The First Image Problem and Understanding Iran

W hile following developments in U.S.-Iran relations in recent months, I have been struck by the contrasting depictions of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the impact of his personality and beliefs on Tehran’s policy towards the United States.

It seems every scholar, analyst, expert, and journalist offers a slightly different take on Khamenei’s personality, beliefs, and influence. 

It’s strange that such opposing assessments exist of the same individual (let alone someone as prominent as Khamenei). Moreover, I find it interesting why Khamenei’s personality and worldview—studied by outsiders by dissecting his mountain of writings and speeches—are rarely, if ever, compared to his actual political conduct and policies.

If indeed Khamenei is an idiosyncratic revolutionary hardliner, how can this image be reconciled with the evidence that suggests he is also a pragmatist? If Khamenei is believes that the United States and Israel are truly evil, why would he allow his government to strike a deal with the devil? How can Khamenei be an iron-fisted ruler who wields immutable authority, while it is known he has faced many domestic challengers to his position and influence? If Khamenei is Iran’s ultimate decision maker, why does he so rarely make decisions? If Khamenei’s word is law, why does he more often than not obfuscate his views to such an extent that even other Iranian leaders are puzzled as to where he stands?      

These competing images of Khamenei and the questions surrounding the impact of his beliefs on Tehran’s foreign policy are hardly unique. Rather, it raises broader questions about why political scientists still have so few answers when it comes to understanding the influence of individuals in international relations (which Kenneth Waltz referred to as the first image).