Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Updated January 15, 2019
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R44017

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Summary
Iran’s national security policy is the product of many overlapping and sometimes competing
factors such as the ideology of Iran’s Islamic revolution; perception of threats to the regime and
to the country; long-standing Iranian national interests; and the interaction of the Iranian regime’s
factions and constituencies. Iran’s leadership:
 Seeks to deter or thwart U.S. or other efforts to invade or intimidate Iran or to
bring about a change of regime.
 Has sought to take advantage of opportunities of regional conflicts to overturn a
power structure in the Middle East that it asserts favors the United States, Israel,
Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Muslim Arab regimes.
 Seeks to enhance its international prestige and restore a sense of “greatness”
reminiscent of ancient Persian empires.
 Provides material support to allied governments and armed factions such as the
Asad regime in Syria, Lebanese Hezbollah, Houthi rebels in Yemen, Iraqi Shiite
militias, and Bahraini militant groups. Iranian officials characterize this support
as helping the region’s “oppressed” and assert that Saudi Arabia, in particular, is
instigating sectarian tensions and trying to exclude Iran from regional affairs.
 Has sought to use sanctions relief provided by the July 2015 multilateral nuclear
agreement (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA) to emerge as a regional
energy and trade hub and to negotiate future weapons buys.
 Sometimes disagrees on tactics and strategies. Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i
and key hardline institutions, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC), oppose any compromises of Iran’s national security core goals, but
support the reintegration into regional and international diplomacy that is
advocated by Iran’s elected president, Hassan Rouhani.
 Supports acts of international terrorism, as the “leading” or “most active” state
sponsor of terrorism, according to each annual State Department report on
international terrorism since the early 1990s.
The Trump Administration has articulated a strategy to counter Iran’s “malign activities” and its
behavior more broadly, based on pressuring Iran economically through sanctions. Arguing that
the JCPOA-related sanctions relief enhanced Iran’s ability to exert influence in the region,
President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, and reimposed all
U.S. sanctions by November 4, 2018. Additionally, the Administration strategy for countering
Iran’s malign activities includes training, arming, and providing counterterrorism assistance to
partner governments and some allied substate actors in the region. Some U.S. forces in the region
are deployed to deter Iran or interdict its arms shipments to its allies and proxies. President Trump
and other senior U.S. officials also have indirectly threatened military action against Iranian
actions that pose an immediate threat to U.S. regional interests or allies. In late September 2018,
the Administration issued a report (“Outlaw Regime: A Chronicle of Iran’s Destructive
Activities”) outlining Iran’s malign activities as well as a litany of other activities the
Administration termed “the Iranian regime’s destructive behavior at home and abroad.” The
Administration insists that an end to Iran’s malign activities is a requirement of any revised
JCPOA and normalization of relations with the United States.
Congressional Research Service

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Introduction
Successive Administrations have identified Iran as a key national security challenge, citing Iran’s
nuclear and missile programs as well as its long-standing attempts to counter many U.S.
objectives in the region. The Trump Administration has defined Iran and its regime as a
particularly significant threat to U.S. national security, accusing the regime of “destructive
behavior at home and abroad.” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, in his February 13,
2018, annual worldwide threat assessment testimony before Congress, assessed that “Iran will
seek to expand its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, where it sees conflicts generally trending
in Tehran’s favor” and “Iran will develop military capabilities that threaten U.S. forces and allies
in the region.” Successive National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) have required an
annual report on Iran’s military power, which has in recent years contained assessments of Iran
similar to those presented publicly by the intelligence community.1
Iran’s Policy Motivators
Iran’s foreign and defense policies are products of overlapping, and sometimes contradictory,
motivations. One expert has characterized these contradictions as indecision over whether Iran is
a “nation or a cause.”2
Threat Perception
Iran’s leaders are apparently motivated, at least to some extent, by the perception of threats to
their regime and their national interests posed by the United States and its allies.
 Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, Iran’s paramount
decisionmaker since 1989, has repeatedly stated that the United States seeks to
overturn Iran’s regime through support for antiregime activists, economic
sanctions, and alliances with Iran’s regional adversaries.3 U.S. officials and
reports have said that “Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i maintains a deep distrust
of U.S. intentions toward Iran.”4
 Iran’s leaders assert that the U.S. maintenance of a military presence in the
Persian Gulf region and in other countries around Iran reflects intent to intimidate
Iran or attack it if Iran pursues policies the United States finds inimical.5

1 “Fiscal Year 2016 Report on the Military Power of Iran.” Defense Department, Unclassified Executive Summary.
January 2017. The FY2016 and FY2017 NDAAs (P.L. 114-92 and P.L. 114-328) extended the annual DOD reporting
requirement until the end of 2025 and required that the report include information on Iran’s offensive and defensive
cyber capabilities, and its cooperation with other state or nonstate actors to conduct or mask its cyber operations.
2 Foreign Policy Association. “A Candid Discussion with Karim Sadjadpour.” May 6, 2013.
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2013/05/06/a-candid-discussion-with-karim-sadjadpour/.
3 Khamene’i: “U.S. Would Overthrow Iranian Government If It Could—Media.” Reuters, February 8, 2014.
4 https://fas.org/man/eprint/dod_iran_2016.pdf.
5 Erik Slavin. “Iran Emphasizes Nuclear Reconciliation, Criticizes U.S. Military Posture in Persian Gulf.” Stars and
Stripes, March 5, 2014. http://www.stripes.com/news/iran-emphasizes-nuclear-reconciliation-criticizes-us-military-
posture-in-persian-gulf-1.271204.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
1

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

 Iran’s leaders assert that the United States’ support for Sunni Arab regimes that
oppose Iran has led to the empowerment of radical Sunni Islamist groups and
spawned Sunni-dominated terrorist groups such as the Islamic State.6
Ideology
The ideology of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution continues to infuse Iran’s foreign policy. The
revolution overthrew a secular, authoritarian leader, the Shah, who the leaders of the revolution
asserted had suppressed Islam and its clergy. A clerical regime was established in which ultimate
power is invested in a “Supreme Leader” who melds political and religious authority.
 In the early years after the revolution, Iran attempted to “export” its revolution to
nearby Muslim states. In the late 1990s, Iran appeared to abandon that goal
because its promotion produced resistance to Iran in the region.7 However, the
various conflicts in the region that arose from the 2011 “Arab Spring” uprisings
have appeared to give Iran opportunities to revive that goal to some extent.
 Iran’s leaders assert that the political and economic structures of the Middle East
are heavily weighted against “oppressed” peoples and in favor of the United
States and its regional allies. Iranian leaders generally describe as “oppressed”
peoples the Palestinians, who do not have a state of their own, and Shiite
Muslims, who are underrepresented and economically disadvantaged minorities
in many countries of the region.
 Iran claims that the region’s politics and economics have been distorted by
Western intervention and economic domination. Iranian officials claim that the
creation of Israel is a manifestation of Western intervention that deprived the
Palestinians of legitimate rights.
 Iran claims its ideology is pan-Islamic and nonsectarian. It cites its support for
Sunni groups such as Hamas and for secular Palestinian groups as evidence that
it works with non-Islamist and non-Shiite groups to promote the rights of the
Palestinians.
National Interests
Iran’s national interests usually dovetail with, but sometimes conflict with, Iran’s ideology.
 Iran’s leaders, stressing Iran’s well-developed civilization and historic
independence, claim a right to be recognized as a major power in the region.
They contrast Iran’s history with that of the six Persian Gulf monarchy states
(Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman of the
Gulf Cooperation Council, GCC), most of which gained independence only in
the 1960s and 1970s. To this extent, many of Iran’s foreign policy actions are
similar to those undertaken by the Shah of Iran and prior Iranian dynasties.
 It has refrained from backing Islamist movements in the Central Asian countries,
which are mainly Sunni inhabited and whose Islamist movements are largely
hostile toward Iran.

6 Ramin Mostaghim. “Iranians Rally to Support Iraq; Some Blame U.S. for Sunni Insurgency.” Los Angeles Times,
June 24, 2014. http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-volunteers-militants-iraq-20140624-story.html.
7 Soner Cagaptay, James F. Jeffrey, and Mehdi Khalaji. “Iran Won’t Give Up on Its Revolution.” New York Times,
op-ed, April 26, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
2

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

 Iran has sometimes tempered its commitment to aid other Shiites to promote its
geopolitical interests. For example, it has supported mostly Christian-inhabited
Armenia, rather than Shiite-inhabited Azerbaijan, in part to thwart cross-border
Azeri nationalism among Iran’s large Azeri minority.
 Even though Iranian leaders accuse U.S. allies of contributing to U.S. efforts to
structure the Middle East to the advantage of the United States and Israel, Iranian
officials have sought to engage with and benefit from transactions with historic
U.S. allies, such as Turkey, to try to thwart international sanctions.
Factional Interests, Competition, and Public Opinion
Iran’s foreign policy often appears to reflect differing approaches and outlooks among key
players and interest groups.
 Supreme Leader Khamene’i’s sits as the apex of Iran’s hardline leaders and
factions. His consistent refrain, and the title of his book widely available in Iran,
is “I am a revolutionary, not a diplomat.”8 He and leaders of Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the military and internal security force
created after the Islamic revolution, consistently support regional interventions.
 More moderate Iranian leaders, including President Hassan Rouhani, argue that
Iran should not have any “permanent enemies.” They maintain that a pragmatic
foreign policy resulted in easing of international sanctions under the JCPOA,
increased worldwide attention to Iran’s views, and the positioning of Iran as a
trade and transportation hub. Rouhani tends to draw support from Iran’s youth
and intellectuals who want greater integration with the international community.
 The degree to which public opinion is a factor in Iranian foreign policy is not
clear. During protests in Iran in December 2017-January 2018, many protesters
expressed opposition to the use of Iran’s financial resources for regional
interventions rather than to improve the living standards of the population. And,
the 2011-2016 period of comprehensive international sanctions weakened Iran’s
economy and living standards to the point where the government accepted a
compromise to limit its nuclear program. Yet, the regime has not at any time
shifted its regional policies in response to domestic public opinion.
Instruments of Iran’s National Security Strategy
Iran employs a number of different methods and mechanisms to implement its foreign policy,
including supporting armed factions.
Support to Allied Regimes and Groups and Use of Terrorism
Iran uses support for terrorist groups and armed factions as an instrument of policy.
 The State Department report on international terrorism for 2017 stated that Iran
remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2017, and continued to
provide arms, training, and military advisers in support of allied governments and
movements, such as the regime of President Bashar Al Asad of Syria, Lebanese

8 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/world/middleeast/iran-us-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
3

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Hezbollah, Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups, Houthi rebels in Yemen,
Shiite militias in Iraq, and underground violent groups in Bahrain.9 Other
Administration reports, testimony, and statements, such as DNI Dan Coats in a
worldwide threat assessment testimony to Congress on February 13, 2018, make
similar assertions.10
 Many of the groups Iran supports are named as Foreign Terrorist Organizations
(FTOs) by the United States, and because of that support, Iran was placed on the
U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism (“terrorism list”) in January 1984.11 Some
armed factions that Iran supports have not been named as FTOs. Such groups
include the Houthi (“Ansar Allah”) movement in Yemen (composed of Zaidi
Shiite Muslims), the Taliban, and underground Shiite opposition factions in
Bahrain.
 Iran generally opposes Sunni terrorist groups that work against Iran’s core
interests, such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State organizations.12 Iran actively
combatted the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Iran has expelled some Al Qaeda
activists who it allowed to take refuge there after the September 11, 2001,
attacks, but some reportedly remain, perhaps in an effort by Iran to exert leverage
against the United States or Saudi Arabia.
 Iran’s operations in support of its allies are carried out by the Qods (Jerusalem)
Force of the IRGC (IRGC-QF). That force, estimated to have about 20,000
personnel, is headed by IRGC Major General Qasem Soleimani, who is said to
report directly to Khamene’i.13 IRGC and IRGC-QF leaders generally publicly
acknowledge operations in support of regional allies,14 although often
characterizing Iran’s support as humanitarian aid or protection for Shiite religious
shrines or sites. Much of the weaponry Iran supplies to its allies includes
specialized anti-tank systems (“explosively-forced projectiles” EFPs), artillery
rockets, mortars, short-range ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles.15
 The table below lists major terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran and/or its key ally
Hezbollah. The table generally does not list terrorist plots that were foiled. In
recent months, authorities in Europe have arrested Iranian diplomats and
operatives, including IRGC-QF agents, suspected of organizing terrorist plots
against Iranian dissidents and other targets.16 In January 2018, Germany arrested
10 IRGC-QF operatives. In March 2018, Albania arrested two Iranian operatives
for terrorist plotting. In mid-2018, authorities in Germany, Belgium, and France
arrested Iranian operatives, including one based at Iran’s embassy in Austria, for

9 The State Department “Country Reports on Terrorism for 2017” can be found at
https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2017/index.htm.
10 Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. Statement for the Record. Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US
Intelligence Community. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. May 11, 2017, and February 13, 2018.
11 The other two countries still on the terrorism list are Syria and Sudan.
12 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/iranians-are-terrified-irans-isis-nightmare-10856.
13 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/30/130930fa_fact_filkins?printable=true&currentPage=all.
14 Al Jazeera, August 20, 2016.
15 Farzin Nadimi. “How Iran’s Revived Weapons Exports Could Boost its Proxies.” Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, August 17, 2015.
16 For information on some of the recent potential attacks in Europe and elsewhere, see remarks by State Department
Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Nathan Sales to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
November 13, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
4

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

a suspected plot to bomb a rally by Iranian dissidents in Paris. In October 2018,
an Iranian operative was arrested for planning assassinations in Denmark.

IRGC-QF Commander Qasem Soleimani

Qasem Soleimani was born in March 1957 is Kerman Province (southeast Iran).
He joined the IRGC at its inception in 1979, serving in his home province. He
participated in post-revolution suppression of Kurdish insurgents in northwestern
Iran. He commanded an IRGC unit and then its Sarol ah Division during the Iran-
Iraq war. He was appointed as commander of the IRGC-QF in 1998. In the late
1990s, Before turning his attention to the broader Middle East region, he worked
with Afghans of Tajik origin against the Taliban regime, which at the time was a
strategic adversary of Iran.
Soleimani’s success in expanding Iran’s regional influence through the IRGC-QF’s
formation of pro-Iranian militias in several countries has made him a national hero
in Iran. The regime affords him wide publicity inside Iran as an able strategist who
combats Iran’s adversaries from the front lines of regional conflicts.

Direct Military Action
 Whereas Iran seemingly prefers indirect action through proxies and armed
factions it supports, Iran does sometimes undertake direct military action.
 Iran conducts, although less frequently in 2017-2018, “high speed intercepts” of
U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf as an apparent show of strength. Iran has, on some
occasions, diverted or detained international shipping transiting the Gulf.
 In 2018, Iran has conducted missile strikes on regional opponents. In September,
Iran fired missiles at a Kurdish opposition group based in northern Iraq. In early
October, Iran fired, from Iranian territory, missiles at Islamic State positions in
Syria.
Other Political Action/Cyberattacks
Iran’s national security is not limited to militarily supporting allies and armed factions.
 A wide range of observers report that Iran has provided funding to political
candidates in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan to cultivate allies there.17
 Iran has provided direct payments to leaders of neighboring states to gain and
maintain their support. In 2010, then-President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai
publicly acknowledged that his office had received cash payments from Iran.18

17 See, for example. http://www.newsweek.com/what-are-iranians-doing-iraq-303107. Also reported in author
conversations with U.S. and Iraq and Afghan officials, 2009-2015.
18 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/26/iran-cash-payments-to-afghanistan.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
5

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

 Iran has established some training and education programs that bring young
Muslims to study in Iran. One such program runs in Latin America, despite the
small percentage of Muslims there.19
 Since 2012, Iran has dedicated significant resources toward cyberespionage and
has conducted cyberattacks against the United States and U.S. allies in the
Persian Gulf. Government-supported Iranian hackers have conducted a series of
cyberattacks against oil and gas companies in the Persian Gulf.20

19 http://www.crethiplethi.com/subversion-and-exporting-the-islamic-revolution-in-latin-america/islamic-countries/
iran-islamic-countries/2012/.
20 Letter to SFRC Chairman Bob Corker, including report to Congress pursuant to the Countering America’s
Adversaries through Sanctions Act. Letter dated August 29, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
6

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Table 1. Selected Iran or Iran-Related Terrorism Attacks or Plots
Date
Incident/Event
Claimed/Likely
Perpetrator
November 4, 1979
U.S. Embassy in Tehran seized and 66 U.S. diplomats
Hardline Iranian regime
held for 444 days (until January 21, 1981).
elements
April 18, 1983
Truck bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.
Factions that formed
63 dead, including 17 U.S. citizens.
Lebanese Hezbol ah claimed
responsibility
October 23, 1983
Truck bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. 241 Same as above
Marines kil ed.
December 12, 1983
Bombings of U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait
Da’wa Party of Iraq. 17 Da’wa
City. 5 fatalities.
activists imprisoned in Kuwait
March 16, 1984
U.S. Embassy Beirut Political Officer Wil iam Buckley
Factions that eventually
taken hostage in Beirut, others later. Last hostage
formed Lebanese Hezbol ah
released December 1991.
September 20, 1984
Truck bombing of U.S. embassy annex in Beirut.
Factions that eventually
23 kil ed.
formed Hezbol ah
July 31, 1984
Air France aircraft hijacked to Iran
Factions that formed
Hezbol ah
May 25, 1985
Bombing of Amir of Kuwait’s motorcade
Da’wa Party of Iraq
June 14, 1985
Hijacking of TWA Flight 847. One fatality, Navy diver Hezbol ah
Robert Stetham.
1985-1986
Soft targets in Paris bombed, kil ing 12
Hezbol ah/Iran intelligence
February 17, 1988
Col. Wil iam Higgins, serving with U.N. peacekeeping Hezbol ah
operation, was kidnapped in southern Lebanon; video
of his corpse was released 18 months later.
April 5, 1988
Hijacking of Kuwait Air passenger plane. Two kil ed.
Hezbol ah
July 13, 1989
Assassination of Iranian Kurdish leader Qassemlu
Hezbol ah/Iran
August 5, 1991
Assassination of former Prime Minister Bakhtiar
Iran intelligence
March 17, 1992
Bombing of Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. 29 kil ed. Hezbol ah, assisted by Iranian
intelligence/diplomats
July 18, 1994
Bombing of Argentine-Jewish Mutual Association
Same as above
(AMIA) building in Buenos Aires
June 25, 1996
Bombing of Khobar Towers housing complex near
Saudi Hezbol ah, but some
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. Air Force kil ed.
assessments point to Al
Qaeda
October 11, 2011
U.S. Justice Dept. unveiled discovery of alleged plot
IRGC-QF reportedly working
involving at least one IRGC-QF officer to assassinate
with U.S.-based person and
Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC.
Mexican drug cartel
February 13, 2012
Wife of Israeli diplomat wounded in Delhi, India
Lebanese Hezbol ah
July 19, 2012
Bombing in Sofia, Bulgaria, kil ed five Israeli tourists.
Lebanese Hezbol ah, IRGC-
QF
Sources: Recent State Department Country Reports on Terrorism; State Department “Select Iran-Sponsored
Operational Activity in Europe, 1979-2018 (July 5, 2018); various press. Table generally does not include
suspected Iran/Hezbol ah terrorist attack plots that were thwarted.

Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
7

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Diplomacy
Iran also uses traditional diplomatic tools.
 Iran has an active Foreign Ministry and maintains embassies or representation in
all countries with which it has diplomatic relations. Khamene’i has rarely
traveled outside Iran as Supreme Leader—and not at all in recent years—but
Iranian presidents travel outside Iran regularly, including to Europe and U.N.
meetings in New York. Khamene’i frequently hosts foreign leaders in Tehran,
including hosting Russia’s President Vladimir Putin on several occasions.
 From August 2012 until August 2015, Iran held the presidency of the Non-
Aligned Movement (NAM), which has about 120 member states and 17 observer
countries and generally shares Iran’s criticisms of big power influence over
global affairs. In August 2012, Iran hosted the NAM annual summit.
 Iran is a party to all major nonproliferation conventions, including the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Iran insists that it has adhered to all its commitments under these conventions,
but the international community asserted that it did not meet all its obligations
under these pacts. Nuclear negotiations between Iran and international powers
began in 2003 and culminated with the July 2015 JCPOA.
 Iran is actively seeking to expand its participation in multilateral organizations. It
has sought to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) since the mid-1990s.
Iran also seeks full membership in regional organizations including the South
Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO). Officials from some SCO countries have said
that the JCPOA removed obstacles to Iran’s obtaining full membership, but
opposition from some members has blocked Iran’s accession to date.21
 Iran has participated in multilateral negotiations to try to resolve the civil conflict
in Syria, even though Iran’s main goal is to ensure Asad’s continuation in power.
Iran’s Nuclear and Defense Programs
Iran has pursued a wide range of defense programs, as well as a nuclear program that the
international community perceived could be intended to eventually produce a nuclear weapon.
These programs are discussed in the following sections.
Nuclear Program22
Iran’s nuclear program has been a paramount U.S. concern for successive Administrations, in part
because Iran’s acquisition of an operational nuclear weapon could cause Iran to perceive that it is
immune from outside military pressure and could produce a nuclear arms race in one of the

21 http://www.globalresearch.ca/geopolitical-shift-iran-to-become-full-member-of-the-shanghai-cooperation-
organization-sco/5465355.
22 More extensive information on Iran’s nuclear program can be found in CRS Report R43333, Iran Nuclear Agreement
and U.S. Exit, by Paul K. Kerr and Kenneth Katzman.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
8

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

world’s most volatile regions. Israeli leaders have characterized an Iranian nuclear weapon as a
threat to Israel’s existence. Some Iranian leaders argue that a nuclear weapon could end Iran’s
historic vulnerability to great power invasion, domination, or regime change attempts.
Iran’s nuclear program has been a significant U.S. national security issue since 2002, when U.S.
officials confirmed that Iran was building a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy
water production plant at Arak.23 The threat escalated in 2010, when Iran began enriching
uranium to 20% purity, which requires most of the effort needed to produce weapons-grade
uranium (90%+ purity). A nuclear weapon also requires a detonation mechanism. The
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded that Iran researched such a mechanism
until 2009. The United States insists that Iran must not possess a nuclear-capable missile.24
Iran’s Nuclear Intentions and Activities
The U.S. intelligence community has stated in recent years that it “does not know whether Iran
will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.” Iranian leaders cite Supreme Leader
Khamene’i’s 2003 proclamation (fatwa) that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic as evidence that a
nuclear weapon is inconsistent with Iran’s ideology. Iranian leaders assert that Iran’s nuclear
program was always intended for civilian uses, including medicine and electricity generation. Iran
argued that uranium enrichment is its “right” as a party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty and that it wants to make its own nuclear fuel to avoid potential supply disruptions. U.S.
officials have said that Iran’s use of nuclear energy is acceptable. IAEA findings that Iran
researched a nuclear explosive device—detailed in a December 2, 2015, International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) report—cast doubt on Iran’s assertions of purely peaceful intent. There
were no assertions that Iran, at any time, diverted nuclear material for a weapons program.25
Nuclear Weapons Time Frame Estimates
In April 2015, then-Vice President Biden told a Washington, DC, research institute that Iran could
likely have enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon within two to three months of a decision
to manufacture that material. U.S. officials said that the JCPOA increased the “breakout time”—
an all-out effort by Iran to develop a nuclear weapon using declared facilities or undeclared covert
facilities—to at least 12 months. When the JCPOA was agreed, Iran had about 19,000 total
installed centrifuges to enrich uranium, of which about 10,000 were operating. Prior to the
interim nuclear agreement (Joint Plan of Action, JPA), Iran had a stockpile of 400 pounds of 20%
enriched uranium (short of the 550 pounds that would be needed to produce one nuclear weapon).
Weapons grade uranium is uranium that is enriched to 90%.
Under the JCPOA, Iran is allowed to operate only about 5,000 centrifuges and was required to
reduce its stockpile of 3.67% enriched uranium to 300 kilograms (660 pounds). These restrictions
start to come off beginning in October 2025—10 years from Adoption Day (October 2015).
Another means of acquiring fissile material for a nuclear weapon is to reprocess plutonium, a
material that could be produced by Iran’s heavy water plant at Arak. In accordance with the
JCPOA, Iran rendered inactive the core of the reactor and limits its stockpile of heavy water.

23 In November 2006, the IAEA, at U.S. urging, declined to provide technical assistance to the Arak facility on the
grounds that it was likely for proliferation purposes.
24 White House Office of the Press Secretary. Statement by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal. January 12, 2018.
25 The February 25, 2011, IAEA report listed Iran’s declared nuclear sites as well as a summary of all the NPT
obligations Iran is not meeting. IAEA report of February 25, 2011. http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2011/02/
gov2011-7.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
9

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

The JCPOA does not prohibit civilian nuclear plants such as the one Russia built at Bushehr.
Under a 1995 bilateral agreement, Russia supplies nuclear fuel for that plant and takes back the
spent nuclear material for reprocessing. It became operational in 2012.
International Diplomatic Efforts to Address Iran’s Nuclear Program
The JCPOA was the product of a long international effort to persuade Iran to negotiate limits on
its nuclear program. That effort began when it was revealed by the United States that Iran was
building facilities to enrich uranium. In 2003, France, Britain, and Germany (the “EU-3”) opened
a diplomatic track to negotiate curbs on Iran’s program. On October 21, 2003, Iran pledged, in
return for peaceful nuclear technology, to suspend uranium enrichment activities and sign and
ratify the “Additional Protocol” to the NPT (allowing for enhanced inspections). Iran signed the
Additional Protocol on December 18, 2003, although the Majles did not ratify it.
Iran ended the suspension after several months, but the EU-3 and Iran subsequently reached a
November 14, 2004, “Paris Agreement,” under which Iran suspended uranium enrichment in
exchange for trade talks and other non-U.S. aid. The Bush Administration supported the
agreement with a March 11, 2005, announcement by dropping the U.S. objection to Iran’s
applying to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). That agreement broke down in 2005 when
Iran rejected an EU-3 proposal for a permanent nuclear accord as offering insufficient benefits. In
August 2005, Iran began uranium “conversion” (one step before enrichment) at its Esfahan
facility and, on February 4, 2006, the IAEA board voted 27-326 to refer the case to the Security
Council. The Council set an April 29, 2006, deadline to cease enrichment.
“P5+1” Formed. In May 2006, the Bush Administration join the talks, triggering an expanded
negotiating group called the “Permanent Five Plus 1” (P5+1: United States, Russia, China,
France, Britain, and Germany). A month after it formed, the P5+1 offered Iran guaranteed Iran
nuclear fuel for its civilian reactor (Annex I to Resolution 1747) and threatened sanctions if Iran
did not agree (sanctions were imposed in subsequent years).27
U.N. Security Council Resolutions Adopted
The U.N. Security Council subsequently imposed sanctions on Iran in an effort to shift Iran’s
calculations toward compromise. A table outlining the provisions of the U.N. Security Council
Resolutions on Iran’s nuclear program can be found in CRS Report RS20871, Iran Sanctions, by
Kenneth Katzman. (The resolutions below, as well as Resolution 1929, were formally superseded
on January 16, 2016, by Resolution 2231.)

26 Voting no: Cuba, Syria, Venezuela. Abstaining: Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya, South Africa.
27 One source purports to have obtained the contents of the package from ABC News: http://www.basicint.org/pubs/
Notes/BN060609.htm.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
10

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies


Resolution 1696 (July 31, 2006). The Security Council voted 14-1 for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1696,
giving Iran until August 31, 2006, to suspend enrichment suspension, suspend construction of the Arak heavy-
water reactor, and ratify the Additional Protocol to Iran’s IAEA Safeguards Agreement. It was passed under
Article 40 of the U.N. Charter, which makes compliance mandatory, but not under Article 41, which refers
to economic sanctions, or Article 42, which authorizes military action.

Resolution 1737 (December 23, 2006). After Iran refused a proposal to temporarily suspend enrichment, the
Security Council adopted U.N. Security Council Resolution 1737 unanimously, under Chapter 7, Article 41 of
the U.N. Charter. It demanded enrichment suspension by February 21, 2007, prohibited sale to Iran of
nuclear technology, and required U.N. member states to freeze the financial assets of named Iranian nuclear
and missile firms and related persons.

Resolution 1747 (March 24, 2007) Resolution 1747, adopted unanimously, demanded Iran suspend enrichment
by May 24, 2007. It banned arms transfers by Iran (a provision directed at stopping Iran’s arms supplies to its
regional allies and proxies) and called for countries to cease selling Iran arms or dual use items and for
countries and international financial institutions to avoid giving Iran any new loans or grants (except loans for
humanitarian purposes).

Resolution 1803 (March 3, 2008, adopted 14-0. Banned travel by named sanctioned persons and virtually all
sales of dual use items to Iran. It authorized inspections of Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran
Shipping Line shipments if it was suspected that banned goods were aboard. In May 2008, the P5+1 added
political and enhanced energy cooperation to previous incentives, and the enhanced offer was attached as an
Annex to Resolution 1929 (see below).

Resolution 1835 (September 27, 2008). In July 2008, Iran it indicated it might be ready to accept a temporary
“freeze for freeze”: the P5+1 would impose no new sanctions and Iran would stop expanding uranium
enrichment. No agreement on that concept was reached, even though the Bush Administration sent an Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs to a P5+1-Iran meeting in Geneva in July 2008. Resolution 1835
demanded compliance but did not add any sanctions.
Developments during the Obama Administration
The P5+1 met in February 2009 to incorporate the Obama Administration’s stated commitment to
direct U.S. engagement with Iran and,28in April 2009, U.S. officials announced that a U.S.
diplomat would attend P5+1 meetings with Iran. In July 2009, the United States and its allies
demanded that Iran offer constructive proposals by late September 2009 or face “crippling
sanctions.” A September 9, 2009, Iranian proposal led to an October 1, 2009, P5+1-Iran meeting
in Geneva that produced a tentative agreement for Iran to allow Russia and France to reprocess
75% of Iran’s low-enriched uranium stockpile for medical use. A draft agreement was approved
by the P5+1 countries following technical talks in Vienna on October 19-21, 2009, but the
Supreme Leader decided that Iran’s concessions were excessive and no accord was finalized.
In April 2010, Brazil and Turkey negotiated with Iran to revive the October arrangement. On May
17, 2010, the three countries signed a “Tehran Declaration” for Iran to send 2,600 pounds of low
enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for medically useful uranium.29 Iran submitted to the
IAEA an acceptance letter, but the Administration rejected the plan as failing to address
enrichment to the 20% level.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929
Immediately after the Brazil-Turkey mediation failed, then-Secretary of State Clinton announced
that the P5+1 had reached agreement on a new U.N. Security Council Resolution that would give

28 Dempsey, Judy. “U.S. Urged to Talk With Iran.” International Herald Tribune, February 5, 2009.
29 Text of the pact is at http://www.cfr.org/publication/22140/.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
11

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

U.S. allies authority to take substantial new economic measures against Iran. Adopted on June 9,
2010,30 Resolution 1929, was pivotal by linking Iran’s economy to its nuclear capabilities and
thereby authorizing U.N. member states to sanction key Iranian economic sectors. An annex to
the Resolution presented a modified offer of incentives to Iran.31 Negotiations subsequent to the
adoption of Resolution 1929,—in December 2010, in Geneva and January 2011, in Istanbul —
floundered over Iran’s demand for immediate lifting of international sanctions. Additional rounds
of P5+1-Iran talks in 2012 and 2013 (2012: April in Istanbul; May in Baghdad; and June in
Moscow; 2013: Almaty, Kazakhstan, in February and in April) did not reach agreement on a P5+1
proposals that Iran halt enrichment to the 20% level; close the Fordow facility; and remove its
stockpile of 20% enriched uranium.
Joint Plan of Action (JPA)
The June 2013 election of Rouhani as Iran’s president improved the prospects for a nuclear
settlement and, in advance of his visit to the U.N. General Assembly in New York during
September 23-27, 2013, Rouhani stated that the Supreme Leader had given him authority to
negotiate a nuclear deal. The Supreme Leader affirmed that authority in a speech on September
17, 2013, stating that he believes in the concept of “heroic flexibility”—adopting “proper and
logical diplomatic moves....”32 An interim nuclear agreement, the Joint Plan of Action (JPA), was
announced on November 24, 2013, providing modest sanctions relief in exchange for Iran to (1)
eliminating its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, (2) ceasing to enrich to that level, and (3) not
increasing its stockpile of 3.5% enriched uranium.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)33
P5+1-Iran negotiations on a comprehensive settlement began in February 2014 but missed several
self-imposed deadlines. On April 2, 2015, the parties reached a framework for a JCPOA, and the
JCPOA was finalized on July 14, 2015. U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 of July 20, 2015,
endorsed the JCPOA and contains restrictions (less stringent than in Resolution 1929) on Iran’s
importation or exportation of conventional arms (for up to five years), and on development and
testing of ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon (for up to eight years). On
January 16, 2016, the IAEA certified that Iran completed the work required for sanctions relief
and “Implementation Day” was declared.
The Trump Administration and the JCPOA
The Trump Administration criticized the JCPOA for not addressing key U.S. concerns about
Iran’s continuing “malign activities” in the region or its ballistic missile program, and the
expiration of key nuclear restrictions.34 In October 2017, the Administration withheld certification
of Iranian compliance under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA, P.L. 114-17) on
the grounds that sanctions relief was not proportional to the limitations on Iran’s nuclear program.

30 It was adopted by a vote of 12-2 (Turkey and Brazil voting no) with one abstention (Lebanon).
31 Text of the resolution is at http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/
Draft_resolution_on_Iran_annexes.pdf.
32 Open Source Center, “Iran: Leader Outlines Guard Corps Role, Talks of ‘Heroic Flexibility,’” published September
18, 2013.
33 For detail on the JCPOA, see CRS Report R43333, Iran Nuclear Agreement and U.S. Exit, by Paul K. Kerr and
Kenneth Katzman.
34 Department of State. Press Briefing by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. August 1, 2017.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
12

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

The noncertification enabled Congress to act under expedited rules to reimpose U.S. sanctions,
but Congress did not take such action.
On October 13, 2017, and January 12, 2018, the President threatened to withdraw the United
States from the JCPOA unless Congress and the European countries acted to (1) extend the
JCPOA’s nuclear restrictions beyond current deadlines to ensure that Iran never comes close to
developing a nuclear weapon; (2) impose strict sanctions on Iran’s development of ballistic
missiles; and (3) ensure that Iran allows “immediate” access to any site that the IAEA wants to
visit. The Administration insisted that U.S. allies address Iran’s “malign activities” in the region.
The European countries negotiated with the United States but ultimately did not meet all of his
stipulated conditions. On May 8, 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the
JCPOA and announced that all U.S. sanctions would be reimposed by November 4, 2018.
On August 29, 2018, the Administration provided Congress with a report mandated by the
Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (P.L. 115-44) on its strategy to counter
“Iran’s conventional and asymmetric threats.” The elements of the strategy are discussed
throughout this report.
Missile Programs and Chemical and Biological Weapons Capability
Iran has an active missile development program, as well as other WMD programs at varying
stages of activity and capability, as discussed further below.
Chemical and Biological Weapons35
Iran signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on January 13, 1993, and ratified on June
8, 1997. The U.S. statement to the November 22, 2018, CWC review conference said that “the
United States has had longstanding concerns that Iran maintains a chemical weapons program
that it failed to declare to the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons).”
The statement specified that Iran failed to submit a complete chemical weapons production
facility declaration; that Iran did not declare all of its riot control agents; and that Iran failed to
declare its transfer of chemical weapons to Libya in the 1980s. The statement added that the
United States could not certify that Iran does not maintain an undeclared CW stockpile.
Iran also has ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), but it engages in
dual-use activities with possible biological weapons applications that could potentially be
inconsistent with the Convention.
Iran is widely believed to be unlikely to use chemical or biological weapons or to transfer them to
its regional proxies or allies because of the potential for international powers to discover their
origin and retaliate against Iran for any use.
Missiles36
According to the September 2018 Administration report “Outlaw Regime: A Chronicle of Iran’s
Destructive Activities,” Iran has “the largest ballistic missile force in the Middle East, with more
than ten ballistic missile systems either in its inventory or in development, and a stockpile of

35 Information in this section is derived from the August 2018 Administration report to Congress under the Countering
America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act.
36 For more information on Iran’s missile arsenal, see CRS Report R42849, Iran’s Ballistic Missile and Space Launch
Programs, by Steven A. Hildreth.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
13

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

hundreds of missiles that threaten its neighbors in the region.”37 The intelligence community has
said publicly that Iran “can strike targets up to 2,000 kilometers from Iran’s borders.”
Iran is not known to possess an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability (missiles of
ranges over 2,900 miles), but the DNI threat assessment testimony of February 13, 2018, stated
that “Tehran’s desire to deter the United States might drive it to field an ICBM.”38 However,
IRGC Commander-in-Chief Ali Jafari said in October 2017 that the existing ranges of Iran’s
missiles are “sufficient for now,” suggesting that Iran has no plans to develop an ICBM.39 If there
is a decision to do so, progress on Iran’s space program could shorten the pathway to an ICBM
because space launch vehicles use similar technology. Iran’s missile programs are run by the
IRGC Air Force, particularly the IRGC Air Force Al Ghadir Missile Command—an entity
sanctioned under Executive Order 13382. There are persistent reports that Iran-North Korea
missile cooperation is extensive, but it is not known from published material whether North
Korea and Iran have recently exchanged missile hardware.
At the more tactical level, Iran is acquiring, developing, and exporting short-range ballistic and
cruise missiles that Iran’s forces can use and/or transfer to regional allies and proxies to protect
them and to enhance Iran’s ability to project power. The DNI’s February 13, 2018, threat
assessment testimony stated that Iran “continues to develop and improve a range of new military
capabilities to target U.S. and allied military assets in the region, including armed UAVs, ballistic
missiles, advanced naval mines, unmanned explosive boats, submarines and advanced torpedoes,
and anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles.”40
Resolution 2231 (the operative Security Council resolution on Iran) “calls on” Iran not to develop
or test ballistic missiles “designed to be capable of” delivering a nuclear weapon, for up to eight
years from Adoption Day of the JCPOA (October 18, 2015). The wording is far less restrictive
than that of Resolution 1929, which clearly prohibited Iran’s development of ballistic missiles.
The JCPOA itself does not specifically contain ballistic missile restraints.
Iran has continued developing and testing missiles, despite Resolution 2231, which took effect on
January 16, 2016, “Implementation Day.”
 On October 11, 2015, and reportedly again on November 21, 2015, Iran tested a
1,200-mile-range ballistic missile, which U.S. intelligence officials called “more
accurate” than previous Iranian missiles of similar range.
 Iran conducted ballistic missile tests on March 8-9, 2016—the first such tests
after Implementation Day.
 Iran reportedly conducted a missile test in May 2016, although Iranian media had
varying accounts of the range of the missile tested.
 A July 11-21, 2016, test of a missile of a range of 2,500 miles, akin to North
Korea’s Musudan missile, reportedly failed. It is not clear whether North Korea
provided any technology or had any involvement in the test.41
 On January 29, 2017, Iran tested what Trump Administration officials called a
version of the Shahab missile and what outside experts called a Khorramshahr

37 The report can be downloaded at https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2018/09/286216.htm.
38 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence. February 13, 2018.
39 “Iran: No Need to Extend 2,000 km Ballistic Missile Range.” Al Jazeera, October 31, 2017.
40 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. op. cit.
41 Lucas Tomlinson. “Iran Conducts 4th Missile Test Since Signing Nuke Deal.” Fox News, July 15, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
14

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

missile (see table). Press reports say the test failed when the missile exploded
after traveling about 600 miles.
 On July 27, 2017, Iran’s Simorgh rocket launched a satellite into space.
 On December 1, 2018, Secretary of State Pompeo stated that Iran had test fired a
medium-range ballistic missile “capable of carrying multiple warheads.”
 Iran continues to periodically test short-range ballistic missiles.
U.S. and U.N. Responses to Iran’s Missile Tests
The Obama and Trump Administrations have termed Iran’s post-Implementation Day ballistic
missile tests as “provocative and destabilizing,” “inconsistent with” Resolution 2231—stopping
short of accusing Iran of “violation” of 2231. The Trump Administration termed Iran’s July 27,
2017, space launch and its December 1, 2018, missile launch “violations” of the Resolution
because of the inherent capability of the vehicle and the missile to carry a nuclear warhead. The
U.N. Security Council referred the 2016 and 2017 tests to its sanctions committee but has not
imposed any additional sanctions on Iran to date, and other Security Council members continued
to use the term “inconsistent” with Resolution 2231 in describing the December 1, 2018, test.
Several successive Administrations have designated Iranian missile-related entities for sanctions
under Executive Order 13382 and the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act. The
Trump Administration has demanded, as a condition of any revised JCPOA, a binding ban on
Iran’s development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.
Section 1226 of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2943, P.L. 114-328) requires
the DNI, as well as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, to each submit
quarterly reports to Congress on Iranian missile launches in the one preceding year, and on
efforts, if any, to impose sanctions on entities assisting those launches. The provision sunsets on
December 31, 2019.
Iran asserts that conventionally armed missiles are an integral part of its defense strategy and the
tests will continue. Iran argues that it is not developing a nuclear weapon and therefore is not
designing its missile to carry a nuclear weapon. Iranian officials say they will not negotiate any
new curbs on Iran’s missile program.
U.S. and Other Missile Defenses
Successive U.S. Administrations have sought to build up regional missile defense systems. The
United States and Israel have a broad program of cooperation on missile defense as well as on
defenses against shorter-range rockets and missiles such as those Iran supplies to Lebanese
Hezbollah. Through sales of the Patriot system (PAC-3) and more advanced “THAAD” (Theater
High Altitude Area Defense) to the Gulf states, the United States has sought to construct a
coordinated GCC missile defense system.
The United States has sought a defense against an eventual long-range Iranian missile system by
emplacing missile defense systems in various Eastern European countries and on ship-based
systems. The United States has helped Israel develop the Arrow missile defense system that is
intended to intercept Iranian (or other) ballistic missiles launched at Israel. Other Israeli systems
developed with U.S. help, including Iron Dome and David’s Sling, are intended to intercept
rockets launched by Iranian allies Hezbollah and Hamas. The FY2013 national defense
authorization act (P.L. 112-239) contained provisions urging the Administration to undertake
more extensive efforts, in cooperation with U.S. partners and others, to defend against the missile
programs of Iran (and North Korea).
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
15

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Table 2. Iran’s Missile Arsenal
The 600-mile-range missile is operational, and Defense Department (DOD) reports
Shahab-3 (“Meteor”)
indicate Tehran is improving its lethality and effectiveness.
Shahab-3 “Variants”
Iran appears to be developing several extended-range variants of the Shahab, under a
variety of names including: Sijil, Ashoura, Emad, Ghadr, and Khorramshahr. These
missiles have ranges of about 1,000-1,200 miles, putting the entire Middle East region
within reach from Iran. Some use sold fuel and others use liquid fuel. Some Shahab
variants inscribed with the phrase “Israel must be wiped off the face of the
earth”were launched on March 8-9, 2016.
BM-25/Musudan Variant
This missile, with a reported range of up to 2,500 miles, is of North Korean design,
and in turn based on the Soviet-era “SS-N-6” missile. Reports in 2006 that North
Korea supplied the missile or components of it to Iran have not been corroborated,
but Iran reportedly tried to test its own version of this missile in July 2016.
Short-Range Ballistic
Iran fields a wide variety of increasingly capable short-range ballistic missiles. One
Missiles and Cruise Missiles short-range ballistic missile (the Qiam, with 400-mile range) was first tested in
August 2010. Iran has also developed 150- to 200-mile-range Fateh 110 and 313 and
Hormuz solid fuel missiles and a related Khaliji Fars (Persian Gulf) anti-ship ballistic
missile. Iran reportedly has transferred some of these missiles to allies in Lebanon,
Syria, Yemen, and Iraq.
Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles
Iran has armed its patrol boats (and supplied allies and proxies) with Chinese-made
C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles and Iranian variants of that weapon. Iran also has C-
802s and other missiles emplaced along Iran’s coast, including the Chinese-made
CSSC-2 (Silkworm) and the CSSC-3 (Seersucker). Iran also possesses a few hundred
short-range ballistic missiles, including the Shahab-1 (Scud-b), the Shahab-2 (Scud-C),
and the Tondar-69 (CSS-8). The Houthis have employed these weapons against U.S.
and UAE ships in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
Anti-Tank Guided Missiles
Iran has developed the Toophan and Tosan anti-tank guided missile. Some have been
seized in Houthi arms caches or in boats bound for delivery to the Houthis in
Yemen.
Surface-to-Air Missiles
Iran has developed the “Sayyad 2C” missile. It allegedly has supplied the missile to
(SAM)
the Houthis in Yemen to target aircraft from the Saudi-led coalition fighting in
Yemen.
Rockets
Iran had developed the Fajr rocket. It has supplied the weapon to Hezbol ah, Hamas,
and to militants in Afghanistan
ICBMS
An ICBM is a ballistic missile with a range of 5,500 kilometers (about 2,900 miles).
After long estimating that Iran might have an ICBM capability by 2010, the U.S.
intelligence community has not stated that Iran has produced an ICBM, to date.
Space Vehicles
In February 2009, Iran successful y launched a small, low-earth satellite on a Safir-2
rocket (range about 155 miles). Iran claimed additional satellite launches
subsequently, including the launch and return of a vehicle carrying a small primate in
December 2013. Since March 2016, Iran has been reported to readying the Simorgh
vehicle for a space launch, and the launch occurred on July 27, 2017.
Warheads
Wall Street Journal report of September 14, 2005, said that U.S. intelligence believes
Iran is working to adapt the Shahab-3 to deliver a nuclear warhead. Subsequent
press reports said that U.S. intelligence captured an Iranian computer in mid-2004
showing plans to construct a nuclear warhead for the Shahab.42 No information has
been reported since.
Sources: Testimony of U.S. intelligence community officials, 2005-2018; various press. Statement by State
Department Iran policy official Brian Hook. November 29, 2018.

42 William Broad and David Sanger, “Relying On Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims,” New York
Times, November 13, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
16

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Conventional and “Asymmetric Warfare” Capability43
Iran appears to be able to defend against any conceivable aggression from Iran’s neighbors, while
lacking the ability to project conventional military power outside the region or across waterways.
Iran’s forces are widely assessed as incapable of defeating the United States in a classic military
confrontation, but they could potentially inflict significant damage or casualties on the U.S.
military. CENTCOM Commander General Joseph Votel testified on February 27, 2018, that
Iran’s ground forces are “improving their ability to quickly mobilize and deploy in response to
internal and external threats.”
Organizationally, Iran’s armed forces are divided to perform functions appropriate to their roles.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC, known in Persian as the Sepah-e-Pasdaran
Enghelab Islami)44 controls the Basij (Mobilization of the Oppressed) volunteer militia that has
been the main instrument to repress domestic dissent. The IRGC also has a national defense role
and it and the regular military (Artesh)—the national army that existed under the former Shah—
report to a joint headquarters. In June 2016, Supreme Leader Khamene’i replaced the longtime
Chief of Staff (head) of the Joint Headquarters with IRGC Major General Mohammad Hossein
Bagheri, an early IRGC recruit who fought against Kurdish insurgents and in the Iran-Iraq War.
The appointment of an IRGC officer to head the joint headquarters again demonstrates the
IRGC’s dominance within Iran’s military and security structure. On the other hand, Rouhani’s
August 2017 appointment of a senior Artesh figure, Brigadier General Amir Hatami, as Defense
Minister suggests that the Artesh remains a respected institution in the defense establishment. The
Artesh is deployed mainly at bases outside cities and has no internal security role.
The IRGC Navy and regular Navy (Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, IRIN) are distinct forces; the
IRIN has responsibility for the Gulf of Oman, whereas the IRGC Navy has responsibility for the
closer-in Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. The regular Air Force controls most of Iran’s combat
aircraft, whereas the IRGC Air Force runs Iran’s ballistic missile programs. Iran has a small
number of warships on its Caspian Sea coast. Since 2014, Iran sent warships into the Atlantic
Ocean on a few occasions as a demonstration of growing naval strength. In August 2018, the
hardline IRGC General Alireza Tangsiri was appointed commander of the IRGC Navy.
Asymmetric Warfare Capacity
Iran compensates for its conventional military deficiencies by expanding its capacity for
“asymmetric warfare.” Administration reports and testimony continue to assess that Iran is
developing forces and tactics to control the approaches to Iran, including the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran’s naval strategy appears to be center on developing an ability to “swarm” U.S. naval assets
with its fleet of small boats and large numbers of anti-ship cruise missiles and its inventory of
coastal defense cruise missiles. It is also developing increasingly lethal systems such as more
advanced naval mines and “small but capable submarines,” according to DOD reports and the
August 2018 report required by the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act.
Iran has added naval bases along its coast in recent years, enhancing its ability to threaten
shipping in the strait. As discussed further later in this report, IRGC Navy vessels have conducted
“high-speed intercepts”—close-approaches of U.S. naval vessels in the Persian Gulf—sometimes
causing U.S. evasive action or warning shots.

43 For detailed analysis of Iran’s military strategy, doctrine, procurement policy, and related issues, see International
Institute for Strategic Studies. “Gulf Security after 2020.” December 2017.
44 For a more extensive discussion of the IRGC, see Katzman, Kenneth, “The Warriors of Islam: Iran’s Revolutionary
Guard,” Westview Press, 1993.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
17

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Iran’s arming of regional allies and proxies represents another aspect of Iran’s development of
asymmetric warfare capabilities. Iran’s allies and proxies control territory within which Iran can
emplace missiles, rockets, and factories to build military equipment. These allies help Iran expand
its influence and project power with little direct risk, giving Tehran a measure of deniability. For
example, Iran’s provision of anti-ship missiles to the Houthi rebels in Yemen could represent an
effort by Tehran to project military power into the key Bab el-Mandeb Strait chokepoint.
In the event of confrontation with the United States, Iran could also try to retaliate against
through terrorist attacks inside the United States or against U.S. embassies and facilities in
Europe or the Persian Gulf. Iran could also try to direct Iran-supported forces in Afghanistan or
Iraq to attack U.S. personnel there. Iran’s support for regional terrorist groups was a justification
for Iran’s addition to the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism (“terrorism list”) in January 1984.
Military-to-Military Relationships
Iran’s armed forces have few formal relationships with foreign militaries outside the region.
Iran’s military-to-military relationships with Russia, China, Ukraine, Belarus, and North Korea
generally have focused on Iranian arms purchases or upgrades, but Iran and Russia are
cooperating militarily in Syria to assist the Asad regime. According to the August 2018 report to
Congress mandated by the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act, Iran “has
obtained missile and aircraft technology from foreign suppliers, including China and North
Korea. In August 2016, Iran allowed Russia’s bomber aircraft, for a brief time, to use Iran’s
western airbase at Hamadan to launch strikes in Syria—the first time the Islamic Republic gave a
foreign military use of Iran’s military facilities.45
Iran and India have a “strategic dialogue” and some Iranian naval officers reportedly underwent
some training in India in the 1990s. Iran’s military also conducted joint exercises with the
Pakistani armed forces in the early 1990s. In September 2014, two Chinese warships docked at
Iran’s port of Bandar Abbas, for the first time in history, to conduct four days of naval exercises,46
and in October 2015, the leader of Iran’s regular (not IRGC) Navy made the first visit ever to
China by an Iranian Navy commander. In August 2017, the chief of Iran’s joint military
headquarters made the first top-level military visit to Turkey since Iran’s 1979 revolution.
Iranian Arms Transfers and U.N. Restrictions
Sales to Iran of most conventional arms (arms on a U.N. Register of Conventional Arms) were
banned by U.N. Resolution 1929. Resolution 2231, which supersedes Resolution 1929, requires
Security Council approval for any transfer of weapons or military technology, or related training
or financial assistance, to Iran. The requirement extends for a maximum of five years from
Adoption Day (until October 17, 2020). The Resolution named the systems subject to restriction:
Battle tanks; armored combat vehicles; large caliber artillery systems; combat aircraft;
attack helicopters; warships; missiles or missile systems, as defined by the U.N. Register
of Conventional Arms, or related material, including spare parts...and the provision to Iran..
of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance
related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related
materiel....

45 A provision of the House version of the FY2017 NDAA (Section 1259M of H.R. 4909) required an Administration
report on Iran-Russia military cooperation worldwide, but the provision was removed in conference action.
46 Thomas Erdbrink and Chris Buckley. “China’s Navy Sends Ships for Exercises with Iran.” New York Times,
September 22, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
18

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Defense Minister Hossein Dehgan visited Moscow in February 2016, reportedly to discuss
possible purchases of $8 billion worth of new conventional arms, including T-90 tanks, Su-30
aircraft, attack helicopters, anti-ship missiles, frigates, and submarines. Such purchases would
require Security Council approval under Resolution 2231, and U.S. officials have said the United
States would use its veto power to deny approval for the sale.
Resolution 2231 also requires Security Council approval for Iranian transfers of any weaponry
outside Iran until October 17, 2020. Separate U.N. Security Council resolutions ban arms
shipments to such conflict areas as Yemen (Resolution 2216) and Lebanon (Resolution 1701).
Iran appears to have violated this restriction on numerous occasions, but the U.N. Security
Council has not, to date, agreed on any punishments for these apparent violations.
Defense Budget
Iran’s defense budget generally runs about 4% of GDP. Of the defense budget, about two-thirds
funds the IRGC and its subordinate units, and about one-third funds the regular military (Artesh)
and its units. Iran’s national budget is about $300 billion. President Trump stated in his May 8,
2018, announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA that Iran’s defense budget has
increased 40% since the JCPOA has been implemented. Other sources say the increase has been a
more modest 30% since 2015.47 Incorporating the increase, Iran’s 2018-2019 defense budget is
about $20-$25 billion.48 The increase since the JCPOA was forged is likely due to improved
revenues from sales of crude oil and other goods resulting from JCPOA-related sanctions relief.
By contrast, GCC combined defense spending is expected by defense industry experts to reach
$100 billion in 2019.49

47 https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/12/politics/trump-tweet-iran-military-nuclear-deal/index.html.
48 https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-military-budget-irgc/28980550.html.
49 “Gulf States’ Defence Budgets to Hit $100bn in 2019: report.” Al Jazeera, September 6, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
19

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Table 3. Iran’s Conventional Military Arsenal
700,000 total. Regular army ground force is about 350,000, Revolutionary Guard
Corps (IRGC) ground force is about 125,000. IRGC navy is about 20,000 and regular
navy is about 18,000. Regular Air Force has about 30,000 personnel and IRGC Air
Military and Security
Force (which runs Iran’s missile programs) is of unknown size. Security forces
Personnel
number about 40,000-60,000 law enforcement forces, with another 100,000 Basij
(volunteer militia under IRGC control) permanently deployed. Hundreds of
thousands of additional Basij could be mobilized in the event or an all-out war.
1,650+ Includes 480 Russian-made T-72. Iran reportedly discussing purchase of
Tanks
Russian-made T-90s.
100+ (IRGC and regular Navy) Includes 4 Corvette; 18 IRGC-control ed Chinese-
made patrol boats, several hundred small boats.) Also has 3 Kilo subs (reg. Navy
control ed). Iran has been long said to possess several small subs, possibly purchased
Surface Ships and
assembled or in kit form from North Korea. Iran claimed on November 29, 2007, to
Submarines
have produced a new small sub equipped with sonar-evading technology, and it
deployed four Iranian-made “Ghadir class” subs to the Red Sea in June 2011. Iran
reportedly seeks to buy from Russia additional frigates and submarines. Iran has
stockpiled a wide array of naval mines.
330+ Includes 25 MiG-29 and 30 Su-24. Stil dependent on U.S. F-4s, F-5s and F-14
Combat Aircraft/
bought during Shah’s era. Iran reportedly negotiating with Russia to purchase Su-30s
Helicopters
(Flanker) equipped with advanced air to air and air to ground missiles (Yakhont ant-
ship missile). Iran reportedly seeks to purchase Russia-made Mi-17 attack helicopters.
Iran has developed “Explosively Formed Projectiles” (EFPs) anti-tank rockets used to
Artillery Rockets
significant effect against U.S. forces in Iraq (2003-2011). Iran provides the weapon to
its regional allies and proxies.
Iran has 150+ U.S.-made I-Hawk (from Iran-Contra Affair) plus possibly some
Stingers acquired in Afghanistan. Russia delivered to Iran (January 2007) 30 anti-
aircraft missile systems (Tor M1), worth over $1 bil ion. In December 2007, Russia
agreed to sell five batteries of the highly capable S-300 air defense system at an
Anti-Aircraft Missile
estimated cost of $800 mil ion. Sale of the system did not technically violate U.N.
Systems
Resolution 1929, because the system is not covered in the U.N. Registry on
Conventional Arms, but Russia refused to deliver the system as long as that sanction
remained in place. After the April 2, 2015, framework nuclear accord, Russian
officials indicated they would proceed with the S-300 delivery, and the weapon is
operational as of 2018. Iran reportedly also seeks to buy the S-400 anti-aircraft
system from Russia.
Sources: IISS Military Balance (2017)—Section on Middle East and North Africa, and various press reports;
testimony of CENTCOM Commander Gen. Joseph Votel before the House Armed Services Committee on
February 27, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
20

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Table 4. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
The IRGC is generally loyal to Iran’s political hardliners and is clearly more politically influential than is Iran’s
regular military, which is numerically larger, but was held over from the Shah’s era. The IRGC’s political influence
has grown sharply as the regime has relied on it to suppress dissent. A Rand Corporation study stated: “Founded
by a decree from Ayatol ah Khomeini shortly after the victory of the 1978-1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has evolved wel beyond its original foundations as an ideological guard for
the nascent revolutionary regime. . The IRGC’s presence is particularly powerful in Iran’s highly factionalized
political system, in which [many senior figures] hail from the ranks of the IRGC.. .” Its overall commander, IRGC
Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, who has been in the position since September 2007, is considered a hardliner
against political dissent and a close ally of the Supreme Leader. He criticized Rouhani for accepting a phone call
from President Obama on September 27, 2013, and opposed major concessions in the JCPOA negotiations.
Militarily, the IRGC fields a ground force of about 100,000 for national defense. The IRGC Navy has responsibility
to patrol the Strait of Hormuz and the regular Navy has responsibility for the broader Arabian Sea and Gulf of
Oman (deeper waters further off the coast). The IRGC Air Force runs Iran’s ballistic missile programs, but combat
and support military aviation is operated exclusively by the regular Air Force, which has the required pilots and
sustainment infrastructure for air force operations.
The IRGC is the key organization for maintaining internal security. The Basij militia, which reports to the IRGC
commander in chief, operates from thousands of positions in Iran’s institutions and, as of 2008, has been
integrated at the provincial level with the IRGC’s provincial units. As of December 2016, the Basij is led by
hardliner Gholam Hosein Gheibparvar. In November 2009, the regime gave the IRGC’s intelligence units greater
authority, surpassing that of the Ministry of Intelligence.
Through its Qods (Jerusalem) Force (QF), the IRGC has a foreign policy role in exerting influence throughout the
region by supporting pro-Iranian movements and leaders. The IRGC-QF commander, Brigadier General Qassem
Soleimani, reportedly has an independent channel to Khamene’i. The IRGC-QF numbers approximately 10,000-
15,000 personnel who provide advice, support, and arrange weapons deliveries to pro-Iranian factions or leaders
in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Persian Gulf states, Gaza/West Bank, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. IRGC leaders have
confirmed the QF is in Syria to assist the regime of Bashar al-Assad against an armed uprising, and it is advising the
Iraqi government against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL)—tacitly aligning it there with U.S. forces.
Section 1223 of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 114-92) required a DOD report any U.S.
military interaction with the IRGC-QF, presumably in Iraq. The IRGC-QF commander during 1988-1995 was
Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi, who served as defense minister during 2009-2013. He led the QF when it
allegedly assisted Lebanese Hezbol ah carry out two bombings of Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires (1992
and 1994) and is wanted by Interpol. He allegedly recruited Saudi Hezbol ah activists later accused of the June
1996 Khobar Towers bombing.
As noted, the IRGC is also increasingly involved in Iran’s economy, acting through a network of contracting
businesses it has set up, most notably Ghorb (also called Khatem ol-Anbiya, Persian for “Seal of the Prophet”).
Active duty IRGC senior commanders reportedly serve on Ghorb’s board of directors and its chief executive,
Rostam Ghasemi, served as Oil Minister during 2011-2013. In 2009, the IRGC bought a 50% stake in Iran
Telecommunication Company at a cost of $7.8 bil ion, although that firm was later privatized. Then-CIA Director
Mike Pompeo estimated in 2017 that the IRGC affiliates might control about 20% of Iran’s overall economy, but
estimates vary widely and the actual figure is widely considered uncertain.
Numerous IRGC and affiliated entities, including the IRGC itself and the QF, have been designated for U.S.
sanctions as proliferation, terrorism supporting, and human rights abusing entities—as depicted in CRS Report
RS20871, Iran Sanctions. The United States did not remove any IRGC-related designations under the JCPOA, but
the EU wil be doing so in 2023.
Sources: Frederic Wehrey et al.,“The Rise of the Pasdaran,” Rand Corporation, 2009; Katzman, Kenneth, “The
Warriors of Islam: Iran’s Revolutionary Guard,” Westview Press, 1993; Department of the Treasury;
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/30/130930fa_fact_filkins?printable=true&currentPage=all;
https://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/documents/Transcript_FINAL_Pompeo.pdf.
Countering Iran’s Malign Activities
The Trump Administration has articulated a multilayered strategy to try to counter Iran’s malign
activities and “roll back” Iranian influence in the region. The centerpiece of the strategy is to
utilize economic sanctions to change Iran’s behavior and deny Iran the resources it needs to
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
21

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

continue its regional operations. The State Department’s 2018 report “Outlaw Regime: A
Chronicle of Iran’s Destructive Activities” asserts that Iran has spent over $16 billion since 2012
“propping up the Assad regime and supporting [Iran’s] other partners and proxies in Syria, Iraq,
and Yemen.”
The Administration has also articulated 12 specific demands for Iran to change its behavior in
exchange for a new JCPOA and normalized relations with the United States and the international
community. The demands pertaining to Iran’s regional activities, as stipulated in the May 21,
2018, speech by Secretary of State Pompeo at the Heritage Foundation are that Iran:
 End support to Middle East terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hizballah,
Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
 Respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi government and permit the disarming,
demobilization, and reintegration of Shiite militias.
 End military support to the Houthi militia and work toward a peaceful political
settlement in Yemen.
 Withdraw all forces under Iranian command throughout the entirety of Syria.
 End support for the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan and the region,
and cease harboring senior al-Qaeda leaders.
 End the IRGC-QF’s support for terrorists and militant partners around the world.
 End its threatening behavior against its neighbors, including threats to destroy
Israel, firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia and the UAE, threats to international
shipping, and destructive cyberattacks.
Coalition Building. Moreover, the Administration has sought to build alliances to counter Iran
strategically. Some initiatives, such as the formation of a “Middle East Strategic Alliance,” are
discussed below. Building a coalition to counter Iran was a key component of Secretary of State
Pompeo’s trip to the GCC states, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt in January 2019. On the eve of the trip,
the Administration announced that it would convene a ministerial meeting in Poland during
February 13-14, 2019, which Secretary Pompeo acknowledged to journalists would focus on
countering Iran.50
Threatening Military Action. The Administration also has threatened military retaliation for
Iranian direct action, and, on September 21, 2018, Secretary of State Pompeo threatened action
against Iran for activities undertaken by Iran’s proxies. According to the Secretary, “We have told
the Islamic Republic of Iran that using a proxy force to attack an American interest will not
prevent us from responding against the prime actor.” The United States also works with local
leaders and factions that seek to counter Iranian influence. The applications of Administration
strategy are discussed in the sections below.

50 “Pompeo Announces International Summit on Iran.” Fox News, January 11, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
22

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Figure 1. Iran’s Regional Activities

Source: Taken from: State Department: “Outlaw Regime: Iran’s Destructive Activities.” 2018.
Notes: Since 2012, Iran has spent over $16 bil ion propping up the Assad regime and supporting its other
partners and proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
23

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Near East Region
The focus of Iranian security policy is the Near East, where Iran employs all instruments of its
national power. Successive Administrations have described many of Iran’s regional operations as
“malign activities.” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, in February 13, 2018, delivery
of the annual worldwide threat assessment testimony before Congress, assessed that “Iran will
seek to expand its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, where it sees conflicts generally trending
in Tehran’s favor.” Secretary of State Pompeo described a litany of Iranian malign activities in his
speech to the Heritage Foundation on May 21, 2018—a speech in which he stipulated as one
among many demands for normalization of relations with Iran that the regime cease its malign
regional activities.
Dollar Value of Iranian Funding to Allies and Proxies. A question that often proves difficult is
that of the dollar value of material support that the IRGC-QF provides to Iran’s allies and proxies.
Published estimates vary widely and are difficult to corroborate. Information from official U.S.
government sources sometimes provides broad dollar figures without breakdowns or clear
information on how those figures were derived. Section 1230E of the House version of the
FY2019 NDAA (H.R. 5515, P.L. 115-232) requires an annual Administration report on the
amounts spent by the IRGC-QF in the preceding year to support Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis
in Yemen, and “proxy forces in Iraq and Syria.”
The Persian Gulf
Iran has a 1,100-mile coastline on the Persian
Gulf and Gulf of Oman, and exerting
Figure 2. Map of Near East
dominance of the Gulf has always been a key
focus of Iran’s foreign policy—even during
the reign of the Shah of Iran. In 1981,
perceiving a threat from revolutionary Iran
and spillover from the Iran-Iraq War that
began in September 1980, the six Gulf states
formed the Gulf Cooperation Council alliance
(GCC: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar,
Oman, and the United Arab Emirates). U.S.-
GCC security cooperation expanded during
the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War and became
more institutionalized after the 1990 Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait. Prior to 2003 the
extensive U.S. presence in the Gulf was also
intended to contain Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,
but, with Iraq militarily weak since the fall of
Saddam Hussein, the U.S. military presence
in the Gulf focuses on containing Iran and

conducting operations against regional
Source: Created by CRS.
terrorist groups. The GCC states host significant numbers of U.S. forces at their military facilities
and procure sophisticated U.S. military equipment.
Several of the GCC leaders have accused Iran of fomenting unrest among Shiite communities in
the GCC states. Yet, the GCC states maintain relatively normal trading relations with Iran. In
2017, Iran sought to ease tensions with the GCC countries in an exchange of letters and a
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
24

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

February 2017 visit by President Hassan Rouhani to Kuwait and Oman, but the same regional
issues that divide Iran and the GCC countries thwarted the initiative.
The willingness of Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman to engage Iran contributed to a rift within the GCC
in which Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain—joined by a few other Muslim countries—announced
on June 5, 2017, an air, land, and sea boycott of Qatar.51 The rift has given Iran an opportunity to
accomplish a long-standing goal of weakening the GCC alliance. The GCC rift came two weeks
after President Donald Trump visited Saudi Arabia and expressed strong support for its policies.
Saudi Arabia52
Iranian and Saudi leaders accuse each other of seeking hegemony and exclusion of the other from
regional influence. Saudi leaders also accuse Iran of supporting Shiite dissidents in the kingdom’s
largely Shiite Eastern Province. The mutual animosity has aggravated sectarian tensions and
contributed to an Iran-Saudi regional war by proxy.53 Most notably, in 2015, Saudi Arabia led a
coalition that intervened in Yemen’s internal conflict in an effort to roll back Iranian influence by
reducing the territory under the control of Houthi rebels there. Saudi Arabia, with corroboration
from U.S. officials and a U.N. “panel of experts” on the Yemen conflict, has blamed Iran directly
for supplying the Houthis with ballistic missiles that have been fired on the Kingdom. In 2017,
Saudi leaders unsuccessfully sought to undermine Lebanese Hezbollah by pressuring Saudi ally
and Lebanon Prime Minister Sa’d Hariri to expose Hezbollah’s pervasive influence over the
government of Lebanon. Saudi leaders have sought since mid-2017 to engage Baghdad and
various Iraqi factions to draw the country closer to the Arab world and away from Iran. Iran
blamed Saudi Arabia, among other adversaries that included the Islamic State organization, for
the September 22, 2018, attack on a military parade in Ahwaz, in mostly Arab southwestern Iran,
which killed 25 persons. However, Iran did not direct its retaliation against Saudi Arabia, instead
launching missiles against Islamic State positions in Syria on October 1, 2018.
In January 2016, Saudi Arabia severed diplomatic relations with Iran in the wake of violent
attacks and vandalism against its embassy in Tehran and consulate in Mashhad, Iran. The attacks
were a reaction to Saudi Arabia’s January 2, 2016, execution of an outspoken Shia cleric, Nimr
Baqr al Nimr, alongside dozens of Al Qaeda members; all had been convicted of treason and/or
terrorism charges. Subsequently, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain broke diplomatic relations with Iran,
and Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE recalled their ambassadors from Iran. In December 2016, Saudi
Arabia executed 15 Saudi Shiites sentenced to death for “spying” for Iran.
Saudi leaders criticized the deficiencies of the JCPOA, later supported the accord’s continuation,
and then publicly applauded the Trump Administration’s May 2018 exit from the accord. Saudi
Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saudi, on the eve of a March 20, 2018, meeting with
President Trump, stated that Saudi Arabia would acquire a nuclear weapon if Iran does. Saudi
Arabia is seeking to forge a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States,
perhaps in part to signal to Iran that it will not have a monopoly in the Gulf on nuclear
technology.

