The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), also known as the Pasdaran, is a unique military institution created to secure the ideals of Iran's revolution as well its territory. Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, however, the IRGC's role in Iran's political economy has increased significantly beyond that mandate. Unfortunately, the leadership in the United States has demonstrated neither the aptitude nor the desire to understand Iran. Given the IRGC's command of Iran's nuclear development program and encroachment into its foreign policy, it is more important than ever to understand Iran's leadership structure. This study attempts to explain an important part of that structure by considering the influence of the leadership dynamics of Iran along with its economic and religious/social conditions on the IRGC's position within the state, using an historical analysis consisting of secondary sources. Accordingly, the IRGC's rise to power can be traced back to the dual sovereignty written into the constitution of the Islamic Republic. Though the divine sovereignty, embodied by the velayat-e faqih (Supreme Leader), is supposed to take precedence over popular sovereignty, embodied by the directly elected President, when the two conflict, Khomeini's successor, Khamenei, a junior cleric, was unable to manage then President Hashemi Rafsanjani. So he empowered the IRGC to compensate, but that choice set into motion a sequence of events that has enabled it to become powerful enough to be a threat to the velayat-e faqih himself.

The evolution of the Pasdaran over the past thirty years has brought the group further away from its original role as a protector of the revolution and closer to a parallel, if not competing, economic, political and social institution. In the last decade, conflict dominating the political landscape of the Islamic Republic of Iran has shifted from being defined primarily by the Reformists (Islamic Left) and the Conservatives (Islamic Right), to a multi-dimensional struggle between the Reformists, Conservatives, and Neo-Conservatives, represented by the IRGC and President Ahmadinejad. The IRGC‘s defiance against the authority of the clerics, evidenced by President Ahmadinejad‘s deteriorating relationship with the Supreme Leader, is an indication of a shift in the sources of influence in domestic and foreign policy making and the necessary attempts of the ruling regime to compensate for its loss of control. It appears that the IRGC may be in a position to seriously challenge the authority of the clerics; however, this research hypothesizes that as the organization has evolved parallel to the velayet-e faqih, it does not have the necessary autonomy or cohesion to effectively usurp the rule of the clerics. This study proposes that the competitive disunity that has propelled the growth of the IRGC over the past three decades is prohibitive of the collective consolidation of influence necessary to wrest authority from the clerical regime.

This study examines the decision making process in Washington which led to the current non-existence of political and economic relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States. The study examines the U.S.-Iran relationship at three levels-of-analysis: the individual, state, and system levels. From a geopolitical perspective, Iran and the United States have often been natural allies that pursued similar policy goals. After 9/11, the U.S. entered Afghanistan and Iraq which further necessitated the reengagement of Tehran. Iranian regional clout would play a vital role in stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan and without Iran's assistance; peace will not likely be realized in those states. Amongst the most compelling reasons for Washington to engage in meaningful dialogue with Tehran are: terrorism, the war on drugs, the Iranian sponsorship of militant groups, and Tehran's pursuit of a nuclear program. The study concludes that rapprochement should occur in two phases. The first being cooperation in areas of mutual concern such as the war on drugs. The second phase promoting confidence building methods, which would lead to a strategic partnership based on mutual interests.

Depuis la révolution iranienne de 1979, la diplomatie du régime en place semble marquer une rupture avec un anti-occidentalisme affiché –l’affrontement sous forme de guerre asymétrique avec les USA-, un antisionisme déclaré-les déclarations du Président Ahmadinejad- et le réveil de la vieille rivalité arabo-musulmane –Guerre Iran/Irak et perturbations par des fidèles iraniens du pèlerinage de la Mecque. Des moyens conventionnels et non conventionnel sont employés, du terrorisme avec de nombreux attentats, au pan chiisme avec l’utilisation à des fins politiques de communautés chiites dans les pays du Golfe, en passant par le chantage de la fermeture du détroit d’Ormuz où transitent près de 40 % du pétrole de la planète. Pourtant, cette attitude, si ambiguë et si violente par certains égards, semble n’est que le reflet de la continuité diplomatique, au regard de l’histoire de cette antique civilisation. La peur de l’éclatement interne, comme d’ailleurs celle des pays limitrophes, ont poussé ce pays depuis des millénaires à adopter une diplomatie de l’équilibre, dans une sorte de diplomatie des 4 points cardinaux. De plus, la Perse puis l’Iran a toujours possédé un désir hégémonique régional au niveau du Golfe persique, désir qui s’est traduit par de nombreuses guerres avec ses voisins, notamment avec l’ex Mésopotamie- L’Irak. Cela s’est traduit par la recherche d’une armée puissante, le nucléaire n’étant qu’un moyen pour affirmer sa grandeur ou diplomatie de la synthèse. Les négociations actuelles placent la République islamique d’Iran au centre du grand jeu asiatique où s’affrontent deux supers puissance en devenir, l’Inde et la Chine. Offrir la possibilité à l’Iran d’être reconnu comme un acteur civil du nucléaire la positionne comme une référence vis-à-vis des pays arabes : l’Iran devient , de facto , hégémonique Les ruptures ne sont en fait que des continuités liées aux valeurs perses, fondées sur l’indépendance, le désir de briller et de dominer. L’histoire, la religion, et l’Iranité sont la source de ces valeurs identitaires, terreau et fondement de la diplomatie de la République islamique d’Iran / Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, the diplomacy of the regime seems to mark a break with an anti-Westernism -l'affrontement displayed in the form of asymmetric war with the USA-a-Zionism declared presidential statements and waking Ahmadinejad- the old Arab-Muslim rivalry -Guerre Iran / Iraq and disturbances by Iranian faithful pilgrimage to Mecca. Conventional and non-conventional means are employed, with many terrorist attacks in Shia pan with the use for political purposes Shiite communities in the Gulf, through blackmail closing the Strait of Hormuz where handling approximately 40% of the oil on the planet. Yet this attitude, so ambiguous and so violent in some ways seem is but a reflection of the diplomatic continuity, in terms of the history of this ancient civilization. Fear of the internal breakdown, as also that of neighboring countries has driven this country for thousands of years to adopt a diplomacy of balance, in a kind of diplomacy 4 cardinal points. Furthermore, Persia and Iran has always had a regional hegemonic desire in the Persian Gulf, a desire that has led many wars with its neighbors, including the former Mésopotamie- Iraq. This was reflected by the search of a powerful army, nuclear being a means to assert its size or diplomacy synthesis. The current negotiations put the Islamic Republic of Iran at the center of the great Asian game where two great power clash in the making, India and China. Provide an opportunity for Iran to be recognized as a civil nuclear player in the position as vis-à-vis the reference of Arab countries: Iran becomes de facto hegemonic Ruptures are in fact only continuities related to Persian values, based on independence, the desire to shine and dominate. The history, religion, and Iranianness are the source of these identity values, soil and foundation of the diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran