Why does Iran refuse to enter a direct war with the Zionist regime as far as it can?

Prominent researchers in the field of foreign policy and international relations call Iran's foreign policy behavior pattern complex and ambiguous. Examining the views offered about Iran's foreign policy by foreign and domestic analysts also shows that multiple and sometimes contradictory interpretations of Iran's foreign policy have been presented. With the beginning of the Gaza war, the desperate attempt of the Zionist regime to involve Iran directly in a regional war, and Iran's refusal, once again, the complexity of Iran's foreign policy has shown itself and has created questions in the minds of researchers.

• Is Iran behaving responsibly as a nation-state? If so, what are the ideological strategies in its foreign policy?
• Does Iran follow the survival strategy? If so, why is it obviously revisionist acting, and why does it show revisionist actions?
• Is Iran, as a revisionist actor, seeking to upset the existing order? If so, why does it avoid entering into any war and always follow the strategy of neutrality?
• Is the focus of Iran's foreign policy the destruction of Israel? If so, why doesn't he use the current opportunity to activate all fronts of resistance against Israel?

These questions and many others show the complexity of understanding the nature of Iran's foreign policy. The fact is that understanding the foreign policy of countries in general and understanding the behavioral nature of Iran's foreign policy, in particular, is complex, but from the core of these complex behaviors, we can reach some scientific propositions about Iran's foreign policy:

Why is understanding Iran's foreign policy difficult and complex for domestic and especially foreign observers?

1. Basically, the understanding of foreign policy is associated with ambiguity and complexity because domestic policy is followed in an authoritative environment and hierarchical order, but foreign policy is followed in an evasive authority environment and an anarchic order, according to Kenneth Waltz from a geopolitical point of view.
2. Iran is located in an inhomogeneous environment, which, in addition to its mosaic nature, also faces structural conflicts and, most importantly, negative and positive interventions by great powers. Compare the geopolitics of Iran with the geopolitics of Malaysia. The simplicity and predictability of Malaysia's foreign policy are understandable because this country is located in a place where its surrounding environment has much homogeneity with Malaysia in different dimensions, and there are no structural conflicts in the geopolitics of Southeast Asia.
3. Many of Iran's foreign policy behaviors have historical roots. Security fear of historical interventions by great powers, fear of war, adoption of neutrality strategy in wars, balancing in the region, strategic loneliness, use of third force in balancing, lack of strategic interests of great powers in Iran and benefiting of great powers from Iran as a tool and ... are the most important historical roots of Iran's foreign policy and relations, which is evident in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
4. Iran's problems in the surrounding environment of its foreign policy are very diverse, contradictory, and complex. Compare Iran's problems in the Caucasus, AFPA, Shamat, and the Persian Gulf. At the same time, the diversity of Iran's foreign policy crises in the surrounding environment should be examined with the consideration that confrontation with America and conflict with Israel take a lot of energy from Iran's foreign policy.
5. Finally, the most important complexity of Iran's foreign policy is that in Morgenthau's classification of foreign policy behavior, Iran is a revisionist and, at the same time, peaceful actor.

The above five cases explain the complexity of Iran's foreign policy. At the same time, behavior patterns are extracted from it, revealing the heart of this ambiguity and complexity.

1. Iran is not looking for regional hegemony, but based on historical experiences, it considers an endogenous regional order a favorable situation for itself and other countries in the region. With its neighborhood policy, confronting the negative interference of foreign powers, practical confrontation with Israel, and preventing the occurrence of regional war, Iran seeks to realize this.
2. Geopolitical requirements define the main direction of Iran's foreign policy. According to the diversity and multiplicity of crises in different surrounding environments, Iran adopts a diverse and multiplicity of strategies.
3. Iran avoids entering the war as much as possible, but if the survival of the country is endangered, it uses all its security and military levers to punish the aggressor.
4. Iran's foreign policy is pragmatic, but this pragmatism is not American pragmatism (Edward Hallett Carr). Its pragmatism should be understood in the jurisprudential concepts of honor, wisdom, and expediency.
5. Understanding Iran's foreign policy with realist logic is incomplete.

Seyyed Mohammad Hosseini, a senior expert at the Institute for Political and International Studies

 (The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)