51 The intra-GCC rift with Qatar has many antecedents beyond differences over Iran policy, as discussed in CRS
Insight IN10712, Qatar and its Neighbors: Disputes and Possible Implications, by Kenneth Katzman and Christopher
M. Blanchard, and CRS Report R44533, Qatar: Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
52 For detailed information on Saudi Arabia’s policy toward Iran, see CRS Report RL33533, Saudi Arabia: Background
and U.S. Relations, by Christopher M. Blanchard.
53 Statement for the Record. U.S. Director for National Intelligence James Clapper. Senate Armed Services Committee,
February 2015, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
25

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Saudi officials repeatedly cite past Iran-inspired actions as a reason for distrusting Iran. These
actions include Iran’s encouragement of violent demonstrations at some Hajj pilgrimages in
Mecca in the 1980s and 1990s, which caused a break in relations from 1987 to 1991. The two
countries increased mutual criticism of each other’s actions in the context of the 2016 Hajj. Saudi
Arabia asserts that Iran instigated the June 1996 Khobar Towers bombing and accuses it of
sheltering the alleged mastermind of the bombing, Ahmad Mughassil, a leader of Saudi
Hezbollah. Mughassil was arrested in Beirut in August 2015.
United Arab Emirates (UAE)54
The UAE is aligned with Saudi Arabia as a core member of the Saudi-led coalition combatting
the Houthi rebels in Yemen and an opponent of extensive diplomatic engagement with Iran. The
UAE criticized the deficiencies of the JCPOA, later supported its continuation as a stabilizing
force in the region, but then applauded the U.S. pullout from the JCPOA. UAE leaders blamed
Iran for arming the Houthis with anti-ship missiles that damaged a UAE naval vessel in the Bab
el-Mandeb Strait in late 2016.
The UAE is alone in the GCC in having a long-standing territorial dispute with Iran, concerning
the Persian Gulf islands of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunb islands. The Tunbs were
seized by the Shah of Iran in 1971, and the Islamic Republic took full control of Abu Musa in
1992, violating a 1971 agreement to share control of that island. The UAE has sought to refer the
dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but Iran insists on resolving the issue
bilaterally. (ICJ referral requires concurrence from both parties to a dispute.) In 2013-2014, the
two countries held direct apparently productive discussions on the issue and Iran reportedly
removed some military equipment from the islands.55 However, no resolution has been
announced. The GCC has consistently backed the UAE position.
Despite their political and territorial differences, the UAE and Iran maintain extensive trade and
commercial ties. Iranian-origin residents of Dubai emirate number about 300,000, and many
Iranian-owned businesses are located there, including branch offices of large trading companies
based in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran.
Qatar56
Since 1995, Qatar has occupied a “middle ground” between anti-Iran animosity and sustained
engagement with Iran. Qatar maintains periodic high-level contact with Iran; the speaker of Iran’s
Majles (parliament) visited Qatar in March 2015 and the Qatari government allowed him to meet
with Hamas leaders in exile there. Qatar also pursues policies that are opposed to Iran’s interests,
for example by providing arms and funds to factions in Syria opposed to Syrian President Bashar
Al Asad and by joining Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen (which ceased after Qatar pulled
out of Yemen as a consequence of the intra-GCC rift). Qatar has sometimes used its engagement
with Iran to obtain the release of prisoners held by Iran or its allies, and strongly refutes Saudi-led
assertions that it is aligned with or politically close to Iran. Qatar did withdraw its Ambassador
from Iran in connection with the Nimr execution discussed above, but restored relations in August

54 For detailed information on Iran-UAE relations, see CRS Report RS21852, The United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues
for U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
55 http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20140115/DEFREG04/301150034/Source-UAE-Iran-Reach-Accord-
Disputed-Hormuz-Islands.
56 For detailed information on Iran-Qatar relations, see CRS Report R44533, Qatar: Governance, Security, and U.S.
Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
26

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

2017 in large part to reciprocate Iran’s support for Qatar in the intra-GCC rift. Iran has increased
its food exports to Qatar as Qatar finds alternative sources to imports from Saudi Arabia.
Qatar does not have territorial disputes with Iran, but Qatari officials reportedly remain wary that
Iran could try to encroach on the large natural gas field Qatar shares with Iran (called North Field
by Qatar and South Pars by Iran). In April 2004, the Iran’s then-deputy oil minister said that
Qatar is probably producing more gas than “her right share” from the field.
Bahrain57
Bahrain, ruled by the Sunni Al Khalifa family and still unsettled by unrest among its majority
Shiite population, consistently alleges that Iran is agitating Bahrain’s Shiite community, some of
which is of Persian origin, to try to overturn Bahrain’s power structure. In 1981 and again in
1996, Bahrain publicly claimed to have thwarted Iran-backed efforts by Bahraini Shiite dissidents
to violently overthrow the ruling family. Bahrain has consistently accused Iran of supporting
radical Shiite factions within an opposition dominated by peaceful political societies.58 On several
occasions, Bahrain has withdrawn its Ambassador from Iran following Iranian criticism of
Bahrain’s treatment of its Shiite population or alleged Iranian antigovernment plots. Bahrain
broke ties with Iran in concert with Saudi Arabia in January 2016.
Bahraini and U.S. officials assert that Iran provides weapons, explosives, and weapons-making
equipment efforts to violent underground factions in Bahrain. In late 2016, Bahraini authorities
uncovered a large warehouse containing equipment, apparently supplied by Iran that is tailored
for constructing “explosively-forced projectiles” (EFPs) such as those Iran-backed Shiite militias
used against U.S. armor in Iraq during 2004-2011. No EFPs have actually been used in Bahrain,
to date.59 On January 1, 2017, 10 detainees who had been convicted of militant activities such as
those discussed above broke out of Bahrain’s Jaw prison with the help of attackers outside the
jail. In March 2017, security forces arrested a group of persons that authorities claimed were
plotting to assassinate senior government officials, asserting that the cell received military
training by IRGC-QF. Six Bahraini Shiites were sentenced to death for this alleged plot on
December 25, 2017. In late October 2017, 29 Bahrainis were convicted for having links to Iran
and conducting espionage in Bahrain.
On March 17, 2017, the State Department named two members of a Bahrain militant group, the
Al Ashtar Brigades, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), asserting the group is
funded and supported by Iran.60 In July 2018, the State Department named the Al Ashtar Brigades
as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The State Department report on international terrorism
for 2016, released in July 2017, stated that
Iran has provided weapons, funding, and training to Bahraini militant Shia groups that have
conducted attacks on the Bahraini security forces. On January 6, 2016, Bahraini security
officials dismantled a terrorist cell, linked to IRGC-QF, planning to carry out a series of
bombings throughout the country.

57 For detailed information on Iran-Bahrain relations, see CRS Report 95-1013, Bahrain: Unrest, Security, and U.S.
Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
58 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/bahrain-accuses-iran-training-rebels-
201413144049814960.html.
59 Souad Mekhennet and Joby Warrick. “In Bahrain’s Militant Cells, U.S. Sees Iran.” Washington Post, April 2, 2017.
60 State Department Terrorist Designations of Ahmad Hasan Yusuf and Alsayed Murtadha Majeed Ramadhan Alawi.
March 17, 2017.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
27

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Tensions also have flared occasionally over Iranian attempts to question the legitimacy of a 1970
U.N.-run referendum in which Bahrainis chose independence rather than affiliation with Iran. In
March 2016, a former IRGC senior commander and adviser to Supreme Leader Khamene’i
reignited the issue by saying that Bahrain is an Iranian province and should be annexed.61
As did Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Bahrain criticized the JCPOA, later supported its continuation
as a stabilizing force, but then supported the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the accord.
Kuwait62
Kuwait cooperates with U.S.-led efforts to contain Iranian power and is participating in Saudi-led
military action against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, but it also has tried to mediate a
settlement of the Yemen conflict and broker GCC-Iran rapprochement. Kuwait exchanges
leadership-level visits with Iran; Kuwait’s Amir Sabah al-Ahmad Al Sabah visited Iran in June
2014, meeting with Rouhani and Supreme Leader Khamene’i. Kuwait’s Foreign Minister visited
Iran in late January 2017 to advance Iran-GCC reconciliation, and Rouhani visited Kuwait (and
Oman) in February 2017 as part of that abortive effort.
Kuwait is differentiated from some of the other GCC states by its integration of Shiites into the
political process and the economy. About 25% of Kuwaitis are Shiite Muslims, but Shiites have
not been restive there and Iran was not able to mobilize Kuwaiti Shiites to end Kuwait’s support
for the Iraqi war effort in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). However, on numerous occasions,
Kuwaiti courts have convicted Kuwaitis with spying for the IRGC-QF or Iran’s intelligence
service. Kuwait recalled its Ambassador from Iran in connection with the Saudi-Iran dispute over
the Saudi execution of Al Nimr.
Oman63
Omani officials assert that engagement with Iran is a more effective means to moderate Iran’s
foreign policy than to isolate or threaten Iran, and Oman’s leadership has the most consistent
engagement with Iran’s leadership of any of the Gulf states. Omani leaders express gratitude for
the Shah’s sending of troops to help the Sultan suppress rebellion in the Dhofar region in the
1970s, even though Iran’s regime changed since then.64 Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has
visited Oman in 2014 and in 2017. Sultan Qaboos visited Iran in August 2013, reportedly to
explore with the newly elected Rouhani U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations that ultimately led to the
JCPOA. After the JCPOA was finalized, Iran and Oman accelerated their joint development of the
Omani port of Duqm, which Iran envisions as a trading and transportation outlet. Since late 2016,
Oman also has been a repository of Iranian heavy water to help Iran comply with the JCPOA.
Oman was the only GCC country to not downgrade its relations with Iran in connection with the
January 2016 Nimr dispute. And, Oman drew closer to Iran in 2017 because of Iran’s support for
Qatar in the intra-GCC rift, which Omani leaders assert was the result of misguided action by
Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

61 Gam News, Iran, as reported by Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), March 17, 2016.
62 For detailed information on Iran-Kuwait relations, see CRS Report RS21513, Kuwait: Governance, Security, and
U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
63 For detailed information on Iran-Oman relations, see CRS Report RS21534, Oman: Reform, Security, and U.S.
Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
64 As reported in author conversations in Oman and with Omani officials, 1988-2015.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
28

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Oman has not supported any factions fighting the Asad regime in Syria and has not joined the
Saudi-led Arab intervention in Yemen, enabling Oman to undertake the role of mediator in both
of those conflicts. Oman has denied that Iran has used its territory to smuggle weaponry to the
Houthi rebels in Yemen that Iran is supporting, but U.N. experts have identified land routes
through Oman that could be possible channels for Iranian weapons exports to the Houthis.65
Iranian Threat to the Gulf and U.S.-GCC Efforts to Counter Iran
Successive U.S. Administrations have considered the Gulf countries as lynchpins in U.S. strategy
to contain Iranian power, and preserve the free flow of oil and freedom of navigation in the
Persian Gulf, which is only about 20 miles wide at its narrowest point. The Strait of Hormuz is
identified by the Energy Information Administration as an important possible “chokepoint” for
the world economy. Each day, about 17 million barrels of oil flow through the strait, which is
35% of all seaborne traded oil and 20% of all worldwide traded oil.66 U.S. and GCC officials
view Iran as posing a possible threat to both the free flow of oil and freedom of navigation;
CENTCOM Commander General Joseph Votel testified before the House Armed Services
Committee on February 27, 2018, that “with little warning, Iran could quickly close the Strait of
Hormuz using stockpiles of naval mines and disrupt key maritime chokepoints throughout the
region.” In mid-2015, Iran stopped several commercial ships transiting the strait as part of an
effort to resolve commercial disputes with the shipping companies involved—stoppages possibly
intended to demonstrate Iran’s potential ability to control the strait.
In July 2018, Iran’s President Rouhani indirectly threatened the free flow of oil in the Gulf should
the Trump Administration succeed in compelling Iran’s oil customers to cease buying Iranian oil
entirely. In late August 2018, the newly appointed IRGC Navy commander Alireza Tangsiri
inflamed fears of Iranian action in the Gulf by saying that Iran had “full control” of the Gulf and
the Strait of Hormuz.67 In early August 2018, General Votel stated that the U.S. military is
“paying attention” to Iranian military movements in the Gulf. Subsequently, in late August 2018,
the newly appointed IRGC Navy commander Tangsiri stated that Ian “has full control” of the gulf
and Strait of Hormuz. However, no significant changes in Iran’s naval posture has been reported.
Iran has sometimes challenged U.S. forces in the Gulf, perhaps in part to demonstrate that it is not
intimidated by U.S. power. During 2016-2017, according to DNI Coats, about 10% of U.S. Navy
interactions with the IRGC-Navy were “unsafe, abnormal, or unprofessional.” IRGC-Navy
elements conducted numerous “high speed intercepts” of U.S. naval vessels in the Gulf and, in
some cases, fired rockets near U.S. warships. During some of these incidents, U.S. vessels have
fired warning shots at approaching Iranian naval craft. U.S. Navy and other military commanders
say that, since August 2017, Iran has largely ceased the naval challenges, although some Iranian
challenges took place in late November 2018. The shift in Iranian behavior might have been
prompted by concerns that that the Trump Administration might respond militarily.
President Trump has stated an intent to counter Iranian actions in the Gulf or more broadly,
including potentially with military action. On July 22, President Trump issued the tweet below:
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO

65 See, for example, S/2018/68, Final report of the Panel of Experts on Yemen, January 26, 2018.
66 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=18991.
67 Fox News, August 27, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
29

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF
VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
U.S.-GCC Cooperation Structures
The Obama Administration sought to add structure to the U.S.-GCC strategic partnership by
instituting a “U.S.-GCC Strategic Dialogue” in March 2012. Earlier, in February 2010, then-
Secretary Clinton also raised the issue of a possible U.S. extension of a “security umbrella” or
guarantee to regional states against Iran.68 However, no such formal U.S. security pledge was
issued. The JCPOA prompted GCC concerns that the United States might reduce its commitment
to Gulf security and President Obama and the GCC leaders held two summit meetings—in May
2015 and April 2016—to reassure the GCC of U.S. support against Iran. The statement following
the 2015 summit at Camp David said the following:
In the event of [ ] aggression or the threat of [ ] aggression [against the GCC states], the
United States stands ready to work with our GCC partners to determine urgently what
action may be appropriate, using the means at our collective disposal, including the
potential use of military force, for the defense of our GCC partners.69
The summit meetings produced announcements of a U.S.-GCC strategic partnership and specific
commitments to (1) facilitate U.S. arms transfers to the GCC states; (2) increase U.S.-GCC
cooperation on maritime security, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism; (3) organize additional
large-scale joint military exercises and U.S. training; and (4) implement a Gulf-wide coordinated
ballistic missile defense capability, which the United States has sought to promote in recent
years.70 Perhaps indicating reassurance, the GCC states expressed support for the JCPOA.71
The Trump Administration’s characterization of Iran as a major regional threat eased GCC state
concerns about U.S. policy toward Iran. The GCC states all expressed support for the Trump
Administration’s relaxation of restrictions on arms sales to the GCC states and its de-emphasizing
GCC human rights practices as a U.S. concern. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain all publicly
supported the Trump Administration exit from the JCPOA, whereas—reflecting divisions within
the GCC—Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman expressed “understanding” for the exit. U.S. officials have
stated that the intra-GCC rift centered on Qatar is harming the U.S.-led effort to forge a united
strategy against Iran, and, since April 2018, President Trump reportedly has been insisting that
Gulf leaders resolve the rift., although without evident success to date.72
Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA). Building on the exit from the JCPOA, the Trump
Administration reportedly is attempting to build a new coalition to counter Iran, composed of the
GCC states plus Egypt, Jordan, and possibly also Morocco. The Administration reportedly sought
to unveil this “Middle East Strategic Alliance” (MESA) in advance of a planned U.S.-GCC
summit on October 12-13, 2018. However, because of the ongoing intra-GCC dispute and other

68 Paul Richter and Alexandra Davis. “U.S. Promises to Beef up Defense Aid to Persian Gulf Allies.” Los Angeles
Times, April 7, 2015.
69 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/14/us-gulf-cooperation-council-camp-david-joint-statement.
70 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/14/annex-us-gulf-cooperation-council-camp-david-joint-
statement.
71 State Department, Joint Statement of the U.S.-GCC Foreign Ministers Meeting. August 3, 2015;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/04/joint-statement-meeting-between-president-barack-obama-
and-king-salman.
72 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gulf/in-call-with-saudi-king-trump-demanded-quick-end-to-gulf-rift-u-s-
officials-idUSKBN1HI332.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
30

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

factors, the meeting has been postponed until an unspecified time in 2019.73 The Saudi killing of
U.S.-based Saudi journalist Jamal Kashoggi has brought widespread international and
congressional criticism of the Kingdom and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud,
clouding prospects for the convening of another U.S.-GCC summit. The establishment of a
MESA was a significant element of Secretary of State Pompeo’s trip to the GCC states in January
2019.
U.S. Forces in the Gulf and Defense Agreements.
The GCC states are pivotal to U.S. efforts to counter Iran militarily. There are about 35,000 U.S.
forces in the Gulf region currently, most of which are stationed at military facilities in the GCC
states that the United States accesses under formal defense cooperation agreements (DCAs) with
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE; a facilities access agreement with Oman; and memoranda
of understanding with Saudi Arabia. The DCAs and other defense agreements reportedly provide
for the United States to preposition substantial military equipment, to train the GCC countries’
forces; to sell arms to those states; and, in some cases, for consultations in the event of a major
threat to the state in question.74 Some U.S. forces in the Gulf are aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier task
force that is in the Gulf region nearly constantly, although a U.S. carrier was absent from the Gulf
for much of 2018 before returning there in early December 2018.75 The Defense Department also
uses authority in Section 2282 of U.S.C. Title 10 to program Counterterrorism Partnerships Funds
CTPF) for U.S. special operations forces training to enhance GCC counterterrorism capabilities,
including to prevent infiltration by the IRGC-QF.
Arms Sales. U.S. arms sales to the GCC countries have improved GCC air and naval capabilities
and their interoperability with U.S. forces. With the exception of post-2011 uprising Bahrain, the
United States has tended to approve virtually all arms purchase requests by the GCC states,
including such equipment as combat aircraft, precision-guided munitions, combat ships, radar
systems, and communications gear. Congress has generally not sought to block such sales,
although a Senate vote in June 2017 nearly blocked a sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi
Arabia over its tactics in its war effort in Yemen. And, the intra-GCC rift has slowed the process
of concluding new arms sales to the GCC states: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
Bob Corker has said he would withhold informal concurrence on major new arms sales to the
GCC states until the rift is resolved.
The following sections discuss specific U.S.-Gulf defense relationships.76
 Saudi Arabia. The United States and Saudi Arabia have signed successive
memoranda of understanding (MoUs) to enable a few hundred U.S. military
personnel to train the military, National Guard (SANG), and Ministry of Interior
forces in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi force has about 225,000 active duty personnel,
with about 600 tanks, of which 200 are U.S.-made M1A2 “Abrams” tanks. The
Saudi Air Force flies the F-15. In late 2018, Saudi Arabia announced it would

73 Jack Detsch. “Trump Shelves Gulf Talks Until Next Year.” Al Monitor, September 6, 2018.
74 The texts of the DCAs and related agreements are classified, but general information on the provisions of the
agreements has been provided in some open sources, including http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/
pub185.pdf. Section 1234 of the FY2016 NDAA (P.L. 114-92) required a report within 120 days of enactment (by
March 30, 2016) on any U.S. security commitments to Middle Eastern countries, including the GCC, and the U.S. force
posture required for those commitments.
75 “Carrier Heads to Mideast to Press Iran. Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2018.
76 The U.S. deployments in the Gulf are discussed in greater detail in CRS reports on the individual GCC states.
Information in this section is derived from author visits to the GCC states since 1993 and conversations with U.S. and
Gulf state diplomats. See also International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The Military Balance, 2015.”
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
31

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

buy the sophisticated missile defense system Theater High Altitude Air Defense
system (THAAD) at an estimated cost of about $14 billion. The sale was
approved by the State Department in October 2017.
 Kuwait. The United States has had a DCA with Kuwait since 1991, and over
13,000 mostly U.S. Army personnel are stationed there, including ground combat
troops. Kuwait has hosted the U.S.-led headquarters for Operation Inherent
Resolve (OIR), the military component of the campaign against the Islamic State.
U.S. forces operate from such facilities as Camp Arifjan, south of Kuwait City,
where the United States prepositions ground armor including Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, as well as from several Kuwaiti air bases.
U.S. forces train at Camp Buehring, about 50 miles west of the capital. Kuwait
has a small force (about 15,000 active military personnel) that relies on U.S.
arms, including Abrams tanks and F/A-18 combat aircraft. The Trump
Administration stated during the September 2017 visit to Washington, DC, of
Kuwait’s Amir that it would proceed with selling Kuwait 32 additional F/A-18s.
 Qatar. The United States has had a DCA with Qatar since 1992, which was
revised in December 2013. Nearly 10,000 U.S. military personnel, mostly Air
Force, are in Qatar, manning the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM), which has responsibility for the Middle East and Central Asia; a
Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) that oversees U.S. combat aircraft
missions in the region; the large Al Udeid Air Base; and the As Saliyah army
prepositioning site where U.S. tanks are prepositioned. Qatar’s armed force is
small with about 12,000 active military personnel. Qatar has historically relied on
French military equipment, including Mirage combat aircraft, but in late 2016,
the Obama Administration approved selling up to 72 F-15s to Qatar. The F-15
deal, with an estimated value of $21 billion, was formally signed between Qatar
and the Trump Administration on June 14, 2017. Qatari officials say they will
expand Al Udeid air base and are allowing fixed housing and other facilities to be
built on the base to better accommodate U.S. personnel deployed there.
 UAE. The United States has had a DCA with UAE nearly continuously since
1994. About 5,000 U.S. forces, mostly Air Force and Navy, are stationed in UAE,
operating surveillance and refueling aircraft from Al Dhafra Air Base, and
servicing U.S. Navy and contract ships which dock at the large commercial port
of Jebel Ali. The UAE armed forces include about 63,000 active duty personnel.
Its ground forces use primarily French-made tanks purchased in the 1990s, but its
air forces are equipped with F-16s the country has bought from the United States
in recent years. The UAE has stated that it wants to buy the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter, but U.S. officials have indicated that the potential sale would be
evaluated in accordance with U.S. policy to maintain Israel’s Qualitative Military
Edge (QME). The Trump Administration said in early 2018 that it is considering
providing the UAE with advanced briefings on the aircraft. The UAE is the only
GCC state to date that has taken delivery of the THAAD anti-missile system.
 Bahrain. The United States has had a DCA with Bahrain since 1991. More than
8,000 U.S. personnel, mostly Navy, operate out of the large Naval Support
Activity facility that houses the U.S. command structure for U.S. naval
operations in the Gulf. U.S. Air Force personnel also access Shaykh Isa Air Base.
Bahrain has only about 6,000 active military personnel, and another 11,000
internal security forces under the Ministry of Interior. The United States has
given Bahrain older model U.S. M60A3 tanks and a frigate ship as grant “excess
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
32

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

defense articles,” and the country has bought U.S.-made F-16s with national
funds, partly offset by U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF). The Obama
Administration told Congress in late 2016 that it would not finalize approval of a
Bahrain request to purchase additional F-16s unless the government demonstrates
progress on human rights issues, but in March 2017, the Trump Administration
dropped that condition to proceed with the sale. The Administration has
maintained a general ban on arms sales to Bahrain’s internal security forces.
 Oman. The United States has had a “facilities access agreement” with Oman
since April 1980, under which a few hundred U.S. forces (mostly Air Force) are
deployed at and have access to Omani air bases such as those at Seeb, Masirah
Island, Thumrait, and Musnanah. Oman has a 25,000-person force that has
historically relied on British-made military equipment. The United States has
provided some M60A3 tanks as excess defense articles, and Oman has bought
F-16s using national funds, partly offset by U.S. FMF.
 Assistance Issues. The GCC states are considered wealthy states and most receive
little or virtually no U.S. assistance. The least wealthy Gulf states Bahrain and
Oman receive a few million dollars per year in Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
and International Military Education and Training Funds (IMET). Small amounts
of State Department funds are provided to all the Gulf states for
counterterrorism/border security programs (nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, de-
mining and related, NADR, funds)

Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
33

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Figure 3. Major Persian Gulf Military Facilities

Source: http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/persian-gulf.jpg.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
34

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Table 5. Military Assets of the Gulf Cooperation Council Member States

Bahrain
Kuwait
Oman
Qatar
Saudi
UAE
Arabia
Total
Manpower
8,200+
15,500+
42,600+
11,800
225,000+
63,000
ARMY & NATIONAL GUARD
Personnel
6,000
11,000
25,000
8,500
175,000
44,400
Main Battle
Tanks
180
293
154
39
600
467
AIFV/APC
225
789
206
230
3,011
1,957
Artil ery
151
218
233
91+
771
579+
Attack
Helicopters
—
—
—
—
15
—
SAMs
91
136+
48
75
1,805
N/A
NAVY
Personnel
700
2,000
4,200
1,800
13,500
2,500
Destroyers
1
—
3
—
7
—
/Frigates
Submarines
—
—
2
—
—
10
Patrol/Coastal
64
52
46
23
83
141
Combatants
Amphibious
1
4
—
—
8
—
Landing Craft
AIR FORCE
Personnel (Air
1,500
2,500
5,000
1,500
20,000
4,500
Defense)
(16,000)
Fighter Aircraft
33
39
15
12
261
138
Attack
28
16
—
8
—
37
Helicopters
MISSILE DEFENSE
Patriot PAC-2
Yes
Yes
—
Yes
Yes
Yes
Patriot PAC-3
Yes
Yes
—
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sale
approved by
THAAD
—
—
Considering
Considering
Dept. of
Delivered
State (10/17)
Sources: The Military Balance, 2017, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and various press.
Notes: AIFV = Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle, APC = Armored Personnel Carrier, SAM = Surface-to-Air Missile,
THAAD = Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
35

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Iranian Policy on Iraq, Syria, and the Islamic State77
Iran’s policy has been to support the Shiite-led governments in Iraq and Syria against armed
insurgencies or other domestic strife that might threaten those governments. That policy faced a
significant challenge from the Islamic State organization, a Sunni radical Islamist movement that
captured significant territory in both of those countries in 2014, but which has been beaten back
substantially by a U.S.-led coalition as well as Iran-supported government and militia forces in
both countries. Iran has taken advantage of the Islamic State’s defeats to increase its influence in
Iraq and in Syria and thereby improve its regional strategic position.
Iraq
In Iraq, the U.S. military ousting of Saddam Hussein in 2003 removed an antagonist and
produced a government led by Shiite Islamists with long-standing ties to Iran.78 The June 2014
offensive led by the Islamic State organization at one point brought Islamic State forces to within
50 miles of the Iranian border, triggering Iran to supply the Baghdad government as well as the
peshmerga forces of the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) with IRGC-QF
advisers, intelligence drone surveillance, weapons shipments, and other direct military
assistance.79 The Islamic State challenge reached its height as Iraq was attempting to form a new
government after spring 2014 national elections, and Iranian leaders also acquiesced to U.S.
insistence that Iran’s longtime ally, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki be replaced by a different
Shiite Islamist, Haider al-Abadi, who pledged to be more inclusive of Sunni leaders.80
With Iraq seeking to rebuild in a post-ISIS period, Iran’s influence in Iraq was cast into some
doubt with the strong May 12, 2018, election showing of Iraqi nationalist Moqtada al-Sadr’s
faction. Secretary of Defense Mattis warned in early 2018 that Iran was funding some Iraqi
candidates as part of an effort to increase its influence over the next Iraqi government.81 The
strongly pro-Iranian Shiite militia commander Hadi al-Ameri’s faction unexpectedly won the
second-most number of seats in the Iraqi parliament, appearing to benefit Iran. In October 2018,
coalition negotiations named relatively pro-American figures as president and prime minister, but
the final composition of the cabinet could yet confirm or set back Iran’s influence on the Iraqi
government.
Iraq’s new political leadership notwithstanding, Iran will continue to wield substantial influence
on Iraq because the IRGC-QF arms, trains, and advises several Shiite militias that earlier fought
the United States during 2003-2011. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats assesses
that, as ISIS’s power in Iraq has waned, Iran’s influence over Shiite militias has become the key
threat to U.S. personnel in Iraq.82 Iran’s supplies of these groups with rocket-propelled munitions,
such as Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions (IRAMs) contributed to the deaths of about 500
U.S. military personnel during those years.83 Iran has typically appointed members of or
associates of the IRGC-QF as its Ambassador to Iraq.

77 For information, see CRS Report R43612, The Islamic State and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard and Carla
E. Humud.
78 Michael Gordon, “Iran Supplying Syrian Military Via Iraqi Airspace,” New York Times, September 5, 2012.
79 “Iran News Agency Reports Death of Iranian Pilot in Iraq.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. July 5, 2014.
80 Babak Dehghanpisheh. “Iran Dramatically Shifts Iraq Policy to Confront Islamic State.” Reuters, September 2, 2014.
81 Lead Inspector General-Overseas Contingency Operations. January 31, 2018-March 31, 2018.
82 DNI Worldwide Threat Assessment testimony before Congress. February 13, 2018.
83 http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/14/iran-linked-to-deaths-of-500-us-troops-in-iraq-
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
36

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Current estimates of the total Shiite militiamen in Iraq number about 110,000-120,000, of which
about two-thirds are members of Iran-backed militias.84 Collectively, all of the Shiite militias are
known as Popular Mobilization Forces or Units (PMFs or PMUs). The commanders of the most
powerful Iran-backed militias, including Asa’ib Ahl Al Haq (AAH) leader Qais Khazali, the Badr
Organization’s Hadi al-Amiri (see above), and Kata’ib Hezbollah’s Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, are
said to wield significant political influence. They have close ties to Iran dating from their
underground struggle against Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and 1990s, and the commanders have
publicly pressured the government to reduce reliance on the United States and ally more closely
with Iran. Some of these commanders advocate a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq now that the Islamic
State has been mostly defeated in Iraq. Khazali is a member of Iraq’s parliament. These figures
have largely resisted incorporated their forces into the formal security structure.
In late August 2018, there were unconfirmed reports that Iran had transferred short-range ballistic
missiles to some of its Shiite militia allies in Iraq, possibly for the purpose or projecting force
further into the region.85 Secretary of State Michael Pompeo reacted to the reports by stating in a
tweet that he is
Deeply concerned about reports of #Iran transferring ballistic missiles into Iraq. If true,
this would be a gross violation of Iraqi sovereignty and of UNSCR 2231. Baghdad should
determine what happens in Iraq, not Tehran.
Despite good relations with the Iraqi Kurdish political leadership, Iran, as does the United States,
supports the territorial integrity of Iraq and opposed the September 25, 2017, KRG referendum on
independence. At the same time, Iran is wary of the ability of some anti-Iran government Kurdish
movements to operate in northern Iraq. In September 2018, Iran fired seven Fateh-110 short-
range ballistic missiles at a base in northern Iraq operated by the Kurdistan Democratic Party of
Iran—an Iranian Kurdish opposition group. The KDP-I’s Secretary General and other figures of
the group were reportedly among those wounded.86
Iranian Advice and Funding to Iraqi Militias
The number of IRGC-QF personnel in Iraq advising Iran-backed militias or the Iraqi government
is not known from published sources. It is likely that there are far fewer such Iranian personnel in
Iraq than there were at the height of the Islamic State challenge to Iraq in 2014. In 2014, a senior
Iranian cleric estimated the dollar value of Iran’s assistance to Iraq at about $1 billion—a large
increase over an estimated baseline level of about $150 million per year.87
Iran-Backed Militias and Their Offshoots
Some Iran-backed militias are offshoots of the “Mahdi Army” militia that Shiite cleric Moqtada
Al Sadr formed in 2004 to combat the U.S. military presence in Iraq. As the U.S. intervention in
Iraq ended in 2011, the Mahdi Army evolved into a social services network but, in response to the
Islamic State offensive in 2014, it reorganized as the “Salaam (Peace) Brigade,” with about
15,000 fighters.

afghanistan/30131097/.
84 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/16/us-officials-up-to-100000-iran-backed-fighters-now-in-iraq.html.
85 “Exclusive: Iran Moves Missile to Iraq in Warning to Enemies.” Reuters, August 31, 2018.
86 https://www.apnews.com/39a6e79233574b0fb8ef2a794625ed33.
87 “Iran Dramatically Shifts Iraq Policy to Confront Islamic State.” Reuters, September 2, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
37

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

 Kata’ib Hezbollah. One Mahdi Army offshoot, Kata’ib Hezbollah (KAH) was
designated by the State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in
June 2009. KAH has an estimated 20,000 fighters.88 In July 2009, the
Department of the Treasury designated it and its commander, Abu Mahdi al-
Muhandis, as threats to Iraqi stability under Executive Order 13438. Muhandis
was a Da’wa party operative during Saddam’s rule, and was convicted in
absentia by Kuwaiti courts for the Da’wa assassination attempt on the ruler of
Kuwait in May 1985 and the 1983 Da’wa bombings of the U.S. and French
embassies there. After these attacks, he served as leader of the Badr Corps of the
IRGC-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), but
he broke with the group in 2003 because of its support for the U.S. invasion of
Iraq. He joined the Mahdi Army during 2003-2006 but then broke to form KAH.
 Asa’ib Ahl Al Haq. Asa’ib Ahl Al Haq (AAH )leader Qais al-Khazali headed the
Mahdi Army “Special Groups” breakaway faction during 2006-2007, until his
capture and incarceration by U.S. forces for his alleged role in a 2005 raid that
killed five American soldiers. During his imprisonment, his followers formed
AAH. After his release in 2010, Khazali took refuge in Iran, returning in 2011 to
take resume command of AAH while also converting it into a political movement
and social service network. AAH resumed military activities after the 2014
Islamic State offensive, and has about 15,000 fighters.
 Badr Organization. The Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Islamic
Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly SCIRI), the mainstream Shiite party
headed now by Ammar al-Hakim. Did not oppose the 2003-2011 U.S.
intervention in Iraq. The Badr forces (then known as the Badr Brigades or Badr
Corps) received training and support from the IRGC-QF in its failed efforts to
overthrow Saddam during the 1980s and 1990s. The Badr Organization largely
disarmed after Saddam’s fall and integrated into the political process, supporting
the United States as a facilitator of Iraq’s transition to Shiite rule. Its leader is
Hadi al-Amiri, an elected member of the National Assembly who advocates for
government reliance on the Shiite militias. The Amiri-led faction, called
“Conquest,” won the second-highest number of seats in the May 12, 2018, Iraqi
election, positioning Amiri to wield significant influence. Badr has an estimated
20,000 militia fighters.89
 Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba. Some Iran-backed Shiite militias formed after the
U.S. withdrawal. Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba or “Nujaba Movement,” led by
Shaykh Akram al-Ka’bi, formed in 2013 to assist the Asad regime in Syria. The
group increased its presence on the Aleppo front in 2016 to help the Asad regime
recapture the whole city. Ka’bi was designated as a threat to Iraq’s stability under
E.O. 13438 in 2008, when he was then a leader of a Mahdi Army offshoot termed
the “Special Groups.” Another Shiite militia, the “Mukhtar Army,” formed in
2013 to help the government suppress Sunni protests. It was led by Wathiq al-
Battat, who reportedly was killed in late 2014.90 The Mukhtar Army claimed
responsibility for a late October 2015 attack on Iranian dissidents inhabiting the
“Camp Liberty” facility, discussed below. These militias might total 10,000
personnel.

88 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/02/iraq-popular-demobilisation-160224050939178.html.
89 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/02/iraq-popular-demobilisation-160224050939178.html.
90 http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/12/leader_of_iran-suppo.php.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
38

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

U.S. Policy to Curb Iranian Influence in Iraq
U.S. policy has been to try to counterbalance Iranian influence in Iraq by working with Iraqi
leaders who are well-disposed to the United States and relatively nonsectarian. The United States
supported Abadi’s reelection bid in Iraq as contributing to efforts to counter Iran’s influence
there, but the newly named president and prime minister, Barham Salih and Adel Abdul Mahdi,
respectively, are well known to U.S. officials and favor continued U.S. involvement in Iraq. In
2014, U.S. officials initially refused to support Iraqi Shiite militias in the anti-Islamic State effort,
but U.S. policy after 2015 supported those PMFs identified by U.S. officials as not backed by
Iran. October 2017, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called on Iran-backed militias to disarm
and for their Iranian advisors to “go home.”91 Although Abadi’s office publicly rebuked that U.S.
call, the Trump Administration reportedly has worked with the Iraqi government, with mixed
success to date, to integrate the militias into the official security forces or demobilize and merge
into the political process.
Still, there is potential for the activities of Iran-backed militias to become issues in broader Trump
Administration Iran policy. On September 11, 2018, following rocket attacks near U.S. diplomatic
facilities in Iraq, the Administration blamed Iran for not “act[ing] to stop these attacks.”92
Subsequently, as noted above, Secretary of State Pompeo threatened potential U.S. military action
against Iran if its proxies, including the Iran-backed militias in Iraq, attacked U.S. interests. And
U.S. officials reportedly are strongly resisting the appointment of high-ranking Iran-backed
militia members to a new Iraqi cabinet. The approximately 5,000 U.S. forces in Iraq have directed
their operations against Islamic State remnants and on improving the capabilities of government
forces, and have not conducted any combat against IRGC-QF personnel or Iran-backed militias in
Iraq.
With respect to sanctions, the United States has pressed Iraq to comply with reimposed U.S.
sanctions on Iran by ceasing oil swaps with Iran and ceasing dollar transactions with Iran’s
Central Bank. Iraq has, according to a wide range of observers, complied or taken steps to comply
with these U.S. requirements. Executive Order 12438 blocks property and prevents U.S. visas for
persons determined to threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq. In the 115th Congress, H.R. 4591
would essentially codify that executive order. Other legislations, such as S. 3431 and H.R. 4238,
would require sanctions on two of the Iran-backed militias, specifically naming Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq
and Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba. On the other hand, these organizations are believed to have
virtually no U.S.-based assets or financial interests that would be susceptible to U.S. sanctions.
Syria93
Iranian leaders characterize Syrian President Bashar al Asad as a key ally, despite Asad’s secular
ideology, and Iran has undertaken major efforts to keep him in power. The reasons for Iran’s
consistent and extensive support for Asad include the following: (1) Syria’s cooperation is key to
Iran’s arming and protection of Hezbollah; (2) the Asad regime has been Iran’s closest Arab ally
in a region where most governments oppose Iran; (3) a Sunni opposition government hostile to
Iran might come to power if Asad fell; and (4) the Asad regime can help block Sunni extremist
groups from attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon from across the Syria border. Most observers

91 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gulf-tillerson-iraq/go-home-tillerson-tells-iranian-backed-militias-in-iraq-
idUSKBN1CR0JR.
92 White House. Statement by the Press Secretary, September 11, 2018.
93 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10858, Iran and Israel: Tension Over Syria, by Carla E. Humud, Kenneth
Katzman, and Jim Zanotti; and CRS Report RL33487, Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response,
coordinated by Carla E. Humud.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
39

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

conclude that Iran’s strategic interest in the Asad regime’s survival is sufficiently compelling that
Iran will resist withdrawing Iranian forces from Syria as long as any threat to Asad’s grip on
power persists. In 2018, Iran and Syria signed updated military cooperation agreements, perhaps
suggesting Iranian intent to remain militarily in Syria indefinitely.
On the Syria battlefield, Iran-backed militias advanced east to the point where they can
potentially help Iran form a secure supply corridor from Iran to the Lebanon. On several
occasions, Iran-backed forces approached U.S. training locations for Syrian forces in southeast
Syria combatting the Islamic State and were subjected to U.S.-led fire to halt their advances. On
October 1, 2018, Iran fired six ballistic missiles from western Iran on suspected Islamic State
positions near Hanjin, Syria. Iran claimed the strikes were retaliation for the September 2018
attack on Iran’s military parade in Ahwaz (see above), but the strikes, which were near areas in
which U.S. and U.S.-backed forces in Syria operate, could be interpreted as signaling Iran’s
ability to project power in Syria from Iran’s homeland itself.
Iran’s extensive involvement in Syria has alarmed Israeli leaders who now apparently perceive
Iran as using Syrian territory to exert greater leverage against Israel—adding to the threat posed
by Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border. Israel accuses Iran of constructing bases in Syria,
including rocket and missile factories that can safely supply Hezbollah. The bases at which Iran
reportedly maintains a presence in Syria include Tiyas and al Shayrat airfields near Homs,
Damascus airport, Nayrab airfield near Aleppo, and a base at al-Qiswah. Iran tested Israel’s
capabilities in February 2018 by launching a drone over Israeli territory, which Israel shot down
but which precipitated an Israel-Syria clash that resulted in the downing of one Israeli combat
aircraft. Further clashes in April and May, culminating in a large Israeli strike on Iranian facilities
in Syria, including those locations mentioned above, during May 9-10, 2018, have sparked
widespread concerns that a broader Israel-Iran war could erupt.
Iran has not hidden its involvement or its losses in Syria. Deaths of high-ranking IRGC
commanders in battles in Syria have been widely publicized in state-run media. Their deaths have
been portrayed by the regime as heroic sacrifices on behalf of the Iranian revolution and Iran’s
national interests. At least 2,100 Iranian military personnel have died in Syria, including several
high-level IRGC-QF commanders.94 Iranian and Iran-controlled forces are likely to play a role in
any Syrian government offensive to recapture Idlib province, the last major bastion of opposition
forces.
Prior to the Russian intervention, Iran participated in multilateral diplomacy on a political
solution in Syria and put forward proposals for a peaceful transition in Syria. In 2015, Iran
attended meetings of and did not publicly dissent from joint statements issued by, an international
contact group on Syria, which included the United States. Iran was invited to participate in this
“Vienna process” after the United States dropped its objections on the grounds that, in the wake
of the July 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, Iran could potentially contribute to a Syria solution.
However, Russia’s intervention in Syria created the potential for Iran to achieve its maximum
goals in Syria, and in 2016-2018, Iran has apparently continued to pursue those goals in
negotiations brokered by Russia and Turkey (“Astana Process”). However, the August 2018
Administration report on Iran mandated by the Countering America’s Adversaries through
Sanctions Act said that Iran “is not playing a constructive role in Syria ... despite Iran’s status as a
‘guarantor’ of the Astana ceasefire zones ostensibly in place.” In the event that there is a political
transition, Iran will presumably seek to establish a government that would allow it to continue to
use Syria to supply Hezbollah.

94 Pasdar Toll in Syria Heavier than all U.S. Deaths in Mideast. Iran Times, March 16, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
40

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Iranian Military and Financial Support to Asad
Iranian support to Asad against the rebellion is extensive, including the provision of substantial
funds, weapons, and IRGC-QF advisors to the Syrian regime. However, exact numbers of Iranian
and Iran-backed forces are available in ranges, because of the wide disparity in open reporting:
 Iranian Military Personnel. After 2012, Iran expanded its intervention to the
point where regional security sources estimated that, by late 2015, it was
deploying nearly 2,000 military personnel in Syria, including IRGC-QF, IRGC
ground force, and even some regular army special forces personnel.95 The
deployment of Iranian regular army forces in Syria was significant because Iran’s
regular military has historically not deployed beyond Iran’s borders since the
1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War.
 Hezbollah Fighters. Sources tend to center on a figure of about 7,000 Lebanese
Hezbollah fighters deployed to Syria to assist Syrian government forces.
 Militia Recruits. The IRGC-QF recruited a reported 24,000-80,000 Shiite fighters
to operating under Iranian command in Syria at the height of the conflict during
2013-2017.96 These include not only Lebanese Hezbollah fighters but also Iraqi
militias such as Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and brigades composed of Afghan
and Pakistani Shiites. These numbers might have declined somewhat as the
Syrian government regained much of its territory; on November 29, 2018, the
State Department’s policy official on Iran, Brian Hook, stated that Iran “manages
as many as 10,000 Shia fighters in Syria, some of whom are children as young as
12 years old.”97
 Financial Support. Estimates of Iran’s spending to support Asad’s effort against
the rebellion vary widely. In June 2015, the office of the U.N. Special Envoy to
Syria Staffan de Mistura estimated Iran’s aid to Syria, including military and
economic aid, to total about $6 billion per year.98 Iranian aid to Syria is difficult
to gauge with precision, in part because it includes a combination of economic
aid (for which some figures, such as lines of credit, are publicly available in
official statements), subsidized oil and commodity transfers, and military aid (for
which numbers are difficult to obtain). The State Department’s “Outlaw Regime”
report (graphic, page 11), referenced above, indicates that Iran has extended “at
least $4.6 billion in credit to the Assad regime” since 2012.
U.S. Policy to Limit Iranian Influence in Syria
U.S. officials have stated that reducing Iran’s presence in Syria is critical to protecting Israel and
to the larger U.S. strategy of rolling back Iran’s regional influence. Then-Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson devoted much of a January 17, 2018, speech on U.S. policy toward Syria to explaining

95 Dan Williams. “Israel Says 55 Iranians Killed in Syria’s War.” Reuters, November 19, 2015; American Enterprise
News Round Up. April 4, 2016; FY2016 DOD report on the military power of Iran, released January 2017 (unclassified
summary).
96 Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2016. See also: Institute for the Study of War. “Iranian Strategy
in Syria,” by Will Fulton, Joseph Holliday, and Sam Wyer. May 2013.
97 Special Briefing by Brian Hook, Advisor to the Secretary of State and Special Representative for Iran. November 29,
2018.
98 Eli Lake. “Iran Spends Billions to Prop Up Asad,” Bloomberg View, June 9, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
41

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

that the United States would maintain 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria in part to diminish Iranian
influence in Syria and denying Iran’s “dreams of a northern arch” (from Iran to the
Mediterranean).99 He explained that a U.S.-Russia de-escalation agreement for southwest Syria
“addresses Israel’s security by requiring Iranian-backed militias, most notably Hezbollah, to
move away from Israel’s border.” National Security Adviser John Bolton reiterated that position
in a speech on September 10, 2018.100 Secretary of State Pompeo in his May 21, 2018, speech at
the Heritage Foundation, that “Iran must withdraw all forces under Iranian command throughout
the entirety of Syria.”101
In December 2018, President Trump announced that U.S. forces would withdraw, leading some
experts to assert that the United States would lose at least some of its leverage against Iran in
Syria. Others argue that the U.S. forces that are in Syria do not pressure Iran much because the
U.S. forces have not been ordered to preemptively attack Iranian or pro-Iranian forces in Syria.
Nor is the U.S. force necessarily large enough to exert pressure on Iran to withdraw. The
Administration has supported Israeli strikes on Iranian positions in Syria that is part of Israel’s
effort to deny Iran the opportunity to conduct an extensive military infrastructure there.
Executive Order 13572 blocks U.S.-based property and prevents U.S. visas for persons
determined to be responsible for human rights abuses and repression of the Syrian people. Several
IRGC-QF commanders have been designated for sanctions under the order. In the 115th Congress,
H.R. 4012 would direct the Director of National Intelligence to produce a National Intelligence
Estimate on Iranian support to proxy forces in Syria (and Lebanon).
Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Anti-Israel Groups102
A significant component of Iran’s policy is to use its allies to pressure Israel strategically.
Israel
Iran’s leaders assert that Israel is an illegitimate creation of the West and an oppressor of the
Palestinians—a position that differs from that of the Shah of Iran, whose government maintained
relatively normal relations with Israel. Supreme Leader Khamene’i has repeatedly described
Israel as a “cancerous tumor” that should be removed from the region. In a September 2015
speech, Khamene’i stated that Israel will likely not exist in 25 years—the time frame for the last
of the JCPOA nuclear restriction to expire.103 These statements underpin Israeli assertions that a
nuclear-armed Iran would be an “existential threat” to Israel.
Iran’s leaders routinely state that Israel presents a strategic threat to Iran. They add that the
international community applies a “double standard” to Iran in that Israel has faced no sanctions
even though it is the only Middle Eastern country to possess nuclear weapons and not to become
a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran’s leaders assert that Israel’s purported
nuclear arsenal is a main obstacle to establishing a weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) free
zone in the Middle East.

