A Farcaster Exclusive
1/2 - Iran's Constitutional Sovereignty and the Strategic Impossibility of Subordinate Alliances
The Constitutional Foundation of Total Sovereignty
The Iranian Constitution of 1979 establishes sovereignty as the fundamental organising principle of the Islamic Republic, creating insurmountable barriers to the type of subordinate security relationships that characterize China and Russia's frameworks with North Korea. This constitutional architecture represents a statecraft driven by theological and ideological commitment to independence that makes Iranian participation in hierarchical alliance structures constitutionally impossible.
Article 56 of the Iranian Constitution declares that "Absolute sovereignty over the world and man belongs to God, and it is He Who has made man master of his own social destiny. No one can deprive man of this divine right, nor subordinate it to the vested interests of a particular individual or group." This foundational principle establishes sovereignty as divinely ordained and inalienable, creating a theological barrier to any arrangement that would subordinate Iranian decision-making to foreign powers.
The constitution's foreign policy framework reinforces this absolute commitment to independence. Article 152 explicitly states that "The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity" and mandates "non-alignment with respect to the hegemonist superpowers."
This constitutional language represents a binding legal and ideological framework that emerged from the 1979 revolution's explicit rejection of foreign domination. The revolutionary leadership deliberately crafted these provisions to prevent any future government from entering agreements that would compromise Iranian sovereignty, having experienced centuries of foreign interference and exploitation.
The Contrast with North Korea's Subordinate Security Architecture
The security frameworks that China and Russia maintain with North Korea represent precisely the type of hierarchical arrangements that Iran's constitution forbids. Russia and North Korea signed a "comprehensive strategic partnership" treaty in June 2024 that includes mutual defense provisions, with Article 4 stating that if either country "falls into a state of war," the other shall "provide military and other assistance with all means... without delay."
However, this relationship operates within clear hierarchical parameters. Russia's relationship with North Korea appears driven by desperation for munitions for its Ukraine invasion, while North Korea's Kim Jong-un "is desperate for food and other resources to calm his internal instabilities and to support his military programs." This transactional dynamic creates inherent dependency relationships that contradict Iran's constitutional commitment to absolute sovereignty.
Similarly, China's relationship with North Korea has historically involved substantial economic leverage and political influence. North Korea is China's sole military ally, though as scholars have noted, since China's normalisation with South Korea, the alliance has become largely transactional. China provides critical economic support that keeps the North Korean regime afloat, creating dependencies that would be unacceptable under Iran's constitutional framework.
Constitutional Prohibitions on Foreign Control
Iran's constitution contains specific prohibitions that make subordinate security arrangements legally impossible. Article 153 categorically forbids "Any form of agreement resulting in foreign control over the natural resources, economy, army, or culture of the country, as well as other aspects of the national life." This comprehensive prohibition extends beyond formal control to encompass any arrangement that could practically limit Iranian sovereignty.
The constitutional language reflects lessons learned from Iran's historical experience with foreign interference. The Qajar and Pahlavi periods demonstrated how economic and military dependencies could evolve into effective foreign control, even without formal subordination. The revolutionary leadership crafted these provisions specifically to prevent such gradual erosion of sovereignty.
When Russia attempted to use Iranian airfields during the Syrian conflict, the domestic backlash forced Tehran to terminate the arrangement. When Russians were using an air base for refueling during the Syrian civil war, "the Iranians were so upset that Iran's Parliament essentially kicked the Russians out." This incident illustrates how Iran's domestic political system actively enforces constitutional sovereignty principles, even when temporary arrangements might serve immediate strategic interests.
The Ideological Dimension of Iranian Independence
Iran's constitutional commitment to sovereignty extends beyond practical political considerations to encompass fundamental ideological principles rooted in Islamic governance theory. The concept of wilayat al-faqih (guardianship of the Islamic jurist) establishes the Supreme Leader as the ultimate guardian of Islamic law and Iranian independence, creating institutional mechanisms to resist foreign influence.
