Ontological Security and Iran's Missile Program

In: All azimuth: a journal of foreign policy and peace, Band 11, Heft 2, S. 233-255

Abstract

This article attempts to answer the question of why Iran is reluctant to discuss its
missile program. Unlike other studies that focus on the importance of Iran's missile
program in providing deterrence for the country and establishing a balance of
military power in the region, or that view the missile program as one of dozens
of post-revolutionary contentious issues between Iran and the United States, this
article looks into Iran's ontological security. The paper primarily argues that the
missile program has become a source of pride for Iranians, inextricably linked
to their identity. As a result, the Iranian authorities face two challenges when it
comes to sitting at the negotiation table with their Western counterparts: deep
mistrust of the West, and the ensuing sense of shame over any deal on the missile
issue. Thus, Iranian officials opted to preserve the identity components of the
program, return to normal and daily routines of life, insist on the missile program's
continuation despite sanctions and threats, and emphasize the dignity and honor
of having a missile program. The article empirically demonstrates how states
can overcome feelings of shame and mistrust. It also theoretically proves that
when physical security conflicts with ontological security, governments prefer the
former over the latter, based on the history of Iran's nuclear negotiations. They
appeal to create new narratives to justify changing their previous policies.