Comparing the Approaches of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and the United States to Terrorism (2) The United States

The United States Approach to Extremism and Terrorism 

 

The United States’ presence in the Persian Gulf in 1971 after the British withdrawal from this region, exacerbated the tensions. Supporting the authoritarian regimes, military presence in the region, arms transfer to the states in the Persian Gulf and Middle East regions and providing them with diplomatic and economic support played an important role in the survival of their authoritarian regimes after the first Persian Gulf War.

 

United States policy in the region in the early 1980s was a key factor in laying the groundwork for the spread of extremism. For example, the United States used extremist groups against the former Soviet army in Afghanistan, and as a means of limiting the influence of the Islamic Revolution of Iran. These policies resulted in the emergence of a range of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, the Aden-Abyan Islamic Army, and in general new terrorism. The United States’ support for the Taliban in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war gave al-Qaeda the opportunity to organize, recruit, and train forces in the mid-1990s in order to be prepared for conducting operations around the world. In this regard, Samuel Huntington states: “The legacy of the war was the existence of skilled fighters, weapons, training camps, the vast network of individual and organizational relations in the Islamic world, and most importantly, having a sense of power and self-confidence because of the past success, and a strong desire to gain victory in the future. According to these people, jihad brought a superpower, the Soviet Union, to its knees, and this means, they will be able to confront corrupt regimes or even the United States.”

 

By creating chaos in the West Asian region, and, causing an organized and planned disorder, the United States sought to establish and legitimize its presence in areas where the extremist and terrorist groups are present and remain there under the pretext of fighting terrorism in the target country.

 

“Terrorism” and “extremism” are among the tools that have been widely utilized by the great powers. Once, American interests required that Taliban and al-Qaeda be created and strengthened, but when the jihadist forces acted against the interests of this country and began fighting against the American forces in the region as the enemies of Islam, they were introduced as terrorists who have endangered the security of the international system. How the United States ignored the killing of Iranian diplomats by Taliban forces in Afghanistan shows the country’s discriminatory and double standards in dealing with terrorism.

 

“Contradiction in the American counter-terrorism approach is nothing new,” wrote Daniel Chard, an American author and historian. In the 1980s, the CIA, in collaboration with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, helped extremist groups known as the Mujahidin in Afghanistan fight the Soviet army. Among those who received United States aid was Osama bin Laden who later on became the leader of al-Qaeda. The United States does not have one single definition of terrorism, and different government and federal institutions have their own definitions. 

Although there are different views on the emergence of phenomena such as the Taliban (1990s), al-Qaeda (1980s) and Daesh (2010s), the combination of threats and opportunities these organizations provided for the United States government paved the way for the United States’ military-security expansionism. Without these groups and the extremist organizations, Americans would not have been able to deploy their forces in countries where the vast majority oppose Western influence. So far, the distribution and management of terrorism have been successfully engineered.

 

Contrary to the statements of senior officials in the United States and the United Kingdom, Daesh, and other terrorist groups have posed no threat to the United States or its allies, and overall, they have created an opportunity for these countries. The Supreme Leader referred to the role the United States played in creating and supporting terrorism: “Today, the Americans claim that they want to fight against terrorism. This is while they themselves have created the most dangerous terrorist groups which are very large in number. Who created Daesh? They acknowledge that they have played the main role in creating Daesh…This is jahiliyyah. This is the kind of jahiliyyah that exists in today’s world.”

 

After the 2011 Arab Springs, the United States put more effort into pursuing its strategy of using terrorist groups such as Daesh as cannon fodder and creating constructive chaos; as the United States has always adopted the policy of balance of power in the Middle East, and such developments would change the equations thereby raising the United States concern about the authoritarian and dependent regimes being replaced by popular and Islamic governments similar to the Islamic Revolution of Iran and consequently the undermining of United States interest and the position of the Zionist regime in the region. Therefore, by bringing chaos to the region, the United States sought to create a weak government, an oriented democracy, or the disintegration of the countries in the region, especially Syria and Iraq.

 

Up until 2012 and mid-2013, the United States saw Daesh in Syria as an opportunity, and thus, during the “Friends of Syria” summit, it insisted that Daesh, al-Nusrah Front and other groups fighting against Bashar al-Assad should participate in the meeting. However, these groups refused to attend because they knew that the Americans would eventually emphasize the Free Syrian Army as the main group on the front line of the conflict.

 

In mid-2013, right after Hezbollah successfully launched a heavy and effective operation “al-Qusayr” in the northern province of Homs, the Americans slowly began opposing such groups. Henceforth, whenever a United States official visited Saudi Arabia, the Western political media circles pointed to the serious challenge between the United States and Saudi Arabia over these groups. For instance, on October 22, 2013, the media reported that the Saudi intelligence service has said that its country is limiting its relations with the United States to express objection to the changing of the United States policy towards Syria.

 

Comparing the Approach of the Islamic Revolution and the United States

Currently, terrorism in the region through implementing the United States theory of “constructive chaos” tries to create conflicts and chaos and take advantage of the situation. On the other hand, the United States also benefits from that situation and somehow manages it; however, these conflicts are against the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran because disrupting the security of the region would affect the security of the Islamic Republic.

The table below shows the differences between the Islamic Republic and the United States in terms of their approaches to extremist groups.

 

Table 1: The Differences between the Islamic Republic and the United States in terms of Approaches to Extremist Groups

 

Number	The approach of the Islamic Revolution to extremism and terrorism	The United States’ approach to terrorism
1	Countering Takfir - terrorism	Double standard on takfir – terrorism
2	Struggling for the realization of religious ideals and national interests	Colonial exploitation “misuse”
3	In order to destroy the Zionist regime	In order to ensure the security of Israel
4	To strengthen the Islamic Resistance Axis (Lebanon, Syria and Iraq)	To weaken the Islamic Resistance Axis (Lebanon, Syria and Iraq)
5	Developing and deepening the discourse of the Islamic Revolution of Iran	Confronting and overthrowing the Islamic Revolution of Iran
6	Seeking Islamic identity and cohesion	Identity crisis and diversion
7	Democracy that is in line with the concept of being a single nation	Individualism and the centrality tyranny
8	Responding to conditions of the society and resolving the crisis	Responding to conditions of the society and creating the crisis
9	Religious (ideological) and innate approach to confronting oppression and arrogance	The materialistic benefits of political expansionism

 

The theory of constructive chaos developed by the United States creates such a situation in the target country that it can justify “humanitarian intervention.” Others believe the theory prevents military intervention to plunder another country’s natural resources. Finally, even the United States politicians and allies recognize the paradox and inconsistency in Washington’s behaviour, since the strategies of “constructive chaos” and “soft war” which the United States had pursued as a replacement for its failed wars in the region, would change into the strategy of engaging allies in these wars after its defeat in Syria and Iraq. On the other hand, based on the verses of the Holy Qur’an (4:141), the discourse of the Islamic Revolution denies and rejects any domination. Moreover, referring to the same Qur’anic teaching which is embedded in the Articles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and constitutes the basis of the political thought of the leaders of the Islamic Revolution, the concepts of seeking justice, being anti-oppression, anti-arrogance and anti-colonialism, seeking independence and supporting the oppressed, and fighting against the arrogant have had the same approach and trajectory since the establishment of the Islamic Republic.

 

Reference: Pazhuheshnameh-ye Enqelab-e Eslami [A Quarterly Academic-Research Journal on Islamic Revolution]. Vol 8, No 28, Fall 2018, Pp 1-22.

 

 

Archive of The Thought of the Islamic Revolution