regional and global state-actors that it is a status quo power. Revisionist postures 

evoke natural responses of unease and panic. Finally, in order for both Iran and Saudi Arabia to 

prove that they are responsible regional actors, they should work together toward regional 

stability in Syria. 

Iran’s relations with neighboring Pakistan involve both competition and cooperation, carrying 

implications for Southwest Asian regional stability. There are three areas that would determine 

the future bilateral ties and regional stability: Pakistan’s neutrality in the Middle Eastern 

polarization and sphere-of-influence competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia; Iran-Pakistan 

cooperation in Afghanistan; and acting as good neighbors − vis-à-vis an Iran-Pakistan shared 

border to ensure border security and trade. In the ultimate analysis, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi 

Arabia would have to realize the “butterfly effect” inherent in the spread of Salafi jihadism and 

join together, preferably through a Regional Security Forum, to counter this threat. 

About the Author

Dr. Muhammad Tehsin is a tenure-track Assistant Professor at the Department of Defense and 

Strategic Studies at Quaid-I-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan. He received his PhD in 

International Relations from the University of Vienna, focusing on Iranian Nuclear Proliferation 

as well as nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East and South Asia.
Nonproliferation & Regional Security in Southwest Asia

30

Distribution

TBD

1 MS 0899 Technical Library, 9536 

(electronic copy)