Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

15
  • 7
    I see no evidence from this that going against NAM principles is a strong motivation for Iran to seek help from CSTO at this point. And that is partially due to the rather fuzzy nature of NAM membership, benefits and enforcement mechanisms. As well as the fact that "peak NAM significance" is long past us. Nor does this answer line up all that well with Iran's recent assistance to, and close alignment with, Russia in the Ukraine war. It sounds good, in theory, but this needs more sourcing to indicate NAM membership is actually a motivation during an existential crisis for Iran. Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 17:27
  • 5
    @ItalianPhilosopher That's because you blind yourself to any non-western political movement and so do not understand the underlying philosophy of NAM. All foreign policies are about prioritising a country's self-interest. NAM politics just adds that this is best done by not getting dragged into superpower politics when they fight amongst themselves. The idea is to be self-aware of your own standing in the world, and maintain an independent foreign policy and military (as far as possible) without aggravating the superpowers (ofcourse, this assumes that superpowers will act rationally). Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 19:07
  • 1
    Thus, NAM doesn't bind its members with its politics - it's more of a forum to discuss how to evolve foreign policies and avoid getting snared into superpower politics. This is why some countries, seeking a security alliance, short-sightedly consider it "useless". It doesn't prohibit member countries from having a military relationship with superpowers or any emerging powers. It just suggests it limits it, to constrain that kind of relationship purely for self-interest / self-defence needs, as much as possible. Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 19:09
  • 2
    Basically, it bluntly tells the superpowers - we'll obey you all as long it doesn't drag us into a conflict with any of you, otherwise if you don't respect our (limited) sovereignty you will be the one forcing us into the "enemy" camp. If you analyse the recent Russo - Iranian treaty, you will find that it has no mutual defence pact. It just has a clause that if either country is attacked by another, they commit to not aid that country. Right now, Iran appears confident in its NAM based foreign policy that it doesn't need to sign a military alliance to get help from either Russia or China. Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 19:12
  • 7
    Again, a lot of yammering about Western imperialism, which is not what the Q was about. I am not interesting in debating the pros and cons of NAM. Or Western behavior. Merely asking you to provided actual references that NAM factors in Iran's not asking CSTO to help out now. You don't do this, all you do is wax lyrical about NAM. Right now, all I see is a lot of speculation and hypothesis about Iranian motivations. Surely, surely, if there some meat to your hypothesis, you'd be able to find some support for it, other than debating it? I don't mind this A, just its lack of sourcing Commented Jun 19, 2025 at 21:39