99 Department of State. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Remarks on the Way Forward for the United States Regarding
Syria. January 17, 2018.
100 https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2018/09/24/bolton-us-troops-staying-in-syria-until-iran-leaves/.
101 State Dept. “After the Deal: A New Iran Strategy.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo before the Heritage Foundation.
May 21, 2018.
102 For more information, see CRS Report R41514, Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress, by Jim Zanotti; and
CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.
103 http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/middleeast/iran-khamenei-israel-will-not-exist-25-years/.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
42

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Iran materially supports nonstate actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah that have undertaken
armed action against Israel, possibly as an attempt to apply pressure to Israel to compel it to make
concessions. Alternately, Iran might be attempting to disrupt prosperity, morale, and perceptions
of security among Israel’s population. For more than two decades, the annual State Department
report on international terrorism has asserted that Iran provides funding, weapons (including
advanced rockets), and training to a variety of U.S.-designated FTOs, including Hezbollah,
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad—Shiqaqi Faction (PIJ), the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (a
militant offshoot of the dominant Palestinian faction Fatah), and the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).
Israel and the Obama Administration disagreed over the JCPOA—Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu called it a “historic mistake,” and, in September 2017 and in March 2018, he
reportedly urged President Trump to seek to renegotiate it or to terminate U.S. participation in it.
Netanyahu’s policy preference was adopted when the Trump Administration exited the JCPOA on
May 8, 2018. Israel retains the option of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities should Iran
responds to the U.S. exit by abrogating the JCPOA and resuming the nuclear activities prohibited
or limited by the agreement. Israel also counters Iran forces and allies and proxies directly, using
its own forces and U.S.-supplied military and intelligence technology, as demonstrated in its
repeated strikes on Iranian and Iran-supported militia forces in Syria.
Hamas104
U.S. officials assert that Iran gives Hamas funds, weapons, and training. Hamas seized control of
the Gaza Strip in 2007 and has since administered that territory, but it ceded formal authority over
Gaza in June 2014 to a consensus Palestinian Authority (PA) government and turned over further
authority to the PA as part of an October 2017 reconciliation agreement. Hamas terrorist attacks
within Israel have decreased since 2005, but Hamas has used Iran-supplied rockets and other
weaponry during three conflicts with Israel since 2008, the latest of which was in 2014. Smaller
scale trading of rocket attacks and air strikes have taken place in the summer of 2018.
The Iran-Hamas relationship was forged in the 1990s as part of an apparent attempt to disrupt the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process through Hamas attacks on buses, restaurants, and other civilian
targets inside Israel. However, in 2012, their differing positions on the ongoing Syria conflict
caused a rift. Largely out of sectarian sympathy with Sunni rebels in Syria, Hamas opposed the
efforts by Asad to defeat the rebellion militarily. Iran reduced its support to Hamas in its brief
2014 conflict with Israel as compared to previous Hamas-Israel conflicts in which Iran backed
Hamas extensively. Since then, Iran has apparently sought to rebuild the relationship by providing
missile technology that Hamas used to construct its own rockets and by helping it rebuild tunnels
destroyed in the conflict with Israel.105 Hamas leaders restored the group’s relations with Iran
during a Hamas delegation visit to Tehran in October 2017.
Iranian Financial Support to Hamas
Iran’s support to Hamas has been estimated to be as high as $300 million per year (funds and in-
kind support, including weapons) during periods of substantial Iran-Hamas collaboration,106but is
widely assessed at a baseline amount in the tens of millions per year. The State Department’s

104 For more information, see CRS Report RL34074, The Palestinians: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.
105 Stuart Winer. “Iran Boasts of Rocket Aid to Palestinians, Hezbollah.” The Times of Israel, February 3, 2015; and,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-rekindles-relations-with-hamas-1429658562.
106 Robert Tait, “Iran Cuts Hamas Funding Over Syria.” Telegraph, May 31, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
43

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

September 2018 “Outlaw Regime” report states that Iran “provides up to $100 million annually in
combined support to Palestinian terrorist groups,” including Hamas, PIJ, and the PFLP-GC.
Hezbollah
Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iranian leaders portray as successful “exportation” of Iran’s Islamic
revolution, is Iran’s most significant nonstate ally. Hezbollah’s actions to support its own as well
as Iranian interests take many forms, including acts of terrorism and training and combat in
countries in the region.107 Recent State Department reports on international terrorism state that
“the group generally follows the religious guidance of the Iranian Supreme Leader, which [is]
[Grand Ayatollah] Ali Khamenei.”108
Iran’s close relationship to the group began when Lebanese Shia clerics of the pro-Iranian
Lebanese Da’wa (Islamic Call) Party—many of whom had studied under the leader of Iran’s
revolution, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—began to organize in 1982 into what later was
unveiled in 1985 as Hezbollah. IRGC forces were sent to Lebanon to help develop a military
wing, and these IRGC forces subsequently evolved into the IRGC-QF. The IRGC-QF and its
commander, IRGC Major General Qasem Soleimani, have been designated for U.S. sanctions
under Executive Order 13224.
Iranian leaders have long worked with Hezbollah as an instrument to pressure Israel. Hezbollah’s
attacks on Israeli forces in Israel’s self-declared “security zone” in southern Lebanon contributed
to an Israeli withdrawal from that territory in May 2000. Hezbollah fired Iranian-supplied rockets
on Israel’s northern towns and cities during the July-August 2006 war with Israel, and in July
2006 Hezbollah damaged an Israeli warship with a Chinese-made C-802 anti-ship missile of the
type that Iran reportedly bought in significant quantity from China in the 1990s. Hezbollah’s
leadership asserted that it was victorious in that war for holding out against Israel.109
Illustrating the degree to which Iranian assistance has helped Hezbollah become a potential global
terrorism threat, the State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism said on November 13,
2018, that “Hezbollah’s ambitions and global reach rival those of Al Qaeda and ISIS.” Iran has
assisted Hezbollah in several of the terrorist attacks that are depicted in the table above.
Hezbollah has become a major force in Lebanon’s politics, in part due to the arms and funding it
gets from Iran. Hezbollah now plays a major role in decisionmaking and leadership selections in
Lebanon. Hezbollah’s militia rivals the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). However, there has been
vocal criticism of Hezbollah in and outside Lebanon for its support for Asad, which has diluted
Hezbollah’s image as a steadfast opponent of Israel and has embroiled it in war against other
Muslims. In November 2017, the resignation of Prime Minister Sa’d Hariri appeared intended to
expose and undermine Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon—a move he undertook immediately
after close consultations with Riyadh. The resignation was rescinded by popular pressure in
Lebanon and did not diminish Hezbollah’s position. Hezbollah’s allies increased their number of
seats as a result of April 2018 parliamentary elections in Lebanon, although the number of seats
held by Hezbollah itself stayed at the 13 it held previously.

107 See Ben Hubbard. “Hezbollah Wields Rising Power as Iran’s Enforcer.” New York Times, August 28, 2017.
108 Department of State. Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism. Country Reports on
Terrorism: 2016.
109 “Nasrallah Wins the War.” The Economist, August 17, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
44

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Iranian Financial and Military Support
Iranian support for Hezbollah fluctuates according to the scope and intensity of their joint
activity. Iran provided high levels of aid to the group in the course of its combat intervention in
Syria and after the 2006 Hezbollah war with Israel.110 Among specific assistance:
 Training. The State Department report for 2016 asserted that Iran “has trained
thousands of [Hezbollah] fighters at camps in Iran.” In the early 1980s, Iran was
widely reported to have a few thousand IRGC personnel helping to establish
what became Hezbollah. More recently, Hezbollah has become more self-
sufficient111 and able to assist IRGC-QF operations elsewhere, such as in Syria,
Iraq, and Yemen.112 In Syria, the IRGC-QF has facilitated Hezbollah’s extensive
involvement on behalf of the Asad regime, whose continuation in power is in the
interests of both Iran and Hezbollah. Syria is the key conduit through which the
IRGC-QF has historically armed and assisted Hezbollah.
 Financial Support. The State Department report for 2015 contained a specific
figure, stating that Iran has provided Hezbollah with “hundreds of millions of
dollars.”113 However, on June 5, 2018, Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker cited a figure of $700
million in Iranian support to Hezbollah per year114—far higher than specific
figures previously cited in any U.S. official reports. The higher figure could
represent a U.S. reassessment of its previous estimates, or perhaps reflect a large
increase due to Hezbollah’s extensive combat on various battlefronts in Syria.
The State Department’s September 2018 “Outlaw Regime” report repeats the
$700 million figure.
 Weapons Transfers. State Department reports and officials say that, according to
the Israeli government, since that conflict, Hezbollah has stockpiled more than
130,000 rockets and missiles,115 presumably supplied mostly by Iran. Some are
said to be capable of reaching Tel Aviv and other population centers in central
Israel from south Lebanon. The State Department report adds that Israeli experts
assert that Iran also has transferred to Hezbollah anti-ship and anti-aircraft
capabilities.116 These specific rockets and missiles are discussed in the table
above. Iran has historically transferred weaponry to Hezbollah via Syria,
offloading the material at Damascus airport and then trucking it over the border.
However, possibly due to expanded Israeli strike operations against Iran in Syria,
some reports indicate that in 2018 Iran has also sought to transfer weaponry
directly to Hezbollah via Beirut.117

110 Author conversations with various experts and U.S. officials in Washington, DC, 1985-2017.
111 Ibid.
112 Ben Hubbard. New York Times, op. cit.
113 Department of State. Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism. Country Reports on
Terrorism; 2015
114 Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker Delivers Remarks at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. CQ Newsmaker Transcripts. June 5, 2018.
115 State Department terrorism report for 2016, op. cit.
116 Ibid.
117 Avi Issacharoff, “Iran, facing off against Israel in Syria, now sending arms directly to Lebanon,” Times of Israel,
November 30, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
45

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

U.S. Policy to Reduce Iran’s Support for Hezbollah
The Trump Administration has followed its predecessors in trying to disrupt the Iran-Hezbollah
relationship, although without substantial evident results. The United States has not acted against
Hezbollah militarily, but it has supported Israeli air strikes in Syria that are intended, at least in
part, to disrupt Iranian weapons supplies to Hezbollah. In January 2015, apparently in response to
one of these air strikes, Hezbollah attacked an Israeli military convoy near the Lebanon-Israel-
Syria tri-border area, killing two Israeli soldiers, but the incident did not result in an escalation.
The United States has imposed sanctions on Iranian entities involved in supplying Hezbollah as
well as on Hezbollah and its related entities, although without apparent effect in light of the fact
that such entities do not generally operate in the international financial or commercial system.
Congress recently enacted legislation (S. 1595, P.L. 115-272) that expands the authority to
sanction foreign banks that transaction business with Hezbollah, its affiliates, and partners.
Successive Administrations have also sought to provide U.S. military gear and other assistance to
the Lebanese army, to build it up as a counterweight to Hezbollah. It is not clear that such efforts
have accomplished the stated objectives, however.
Yemen118
Iranian leaders have not historically identified Yemen as a core Iranian security interest, but
Iranian leaders appear to perceive gains by Zaidi Shiite Houthi rebels there as an opportunity to
acquire significant leverage against Saudi Arabia. A 2011 “Arab Spring”-related uprising in
Yemen forced longtime President Ali Abdullah Saleh to resign in January 2012. In March 2015,
Saudi Arabia assembled an Arab coalition that, with logistical help from U.S. forces, has helped
the ousted government recapture some territory but has caused drastic humanitarian consequences
without yet compelling the Houthis to accept a political solution.119
The increasingly sophisticated nature of Iran’s support for the Houthis could suggest that Iran
perceives the Houthis as a potential proxy to project power on the southwestern coast of the
Arabian Peninsula. Iranian weapons shipments to the Houthis are banned by Resolution 2231 on
Iran and also by Resolution 2216 on Yemen, discussed above. The State Department’s “Outlaw
Regime” report cites press reports that Iran might have sent some militia forces from Syria to
fight alongside the Houthis in Yemen.
A July 2016 report on Iran by the U.N. Secretary-General reiterated the assertion120 made
previously by U.N. experts, that Iran has shipped arms to the Houthis. Among the systems Iran is
providing are anti-ship cruise missiles that are of increasing concern to U.S. commanders. The
Houthis fired anti-ship missiles at UAE and U.S. ships in the Red Sea in October 2016, and which
prompted U.S. strikes on Houthi-controlled radar installations. Iran subsequently deployed
several warships to the Yemen seacoast as an apparent sign of support for the Houthis. In January
2017, the Houthis damaged a Saudi ship in the Red Sea—an action that contributed to the
February 1, 2017, Trump Administration statement putting Iran “on notice” for its regional
malign activities. The degree of U.S. concern about Iran’s supplies of missiles to the Houthis was
reflected in U.S. CENTCOM commander General Joseph Votel’s March 29, 2017, testimony
before the House Armed Services Committee, referring to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait:

118 For more information, see CRS Report R43960, Yemen: Civil War and Regional Intervention, by Jeremy M. Sharp.
119 Ali al-Mujahed and Hugh Naylor. “Yemen Rebels Defy Saudi-led Attacks.” Washington Post, March 28, 2015.
120 Report of the Secretary-General on the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015). U.N.
Document Number S/2016/589, July 12, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
46

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

It is a choke point, it is a major transit area for commerce, not only ours but for international
ships. About 60 to 70 ships go through there a day. What we have seen, I believe, that the—
with the support of Iran, we have seen the migration of capabilities that we previously
observed in the Straits of Hormuz, a layered defense, consists of coastal defense missiles
and radar systems, mines, explosive boats that have been migrated from the Straits of
Hormuz to this particular area right here, threatening commerce and ships and our security
operations in that particular area.
Saudi Arabia, with U.S. and some U.N. backing, accuses Iran of providing the ballistic missiles
that the Houthis have fired on Riyadh on several occasions. A December 8, 2017, report by the
U.N. Secretary-General on implementation of Resolution 2231 generally supports those
allegations as well as allegations that Iran had shipped other weapons to the Houthis.121 U.S.
Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley cited that report in a December 14, 2017, presentation to the
Security Council that asserted definitively that Iran had given the Houthis the missiles fired on
Riyadh.122 A report by a U.N. panel of experts in January 2018 reportedly found that two missiles
fired on Saudi Arabia by the Houthis, on July 22 and November 4, 2017, were consistent with the
design of Iranian missiles,123 but the panel did not state definitively who supplied the missiles or
how they were transported to Yemen. On November 29, 2018, the head of the State Department’s
“Iran Action Group,” Brian Hook, displayed missiles, rockets, and other equipment that he
asserted were supplied by Iran to the Houthis and captured by Saud-led coalition forces.124 Some
of these systems are discussed in the “Iran missile arsenal” table above. In late February 2018,
Russia blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution from identifying Iran directly as a violator of
the U.N. ban on weapons shipments to Yemen (Resolution 2216). Iran has denied providing the
Houthis with missiles and assert that they are from a government arsenal assembled before the
2011 civil strife.
Financial and Advisory Support
Many observers assess that Iran’s support for the Houthis has been modest.
 The State Department’s “Outlaw Regime” report states that since 2012, Iran “has
spent hundreds of millions of dollars” aiding the Houthis. Secretary Pompeo
mentioned the same figure in the transcript of his briefing for Senators on
November 28, 2018.
 In that same transcript, Secretary Pompeo stated that a 20-person IRGC-QF unit
called “Unit 190” is responsible for funneling Iranian weaponry to the Houthis.
Pompeo added that the head of the unit also arranges for the travel of IRGC-QF
and Hezbollah advisers to go to Yemen to advise the Houthis.

121 Fourth Report of the Secretary-General on the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).
S/2017/1030. December 8, 2017.
122 http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/14/nikki-haley-yemen-houthi-rebels-iran-missiles-press-conference-pentagon-
skepticism-united-nations-trump-nuclear-deal-diplomacy/.
123 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/un-probe-details-fallout-of-proxy-war-in-yemen-between-saudi-coalition-
and-iran-/2018/01/11/3e3f9302-f644-11e7-9af7-a50bc3300042_story.html.
124 Briefing by Brian Hook, Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of State and Special Representative for Iran. Joint
Base Anacostia, Bolling. November 29, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
47

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

U.S. Policy to Counter Iranian Influence in Yemen
U.S. officials have cited Iran’s support for the Houthis to argue for the main policy line of effort,
which is providing logistical support to the Saudi-led Arab coalition battling the Houthis in
Yemen. In his May 21, 2018, speech, Secretary Pompeo stipulated as one U.S. demand on Iran
that the country “must also end its military support for the Houthi militia and work towards a
peaceful political settlement in Yemen.” In the transcript of his remarks to Senators on November
28, 2018, Pompeo stated that “Iran wants to establish a version of Lebanese Hezbollah on the
Arabian Peninsula so the mullahs in Tehran can control seaborne trade through strategic
waterways like the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.... we must also prevent Iran from entrenching itself in
Yemen.”125
The United States has also sought to prevent Iran from delivering weapons to the Houthis by
conducting joint naval patrols with members of the Saudi-led coalition. Some weapons shipments
have been intercepted. Some reports indicate that, to evade the naval scrutiny, Iran has been
transferring its weapons deliveries to a variety of small boats in the northern Persian Gulf, from
where they sail to Yemen.126
The United States also has increased its assistance to Oman to train its personnel to prevent
smuggling through its territory, presumably including the smuggling of Iranian weaponry to the
Houthis. U.S. forces have not engaged in any bombing of the Houthis or Iranian advisers in
Yemen, although U.S. forces continue to operate on the ground in Yemen against the Al Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) terrorist group that operates in southeastern Yemen.
Turkey127
Iran and Turkey, which share a short border, have extensive economic relations but sometimes
tense political relations. Turkey is a member of NATO, and Iran has sought to limit Turkey’s
cooperation with any NATO plan to emplace military technology near Iran’s borders. Iran and
Turkey’s disputes on some regional issues might be caused, at least in part, by the sectarian
differences between Sunni-inhabited Turkey and Shiite Iran. Turkey has advocated Asad’s ouster
as part of a solution for conflict-torn Syria whereas Iran is a key supporter of Asad. However,
following a failed Turkish military coup in July 2016, and mutual concerns over the
empowerment of Syrian Kurdish forces, Turkey-Iran differences narrowed. Turkey’s President
Recep Tayip Erdogan has come to publicly accept that Asad might remain in power in Syria and
both countries are integral part of Russia-led talks on an overall political solution for Syria. Iran
and Turkey cooperate to try to halt cross border attacks by Kurdish groups that oppose the
governments of Turkey (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK) and of Iran (Free Life Party, PJAK), and
which enjoy safe have in northern Iraq. In August 2017, the first high-level Iranian military visit
to Turkey since the Iranian revolution took place when the chief of staff of Iran’s joint military
headquarters, Hamid Baqeri, who rose through IRGC ranks, visited Ankara.
Turkey supported the JCPOA, and sanctions relief on Iran has enabled Iran-Turkey trade to
expand. Iran supplies as much as 50% of Turkey’s oil and over 5% of its natural gas, the latter
flowing through a joint pipeline that began operations in the late 1990s and has since been

125 State Dept. Press Office. Secretary Pompeo’s Remarks to Members of the Senate. November 28, 2018.
126 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-kuwait-iran-exclusive-idUSKBN1AH4I4.
127 For analysis on Turkey’s foreign policy and U.S. relations, see CRS Report R44000, Turkey: Background and U.S.
Relations In Brief, by Jim Zanotti.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
48

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

supplemented by an additional line. President Erdogan has indicated that Turkey will not
cooperate with the reimposition of sanctions on Iran related to the U.S. exit from the JCPOA.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Iran and Turkey were at odds over the strategic engagement of
Turkey’s then leaders with Israel. The Iran-Turkey dissonance on the issue faded after Erdogan’s
Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in Turkey. Turkey has since
been a significant supporter of Hamas and other Islamist movements.
North Africa
Two countries in North Africa, Egypt and Morocco, have been mentioned as potential members
of the planned “Middle East Strategic Alliance” (MESA) to counter Iran
Egypt128
Iran’s relations with Egypt have been strained for decades, spanning various Egyptian regimes.
Egypt is a Sunni-dominated state that is aligned politically and strategically with other Sunni
governments that are critical of Iran. Iran broke relations with Egypt shortly after the 1979 peace
treaty Egypt signed with Israel. The two countries reportedly have been close to reestablishing
full relations numerous times, including after the election of a Muslim Brotherhood leader,
Mohammad Morsi, as Egypt’s president. Morsi visited Iran in August 2012. However, relations
worsened again after the military’s overthrow of the Morsi government. Egypt, particularly under
the government of President Abd al Fattah Sisi, views Hamas as an Islamist threat and has sought
to choke off Iranian and other weapons supplies to that movement. On the other hand, Egypt and
Iran have found some common ground on Syria insofar as Sisi has not sought Asad’s ouster.
Morocco129
In May 2018, Morocco announced that it would sever diplomatic ties with Iran because of alleged
Iranian support (via its ally Lebanese Hezbollah) for the Polisario Front, which seeks
independence for the Western Sahara.130 Morocco’s foreign minister claimed that Hezbollah had
provided surface-to-air missiles to the Polisario; that evidence was reportedly presented to Iran
but has not been made public. No other publicly available evidence appears to support of those
specific allegations, and both Iran and Hezbollah denied the accusations. Morocco previously cut
ties with Iran in March 2009 due to alleged Iranian efforts to spread Shiism in largely Sunni
Morocco; diplomatic relations were reestablished in January 2017. Morocco has close relations
with Saudi Arabia, which supported Morocco's severing ties with Iran.
An intent to be part of the MESA coalition could give Morocco incentive to be as hardline on Iran
as possible, and potential to accuse Iran of activities for which there might not be a lot of
independently corroborated evidence. There has been little, if any, evidence that influencing
politics or political outcomes in Morocco has been a significant feature of Iran’s regional policies
or its intent. Iranian leaders rarely, if ever, mention Morocco when they outline Iranian policy in
the Middle East region. In part this might be because there are few easily identifiable factions in
Morocco that are pro-Iranian or with which the IRGC-QF can work.

128 For comprehensive analysis on Egypt, see: CRS Report RL33003, Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations, by
Jeremy M. Sharp.
129 For comprehensive analysis on Morocco, see: CRS Report RS21579, Morocco: Current Issues, by Alexis Arieff.
130 Al Jazeera, may 1, 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/morocco-cuts-diplomatic-ties-iran-western-
sahara-feud-180501173229190.html.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
49

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

South and Central Asia
Iran’s relations with countries in the
Caucasus, Central Asia, and South Asia vary
Figure 4. South and Central Asia Region
significantly, but most countries in these
regions conduct relatively normal trade and
diplomacy with Iran. Some of them face
significant domestic threats from radical
Sunni Islamist extremist movements similar
to those that Iran characterizes as a threat.
Most of the Central Asia states that were part
of the Soviet Union are governed by
authoritarian leaders. Afghanistan remains
politically weak, and Iran is able to exert
influence there. Some countries in the region,
particularly India, seek greater integration
with the United States and other world
powers and tend to downplay cooperation
with Iran. The following sections address
countries that have significant economic and
political relationships with Iran.

