Revolutions are international phenomena because their ideas expand. The Iranian Revolution is similar to other revolutions in terms of seeking the aim of Changing the international Order. The authors of the present article while taking into account the different patterns of the export of the revolution and having the presupposition (the closeness of the roles of the ideal government and the internal development to the pattern of the peaceful export of the Islamic Revolution) tried to show that by addressing the themes related to the roles of the ideal government and internal developments in the speeches and writings of Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader of Islamic Republic of Iran, in 1989-2009 one can reach the conclusion that the frequency of the national roles of the ideal state and internal development is the indication of the fulfillment of the transnational interests of the Islamic Revolution in the foreign policy through accepting the peaceful/cultural pattern of exporting the Iranian Revolution.
Introduction
The revolutionaries regard revolution as a living being that is created and developed and then entered into a new environment and sustained survival by using the resources of other environments. Revolutionaries believe that the confinement of the revolution not only impedes its growth but also would subject it to transformation and collapse due to the lack of resources. In the hope of the survival of the revolution, the revolutionaries are putting the revolution on their agenda. The concept of exporting the revolution, whether in the Islamic Revolution of the Prophet, which has a sacred aspect or in the American, French and Russian revolutions, which have been secular and non-religious, is the inevitable result of the phenomenon of the revolution throughout the history of the world. The most essential need after the victories of the revolutions is to discuss the continuity of the revolution, which shows the importance of the fate of the revolution. It is essential to understand the factors behind the continuity of the revolution, to recover the barriers to continuity, and to discover the laws regarding the continuity of the revolution.
The interaction of revolutions with the international environment is an important issue. The ideology of most revolutionary states contains powerful universalist themes, and the revolutionaries believe that the principles of revolution also apply to other societies. Indeed, if the ideals of the revolution are universal such as justice and the revival of civilization based on a particular religious thought, the reoccurrence of the revolution in other countries will be more likely. This is the case with the natural export of revolutions. The export of revolution comes from the nature of revolutions. Throughout history, revolutionaries have tried to promote the principles of their revolution. The leaders of the revolution raise, modify and shape the concepts which are not limited to a specific time, in order to mobilize people. The ideals of justice-seeking, freedom, equality, and democracy are powerful and attractive ideals in the world, and some people who realize the danger of their unfulfillment are struggling to change the world in which they live. In fact, revolutionary ideals are like a power that moves people and revolutionaries through the path of a difficult struggle.
Exporting the Revolution and Foreign Policy
Revolutions disrupt the existing international order. The revolution as an internationalist phenomenon can have a worldwide claim. Revolutions cannot be confined to a specific region because of their ideology. Their ideology dictates that they also pay attention to the outside world and seek to export their values to other parts of the world. Throughout history, the revolutionaries have been seeking to promote their own “revolutionary principles”; therefore, it can be said that “exporting a revolution is the natural consequence of the revolutionary passion, especially since revolutionaries believe that they have the right to turn the world into a paradise.” The revolutionaries want to move the overall spirit of the revolution embodied in their country conveying their messages to other countries. It was natural that the Iranian Revolution, inspired by an Islamic ideology that seeks to bring happiness and felicity to the world, could not be limited to the geography of Iran, and its message had to reach the neighbouring Muslim nations and then all the oppressed nations of the world. Therefore, from the earliest days exporting the revolution was considered as a transnational goal. The transnational dimension of the Islamic Revolution is due to the fact that Islam is a universal religion and the seal of the religions, and thus the Islamic Revolution offers its own world order.
The occurrence of a revolution with an Islamic and ideological nature brought about a major change in Iranian foreign policy. Iran’s foreign policy which has been subject to change has had different periods. The first period can be called the “nationalistic non-compliance,” which begins with the interim government. The priority of this period was to put an end to the “practical and alliance of the obsequious regime of the Shah” with the United States and to establish relations between the two countries on an equal footing. In this short period, the foreign policy was based on balance. The general policy of this period was the tendency toward the West and being concerned about the influence of the Eastern bloc, non-interference in the internal affairs of others, and the improvement of Iran-United States relations. In practice, the interim government’s foreign policy was based on neither the use of force nor excessive peace-seeking, which indicated its optimistic view about international politics.
