In the twentieth century, the world witnessed widespread developments and diverse, conflicting, and yet striking events some of which are of importance such as tensions between communities, world wars, and revolutions. Some of these events, with all their significance, have a limited sphere of influence while some others have affected a vast range of structures and procedures within the international system. The Islamic Revolution of Iran is included in the latter category, which has made impacts on the existing international system. Many experts consider the Islamic Revolution as one of the most significant sociopolitical developments throughout the world in the second half of the 20th century. “The formation of this revolution, as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union, are among the events that have had substantial impacts beyond the borders and the international system. Consequently, the developments that occurred afterward have deeply affected the internal elements of the international system.”
Revolution and the International System
Revolution is one of the classical themes of human social thought, and despite being regarded as a key concept in modern political thinking but it is the most ambiguous concept; because the notion of revolution, like other concepts in social sciences, has changed over time and indicated different meanings. Hence, like other social and political phenomena, there is still no consensus on the concept of revolution.
A set of developments and intellectual, cultural, social, economic and political factors are involved in the occurrence of revolutions. Therefore, there are different paths in reaching these factors given the situations and developments of countries. In general, overthrowing political systems because of a revolution may take several forms:
A) Strike, protest and dynamism of the majority of people that might take violent forms and cause transferring of power: such as the October Revolution in Russia.
B) Revolutionary leaders and supporters will have to adopt the strategy of armed struggles for a long time in order to overthrow the ruling government. The Cuban revolution was an example of this method.
C) Occasionally, revolutions occur to overthrow the existing political system and create a new one. They are called political revolutions such as the French Revolution.
D) Another category of revolutions, would bring change to social systems in addition to the political ones: the 1917 revolution in Russia is an example by which significant developments occurred in the social system of the country and the tsarist regime was overthrown. Likewise, the Chinese Cultural Revolution in 1966 was an instance that attempted to bring fundamental and cultural transformations to the country.
Since revolutions are regarded as international events both in terms of causes and consequences, they are connected to the international system. As far as the nature of revolutions is concerned, they occur while challenging and opposing the power of the hegemon at national and international levels. This can be seen more clearly in major revolutions because there is a high level of conflict between great revolutions and the hegemonic order of the international system. In this regard, Fred Halliday believes that there are at least four areas within which both of the revolutions and the international system are involved:
A) Causes of revolutions: how far international factors may influence the occurrence of revolutions.
B) Foreign policy: This means examining how the revolutionary governments operate in driving and managing their foreign relations.
C) Responses: this will show the responses and reactions of other governments concerning the reflection of the revolution and the policies of the revolutionary government.
D) Formation: a study of how the international factors and system requirements in the international order would in the long-term lead to developments within revolutionary governments and create changes in their political behaviours as well as social and economic orientations.
The foreign policy of the revolutionary system of governance: the foreign policy of revolutionary systems, in turn, encompasses a vast and distinct arena because it is not only adopting different methods compared to other systems but also perusing specific and distinct goals.
The reaction of other countries to the reflections and policies of the revolutionary system of governance: within the international arena, the powers who are in favour of the status quo will immediately seek to prevent the spread of the revolution and, if possible, even overthrow the revolutionary government.
This study indicates that until a sense of consistency is established between the revolutionary order and the international system, and until the revolutionary system commits to the existing system governing the international community, the conflict between that system and other non-revolutionary governments will continue to exist.
Now, after reviewing the preliminary discussions and theoretical framework, we are going to study how the Islamic Revolution of Iran challenges the ruling regime of the international system.
1) The politics of the political system that have arisen from the Islamic Revolution of Iran
The Islamic Revolution occurred in a situation where the second Pahlavi regime was considered a completely quiet and secure island in the Middle East from the international perspective in a way that almost no one was considering Iran to be in a state of experiencing a revolution; because most of the estimations concerning the power of the existing Iranian system at the time were implying the relative stability of the country.
