Realistic Idealism: A Foreign-Policy Road Map in the School of the Martyred Leader

**TEHRAN —** In an exclusive essay for the Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran’s ambassador to Russia has described “realistic idealism” as the governing paradigm of the country’s foreign policy under the late Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei.

The essay presents this approach as an attempt to reconcile two imperatives that can often appear to be in tension: fidelity to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution and an assessment of the realities of the international system. According to the ambassador, this balance has provided the basis for Iran’s pursuit of strength, dignity and a stronger regional and global position.

The argument is framed against the backdrop of a period of national mourning and commemoration for the late leader. The ambassador writes that examining his political conduct is not merely a response to a moment of transition, but a continuing guide for Iran’s diplomatic institutions. In this account, the late leader’s approach is portrayed as a coherent doctrine rather than a collection of isolated policies.

### Balancing principles and international realities

At the center of the essay is the claim that foreign policy should neither abandon foundational principles nor disregard the conditions in which states operate. “Realistic idealism,” as described in the text, seeks to combine the values of what it calls authentic Islam with the geopolitical circumstances of the contemporary world.

The ambassador argues that this framework offers a distinctive definition of national power. Its principal components, according to the essay, are endogenous strength, reliance on domestic capabilities and the strengthening of national self-confidence. These elements are presented as more than instruments of economic or political resilience: they are described as sources of security and as foundations for a broader international role.

The essay further maintains that the approach is intended to protect national sovereignty, revolutionary identity and vital interests while responding to emerging global challenges. It portrays internal capacity as the starting point for external influence, suggesting that a state’s international standing depends in part on the strength and confidence it can generate at home.

### “Dignity, wisdom and expediency”

The ambassador identifies the principle of “dignity, wisdom and expediency” as the central operating framework of Iran’s diplomacy. In the essay’s formulation, these three concepts have guided the country’s efforts to navigate international pressures while preserving its independence and strategic priorities.

The text credits this approach with helping Iran challenge what it characterizes as Western unilateralism and pursue a more balanced international order. It points to the expansion of strategic ties with emerging and independent powers, including the deepening of relations with Russia, as one expression of this policy.

The essay also highlights the strengthening of what it calls the strategic depth of the Resistance Axis. This is presented as another component of Iran’s effort to influence regional and global power relations. The ambassador describes these developments as part of a broader attempt to contribute to a multipolar international system.

These assessments are made in the context of an explicitly political and commemorative essay. The source does not provide supporting data, a detailed chronology of diplomatic initiatives or independent assessments of the outcomes it attributes to the doctrine. Its principal contribution is therefore interpretive: it defines a strategic worldview and identifies the policies that, in the author’s view, express it.

### Public diplomacy and criticism of double standards

The essay assigns an important role to engagement with global public opinion. It describes Iran’s public diplomacy as being rooted in the inherent dignity of human beings and in criticism of what it calls Western double standards.

This emphasis extends the concept of foreign policy beyond relations between governments. In the ambassador’s account, international legitimacy is also contested in the arena of public narratives, moral claims and competing interpretations of global events. Presenting Iran’s position to international audiences is consequently treated as a strategic activity rather than a secondary communications effort.

The text portrays this approach as having raised Iranian public diplomacy to a global level. It does not, however, cite specific campaigns, audience responses or measurable outcomes. The claim remains part of the author’s broader assessment of the late leader’s foreign-policy legacy.

### Continuity after the leader’s death

A central theme of the essay is continuity. The ambassador argues that the death of the leader should not be understood as a break in the country’s strategic direction. Instead, the essay presents martyrdom as the beginning of a new phase in which the established principles are consolidated and extended.

The source states that, following the installation of a new leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, the banner of “realistic idealism” remains in place. The transition is described as evidence of institutional and strategic continuity, with the late leader’s record characterized as a living manifesto rather than a completed historical chapter.

The essay further argues that Iran’s strategic depth and the Resistance Axis will continue, under the new leadership, to shape the international balance toward what it describes as justice, progress and opposition to unilateralism. These are projections and political assertions contained in the ambassador’s text; the source does not offer independent evidence about how the new leadership will implement them or how other states will respond.

### A doctrine presented as a legacy

Taken as a whole, the essay defines “realistic idealism” as a foreign-policy model built on the simultaneous pursuit of values and power. It combines revolutionary principles with strategic calculation, domestic self-reliance with international engagement, and national sovereignty with efforts to reshape regional and global relationships.

The ambassador’s interpretation places particular weight on three mechanisms: the development of internal capabilities, the creation of partnerships with powers outside the Western bloc and the use of public diplomacy to contest prevailing international narratives. Together, these elements are presented as the practical expression of a wider vision for Iran’s role in the world.

The essay ultimately argues that the late leader’s legacy will be measured not only by the policies associated with his tenure but by the ability of Iran’s institutions to preserve and reproduce the principles behind them. In that sense, “realistic idealism” is presented as both a description of past policy and a roadmap for the future.

Whether this framework can deliver the outcomes claimed in the essay—including a stronger position for Iran and progress toward a more multipolar order—will depend on its implementation and on developments beyond Iran’s control. For now, the ambassador’s article offers a clear statement of how Iran’s foreign-policy establishment interprets its recent trajectory: as an effort to join ideological commitment with strategic pragmatism, and to pursue influence through a combination of domestic capacity, diplomatic partnerships and an assertive international narrative.