The second period (1982-1990) begins with the nationalists stepping down from power. The occupation of the United States embassy, according to Ruhi Ramazani, has put the revolutionary and idealistic foreign policy to the test which resulted in Iran’s confrontation with most countries in the world. Iran, in the years 1982-1990, tried to disrupt the existing norms and replace them with its own order, regardless of the system of international relations. Therefore, the new foreign policy of Iran has addressed the nations, in the hope that by having relations with the nations it could achieve the goals of the revolution such as exporting the Islamic Revolution, carrying out jihad in both cultural and military dimensions, opposing the arrogant powers and awakening the oppressed nations, awakening the Muslim nations of the world, especially the nations of the Persian Gulf. During this period, the unique pattern of neither the East nor the West was a dominant discourse that had a very high place in revolutionary foreign policy.
The third phase of foreign policy began with the adoption of Resolution 598. At this period, Iran’s political leaders sought to provide the necessary ground for the integration of the new international order. Iranian leaders emphasized elements such as constructive diplomacy. From the year 1990 onwards, the executors of foreign policy, in the context of relative realism, have tried to replace the ideal-seeking policies of the first decade of the revolution with more functional ones. The need to pay attention to economic issues and provide national interest in the economic dimension led Iran to pursue a pragmatic policy of co-existence with others in order to gain credibility and power.
As the seventh presidential term began, the fourth phase of foreign policy also began. In this period, the realistic approach was continued in foreign policy, with the difference that the way of treating and talking to actors has changed, the policy of economic adjustment and industrial development was replaced with political development and the acceptance of pluralism which meant rejecting the monopoly system and accepting the equality of cultures became the central axis of foreign policy.
After the ninth presidential election, the justice-oriented Principlism dominated the foreign policy. During this period, in its domestic and foreign policy, Iran sought to revive the values and aspirations of the revolution. What distinguishes the fundamentalist discourse from the third and fourth stages of foreign policy is the ideological aims taking priority and the changing of the world order in the hierarchy of Iran’s foreign policy goals.
The Principlists argue that because in the two previous periods of foreign policy, the balance between the national and Islamic interests has been disrupted, the attempt to restore balance has given rise to the primacy and importance of ideological interests of the world order in politics. What distinguishes the content and methodology of foreign policy in the multiple post-revolutionary periods is the ‘national role.’ At any given time, the ruling elites had disparate perceptions of what the nature of Iranian foreign policy should be, believing that Iran’s position in the international system was such that it had to forget some of its national roles and take others more seriously.
From Ayatollah Khamenei’s point of view, the Islamic Revolution is exported with “its own attractions” without the need for taking a violent action: “The issue of exporting the revolution does not make sense. Revolution is not something anyone can export. Revolution is not a commodity to be exported. Revolution is not a cargo that can be taken elsewhere or being exported to another country. If the revolution is just and rational and if it is attractive to the nations, it will be exported.”
From 1982-1990, idealism dominated foreign policy and the decision-makers in foreign policy used to adopt ideological approaches. Therefore, the Islamic Republic was trying to disrupt the norms of international politics and replace it with its own order, regardless of the system of international relations. In this regard, the new foreign policy of Iran has addressed the nations, in the hope that by having relations with the nations it could achieve the goals of the Islamic Revolution.
At the end of the 1980s, however, the Islamic Republic was in a position where the two roles of domestic development and being the model government in foreign policy could better serve Iran’s national interests, and the idealistic foreign policy could no longer fulfill Iran’s domestic and foreign needs. As, after the adoption of Resolution 598, the Iranian authorities whose main concern was removing the obstacles to the country’s development in the first decade of the revolution had a very clear assessment of the domestic situation and international politics after the revolution. That is why the highest priority for Ayatollah Khamenei and Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani was the reconstruction and social and economic development of the country. In addition, the adoption of Resolution 598 by Imam Khomeini at least indicated that for the realists, the priority is to seek the occurrence of the Islamic Revolution inside the country rather than exporting it to other countries. This process reduced the external appearance of the revolution, resulting in less talk of exporting the revolution. In this regard, the leader of the Islamic Revolution states: “exporting the revolution by Iranian nation and the country’s officials through the usual ways in not the case; what matters is when a group of Muslims begin to adopt a divine and Islamic thinking and understanding as well as a new perception, naturally the entire Islamic world will use that insight and understanding based on their capacity and position.”