Source: Created by CRS.
The South Caucasus:
Azerbaijan and Armenia
Azerbaijan is, like Iran, mostly Shiite Muslim-inhabited. However, Azerbaijan is ethnically
Turkic and its leadership is secular. Iran and Azerbaijan also have territorial differences over
boundaries in the Caspian Sea. Iran asserts that Azeri nationalism might stoke separatism among
Iran’s large Azeri Turkic population, which has sometimes been restive. Iran has generally tilted
toward Armenia, which is Christian, in Armenia’s conflict with Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-
Karabakh enclave. The relationship is expanding among Iran, Armenia, and Georgia now that
Iran is not under international economic sanctions. On December 21, 2016, President Rouhani
visited Armenia to discuss a Persian Gulf-Black Sea transit and transport corridor.131
For more than two decades, Azerbaijan has engaged in strategic cooperation with the United
States against Iran (and Russia), including Azerbaijan’s deployments of troops to and facilitation
of supply routes to Afghanistan,132 and counterterrorism cooperation. In the 1990s, the United
States successfully backed construction of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, intended in part
to provide non-Iranian and non-Russian export routes. On the other hand, the United States has
accepted Azerbaijan’s need to deal with Iran on some major regional energy projects. Several
U.S. sanctions laws exempted from sanctions long-standing joint natural gas projects that involve
some Iranian firms—particularly the Shah Deniz natural gas field and pipeline in the Caspian
Sea. The project is run by a consortium in which Iran’s Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO)
holds a passive 10% share. (Other major partners are BP, Azerbaijan’s national energy firm
SOCAR, and Russia’s Lukoil.)133

131 http://www.tehrantimes.com/news/409363/Iran-Armenia-discuss-Persian-Gulf-Black-Sea-corridor.
132 http://foreignpolicynews.org/2014/04/10/azerbaijans-strategic-relations-united-states/.
133 For more information, see CRS Report RS20871, Iran Sanctions, by Kenneth Katzman.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
50

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

The lifting of sanctions on Iran has caused Azerbaijan to alter its policy toward Iran somewhat. In
August 2016, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev hosted Rouhani and Russia’s President
Vladimir Putin to a “Baku Summit,” in which a major topic was a long-discussed “North-South
Transport Corridor” involving rail, road, and shipping infrastructure from Russia to Iran, through
Azerbaijan. The project is estimated to cost $400 million. And, some press reports indicate that
Iranian investors previously or still linked to Iranian governing institutions have engaged in real
estate and other projects in Azerbaijan.
Central Asia
Iran has generally sought positive relations with the leaderships of the Central Asian states, even
though most of these leaderships are secular and all of the Central Asian states are mostly Sunni
inhabited. Almost all of the Central Asian states share a common language and culture with
Turkey; Tajikistan is alone among them in sharing a language with Iran. Several have active
Sunni Islamist opposition movements, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU),134
giving the Central Asian countries common cause with Iran to prevent Sunni jihadist terrorist
actions. The IMU, which is active in Afghanistan, in mid-2015, declared its loyalty to the Islamic
State organization.135
Iran and the Central Asian states are expanding economic relations, perhaps in part to fit into
China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative to build up infrastructure in countries west of China—
akin to reviving the old “Silk Road. In December 2014, a new railway was inaugurated through
Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, providing a link from the Persian Gulf to Central Asia.136
And, the lifting of sanctions could position Iran as central to energy and transportation routes
linking East Asia with Europe, a vision that was discussed with Iranian leaders during the January
2016 visit to Iran of China’s President Xi Jinping.
Along with India and Pakistan, Iran has been given observer status in a Central Asian security
grouping called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO—Russia, China, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan). In April 2008, Iran applied for full membership in the
organization. Apparently in an effort to cooperate with international efforts to pressure Iran, in
June 2010, the SCO barred admission to Iran on the grounds that it is under U.N. Security
Council sanctions.137 Some officials from SCO member countries have stated that the JCPOA
removes that formal obstacles to Iran’s obtaining full membership, but opposition to Iran’s full
membership among some SCO countries has denied Iran from full membership, to date. Rouhani
attended the late May 2018 SCO meeting in China which, among other issues, reportedly
discussed how to react to the May 8, 2018, U.S. exit from the JCPOA.138

134 Sebastien Peyrouse. “Iran’s Growing Role in Central Asia? Geopolitical, Economic, and Political Profit and Loss
Account. Al Jazeera Center for Studies. April 6, 2014. http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/dossiers/2014/04/
2014416940377354.html.
135 Stratfor. “Re-Examining the Threat of Central Asian Militancy” January 21, 2015. http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/
re-examining-threat-central-asian-militancy#axzz3PTRMU0el.
136 http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/asia/single-view/view/iran-turkmenistan-kazakhstan-rail-link-
inaugurated.html.
137 Substantially more detail on Iran’s activities in Afghanistan is contained in CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan:
Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
138 https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/sco-summit-2018-china-to-host-hassan-rouhani-amid-iran-nuclear-deal-
upheaval/1183681/.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
51

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan and Iran have a land border in Iran’s northeast. Supreme Leader Khamene’i is of
Turkic origin; his family has close ties to the Iranian city of Mashhad, capital of Khorasan
Province, which borders Turkmenistan. The two countries are also both rich in natural gas
reserves. A natural gas pipeline from Iran to Turkey, fed with Turkmenistan’s gas, began
operations in 1997, and a second pipeline was completed in 2010. Turkmenistan still exports
some natural gas through the Iran-Turkey gas pipeline, but China has since become
Turkmenistan’s largest natural gas customer.
Another potential project favored by Turkmenistan and the United States would likely reduce
interest in pipelines that transit Iran. President Berdymukhamedov has revived his predecessor’s
1996 proposal to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India (termed the
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, or “TAPI” pipeline). In August 2015, Turkmenistan’s
state-owned gas company was named head of the pipeline consortium and Turkmenistan officials
said the project was formally inaugurated in December 2015,139 with completion expected in
2019. U.S. officials have expressed strong support for the project as “a very positive step forward
and sort of a key example of what we're seeking with our New Silk Road Initiative, which aims at
regional integration to lift all boats and create prosperity across the region.”140
Tajikistan
Iran and Tajikistan share a common Persian language, as well as literary and cultural ties. Despite
the similar ethnicity, the two do not share a border and the population of Tajikistan is mostly
Sunni inhabited. President Imamali Rakhmonov has asserted that Iran and Tajikistan face
common threats from arms races, international terrorism, political extremism, fundamentalism,
separatism, drug trafficking, transnational organized crime, [and] the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction” and that close ties with neighboring states such as Iran would be based on
noninterference in each other’s internal affairs and the peaceful settlement of disputes, such as
over border, water, and energy issues.141
Some Sunni Islamist extremist groups that pose a threat to Tajikistan are allied with Al Qaeda or
the Islamic State. Tajikistan’s leaders appear particularly concerned about Islamist movements in
part because the Islamist-led United Tajik Opposition posed a serious threat to the newly
independent government in the early 1990s, and a settlement of the insurgency in the late 1990s
did not fully resolve government-Islamist opposition tensions. The Tajikistan government has
detained members of Jundallah (Warriors of Allah)—a Pakistan-based Islamic extremist group
that has conducted bombings and attacks against Iranian security personnel and mosques in Sunni
areas of eastern Iran. In part because the group attacked some civilian targets in Iran, in
November 2010, the State Department named the group an FTO.
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan, one of the seemingly more stable Central Asian states, is a significant power by
virtue of its geographic location, large territory, and ample natural resources. It hosted a round of
P5+1-Iran nuclear negotiations in 2013. In September 2014, Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan
Nazarbayev held talks with President Rouhani and expressed the hope that a JCPOA would be

139 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/15/turkmenistan-pipeline-idUSL5N11L0RE20150915.
140 State Department, Daily Press Briefing, May 23, 2012.
141 Center for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), March 16, 2013, Doc. No. CEL-54015758.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
52

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

achieved in order to better integrate economically into the Central Asian region.142 Kazakhstan
played a role in the commercial arrangements that produced the late December 2015 shipment out
to Russia of almost all of Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium, an action that fulfilled a key
JCPOA requirement. Kazakhstan’s National Atomic Company Kazatomprom supplied Iran with
60 metric tons of natural uranium on commercial terms as compensation for the removal of the
material, which Norway paid for.
With sanctions eased, Iran is open to additional opportunities to cooperate with Kazakhstan on
energy and infrastructure projects. Kazakhstan possesses 30 billion barrels of proven oil reserves
(about 2% of world reserves) and 45.7 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves (less than 1% of
world reserves). Two major offshore oil fields in Kazakhstan’s sector of the Caspian Sea—
Kashagan and Kurmangazy—are estimated to contain at least 14 billion barrels of recoverable
reserves. Iran and Kazakhstan do not have any joint energy ventures in the Caspian or elsewhere,
but after the finalization of the JCPOA in July 2015, the two countries resumed Caspian oil swap
arrangements that were discontinued in 2011.143 The two countries are not at odds over specific
sections of the Caspian Sea, and some aspects, but not all, of the territorial questions regarding
the Caspian were settled in 2018.
Uzbekistan
During the 1990s, Uzbekistan, which has the largest military of the Central Asian states,
identified Iran as a potential regional rival and as a supporter of Islamist movements in the region.
However, since 1999, Uzbekistan and Iran—which do not share a common border or significant
language or cultural links—have moved somewhat closer over shared stated concerns about
Sunni Islamist extremist movements, particularly the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
extremist group. In February 1999, six bomb blasts in Tashkent’s governmental area nearly killed
then President Islam Karimov, who was expected to attend a high-level meeting there. The
government alleged that the plot was orchestrated by the IMU with assistance from Afghanistan’s
Taliban, which was in power in Afghanistan and hosting Osama bin Laden. In September 2000,
the State Department designated the IMU as an FTO.144 The IMU itself has not claimed
responsibility for any terrorist attacks in Iran and appears focused primarily on activities against
the governments of Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.
Iran-Uzbekistan relations have not changed significantly since the August 2016 death of
Uzbekistan’s longtime President Islam Karimov and his replacement by Shavkat Mirziyoyev,
who was at the time the Prime Minister. Uzbekistan has substantial natural gas resources but it
and Iran do not have joint energy-related ventures. Most of Uzbekistan’s natural gas production is
for domestic consumption. Still, Mirziyoyev has sought to expand regional and international
cooperation and his foreign policy departure from the Karimov era is likely to benefit Uzbekistan-
Iran relations.
South Asia
The countries in South Asia face perhaps a greater degree of threat from Sunni Islamic extremist
groups than do the countries of Central Asia. They also share significant common interests with
Iran, which Iran used to foster cooperation against U.S. sanctions. This section focuses on several
countries in South Asia that have substantial interaction with Iran.

142 http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930618000811.
143 http://en.mehrnews.com/news/109439/Kazakhstan-to-resume-oil-swap-with-Iran.
144 http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2001/html/10252.htm#imu.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
53

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, Iran is pursuing a multitrack strategy by helping develop Afghanistan
economically, engaging the central government, supporting pro-Iranian groups and, at times,
arming Taliban fighters. An Iranian goal appears to be to restore some of its traditional sway in
eastern, central, and northern Afghanistan, where “Dari”-speaking (Dari is akin to Persian)
supporters of the “Northern Alliance” grouping of non-Pashtun Afghan minorities predominate.
Iran shares with the Afghan government concern about the growth of Islamic State affiliates in
Afghanistan, such as Islamic State—Khorasan Province, ISKP, an affiliate of the Islamic State
organization that Iran is trying to thwart on numerous fronts in the region. The two countries are
said to be cooperating effectively in their shared struggle against narcotics trafficking. President
Ghani and Iranian leaders meet periodically.145
Iran has sought influence in Afghanistan in part by supporting the Afghan government, which is
dominated by Sunni Muslims and ethnic Pashtuns. In October 2010, then-President Hamid Karzai
admitted that Iran was providing cash payments (about $2 million per year) to his government.146
It is not known whether such payments continue. Iran’s ally, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, who is half-
Tajik and speaks Dari, is “Chief Executive Officer” of the Afghan government under a power-
sharing arrangement with President Ashraf Ghani that followed the 2014 presidential election.
Even though it engages the Afghan government, Tehran has in the recent past sought leverage
against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and in any Taliban-Afghan government peace settlement. Past
State Department reports on international terrorism have accused Iran of providing materiel
support, including 107mm rockets, to select Taliban and other militants in Afghanistan, and of
training Taliban fighters in small unit tactics, small arms use, explosives, and indirect weapons
fire.147 In July 2012, Iran allowed the Taliban to open an office in Zahedan (eastern Iran).148 In
December 2016, Iran invited several Taliban figures to an “Islamic Unity” conference in Tehran.
Reflecting apparent concern about the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, Iran reportedly tried
to derail the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), signed in September 2014,
that allowed the United States to maintain troops in Afghanistan after 2014. It prohibits the
United States from launching military action against other countries from Afghanistan. In his May
21, 2018, speech, Secretary Pompeo demanded that “Iran, too, must end support for the Taliban
and other terrorists in Afghanistan and the region, and cease harboring senior Al Qaeda leaders.”
Purported Iranian support to Taliban factions comes despite the fact that Iran saw the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan of 1996-2001 as an adversary. The Taliban allegedly committed atrocities
against Shiite Afghans (Hazara tribes) while seizing control of Persian-speaking areas of western
and northern Afghanistan. Taliban fighters killed nine Iranian diplomats at Iran’s consulate in
Mazar-e-Sharif in August 1998, prompting Iran to mobilize ground forces to the Afghan border.
Pakistan149
Relations between Iran and Pakistan have been uneven. Pakistan supported Iran in the 1980-1988
Iran-Iraq War, and Iran and Pakistan engaged in substantial military cooperation in the early

145 “Afghanistan, Iran to Work together Against “Macabre” IS Threat.” RFE/RL, April 22, 2015.
146 Dexter Filkins. “Iran Is Said to Give Top Karzai Aide Cash by the Bagful.” New York Times, October 23, 2010.
147 State Department, Country Reports on International Terrorism: 2011. http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/
195547.htm.
148 Maria Abi-Habib, “Tehran Builds On Outreach to Taliban,” Wall Street Journal, August 1, 2012.
149 For detail on Pakistan’s foreign policy and relations with the United States, see CRS Report R41832, Pakistan-U.S.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
54

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

1990s, and the two still conduct some military cooperation, such as joint naval exercises in April
2014. The founder of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, A.Q. Khan, sold nuclear technology
and designs to Iran.150 However, a rift emerge between the two countries in the 1990s because
Pakistan’s support for the Afghan Taliban ran counter to Iran’s support for the Persian-speaking
and Shiite Muslim minorities who opposed Taliban rule. Iran reportedly is concerned that
Pakistan might harbor ambitions of returning the Taliban movement to power in Afghanistan.151
In addition, two Iranian Sunni Muslim militant groups that attack Iranian regime targets—
Jundullah (named by the United States as an FTO, as discussed above) and Jaysh al-Adl—
operate from western Pakistan.
A significant factor dividing them is Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. Pakistan declined
a Saudi request that Pakistan participation in the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis in
Yemen, but Pakistan joined Saudi Arabia’s 34-nation “antiterrorism coalition” in December 2015.
The coalition was announced as a response to the Islamic State, but Iran asserts it is directed at
reducing Iran’s regional influence. Experts have speculated that if Saudi Arabia sought to counter
Iran’s nuclear program with one of its own, the prime source of technology for the Saudi program
would be Pakistan.
The two nations’ bilateral agenda has increasingly focused on a joint major gas pipeline project
that would ease Pakistan’s energy shortages while providing Iran an additional customer for its
large natural gas reserves. As originally conceived, the line would continue on to India, but India
withdrew from the project at its early stages. Then-President of Iran Ahmadinejad and Pakistan’s
then-President Asif Ali Zardari formally inaugurated the project in March 2013. Iran has
completed the line on its side of the border, but Pakistan was unable to finance the project on its
side of the border until China agreed in April 2015 to build the pipeline at a cost of about $2
billion.152 U.S. officials stated that the project could be subject to U.S. sanctions under the Iran
Sanctions Act,153 which will take effect again by November 4, 2018. There is little evident
movement on the pipeline as of March 2018.
India154
India and Iran have overlapping histories and civilizations, and they are aligned on several
strategic issues. Tens of millions of India’s citizens are Shiite Muslims. Both countries have
historically supported minority factions in Afghanistan that are generally at odds with
Afghanistan’s dominant Pashtun community.
As international sanctions on Iran increased in 2010-2013, India sought to preserve its long-
standing ties with Iran while cooperating with the sanctions regime. In 2010, India’s central bank
ceased using a Tehran-based regional body, the Asian Clearing Union, to handle transactions with
Iran. In January 2012, Iran agreed to accept India’s local currency, the rupee, to settle nearly half
of its sales to India. During 2011-2015, India reduced its purchases of Iranian oil—at some cost to
its own development—in order to receive from the U.S. Administration exemptions from

Relations, by K. Alan Kronstadt.
150 John Lancaster and Kamran Khan, “Pakistanis Say Nuclear Scientists Aided Iran,” Washington Post, January 24,
2004.
151 Author conversations with experts in Washington, DC, who consult with Iranian government officials. 2013-15.
152 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/china-to-build-pakistan-iran-gas-pipeline-
pakistan-government/articleshow/46867932.cms.
153 http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/big-powers-block-iran-pakistan-gas-pipeline-plans.
154 For detail on India’s foreign policy and relations with the United States, see CRS Report R42823, India-U.S.
Security Relations: Current Engagement, by K. Alan Kronstadt and Sonia Pinto.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
55

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

sanctions. India has increased oil purchases from Iran to nearly pre-2012 levels after sanctions
were lifted, and in May 2016 India agreed to transfer to Iran about $6.5 billion that it owed for
Iranian oil shipments but which was held up for payment due to sanctions. India’s position has
generally been that it will only enforce sanctions authorized by U.N. Security Council resolutions,
rendering it likely that India will resist U.S. efforts to compel it to comply with reimposed U.S.
sanctions such as those that mandate cuts in oil purchases from Iran.
Some projects India has pursued in Iran involve not only economic issues but national strategy.
India has long sought to develop Iran’s Chabahar port, which would give India direct access to
Afghanistan and Central Asia without relying on transit routes through Pakistan. India had
hesitated to move forward on that project because of U.S. opposition to projects that benefit Iran.
India has said that the implementation of JCPOA sanctions relief in January 2016 paved the way
for work to begin in earnest on the Chabahar project. India, Iran, and Afghanistan held a
ceremony in May 2016 to herald the start of work on the port based on an Indian pledge of a $500
million investment in it, with Iran to provide the remaining $500 million. Work was slowed by
the difficulty equipment suppliers had in obtaining financing for the project, a consequence of
hesitancy among banks about whether the United States might still try to sanction the project.155
In December 2017, Iran inaugurated the $1 billion expansion of Chabahar – a project that the
United States has excepted from U.S. sanctions on Iran because of its pivotal contribution to
Afghanistan’s development.156India has begun shipping wheat to Afghanistan through this new
port. During Rouhani’s visit to India in February 2018, in which he and India’s Prime Minister
Narendra Modi signed memoranda outlining future expanded energy cooperation.
In large part because of distrust between India and Pakistan, in 2009, India withdrew from the
Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project asserting it had concerns about the security of the pipeline, the
location at which the gas would be transferred to India, pricing of the gas, and transit tariffs.
During economic talks in July 2010, Iranian and Indian officials reportedly raised the issue of
constructing a subsea natural gas pipeline, which would bypass Pakistani territory.157
During the late 1990s, U.S. officials expressed concern about India-Iran military-to-military ties.
The relationship included visits to India by Iranian naval personnel, although India said these
exchanges involved junior personnel and focused mainly on promoting interpersonal relations
and not on India’s provision to Iran of military expertise. The military relationship between the
countries has withered in recent years.
Russia
Iran attaches significant weight to its relations with Russia—a permanent member of the U.N.
Security Council, a supplier of arms to Iran, a party to the JCPOA, and a key supporter of the
Asad regime. Russia appears to view Iran as a de facto ally in combating Sunni Islamist extremist
movements, which have conducted attacks in Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin visited
Iran on November 23, 2015, to attend a conference of major international natural gas producers,
and also held talks with Supreme Leader Khamene’i and President Rouhani, resulting in an
announcement of a $5 billion line of credit to Iran for possible joint projects, including additional

155 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/shipping-/-transport/india-slow-to-develop-chabahar-
port-as-china-races-ahead-at-rival-hub/articleshow/54693856.cms; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-iran-ports-
idUSKBN19024M.
156 U.S. Envoy Haley Tells Modi Important to Cut Imports of Iranian Oil. Reuters, June 27, 2018.
157 http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/iran-backs-deepsea-gas-pipeline-to-india/article5466999.ece.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
56

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

natural gas pipelines, railroads, and power plants.158 Rouhani visited Moscow on March 28, 2017,
to discuss with President Putin the issues discussed below. During Putin’s visit to Tehran on
November 1, 2017, the two countries agreed to collaborate on “strategic energy deals” valued at
about $30 billion.159 Russia opposed the U.S. exit from the JCPOA and has said it would not
cooperate with reimposed U.S. secondary sanctions on Iran.
U.S. officials express concern primarily with Iran-Russia military cooperation, particularly in
Syria. Russia-Iran cooperation has been pivotal to the Asad regime’s recapture of much of rebel-
held territory since 2015. Yet, the two countries’ interests do not align precisely in Syria because
Iranian leaders express far greater concern about protecting Hezbollah in any post-Asad regime
than do leaders of Russia, whose interests appear to center on preserving the Asad regime and on
Russia’s overall presence in the Middle East. In August 2016, Iran briefly allowed Russia to stage
bombing runs in Syria from a base in western Iran, near the city of Hamadan. The Russian use of
the base ran counter to Iran’s constitution, which bans foreign use of Iran’s military facilities, and
Iran subsequently ended the arrangement after Russia publicized it.
Russia has been Iran’s main supplier of conventional weaponry and a significant supplier of
missile-related technology. In February 2016, Iran’s Defense Minister Hosein Dehgan visited
Moscow reportedly to discuss purchasing Su-30 combat aircraft, T-90 tanks, helicopters, and
other defense equipment. Under Resolution 2231, selling such gear would require Security
Council approval, and U.S. officials have said publicly they would not support such a sale. Russia
previously has abided by all U.N. sanctions to the point of initially cancelling a contract to sell
Iran the advanced S-300 air defense system—even though Resolution 1929, which banned most
arms sales to Iran, did not specifically ban the sale of the S-300. After the April 2, 2015,
framework nuclear accord was announced, Russia lifted its ban on the S-300 sale. Russia has
shipped the system, and Iran has begun deploying and testing it. In January 2015, Iran and Russia
signed a memorandum of understanding on defense cooperation, including military drills.160
Russia built and still supplies fuel for Iran’s only operating civilian nuclear power reactor at
Bushehr, a project from which Russia earns significant revenues. In December 2015, Russia was
the end destination of the shipment out of Iran of almost all of Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched
uranium—helping Iran meet a key requirement of the JCPOA.
Europe
Iran’s foreign policy is focused on urging the European countries to continue providing Iran with
the economic benefits of the JCPOA in the wake of the May 2018 Trump Administration pullout
from that accord. The EU is struggling with that effort, insofar as European countries have
substantial engagement in the U.S. economy and are reluctant to risk that business to maintain
economic ties to Iran. Still, Rouhani and his subordinates regularly visit European capitals and
engage European leaders, and daily flights from several European countries to Iran continue, and
many Iranian students attend European universities.
Whereas the European countries oppose the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, they are critical of
Iran for its recent alleged Iranian plots to assassinate dissidents in Europe (discussed above). In
January 2019, in response to a Dutch letter linking Iran to assassinations of Dutch nationals of

158 “Russian President Putin, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei Meet to Discuss Syria.” Wall Street Journal, November 23,
2015.
159 “Russia and Iran Sign $30 bn Energy Agreements.” Financial Times, November 1, 2017.
160 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
57

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Iranian origin in 2015 and 2017, the EU sanctioned Iran’s Intelligence ministry and two of its
operatives for sponsoring acts of terrorism.161
It is the terrorism issue that has, in the past, disrupted Iran-Europe relations. The EU imposed
sanctions on During the 1990s, the United States had no dialogue with Iran at all whereas the EU
countries maintained a policy of “critical dialogue” and refused to join the 1995 U.S. trade and
investment ban on Iran. But, that dialogue was suspended in April 1997 in response to the
German terrorism trial (“Mykonos trial”) that found high-level Iranian involvement in killing
Iranian dissidents in Germany.
East Asia
East Asia includes three of Iran’s five largest buyers of crude oil and one country, North Korea,
that is widely accused of supplying Iran with missile and other military-related technology. The
countries in Asia have not extensively intervened militarily or politically in the Middle East, and
Iran rarely criticizes countries in Asia.
China162
China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and a P5+1 party to the JCPOA, is
Iran’s largest oil customer. During U.N. Security Council deliberations on Iran during 2006-2013,
China tended to argue for less stringent sanctions than did the United States, but China’s
compliance with U.S. sanctions was pivotal to U.S. efforts to reduce Iran’s revenue from oil sales
during 2012-2016. China opposed the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the government has
continued to buy substantial quantities of Iran oil, even while earning a U.S. exception from
sanctions requiring Iran’s oil customers to reduce buys from Iran.
China faces a potential threat from Sunni Muslim extremists in western China and appears to see
Shiite Iran as a potential ally against Sunni radicals. China also appears to agree with Iran’s view
that the Asad regime is preferable to the Islamic State and other Islamist rebel organizations.
Shortly after Implementation Day of the JCPOA in January 2016, China’s President Xi Jinping
included Tehran on a visit to the Middle East region. His trip to Iran generally focused on China’s
vision of an energy and transportation corridor extending throughout Eurasia (“One Belt, One
Road,” OBOR), and including Iran, and the two countries agreed to expand trade to $600 billion
over the next decade. Iran’s burgeoning economic and diplomatic relationships with the Central
Asian states appear intended, at least in part, to enable Iran to take advantage of the substantial
Chinese investment in the region that is required to implement its OBOR vision. As an example,
in February 2016, the first rail cargo from China arrived in Iran via the Kazakhstan-
Turkmenistan-Iran link discussed above.
China in the past supplied Iran with advanced conventional arms, including cruise missile-armed
fast patrol boats that the IRGC Navy operates in the Persian Gulf; anti-ship missiles; ballistic
missile guidance systems; and other WMD-related technology. A number of China-based entities
have been sanctioned by the United States, including in 2017, for allegedly aiding Iran’s missile,
nuclear, and conventional weapons programs.

161 “E.U. Imposes Sanctions on Iran over Assassination Plots in 2015 and 2017.” New York Times, January 9, 2019.
162 CRS In Focus IF10029, China, U.S. Leadership, and Geopolitical Challenges in Asia, by Susan V. Lawrence.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
58

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Japan and South Korea
Iran’s primary interest in Japan and South Korea has been to expand commercial relations after
sanctions were eased. Neither Japan nor South Korea has been heavily involved in security and
strategic issues in the Middle East, but both countries are close allies of the United States. Both
countries are wary of Iran’s reported military and technology relations with North Korea.
During the period when the United States was implementing the JCPOA, South Korea’s then-
President Geun-hye Park visited Tehran in May 2016 for the first tour of Iran by a South Korean
president to Iran since 1962, accompanied by representatives of 236 South Korean companies and
organizations. The two sides signed a number of agreements in the fields of oil and gas, railroads,
tourism, and technology, and agreed to reestablish direct flights between Tehran and Seoul.
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reportedly had planned to visit Iran in late August 2016, but
postponed the visit. During the U.N. General Assembly meetings in New York (September 18-21,
2017), Abe accepted an invitation from President Rouhani to visit Iran, according to Abe’s
spokesperson., but no date for the visit was announced. The visit, which would have been the first
by a leader of Japan to the Islamic Republic, is unlikely now that the United States has exited the
JCPOA.
Japanese and South Korean firms are consistently unwilling to risk their positions in the U.S.
market by violating any U.S. sanctions on Iran, and these companies are starting to leave the Iran
market now that U.S. secondary sanctions are being reimposed.
North Korea
Iran and North Korea have been aligned as “rogue states” subjected to wide-ranging international
sanctions. North Korea is one of the few countries with which Iran has formal military-to-military
relations, and the two countries have cooperated on a wide range of military and WMD-related
ventures, particularly the development of ballistic missile technology. In the past, Iran reportedly
funded and assisted in the retransfer of missile and possibly nuclear technology from North Korea
to Syria.163 North Korea also reportedly supplied Iran with small submarines. It is widely
suspected that the two continue to cooperate on missile development, and possibly nuclear issues
as well, but the extent of the cooperation, if any, is not known from published sources.
North Korea has not at any time pledged to abide by international sanctions against Iran, but its
economy is too small to significantly help Iran. According to some observers, a portion of
China’s purchases of oil from Iran and other suppliers is reexported to North Korea. After
international sanctions on Iran’s crude oil exports were removed, additional quantities of Iranian
oil likely began reaching North Korea, most likely via China. However, the expansion of such
retransfers are likely limited by the adoption in September 2017 of additional U.N. sanctions
limiting the supply of oil to North Korea.

163 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303763804579183231117914364.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
59

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Latin America164
Some U.S. officials and some in Congress
have expressed concerns about Iran’s
Figure 5. Latin America
relations with leaders in Latin America that
share Iran’s distrust of the United States.
Some experts and U.S. officials have asserted
that Iran has sought to position IRGC-QF
operatives and Hezbollah members in Latin
America to potentially carry out terrorist
attacks against Israeli targets in the region or
even in the United States itself.165 Some U.S.
officials have asserted that Iran and
Hezbollah’s activities in Latin America
include money laundering and trafficking in
drugs and counterfeit goods.166 These
concerns were heightened during the
presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-
2013), who made repeated, high-profile visits
to the region in an effort to circumvent U.S.
sanctions and gain support for his criticisms
of U.S. policies. However, few of the

economic agreements that Ahmadinejad
Source: Created by CRS.
announced with Latin American countries
were implemented, by all accounts.
President Rouhani has generally expressed only modest interest in further expanding ties in Latin
America, perhaps in part because Latin America is not pivotal to Iran’s economy.167 He made his
first visit to the region in September 2016 (three years into his presidency) in the course of
traveling to the annual U.N. General Assembly meetings in New York. He went to several of the
countries that Foreign Minister Zarif did when Zarif met with leaders in Cuba, Chile, Bolivia,
Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela in August 2016—the countries in that region that
Ahmadinejad visited during his presidency as well. Iran’s officials have stated that the purpose of
the visits were to expand economic relations with Latin American countries now that international
sanctions on Iran have been lifted.
In the 112th Congress, the Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act, requiring the
Administration to develop a strategy to counter Iran’s influence in Latin America, was enacted
(H.R. 3783, P.L. 112-220). The required report was provided to Congress in June 2013, asserting
that “Iranian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean is waning” in part because of U.S.
efforts to cause Latin American countries to assess the costs and benefits of closer relations with

164 For more information on the issues discussed in this section, see CRS Report RS21049, Latin America: Terrorism
Issues, by Mark P. Sullivan and June S. Beittel.
165 Ilan Berman. “Iran Courts Latin America.” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2012. http://www.meforum.org/3297/
iran-latin-america.
166 Posture Statement of General John F. Kelly, Commander, U.S. Southern Command, before the 114th Congress,
Senate Armed Services Committee, March 12, 2015.
167 http://www.thedialogue.org/resources/are-iran-trade-ties-important-for-latin-america/.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
60

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Iran.168 Observers have directed particular attention to Iran’s relationship with Venezuela (an
OPEC member, as is Iran) because of its avowed anti-U.S. posture, and Argentina, because of the
Iran-backed attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets there. Iran’s relations with Cuba have been
analyzed by experts in the past, but the U.S. opening to Cuba that began in late 2014 have eased
concerns about Cuba-Iran relations. U.S. counterterrorism officials also have stated that the tri-
border area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay is a “nexus” of arms, narcotics and human
trafficking, counterfeiting, and other potential funding sources for terrorist organizations,
including Hezbollah. Assertions in 2009 by some U.S. officials that Iran was significantly
expanding its presence in Nicaragua were disputed by subsequent accounts.169
Venezuela170
During Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran had particularly close relations with Venezuela and its
president, Hugo Chavez, who died in office in March 2013. Neither Rouhani nor Chavez’s
successor, Nicolas Maduro, have expressed the enthusiasm for the relationship that Chavez and
Ahmadinejad did. Even during the presidencies of Chavez and Ahmadinejad, the United States
did not necessarily perceive a threat from the Iran-Venezuela relationship. In July 2012, President
Obama stated that Iran-Venezuela ties have not had “a serious national security impact on the
United States.”171 Very few of the economic agreements announced were implemented. A direct
air link was reportedly restarted by President Maduro in January 2015 in order to try to promote
tourism between the two countries.172 Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA)—which operates the
Citgo gasoline stations in the United States—has been supplying Iran with gasoline since 2009, in
contravention of U.S. sanctions, and PDVSA was sanctioned under the Iran Sanctions Act in May
2011.173 The United States “de-listed” PDVSA as stipulated in the JCPOA, but it will be “re-
listed” in concert with the reimposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran in 2018.
Argentina174
In Argentina, Iran and Hezbollah carried out acts of terrorism against Israeli and Jewish targets in
Buenos Aires that continue to affect Iran-Argentina relations. The major attacks were the 1992
bombing of the Israeli embassy and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (Argentine-
Israeli Mutual Association, AMIA). Based on indictments and the investigative information that
has been revealed, there is a broad consensus that these attacks were carried out by Hezbollah
operatives, assisted by Iranian diplomats and their diplomatic privileges.
The Buenos Aires attacks took place more than 20 years ago and there have not been any recent
public indications that Iran and/or Hezbollah are planning attacks in Argentina or elsewhere in
Latin America. However, in February 2015, Uruguay stated that an Iranian diplomat posted there

168 State Department, “Annex A: Unclassified Summary of Policy Recommendations,” June 2013.
169 “Iran’s Rumored ‘Mega-Embassy’ Set Off Alarms in U.S.” Washington Post, June 13, 2009.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071202337.html.
170 For more information, see CRS Report R43239, Venezuela: Issues for Congress, 2013-2016, by Mark P. Sullivan.
171 Comments by President Barack Obama on “CNN: The Situation Room,” July 11, 2012.
172 http://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2015/04/06/iran-takes-venezuelan-money-passes-on-deliveries/.
173 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/us-iran-usa-sanctions-idUSTRE74N47R20110524.
174 For more information, see CRS Report R43816, Argentina: Background and U.S. Relations, by Mark P. Sullivan
and Rebecca M. Nelson.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
61

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

had left the country before Uruguay issued a formal complaint that the diplomat had tested the
security measures of Israel’s embassy in the capital, Montevideo.175
Many in Argentina’s Jewish community opposed a January 2013 agreement between Iran and the
government of then-President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to form a “truth commission”
rather than to aggressively prosecute the Iranians involved. In May 2013, the Argentine
prosecutor in the AMIA bombing case, Alberto Nisman, issued a 500-page report alleging that
Iran has been working for decades in Latin America, setting up intelligence stations in the region
by utilizing embassies, cultural organizations, and even mosques as a source of recruitment. In
January 2015, Nisman was found dead of a gunshot wound, amid reports that he was to request
indictment of Argentina’s president for allegedly conspiring with Iran to downplay the AMIA
bombing issue. President Kirchner was succeeded in December 2015 by Mauricio Macri, who has
not sought to broaden relations with Iran,176 possibly explaining why Argentina apparently was
not on the itinerary for Rouhani’s regional visit in 2016.
Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa has not generally been a
focus of Iranian foreign policy, perhaps
Figure 6. Sudan
because of the relatively small size of most
African economies and the limited ability of
African countries to influence the actions of
Iran’s main regional rivals. Former President
Ahmadinejad sought to deepen diplomatic
and commercial ties to some African
countries, focusing on those that have had
historically tense relations with Western
powers (such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, and South
Africa). Many African countries, however,
apparently did not want to risk their
relationships with the United States or
blowback from domestic Sunni constituencies
by broadening relations with Iran.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims in
Africa are Sunni, and Muslim-majority
African countries have tended to be

responsive to financial and diplomatic
Source: Created by CRS.
overtures from Iran’s rival, Saudi Arabia.
Amid the Saudi-Iran dispute in January 2016 over the Nimr execution, several African countries
that Iran had cultivated as potential allies broke relations with Iran outright, including Djibouti,
Comoros, and Somalia, as well as Sudan. Senegal, at one time seen as a primary focus of
Ahmadinejad’s Africa outreach, and Sudan have supported the Saudi-led military effort against
the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen—in Sudan’s case with some forces.177 The UAE, in particular,
has actively sought allies in the Horn of Africa to reduce Iranian influence, including by
facilitating UAE operations against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. West Africa’s large

175 “Questions Swirl over Incident Involving Iranian Diplomat in Uruguay.” LatinNews Daily, February 9, 2015.
176 http://www.thedialogue.org/resources/are-iran-trade-ties-important-for-latin-america/.
177 Senegal pledged in 2015 to deploy 2,100 troops in support of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, but it has yet to do
so.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
62

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Lebanese diaspora communities may also be a target of Iranian influence operations and a conduit
for Hezbollah financial and criminal activities.
Rouhani has made few statements on relations with countries in Africa and has apparently not
made the continent a priority. Tehran appears, however, to retain an interest in cultivating African
countries as trading partners—an interest that might increase now that the Trump Administration
has decided to exit the JCPOA and reimpose all U.S. sanctions. Iran’s leaders also apparently see
Africa as a market for its arms exports and as sources of diplomatic support in U.N. forums.178
African populations may also be seen as potential targets for Iranian “soft power” and religious
influence. Iran’s Al Mustafa University, which promotes Iran’s message and Shiite religious
orientation with branches worldwide, has numerous branches in various African countries.179
The IRGC-QF has reportedly operated in some countries in Africa, in part to secure arms-supply
routes for pro-Iranian movements in the Middle East but also to be positioned to act against U.S.
or allied interests, to support friendly governments or factions, and act against Sunni extremist
movements. Several African countries have claimed to disrupt purportedly IRGC-QF-backed
arms trafficking or terrorism plots. In May 2013, a court in Kenya found two Iranian men guilty
of planning to carry out bombings in Kenya, apparently against Israeli targets. In December 2016,
two Iranians and a Kenyan who worked for Iran’s embassy in Nairobi were charged with
collecting information for a terrorist act after filming the Israeli embassy in that city. Senegal cut
diplomatic ties with Iran between 2011 and 2013 after claiming that Iran had trafficked weapons
to its domestic separatist insurgency.
Sudan
Iran’s relations with the government of Sudan, which were extensive since the early 1990s, have
diminished substantially since 2014 as Sudan has moved closer to Iran’s rivals, Saudi Arabia and
the UAE. Sudan, like Iran, is still named by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism,
although U.S. officials have praised the country’s counterterrorism cooperation in recent years,
possibly to the point where the Administration might decide to remove Sudan from the terrorism
list.180 Iran’s relations with Sudan provided Iran with a channel to supply weapons to Hamas and
other pro-Iranian groups in the Gaza Strip.181 The relationship began in the 1990s when Islamist
leaders in Sudan, who came to power in 1989, welcomed international Islamist movements to
train and organize there. Iran began supplying Sudan with weapons it used on its various fronts,
such as in its internal conflicts with rebels in what is now South Sudan as well as in the Darfur
region, and the IRGC-QF reportedly armed and trained Sudanese forces, including the Popular
Defense Force militia.182 Some observers say Iranian pilots assisted Sudan’s air force, and Iran’s
naval forces periodically visited Port Sudan. Iran also reportedly played a key role in helping
Sudan build its own military industry.183 Israel repeatedly accused Iran of shipping weapons

178 On arms sales, see C.J. Chivers.“A Trail of Bullet Casings Leads from Africa’s Wars back to Iran.” New York
Times, January 11, 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/world/africa/a-trail-of-bullet-casings-leads-from-
africas-wars-to-iran.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=404CEDBD8247A8A74FBA1C19E2589305&gwt=pay.
179 Iranain American Forum, “Al Mustafa University, Iran’s Global Network of Islamic Schools.” April 12, 2016.
http://iranian-americans.com/irans-export-of-islamic-fundamentalism-al-mustafa-global-training-centers-2/.
180 State Department, Country Reports n Terrorism: 2016; Jina Moore. “U.S. is Open to Removing Sudan from
Terrorism List, Diplomat Says.” New York Times, November 16, 2017.
181 Michael Lipin. “Sudan’s Iran Alliance Under Scrutiny.” VOANews, October 31, 2012. http://www.voanews.com/
content/article/1536472.html.
182 “Did Israel Just Bow Up an Iranian Weapons Factory in Sudan?” Christian Science Monitor, October 25, 2012.
183 See, e.g., Small Arms Survey. “Sudan’s Military Industry Corporation Display at the 2015 IDEX Convention.”
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
63

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

bound for Gaza through Sudan184 and, at times, took military action against sites in Sudan that
Israel asserted were being used by Iran to arm Hamas.185
However, because Sudan is inhabited by Sunni Arabs, it has always been considered susceptible
to overtures from Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries to distance itself from Iran. Since 2014,
Saudi and UAE economic assistance to and investment in Sudan have caused Sudan to realign. In
September 2014, the Sudan government closed all Iranian cultural centers in Sudan and expelled
the cultural attaché and other Iranian diplomats on the grounds that Iran was using its facilities
and personnel in Sudan to promote Shiite Islam.186 In March 2015, Sudan joined the Saudi-led
Arab coalition against the Houthis in Yemen, appearing to confirm that Sudan has significantly
downgraded its strategic relations with Iran. In December 2015, Sudan joined the Saudi-led
antiterrorism coalition discussed earlier. In January 2016, Sudan severed ties with Iran in
connection with the Saudi execution of Nimr.
Outlook
A key question is how U.S. actions might alter Iran’s national security policies in ways more
favorable to U.S. interests. To date, no U.S. strategy, employed by the Trump Administration or
by past Administrations, has reduced Iran’s regional influence. Trump Administration officials
assert that Iran has increased its regional malign activities since the JCPOA Implementation Day,
and cite that observation as one justification for exiting the accord. However, many experts argue
that Iran’s expanded regional influence is due more to opportunities provided by the region’s
conflicts than to an increase in Iran’s financial resources.
As noted throughout, Administration efforts against Iran included imposition of sanctions on
various Iranian activities; provision of advice, training, and counterterrorism assistance to
regional leaders and groups who seek to limit Iranian influence; and deployment of U.S. forces to
intercept Iranian weapons shipments and deter Iranian ground action. Additional U.S. pressure on
Iran—particularly if such pressure involves military action—could embroil the United States
more deeply in regional conflicts.
Those who argue that Iran is an increasingly challenging regional actor maintain the following:
 Iran is likely to continue to supply its regional allies and proxies with larger
quantities of and more accurate weaponry, including short-range missiles.
 Iran might, through its allies and proxies in Syria and Iraq, succeed in
establishing a secure land corridor extending from Iran to Lebanon and in
pressuring Israel from the Syrian border as well as the Lebanese border. The
potential for major Iran-Israel conflict in Syria, and the possibility that clashes
could escalate into a broader regional war, is significant.
 A further prolongation of the intra-GCC rift could complicate U.S. efforts to
contain Iran militarily and hinder U.S. military operations in the region.

March 9, 2015.
184 “Were the Israelis Behind the ‘Mystery’ Air Strike in Sudan?” Time, April 6, 2011; “Car Blast in E. Sudan,
Khartoum Points to Israel,” Reuters, May 22, 2012; “Rockets and Meetings,” Africa Confidential, May 25,
2012.Weapons Documented in South Kordofan,” Small Arms Survey, April 2012.
185 “Israel Navy Intercepts Gaza-Bound Iranian Rocket Ship Near Port Sudan.” Jerusalem Post, March 5, 2014.
186 “Sudan Expels Iranian Diplomats and Closes Cultural Centers.” The Guardian, September 2, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
64

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

 The lifting of the U.N. ban on arms sales to Iran in October 2020 will enable Iran
to modernize its armed forces, possibly to the point where it can move ground
forces across waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz.
 Iran could further increase its assistance to hardline opposition factions in
Bahrain, which has apparently been limited to date to only small, militant
underground groups.187
 Iran might succeed in emerging as a major regional energy and trading hub, both
within and outside its participation in China’s OBOR initiative, potentially
expanding Iran’s political influence to an even greater extent.
 Various regional powers might establish or expand military cooperation with
Iran, a development that could strengthen Iran’s conventional capabilities.
On the other hand, in order to preserve the JCPOA and avoid clashes with either the United States
or Israel, Iran might be induced to shift its policies in ways that benefit U.S. and allied interests.
Those who take this view argue the following:
 Iran might be induced to cooperate in identifying an alternative to Asad in Syria
that resolves, or greatly attenuates, the civil conflict there and paves the way for
Iran to draw down its forces there.
 Iran might be persuaded to curtail its delivery of additional long-range rockets or
other military equipment to Hezbollah and Hamas, although Iran is unlikely
under any circumstances to reduce its political support for Hezbollah.
 Iran might support a political solution in Yemen that gives the Houthis less
influence in a new government than they are demanding.
 Iran and the UAE might resolve their territorial dispute.
 Iran might increase the transparency of its financial system, including addressing
all the concerns of the multilateral Financial Action Task Force (FATF) about the
use of its banking system for money laundering and terrorism financing.
 Iran might gain admission to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which
could lead to broader cooperation between Iran and Central Asian states against
the Islamic State or other terrorist organizations.
 Iran might seek to finalize major regional economic projects that benefit the
whole region, including development of oil and gas fields in the Caspian Sea; gas
pipeline linkages between Iran and Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman; the Iran-
Pakistan natural gas pipeline; the development of the Chabahar port; and
transportation routes linking Central Asia to China.
Domestic Iranian factors could cause Iran’s foreign policy to shift. For example:
 Protests that have taken place since late 2017 could escalate and cause the regime
to reduce the scope of its interventions, cut its defense budget, or limit its missile
development program.
 If unrest escalates dramatically and the regime loses power, Iran’s foreign policy
could shift dramatically, likely becoming far more favorable to U.S. interests.
 The departure from the scene of the Supreme Leader could change Iran’s foreign
policy sharply, depending on the views of his successor.

187 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
65

Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies

Author Information

Kenneth Katzman

Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R44017 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED
66