Comparing Iran’s Military and Culture to the U.S. Military and Culture

Introduction
Military is an extension of culture, politics and history. As Eric Ouellet (n.d.) points out, understanding a nation’s military requires that one focus “on the organized violence of armed groups; whether this violence is actual, potential, or symbolic” (p. 30). When it comes to the U.S. and Iran, no two countries could be more different. The U.S. is a liberal, Western democracy with the world’s biggest all-volunteer military. Iran is a Middle Eastern nation that operates under a theocracy and mandates military service for its men. In the U.S., the military is something separate and distinct from civilian life—soldiers are respected and honored for their courage and sacrifice and regarded as heroes for defending the nation; but in Iran, military service is mandatory and there is no clear line between civilian life and the military life as every male civilian has to serve—and this difference between the two military cultures impacts the way they view themselves and their world.
The Central Role of Organized Violence
The central role of organized violence in the militaries of Iran and U.S. is somewhat similar. As Chambers (2003) observes, the central role of organized violence armed forces is to wage war. However, the waging of war is dependent upon international factors, and this is where Iran and the U.S. differ significantly in their cultural perspectives. Iran is largely and isolated country in the wider international community as a result of economic sanctions leveled by the U.S. (Jacobson, 2008). The U.S. on the other hand is engaged often in mission creep with military bases in dozens upon dozens of countries all over the world, and is seen as both aggressor and as protector, depending upon the perspectives of the countries either involved in conflict with the U.S. or looking to receive military support from the U.S. (Adams & Murray, 2014).
As Ulrich vom Hagen (n.d.) shows in “The Spiritual Armament of the German Officer Corps,” however, there is a spiritual component to the role of organized violence and in Iran that spiritual component is Islam, which guides the theocratic-democratic state and informs the nation of its principles and values. In the U.S. the spiritual component is chiefly Christian, but there is a respect for religious liberty in the U.S. that is not promoted in Iran, which is another way that the systems of organized violence differ. Considering too that military service in Iran is compulsory while it is volunteer-based in the U.S. shows that there is also a civic component to how violence is organized in both militaries: and according to the Tehran Bureau (2015) of The Guardian, “in Iran, soldiers don’t get the same respect as they do in America”—which suggests that the system of organized violence in Iran is predicated upon the hierarchical society’s strong social beliefs about duty to the state rather than to the ideals of courage, freedom and heroism cultivated in the U.S.
The Relationship between the Military and Society
The relationship between military and society is much different in Iran than it is in the U.S. In Iran, the military largely seen as a service that few want to engage in but that they must because of the law. According to the Tehran Bureau (2015), one Iranian soldier stated that in the military, “‘We do nothing…It’s a waste of time. If it were useful I wouldn’t mind, but it’s total bullsh*t.’ When pressed all he would say is that he’s doing research on Viber, an Israeli instant messaging app popular among Iranians. ‘All the files say ‘Top Secret’. I could go to jail if I showed anyone, but it’s all bullsh*t, there’s nothing in them’” (Tehran Bureau, 2015). The disdain for military service is palpable among many in Iran—but it is by no means the only feeling. Many in Iran as view the military as necessary, especially in these times, when war between Iran and Saudi Arabia or war between Iran and Israel or between Iran and the U.S. is an ever-present threat. Many in Iran’s military hierarchy have strong opinions regarding the West and its allies in the Middle East and they have made repeated threats to counter any hostile action taken towards Iran with an equally aggressive response (Reuters, 2019).
In the U.S., there is more of a patriotic feeling between society and the military, especially in the wake of 9/11. This sentiment was not always the case. During the Vietnam War days, the military was loathed by many in society who saw the U.S. military as aggressors in a faraway land, committing atrocities like the Mai Lai Massacre. They were not supportive of the troops in the same way they are today, and that may be explained by the fact that military service was compulsory during the Vietnam War, just as it is compulsory in Iran today. People did not want to be drafted to go fight in a war that they did not understand in the 1960s and 1970s. The same lack of social love for the military in Iran is evident: people do not like being forced to be soldiers. In the U.S. today, however, service is voluntary, and society has a much more benevolent and appreciative attitude towards the military in the U.S. now that people are not worried about being drafted. They sing “God Bless America” at pro sports games and military service men and women are often honored at these games. The crowds applaud and show their support and affection and “Support Our Troops” is a bumper sticker often seen on cars and suggests the nature of the patriotic feeling in the U.S. insofar as the military is concerned. The military is seen as keeping America safe and thus those who serve in the military are seen as courageous and heroic for volunteering their time and putting their lives on the line for people back home.
Cultural, Political, and Historical Factors
Cultural factors that contribute to the characteristics of these military organizations include the religious, ethnic, social and nationalistic components of the two countries’ people. Both nations have a strong sense of nationalistic pride and both share an antipathy towards the other that is grounded in ideological differences. The culture of the U.S. is based on liberal Western ideals: liberty, equality, democracy, and independence. The culture of Iran is based on Islamic values and ideals: respect for authority and respect for the law of Allah are the primary guides. The social system in the U.S. is somewhat complex as there are numerous subcultures and there is a significant wealth gap. Half of marriages end in divorce in the U.S., which means there are many single parent homes and many of these homes are situated in poor socio-economic communities. Many of those who volunteer for military service do so because they see no other way out of their neighborhoods and no future for themselves otherwise. Thus, the military in the U.S. does not always receive the best and brightest and now struggles with developing adequate leaders because the talent pool is not as great as it was when service was compulsory and the military could select officers from more educated classes (Forsling, 2017). In Iran, military service may be despised but because everyone must do it, the military is able to select from a wider pool of soldiers to build up and strengthen its hierarchy.