The constitution establishes that governmental powers "operate under the supervision of the absolute wilayat al-'amr and the Leadership of the Ummah", creating a system where religious authority serves as the ultimate guardian against foreign domination. This theological framework makes subordination to secular foreign powers not merely politically unacceptable but religiously illegitimate.
The revolutionary ideology that shaped the constitution explicitly rejects the bipolar logic of great power competition. The constitution's preamble declares the revolution's goal as "the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others," rejecting both Western and Eastern models of governance in favor of an independent Islamic system.
Economic Independence and Strategic Autonomy
Iran's constitutional framework mandates economic independence as a prerequisite for political sovereignty. The prohibition on foreign control of natural resources reflects the understanding that economic dependency inevitably leads to political subordination. This principle creates fundamental incompatibility with the type of asymmetric relationships that characterise China and Russia's arrangements with North Korea.
Iran's oil wealth provides the economic foundation for maintaining this independence. Unlike North Korea, which relies heavily on Chinese economic support, Iran possesses sufficient natural resources to sustain autonomous decision-making. This economic independence reinforces the constitutional commitment to sovereignty by providing material basis for political autonomy.
The sanctions regime imposed by Western powers has paradoxically strengthened Iran's commitment to economic independence. Rather than forcing subordination to China or Russia, sanctions have encouraged development of indigenous capabilities and alternative economic relationships that preserve Iranian autonomy.
The Practical Limits of Iranian-Chinese-Russian Cooperation
While Iran maintains cooperative relationships with both China and Russia, these partnerships operate within strict limits imposed by Iran's constitutional framework. Iran's decision-makers "had no illusions about the extent of their ties to both Russia and China" and "neither country has offered Iran mutual aid or assistance when it comes to military matters."
Recent developments illustrate these limitations. During the recent Israel-Iran conflict, "China made no indication that it would step in to militarily assist its longtime friend Iran," while Iran's foreign minister traveled to Moscow for consultations but received no security guarantees. These episodes demonstrate that Iran's partnerships with major powers remain fundamentally different from the subordinate relationships that North Korea maintains.
Iran's approach to great power relationships reflects its constitutional commitment to strategic autonomy. The relationship with Russia "has fundamentally changed in the sense that Russia and Iran are more equal partners now," but this equality principle prevents the type of hierarchical arrangement that would provide security guarantees in exchange for subordination.
Historical Precedents and Constitutional Memory
The Iranian constitution's sovereignty provisions reflect deep historical memory of foreign domination and interference. The 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed repeated Russian and British interventions that reduced Iran to effective semi-colonial status. The constitutional prohibition on foreign control represents explicit rejection of these historical patterns.
The Russian Empire had "an oppressive role in Iran during the 19th and early 20th centuries which harmed Iran's development," creating lasting suspicion of Russian intentions despite contemporary cooperation. This historical experience informs contemporary Iranian reluctance to enter subordinate security arrangements, even with ostensibly friendly powers.
The Pahlavi period demonstrated how military and economic dependencies could evolve into comprehensive foreign control. The Shah's reliance on American military support and technology created vulnerabilities that the revolutionary leadership was determined to avoid. The constitutional framework represents institutional learning from this experience. 1 reply
2 recasts
8 reactions
2/2 - The Strategic Implications of Constitutional Sovereignty
Iran's constitutional commitment to absolute sovereignty creates fundamental strategic limitations that distinguish it from North Korea's approach to great power relationships. While North Korea can enter subordinate arrangements in exchange for security guarantees, Iran's constitutional framework makes such relationships legally and ideologically impossible.
This constitutional constraint forces Iran to pursue alternative strategies for managing great power relationships. Rather than seeking protection through subordination, Iran must maintain strategic autonomy while developing cooperative relationships that respect its sovereignty. This approach requires sophisticated diplomacy and strategic patience but preserves the independence that the constitution mandates.
The limitation extends to military cooperation as well. Iran's constitution forbids offering foreign military bases, and "there's a big sore spot for Iran domestically" regarding such arrangements. This constitutional prohibition prevents the type of military integration that characterises truly subordinate relationships.