“The Islamic Republic of Iran is not trying to export anything. The Islamic Republic system has a truth that is the revolution. This nation is the cause root of the truth of the revolution and the Islamic Republic system is the embodiment of the revolution… The aims and messages of the revolution, which is the message of freedom and awakening, do not need to be exported. Does anyone need to export these concepts?! Well, it is a word and a truth that nations do not know. When they meet and see the successful experience of the Islamic Republic, certainly they learn a lesson.”
After the end of the war, the need to build and implement the five-year reconstruction programs has been based on removing the isolation, preventing from making new enemies and trying to take a positive part in the international activity, all of which necessitated Iran to instill a sense of security and safety into the rulers of the region. In this respect, the country’s behavioural pattern changed from confrontation to compromise and from expansionism to coexistence; while during the early days of the revolution the idealists demanded using any means to export the revolution. The leadership did not regard the “international” and “transnational” aspects of the Islamic Revolution as interfering in the affairs of other countries: “that we say that “the revolution has an international and global face” does not mean that the revolution interferes in the affairs of other countries. The Revolution has a message, a rational word and a clear path. This is a clear path that all the nations can see. If they want, they would accept it and take it. We do not impose anything on other nations, but the reality is that nations have seen and recognized this clear path. The number of nations that have chosen to follow this path is not small.”
The roles of being the ideal government and internal development can also be illustrated when considering the doctrine of Umm al-Qura. The essence of revolutionary Iranian foreign policy is to centralize Iran’s role in the reconstruction of Iranian and Islamic civilization. Indeed, the claim of being superior among the countries of the Islamic world is one of the axioms of post-revolutionary Iran’s foreign policy: The Islamic world is a united nation and the criterion of the unity of the Ummah is its leadership. After the Islamic Revolution, Iran turned into the Umm al-Qura and Imam Khomeini took over two positions namely the legal leadership of the Islamic Republic and the guardianship of the Islamic world. Also, in relation to the dialectics of Umm al-Qura and the Muslim world, all the ummah must defend the Umm al-Qura. The theory is based on this notion that if a country is the Umm al-Qura of the Muslim world, such that its defeat or victory is considered to be the defeat or victory of Islam as a whole, preserving it would be the priority. Therefore, in cases of the conflict between exporting the revolution and the fulfillment of the needs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the latter will take priority. Posing the theory of Umm al-Qura is the turning point in the process of changing the approaches within the foreign policy of Iran from idealism to realism. The origin of this theory is the school of realism; hence, its emphasis was on the needs, problems, and internal problems of the system and its purpose was to address these problems. Since preserving the Umm al-Qura has priority over everything else, the dual roles of being the exemplary government and internal development can be effective in maintaining the Umm al-Qura by peacefully pursuing transnational goals and reducing tensions in the field of relations with other countries. It can be said that the doctrine of Umm al-Qura was both a sign of the abolition of the policy of exporting the revolution through using force and violence; and, in fact, a kind of preparing the grounds for preserving simultaneously two seemingly contradictory attitudes: to focus on Iranian reconstruction and avoiding to ignore the issue of exporting the revolution as the natural consequence of revolutions.
Conclusion
In the late 1980s, the Islamic Republic of Iran was in a situation that is needed to define roles in foreign policy that could prevent tensions with other countries. Because the idealistic foreign policy had increased friction between Iran and the West and other countries in the region through posing the issue of the “continuous revolution.”
But in the late 1980s, there was no setting for reproducing the idealistic foreign policy. With the adoption of Resolution 598, the presence of the two national roles of domestic development and being the ideal government in Iranian foreign policy was justified.
With the emergence of the role of being the model government, the Islamic Republic has sought to establish a model government for other Islamic countries by following specific domestic policies. On the other hand, the role of domestic development, which reflects the government’s handling of its domestic development issues, could have been a complement to the role played by the ideal state in foreign policy. Therefore, taking the path of development and building the country could be one of the most important domestic policies through which a country could become a role model for other countries.
By the two roles of being the model government and internal development, the idea of a “continuous revolution” was put forward by revolutionary idealists in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran who believed in the continuation of the revolution in other societies was no longer taken into consideration and it was replaced by the idea of the “established revolution” in which the national interests were preferred over the interests of the Ummah. A look at the speeches and writings of the leader of the Islamic Republic in the years 1982-1990 shows that he has also taken into account the peaceful and cultural model of exporting the Iranian Revolution in the light of considering the realities of the country and the requirements of the international system while believing in achieving a model of governance that can intertwine idealism and realism.
Archive of Ayatollah Khamenei
leave your comments