Therefore, in this situation, no one would ever have assumed that such a government, which was in the interaction with two poles of the international system and had the support of both, easily and shortly will be defeated by the movement of the revolution. Moreover, the active presence of the United Kingdom and the United States in Iran after the August 28 coup, would make the occurrence of any revolution and domination of anti-western movements seem unlikely to happen. With the victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the revolutionary individuals introduced values and norms that were contradicting the international system and the interests of powers who wanted to maintain the status quo. This has posed challenges through the international arena, some of which are:
Independence from the great powers, justice, self-determination, solidarity and unity of the underprivileged, Muslim awakening, the rightfulness of deprived nations, justice-seeking, struggling against the existing ruling system in the international order. The latter was characterized by power-seeking, plundering, being a bully, monopolization, Foreign reliance, aggression, imperialism, colonialism, ignorance and so on.
In the field of foreign policy, the Islamic Republic of Iran tried to turn the above-mentioned values into norms within the international system, in an attempt to influence the public opinion of the disadvantaged and oppressed Third World nations. Therefore, while adopting the policy of exporting the revolution, the revolutionaries took steps to expand and export the model of the Iranian Revolution and considering the universal ideology of this revolution they have focused on ideals such as reviving the unified Muslim identity, confronting nationalism and bringing unity to the Muslim world in the face of the west. Hence, the Islamic revolution of Iran was seen as a threat to the global order and the interests of the superpowers and has brought about profound changes in the international community as well as the international system. some of the most important impacts will be mentioned in the following.
The revival of Islam as a comprehensive and universal school of thought
Rejecting the discourses that are dominating the International system while presenting the concept of political Islam as an alternative discourse.
The reaction of countries concerning the reflection of the Islamic Revolution of Iran:
1) The Islamic Revolution and Strategic Issues of the Great Powers:
Following the triumph of the Islamic Revolution within the polarized international system, the revolutionaries have challenged the existing international system and have not acknowledged its structures through introducing the strategic concept of “neither East nor the West.”
However, during the years before the occurrence of the Islamic Revolution and with the domination of the polarized system over the world, the countries had been divided into two major blocs. At the time, the great powers had divided the countries into two opposing groups while unfairly turning the war between themselves into a representative war among small countries.
Though currents such as non-aligned ones were formed within that polarized system at the time, they never succeeded in becoming a third side or changing the polarized system by challenging them.
In contrast to the polarized system, the Islamic revolution offered a new way forward based on which the domination of the two great powers over human affairs throughout the world were condemned and this order was identified as a violator of the rights of nations, and simultaneously considered the breakdown of the United States-Soviet colonial chains as the only way for the salvation of nations.
According to this policy, Iran not only did not consider the dependence on any superpower as reasonable or rational but also was striving to eliminate the existing system that was dominating the international relations by the means of supporting non-alignment policy and adopting an aggressive and dynamic one. In the meantime, two superpowers, despite their hostility to each other, began to oppose the Islamic revolution and hence the revolution was confronted with costs and restrictions in the way of maintaining its ideological activism against the great powers.
2) The United States confrontation with Iran
During the period of the dominance of polarized system throughout the world, the Western bloc in line with the “Strategy of Containment” (or preventing the spread of Soviet Union influence), initiated a movement that would eventually lead to the creation of a number of group alliances such as NATO, the Central Treaty Organization and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization that constitutes Iran, covering Europe to Southeast Asia around the Soviet Union borders. In response, the Soviet Union signed an agreement called the Warsaw Pact with Poland, Hungary, Romania, East Germany, and several other nations in order to prevent the West from infiltrating or attacking any communist party.
Iran played an important role for the United States and the West bloc at the time, because the United States had established several military bases along with wiretapping ones in an attempt to control the Soviet Union.
Moreover, in the aftermath of the defeat in Vietnam, the United States could not manage to run a military intervention against revolutionary movements due to the opposition of public opinion. According to President Richard Nixon’s new strategy called “Twin Pillars,” the United States policy turned to Iran and Saudi Arabia as twin pillars concerning the military issues and financial ones respectively. Therefore, given the strategic and geopolitical position of Iran - the personal qualities of Mohammad Reza the Shah and the fact that Iran was not an Arab country and was far from the Arab-Israeli conflict – the United States made the government of Iran as a gendarme in the region and finalized an arms trade with this country that worth billions of dollars. As a result, Iran suppressed the communist rebels in Dhofar, Oman, preventing the expansion of this pro-Moscow communist movement in the Arabian Peninsula on behalf of the United States.
Thus, Iran was dominated by the United States and considering the Pahlavi regime’s military authority in the region and inside Iran, it was not seen in a state of experiencing a revolution; because most of the estimates from the existing system in Iran implied that the domestic crisis of the country would ultimately lead to instability.
Relying on Iran as the main frontline in the way of blocking communism, the United States’ government never thought of the occurrence of a revolution in Iran, and even according to the intelligence agencies of the United States, there was no possibility for such phenomena in this country. One year before the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Carter described Iran as “the island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world” (Carter: no date, 437). He expressed his interest in the dictatorial regime of the Shah: “No other country is closer to us than Iran in terms of planning for joint action. There is no other country closer than Iran to the United States in terms of analyzing the regional problems which are of interest to both countries. Also, I consider the Shah as the most respected and venerated leader with whom we have a relationship as close friends.
The United States’ certainty regarding the failure of the revolution in Iran was due to the active presence of the United Kingdom and the United States in Iran after the coup d’état of August 28, 1953, would make an anti-western revolution less likely to occur; but ultimately, The revolutionaries and Islamic Revolution had gained victory over the Shah’s regime and subsequently the position of the United States in the Middle East had undergone significant changes, including the closure of its military bases and centers for wiretapping and spying in Iran, changing of the dictated political equations of the region, discredit brought in the United States throughout the region, and development of an atmosphere of distrust to the United States within the dependent states.
In this regard, the American government looked at the Iranian Revolution with suspicion because of several reasons:
1) The Iranian people with the leadership of Imam Khomeini sought to overthrow the closest ally of the United States and the West in the Middle East through a social, anti-arrogance and anti-colonial movement and this has become a serious concern for the United States administration.
2) The Americans were worried about the Iranian revolution taking a communist form such as the Cold War and hence threatening the United States’ vital interests in maintaining the process of transferring oil products from the Persian Gulf to the west. The United States stood up against the Islamic Revolution and supported the Pahlavi regime. Nonetheless, the royal regime was collapsed through the subsequent developments and the sacrifice and resistance of the Iranian nation and the revolutionary and anti-Western government were established in the country. (Abolfath
The victory of the Islamic Revolution and the withdrawal of Iran from the western camp which resulted in a confrontation with the ruling system in the international arena, have had profound effects on regional equations. Unlike the current situation where the United States was confronting the Soviet Union and its activism was based on an anti-Russian approach, a new power emerged in the region such that was identified as a new anti-Iranian target for the United States in the region.
Since the concept of the struggle in the Islamic Revolution as well as its ideals being spread among the Muslims around the world were the greatest threats to American domination, therefore the United States sought the policy of either putting an end to or reaching a compromise on the revolution.
The strategy of the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was adopted by both political parties in the United States from the onset of the Islamic Revolution, has increasingly being intensified. Therefore, in order to prevent the spread of revolutionary movements to other countries and preserve international resources, the United States has considered adopting various approaches and strategies based on which the following steps were taken by the United States administration:
Expanding the military bases throughout the countries of the region, the presence in Persian Gulf states and increasing its forces by highlighting the insecurity of the region, running a propaganda operation against Iran, creating an atmosphere of fear and a sense of insecurity concerning Iran among the Arab states of the southern part of the Persian Gulf, preventing Iran from being identified as a role model in the Muslim world, creating disunity and disintegration throughout the region by highlighting the ethnic, religious and regional tensions.
At the onset of the revolution, although this confrontation was still being pursued secretly, but with the occupation of the United States embassy in Iran, relations between Iran and the United States became strained and deteriorated and eventually led to the ending of official relations between the two countries and beginning of hostilities.
Therefore, the Carter administration concluded that political Islamists must be suppressed; hence, the United States has supported secular regimes in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey, and launched a propagation campaign in the media against the Iranian Islamists representing them as being violent and anti-west. In addition, the United States government announced the creation of a rapid reaction force to protect its interests at the time. This meant the re-engagement of the United States in direct military intervention, but since the experience of Vietnam’s defeat and its highly negative domestic and international consequences had taught Americans that a direct strike on Iran would have divesting consequences, they set an agenda to carry out two plans after their defeat in the Tabas incident:
A) Mounting a military coup to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran
B) Organizing a comprehensive military invasion against Iran through another country.
Finally, the United States placed the coup and military invasion as its first and second priority respectively.
In addition to supporting Iraq in imposing the war on Iran, the United States has also launched a massive propaganda campaign against the secular regimes in the Middle East showing that the Islamists in Iran are violent, anti-west and a danger to the countries of the region. On the other hand, the Arab conservatives regarded the call of the leaders of the Islamic Revolution to return to Islam, the emphasis on self-awareness of the Muslims and even the all-out struggle against colonialism and global exploitation, as a threat to their governments.
In an attempt to downturn the relationship between Iran and the countries of the region, the United States has tried to replace Iran’s threat with the danger of Israel in the region. Therefore, it seeks to induce the Persian Gulf states to view Iran as a country that is trying to dominate the region and the Persian Gulf. This policy was followed in a way that the Arab states used the term “Arab front” or “the Arab-non Arab war” instead of the Iraq-Iran war, in line with the United States activities to prevent the expansion of Iran’s influence.
Therefore, due to the fact that many Arab leaders supported Iraq during its war with Iran, an opportunity was provided for the United States to peruse its intention to establish a collective security system as an alternative to the Central Treaty Organization in the region.
For this reason, the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council in February 1981 was established in Riyadh consisting of the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Emirate. The main areas of cooperation of the member-countries were the exchange of information on security issues, the formation of a joint Air defence network and rapid reaction forces.
In fact, the formation of such a council was an act against the Iranian revolution with the support of the United States; because it could have been used as a barrier against Iran’s power and radical political Islam. Iran’s victory in the war with Iraq, the spread of revolutionary thoughts across the world and the fears of countries from being influenced by these thoughts, caused these countries to become more inclined towards the United States. In the meantime, the rapid reaction forces of the United States and the Gulf Cooperation Council became active to control the low-intensity conflicts and suppressing the domestic and regional movements. The members of the Council provided supports to Baghdad during the Iraq-Iran war to prevent the spread of revolutionary thoughts across the world. To that end, Saudi Arabia took the pivotal role comparing to other countries, because of the long-standing rivalries between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the issue of regional power along with their confrontations in terms of religious doctrine they observe all in all have given rise to Saudi Arabia being considered as one of the major pillars of the United States foreign policy in the Middle East, so that the military reinforcement of this country was included in the American agenda, after the exclusion of Iran from the list of the countries influenced by the United States.
The designers of the United States and Israeli strategy have recognized the importance of Iran-Arabs’ relations more than anyone else, and they were very serious about preventing the development of relations between the Islamic Revolution of Iran and Arab countries. Therefore, they were using all political, security and cultural capabilities to weaken the Arab-Iranian relations.
Of course, with the emphasis on Shi’ite and Sunni unity, the approximation of Islamic denominations and the denial of religious sectarianism, Iran sought to unite Muslim nations and implement the concept of becoming one ummah in the face of enemies.
With the collapse of the former Soviet Union’s communist system and the disappearance of the polarized system, the United States has sought to establish a new world order under his leadership. At the time, some international actors either accepted or remained silenced concerning the formation of a unipolar international system while some others proposed other alternatives including ideas such as the multipolar or unipolar system.
With the expansion of the ideals of the Islamic Revolution, the United States realized that Iran has taken the place of its former enemy, the Soviet Union. Thus, with the breakdown of the United States’ long-standing ideological rival, the Islamic Republic of Iran was identified as the main challenge for the West. Therefore, the United States government tried to replace the danger of the former Soviet Union with the threat posed by the political movements of the Islamists including Iran to the western capitalist system.
The United States and its western allies accused revolutionary Islamists as “fundamentalists” of terrorism. In addition, the United States accused Iran of violating human rights and that this country precludes the Arab-Israeli peace treaty, in an attempt to present Iran as subversive and agitator and prevent its revolutionary message from being spread globally.
Moreover, the United States on the one hand has always considered the economic and military sanctions as part of its policy for controlling the Islamic Republic of Iran and on the other hand put pressure on countries such as China and Russia for establishing cooperation with Iran.
Following such hostile policies, the United States government in response to Iran’s opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process added more violent attitudes to its agenda and thus perused the policy of “dual containment toward Iran and Iraq” to undermine Iran’s economic and financial capabilities and defeat new Islamic system.
Simultaneously, the United States has taken other steps to isolate and control the Islamic revolution of Iran during the Clinton era, including the opposition to the construction of the oil pipeline of Central Asia from Iran, opposition to Iran’s participation in the international Oil Consortium in Azerbaijan and replacing Iran with Turkey, imposing a limit on the process of giving loans to Iran by the international institutions such as the World Bank, putting pressure on European countries to prevent investing in Iran, and allocating $20 million to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran on December 1995 by the chairman of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.
Despite the United States’ efforts to convince its European counterparts, they favoured critical dialogue policy as a tool to moderate Iran’s behaviour over the policy of isolation and did not cut off trading with this country. Subsequently, the United States approved the “Iran and Libya Sanctions Act” based on which not only American companies would be prevented from carrying out any financial and economic activity for the development and reconstruction of the Iranian oil industry, but also the non-the United States companies that invest in the oil industry of Iran will be subjected to sanctions.
In addition to the above-mentioned sanctions, the United States legislated the law of imposing comprehensive sanctions on Iran under the pretext of the country’s support for terrorism and its opposition to the process of peacemaking. In response, the United States’ European allies whose companies had invested in Iran, stated that if Clinton implements such a plan, they would also reciprocate. With the statements of Lionel Jospin, prime minister of France, that “the United States can no longer impose its laws on the world” many European companies such as the Total company ignored these sanctions, and hence the United States was forced to launch a unilateral boycott against Iran.
The American policy toward the Islamic revolution during the George W. Bush administration entered a new stage. His policy was mostly influenced by two things: The September 11, 2001 incident and the neoconservatives gaining power in the government and getting top positions in George W. Bush’s administration.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by al-Qaeda, caused the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the country that was targeted by the United States for more than two decades, to be severely criticized by the neoconservatives in the United States. Meanwhile, Iran was accused of supporting terrorism, seeking weapons of mass destruction, supporting al-Qaeda, and obstructing the Middle East peace process. Subsequently, George W. Bush increased pressure on Iran, describing Iran alongside Iraq and North Korea as the “axis of evil”. The issue of Iran’s access to nuclear technology was the new American pretext for changing the behaviour of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States officials viewed Iran as a country seeking to gain weapons of mass destruction which was the cause of undermining peace and stability.
Although the United States has always been trying to confront Iran with different excuses, the fact is the Islamic Revolution of Iran, as one of the most important nightmares and challenges for the foreign policy of the United States in the region has driven the United States to adopt and experience any approach or method needed to control the revolution.
Currently, through influencing the countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Turkey and the Persian Gulf states, the United States is seeking to create an iron wall around Iran and prevent the spread of revolutionary thoughts in an effort to weaken Iran’s relations with its neighbours.
Nonetheless, while adopting the policy of regional convergence, Iran has made most of the United States efforts to isolate the Islamic revolution to be doomed to failure. for example, the victory of the united Iraqi coalition in parliamentary elections, the victory of Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt taking seats in parliament and the triumph of Lebanon’s Hezbollah over Israel show that the United States has failed in confronting Iran’s revolution and that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran while focusing on values and policies of reducing tensions and confidence-building in international relations and increasing the domestic capacity of the system, can continue to stand up against the United States pressures.
Revolution a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving More (Definitions, Synonyms, Translation)
leave your comments