The political factors affect the military in terms of how it is used around the world, how much funding it receives, who is obliged to serve and who is not allowed to serve. In Iran, it is not mandatory for women to serve—only men. Women can serve, however, in both states as a result of political legislation. The Historical factors also play a role in shaping these two militaries. Iran’s military is seen as very necessary because it is threatened on all sides and surrounded by U.S. military bases, and the West has made no attempt to hide its disdain for Iran in recent years. The U.S. military is likewise seen as necessary and so receives hundreds of billions in funding every year thanks to politicians who are lobbied by defense contractors, whose business depends on the military having a lucrative budget. The history of the military in the U.S. is, as Butler (2003) states, the result largely of profiteers who profit by war and thus are always pushing politicians to wage war. War is considered much less a “racket” (as Butler calls it) in Iran than in the U.S. Iran has not invaded any country in hundreds of years, though it has waged war many times in modern history. Its military activity is thus based on the concept primarily of self-defense, and this is mainly because Iran does not have the funds to grow its military to the point where it can threaten invasion the way the U.S. military can and has throughout history.
How They Contribute to the Characteristics of These Military Organizations
These factors shape the makeup of the militaries in numerous ways: in terms of those who serve (mainly men in Iran, but men and women and gays and transgenders in the U.S.). The military is organized in the U.S. with multiple branches all of which have substantial funds and bases around the world. Iran has much fewer funds and thus its organizing powers are limited. It does have a geographically strategic position in the Middle East in that if it is attacked it can close the Strait of Hormuz and squeeze the world’s oil supply, which would put economic pressure on the West (its main antagonist today).
How These Characteristics Affect the Overall Structure and Operation of the Military
The overall structure and operations of Iran’s military are affected by cultural, political and historical factors in the sense that the military is patriarchal and traditional. It is compulsory and therefore ingrained into society, whether society likes it or not. Every male must serve, and that is accepted mainly because Iran does not go to fight on the other side of the world—and if it did the outcome would likely be similar to what it was in the U.S. in the 1970s, when citizens were burning American flags and their draft cards in protest. Iran has a history of being antagonized by the U.S. and it thus preserves and maintains a small but cautious military and aims to protect itself strategically rather than through numbers. For the U.S. it is different: America’s history is very military-oriented, and its wars, especially WWII, are celebrated as great and significant. However, the country respects the independence of its citizens and no longer forces them to serve. Thus, the structure is only partially-traditional: bureaucracy has seeped in and the operation of the military in the U.S. today is focused more on policing the world than defending America’s borders. It has to incentivize volunteers with free college to get them to join as well.
How These Militaries Institutionalize Their Personnel and Provide for Transition Back to Civilian Life
Personnel are institutionalized by the training they receive in Basic Training in both countries. However, it is much less organized and rigid in Iran than in the U.S. In the U.S. every soldier is issued a uniform—not so in Iran. Iranians must secure their own uniforms. The soldiers in both nations are trained in skills and knowledge and given jobs in the military and they are given food and shelter and expected to serve with honor. When they are transitioned back to civilian life in Iran it is not a big deal or a big change because there is no great divide between the two (Tehran Bureau, 2015). The line between society (civilian life) and the military is blurred by the compulsory nature of service. In the U.S., transition is much more difficult, particularly for soldiers affected by trauma as a result of active service—and many end up becoming addicted to drugs in attempts to self-medicate (Snow & Wynn, 2018). There is a need in the U.S. for more assistance in transitioning soldiers from the rigid military culture to the much looser civilian culture.
Conclusion
The militaries of Iran and the U.S. differ significantly because of the cultures of the two nations and how they impact the perspectives of the militaries. They are similar in the sense that their organizing system of violence is based on the need to wage war and to defend their countries, but they differ in terms of capabilities and implementation. The U.S. honors its military service men and women because service is not mandatory and thus those who serve are more respected. In Iran, men must serve and so the idea of love and honor towards the military is not as keen. However, in Iran it is easier for military men to transition back to civilian life. It is not so easy in America and that is an issue that still needs to be addressed.
References
Adams, G., & Murray, S. (Eds.). (2014). Mission creep: the militarization of US foreign policy?. Georgetown University Press.
Butler, S. (2003). War is a Racket. LA: Feral House.
Chambers, J. (2003). To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America. New York: The Free Press.
Forsling, C. (2017). The military has a toxic leadership problem. Retrieved from https://taskandpurpose.com/military-toxic-leadership-problem
Jacobson, M. (2008). Sanctions against Iran: A promising struggle. Washington Quarterly, 31(3), 69-88.
Ouellet, E. (n.d.). New directions in military sociology.
Reuters. (2019). Senior Iranian military adviser threatens broad response to any U.S. move. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-iran-guards/senior-iranian-military-adviser-threatens-broad-response-to-any-u-s-move-idUSKBN1W50WG
Snow, R., & Wynn, S. T. (2018). Managing Opioid Use Disorder and Co-Occurring Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Veterans. Journal of psychosocial nursing and mental health services, 56(6), 36-42.
Tehran Bureau. (2015). How I learned to stop worrying and love the Iranian army. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2015/jul/22/iran-military-uniform-gomrok-shopping-spree
Vom Hagen, U. (n.d.). The Spiritual Armament of the German Officer Corps.