Regional Balance and Autonomous Decision-Making
Iran's constitutional sovereignty framework enables autonomous decision-making in regional affairs that would be impossible under subordinate security arrangements. Unlike North Korea, whose regional policies must consider Chinese preferences and constraints, Iran maintains independent agency in Middle Eastern affairs.
This autonomy manifests in Iran's ability to develop relationships with multiple powers simultaneously without compromising its strategic independence. Iran's trade relationships with China ($32 billion in 2023) remain substantial but not overwhelming compared to China's trade with other regional powers like Saudi Arabia ($107 billion) and the UAE ($97 billion). This diversification prevents economic dependency that could undermine political sovereignty.
Iran's constitutional framework also enables resistance to great power pressure in ways that subordinate states cannot achieve. When faced with demands for policy changes, Iran can invoke constitutional principles to maintain policy autonomy, whereas subordinate states must accommodate patron preferences or risk losing protection.
The Theological Foundation of Political Independence
The Islamic Republic's constitutional framework roots political sovereignty in theological principles that transcend temporal strategic considerations. The concept of divine sovereignty establishes independence as a religious obligation rather than merely a political preference, creating institutional and ideological barriers to subordination that secular considerations alone could not sustain.
The constitution establishes belief in "The One God (La ilaha illa Allāh) to whom sovereignty and divine legislation belongs exclusively and the necessity of submitting to His commands" as the foundational principle of the state. This theological framework makes subordination to foreign powers not merely politically unacceptable but religiously illegitimate.
The integration of religious and political authority through the institution of the Supreme Leader creates an additional check against foreign influence. The Supreme Leader's role as guardian of Islamic law includes protecting the Islamic character of the state against foreign pressures that might compromise its independence.
Contemporary Challenges and Constitutional Resilience
Recent developments in Iran's relationships with China and Russia have tested the constitutional framework's resilience while confirming its enduring relevance. Despite increased cooperation driven by mutual opposition to Western pressure, Iran has maintained constitutional constraints on the depth of these relationships.
China's engagement with Iran through the CRINK alliance creates tensions with Beijing's Global Security Initiative, which "emphasises peaceful coexistence" and conflicts with "states involved in prolonged conflicts." This tension illustrates how Iran's independent regional policies create complications for would-be patrons seeking to manage broader strategic relationships.
The Ukraine conflict has created new pressures for deeper Iran-Russia cooperation, but constitutional constraints continue to limit the relationship's development. While Iran has provided military support to Russia, this cooperation remains "transactional" rather than creating formal alliance commitments that would compromise Iranian autonomy.
Conclusion
Iran's 1979 Constitution creates an insurmountable barrier to the type of subordinate security relationships that China and Russia maintain with North Korea. The constitutional commitment to absolute sovereignty, rooted in both revolutionary ideology and Islamic theology, makes hierarchical alliance structures legally and ideologically impossible for Iran to accept.
This constitutional framework represents both limitation and strength. While it prevents Iran from obtaining security guarantees through subordination, it preserves the strategic autonomy that enables independent decision-making in regional and global affairs. Iran cannot replicate North Korea's approach of trading sovereignty for protection because its constitutional system prohibits such arrangements as violations of divine sovereignty and national independence.
The constitutional prohibition on foreign control extends beyond formal arrangements to encompass any relationship that might practically compromise Iranian autonomy. This comprehensive protection reflects historical learning about how economic and military dependencies can evolve into effective foreign control, even without formal subordination.
Iran's constitutional sovereignty framework thus creates a fundamentally different relationship dynamic with great powers than North Korea experiences. While North Korea can enter protective relationships through subordination, Iran must pursue strategic partnerships that respect its constitutional commitment to independence. This difference reflects not merely policy preference but constitutional requirement that shapes all aspects of Iranian strategic behavior.
The enduring relevance of these constitutional principles, demonstrated through nearly five decades of implementation, confirms that Iran's approach to great power relationships will continue to differ fundamentally from the subordinate arrangements that characterize China and Russia's relationships with more dependent allies. Iran's constitution makes total sovereignty non-negotiable, creating permanent barriers to the type of hierarchical security structures that define other regional relationships. 0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions