The Clash of Civilizations or Opposing the Hegemonic System

The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
The Clash of Civilizations or Opposing the Hegemonic System

Abstract

The presentation of the “New World Order” project, centered on the remaining Cold War superpowers, and the ineffectiveness of this monopolar system and its dysfunctionality, in addition to the lack of acceptance of other prominent powers of the world, all in all, have proved that the world is no longer a place for superpowers to dominate. As a result, Western thinkers, particularly in the United States, tried to rule over the world by presenting ideas such as “the end of history” (Francis Fukuyama) and the “clash of civilizations” (Samuel Huntington). Now after two decades of the end of the bipolar system, the world continues to be in a transitive state, while no permanent system has been established as an alternative to that bipolar system, but rather a type of anarchism controls the international relations for which western theorists have not yet provided a certain justification.                                                                   

Meanwhile, the movement led by Imam Khomeini has seriously challenged the remaining ruling Westphalian system and has spread the spirit of Islamic awakening and awareness throughout the colonized countries. The Islamic Republic of Iran has carried the burden of running a new counter-hegemonic movement, that is in contrast to the Western hegemonic system, in a manner that it would found international relations on new principles in a way that both structurally and conceptually differ from what has ever been mentioned in the literature of political science and international relations. Given this important development and subsequent developments, this writing posits a new paradigm called “countering the hegemonic system.”

The Islamic Revolution and the future system of the world

In the late nineteenth century and especially after the experience of failures in war with Tsarist Russia, Iran was weakened and hence could not resist the military, political, and cultural invasion of the hegemonic powers at the time. In addition, the strategic position of Iran had provided the setting for infiltration and the rivalry of world powers – which were the main actors in the world order – inside the country. This situation lasted until the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

Before World War I, Iran had been the scene of the influence and competition of the British and Tsarist Russia, which ended in British hegemony over the country. After World War II, the United States, as a new superpower, was able to play a key role in the political and social developments of Iran.

Interestingly, at that time, the anti-authoritarian and anti-revolutionary movements that formed and succeeded in Iran, such as the Constitutional Movement or the industrial nationalization movement, suffered due to foreign interference and support despite their popularity. In the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, the British colonial government supported the constitutionalists in order to gain more influence, and also the Americans supported the National Front to take a share of Iranian oil in the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry.

The first anti-colonial movement which was independent of the influence of foreigners was sparked by the Islamic movement under the leadership of Imam Khomeini which was formed in 1960-1961, simultaneous with the Cold War and the undisputed ruling of the bipolar system. Imam Khomeini stated that: “The United States is worse than the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom is worse than the United States, and the Soviet Union is worse than both of them and all of them are corrupted (Imam Khomeini, 1992, volume 1:105).

“We are fighting against international communism just as we are fighting against the Western imperialists for whom the United States is the leader” (ibid., volume 12:19).

Consequently, he raised his voice against a cruel and hegemonic global system. In fact, the Islamic movement was the first popular movement representing all the oppressed people throughout the world. In addition, the movement considered contradictions and rivalries between the Great Powers of the world as struggles over wealth and money while bearing no fruits for nations.

More interestingly, the two world superpowers, along with other Great Powers in the East and West, despite their intense rivalries and hostilities that appeared on the international scene, unanimously considered the Islamic movement as reactionary while condemning and taking issue with the movement especially after the events of June 1963.

With the rise of the Islamic Revolution in 1978 and 1979 and the posing of the slogan of “Neither East nor West – but the Islamic Republic,” this movement preserved its independent strategy while fighting against the powerful international system. In the end, this revolution triumphed over all those powers in such a way that not only received no support from other countries especially the main players of the bipolar system but also it was the tyrannical regime of Pahlavi that was backed by the Great Powers of the East and West – such as the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, the United States and the United Kingdom – and this was the result of the positions taken by the Islamic Revolution against the hegemonic system.

This view and the collision between the Revolution and the Islamic Republic’s new system on the one hand and the bipolar ruling system of the world on the other continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. During the Iraq-Iran War, the agents of the hegemonic system revealed this confrontation with the Islamic Republic through substantial political, economic, and military supports from the Iraqi government.

After the collapse of the bipolar system and proposing the hierarchical order of governance or in other words the monopolar system, the Islamic Revolution maintained its firm positions with respect to the cruel systems imposed by Great Powers, and hence was identified as the first “rebellious” and disobedient in such a way that the American government has made many efforts to punish this country so that it can affirm its dominance over the international community.

The theory of the “clash of civilizations” seems to be not only a declaration of the early defeat of the monopolar system but also a cover for the existing contradiction that was exposed by Imam Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution. This is a confrontation between the hegemonic rulers, oppressors, exploiters and colonizers ruling over the international system on the one hand, and the oppressed, deprived and colonized on the other. In sum, this is a battle between the oppressors and the oppressed throughout the world within which the Islamic Revolution and Imam Khomeini, as advocates of the oppressed, is pioneered and has been fighting.

Imam Khomeini stated, “The colonialists have imposed a cruel economic system over people by the help of their agents in political scenes and consequently people are divided into two categories, the oppressors and the oppressed.” (Imam Khomeini, n.d.,42 -43).

In other words, the Islamic Revolution not only brought the victory for the Iranian people over the oppressive Pahlavi regime but also initiated a global movement in an attempt to stand up against the world’s hegemonic systems by relying on the awakening and uprising of the underprivileged and oppressed nations.

The Islamic Revolution, as an ideological revolution that was originated from the school of Islam, not only presented its own national plans and ideas for governance and statehood but considering the universal nature of Islam, it also encompasses special thoughts and views and a special global system regarding international affairs.

Like every revolution, the Islamic Revolution and following its nature, plans and goals, brought special concepts some of which include an especial world of pure thoughts. Among these new concepts, we may refer to terms such as the oppressed, arrogant, arrogant powers of the world or the sovereignty of the oppressed people.

The Islamic Revolution and its leadership not only rejected the ideas that dominate over international relations and the existing world hegemonic system, which are rooted in the views of Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau and based on the notion that justifies using force, but its activism was also in accordance with this theory that: “World peace is obtained provided that there would be no arrogance, and as long as these hegemonic personalities exist, the oppressed people will not be able to inherit their God-given rights. The government of the faithful is rightful.” (Imam Khomeini, 1992, volume 11:262)

But in the wake of the victory of the Islamic Revolution and its awakening effects on the Lebanese Shi’ahs and the beginning of martyrdom operations, a wave was developed in a way that following the bombing of the United States embassy and the military bases of the United States, France and Israel in 1983, the foreign troops left Lebanon and the Zionist regime also withdraw its troops from the southern parts of Lebanon in 2000. Therefore, the Lebanese resistance fighters for the first time demonstrated that by relying on the power of faith, jihad, and martyrdom, all the hegemonic powers could be overcome and the hard power of the West becomes ineffective when it faces the new and emerging powers of the nations.

Formation of two camps

Given what was said about some of the events that happened in the Islamic world and now can be seen in many Third World and even developed countries namely, the awakening and uprising of the masses, the struggles against the hegemonic systems and their failure in dealing with the awakened and anti-hegemonic nations, it becomes clear that the reason for the prolongation of the transition period after the end of the Cold War and the failure of the hegemonic great powers in establishing a new order according to their own interests and policies, all lie with the emergence of new movements initiated after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. These movements have become increasingly uncontrollable and expanded in the sense that all attempts made by the hegemonic powers to stop them have been backfired and resulted in the awakening of the oppressed nations and declining the great powers.

Accordingly, it can be claimed that the period of the ruling of the Westphalian system has come to an end, and the world is witnessing and seeing a new page of the history of international developments with new standards in terms of relations:

1) The global community witnessed an accelerated process of formation and alignment of the two camps against each other, in which one of them is constituted of hegemonic states and their allies, and the other camp may include the nations and popular social groups and states who have begun to struggle with the hegemonic system. This process can be called the confrontation between the two camps of the anti-hegemonic groups and hegemonic powers, each of which has its own characteristics and classifications, developed new definitions of the concept of international relations and pursues different goals.

2) While the main actors in the hegemonic camp are trying to preserve the inhumane and unjust Westphalian system and its rules of conduct, but the camp of the anti-hegemonic movement seeks to defeat this centuries-old hegemonic system and defines a new game plan and goals and rules for the international community.

3) The ideals and goals of the two camps do not bear any similarities, but they are in conflict with each other in such a way that there is no possibility of reconciliation among them. In other words, every failure or flaw that one experiences will strengthen the position and increase another’s power.

Arrangement of forces and actors

1) Camps of the hegemonic powers

Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union during the transition period, the world witnessed a kind of new arrangement of the main actors on the world stage and among the governments of this camp in accordance with the powers and intentions of the great powers. It can be argued that the United States holds the leadership position of the hegemonic system in this period. This country has the dominant hardware and incentive to take such a position, and the other major players, despite their serious disagreements with the United States, have accepted these conditions so that the American government takes the lead in fighting against the hegemonic powers.

However, if the American government does not or cannot lead this movement in opposition to this new trend, no other country is willing to burden such a responsibility. If the government of the United States declares its inability to or non-acceptance of taking this responsibility, then we will see the collapse of the hegemonic camp and reinforcement of hegemonic powers.

There are member states of the European Union, and in particular, countries with veto power such as the United Kingdom, France and, to some extent, Germany in the second level of the hegemonic camp.

Europe was considered to be the center of politics, economy and culture in the world during the nineteenth century. Likewise, today it is seeking to reach a unified identity in order to become a dynamic and active member of the international community. This trend in the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has led to the expansion of regional interaction in Europe, and given the fact that there is no need to categorize countries into different fronts anymore as they were during the Cold War, Europe may be able to play a more important and independent role.

In the third ring of the camp, there are developed and non-Arab states, such as Russia, Japan and China. After the collapse of the Soviet Union’s socialist system, Russia has once again joined the Western community and, from a cultural point of view, sees itself as a Western country, and expects to be accepted by Europe as a part of the European community. But due to the historical background of the existing conflicts, the geographic conditions of Russia, half in Asia and half in Europe, the remaining powers of the past and concerns about the country’s ambitions, European countries are not showing a willingness to this issue and this puts Russia in the third ring of the camp along with Japan and China.

The final circle includes the dependent and influenced states among the developing countries, who find their survival in supporting the hegemonic system, and as a result act as agents who serve the hegemonic powers.

2) The camps of the hegemonic powers

In this camp, the situation and the actors are different from the hegemonic camp in every way. The bedrock of movement on this front is the uprising and movement of the masses; The deprived and exploited masses, who had been oppressed for centuries, suffered from injustice. People who are by nature peace-loving and justice-seeking, and thanks to the development of communication and the advancement of technology, have become more aware of each other’s situation in different societies and have a common hatred of hegemonic states and have risen up against them. The victories achieved in some societies against the hegemonic system are hoped and encouraged such that by overcoming their fears and language, it is possible to overcome the hegemonic regimes, even empty-handedly.

Today, a kind of serious correlation has emerged between these societies, regardless of racial, ethnic, religious and linguistic differences, which are expressed in words, expressions and emotions. The political, social and cultural conditions that have arisen due to the expansion and speed of communication and the increase of public awareness, make it possible for the masses to be distracted and brainwashed under the influence of propaganda and media bombardment, and hegemonic regimes are incapable. That, as in the past, the masses under their hegemony should pursue belligerent goals and turn their hostile enemies into demonic figures. The Muslim nation of Iran, which was the initiator of this mass movement and had all the necessary characteristics to succeed in its movement and its continuation and to inflict successive defeats on the hegemonic system, has naturally become the leader of this great world movement. The Islamic Revolution did not aim only at overthrowing the oppressive imperial regime, but from the very beginning, raised the banner of struggle and confrontation with the whole world of hegemony and tyranny under the title of fighting global hegemony and supporting the oppressed of the world. Inspired by the life-giving school of Islam, it has explicitly stated and established this ideal.

The Shi’ahs of the world form the second circle of this front. Because, in principle, the Shi’ah school of thought has emerged from the heart of protest and confrontation with hegemonic regimes. They are followers of Imams who never obeyed the hegemonic regimes and generally sacrificed their lives in this way and were martyred. Its objective crystallization was in the historical uprising of Imam al-Husayn against the ruling Umayyad regime, which not only taught the lesson of self-sacrifice, property and family to all fighters for truth and freedom but also for Shi’ahs and even for all Muslims and all the free people of the world has been modelled throughout history.

In the third circle of this front, there are other Muslims who make up a population of more than one billion people and geographically cover a wide area of ​​three ancient continents from Mauritania in the west to Indonesia in the east and not only strategically and geopolitically, but also have vast sources of God-given wealth, especially energy. Thanks to the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Muslims of the world have reached an awakening and public awareness that they have found their way not in following Western culture and beliefs, but in returning to themselves and the original Islamic beliefs.

With the victory of the Islamic Revolution, all liberation movements and movements formed on the basis of materialist thoughts and ideas – including Marxism, socialism and liberalism – in the Islamic world were afflicted and were forced to close down their institutions and organizations. In contrast, Islamic movements flourished and spread rapidly. At the same time, and due to the lack of political and structural advantages in the Shi’ah school, they found their way in reform movements that came to power within the existing systems and through existing democratic tools, to rule Islamic laws and rules.

In Algeria, despite the Islamist victory in the elections, they were severely repressed by the hegemonic powers, but in Turkey, despite various confrontations, including military intervention, coup d’état attempts have failed, and by using past experience, they have gradually seized power, trying to increase their influence with a special plan and delicacy.

In the fourth circle of this front, the deprived and suffering non-Muslim nations are in the third world; Nations that have tasted the exploitation and exploitation of the hegemonic system for five centuries. The masses of the people of Africa and Latin America will never forget the days of slavery and colonialism, old and new, and will see all their misery and backwardness as the result of the aggressive and predatory policies of the civilized West.

In the fifth circle, the masses of people are in developed countries; Those who must be used and exploited as the black of the army to meet the needs of the hegemonic governments.

The following images illustrate the formation of these two camps:

Characteristics of the two camps

These two camps, in all their dimensions and normative angles, have fundamental differences and distinctions with each other, and in fact, it can be claimed that the differences between the two camps are so deep and incompatible that the possibility of reconciliation, peace and reconciliation between the two is made impossible. Whatever is considered valuable to one is counterproductive to another. Everything that one considers right is considered false by the other and every goal that one pursues is contrary to the goals of the other. These contradictions have given rise to different and sometimes contradictory definitions of common concepts in international relations and political science that are in conflict with each other.

The hegemonic system recognizes the right by force and believes that whoever has power is right insofar as power is itself targeted so that their definition goes from man to the point where he is instinctively lustful. They know the irresistible power and have founded their school on this principle called realism and have been able to lay the foundation of the hegemonic system throughout history. Under this cruel title, they see all creatures and beings in the dominion of their power and move forward in this direction. The hegemonic system sees governments as representatives of power, in other words, power itself, so that the science of politics is considered the science of power and is synonymous with the science of the state. At the same time, anti-hegemonic movements and deprived and oppressed people see the right in respecting human dignity, justice, compassion, cooperation, equality and brotherhood.

The ideologies that emerged from the West, which had materialistic foundations, were generally aimed at justifying the hegemonic system, so that if they dealt with one type of hegemony, it was to replace another type of hegemony. The Western world, like Machiavelli, the twelfth-century Italian realist thinker, defines politics on the basis of hypocrisy, duplicity, and deception. The “politics of power” or “realpolitik” is built and addressed with the same principles. As a result, political, social, economic and cultural relations have been formed under the same principles and there is no place to establish the above relations based on the principles of honesty, frankness and consistency.

Militarism is an inherent part of the hegemonic temperament and is generally achieved with three goals: either to expand its sphere of power, or to compete with the expansionism of its rivals, or to gain more reserves and benefits and profits. While the anti-hegemonic camp has been formed with new values ​​that are in line with his human and God-seeking nature and are in serious contradiction with the values ​​of the hegemonic powers. In this camp, the right is with the deprived masses and the power of those nations, and the faith and belief of the masses, which is based on human dignity, is higher than all the hardware powers of the hegemonic powers. Social, political and economic relations are defined on the basis of justice, cooperation, compassion and in the service of the deprived masses. Wealth and natural resources belong to all human beings, and the goals of the struggle have been set in order to liberate the masses from the domination of those in power, oppressors and monopolists. This camp has set the example of self-sacrifice and devotion in the path of divine and human goals and in the service of its fellow human beings. He considers it his duty to rise up against the oppressors and to resist the aggressors. Fear and weakness of breath, turning away from the enemy and escaping from the battlefield have no place in this camp.

In conclusion, in general, it can be said that the conflict between the hegemonic camp and the anti-hegemonic camp is equal to the game with zero algebraic sum; That is, what one loses, another gains, and what one gains, another loses.

Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution

Comments

leave your comments