Introduction
The Islamic Revolution changed the unilateral path of the West’s influence on the East. Today, one of the important topics of various Western scientific-strategic centres is the study of the impact of this Revolution and the Islamic Awakening on the contemporary international system which is founded by Western victorious powers in World War II.
To counter the huge Islamic Awakening movement created because of the Islamic Revolution, the Westerners, under the leadership of the American government, took unprecedented steps against the Islamic Revolution and its centre, the Islamic Republic, an example of which was the eight-year imposed war. When various domestic, regional, and international conspiracies, such as imposing the large-scale sanctions on Iran, failed to counter the great wave of the Islamic Revolution, and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union when Americans thought an opportunity for their direct and extensive presence in West Asia is prepared so that to control the Islamic Iran and dominate the region’s resources thereby achieving global hegemonic power, the two powers confronted each other in a full-scale war in West Asia.
Undoubtedly, this confrontation will largely result in the formation of a new international order, because on the one hand the major United States’ strategy after the collapse of the Soviet Union was to establish a monopoly leadership system and turn the United States into a hegemon power who takes the leadership position in the world, and on the other hand, due to the strategic, economic and cultural positions of West Asia, this region has become the centre of world politics (Hartland) and the Americans, especially after the Islamic Revolution and the collapse of the Soviet Union, sought to gain a complete political, economic, and cultural domination over this region thereby waging devastating direct and proxy wars in the region for at least fifteen years.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies are the rivals of the United States in the region. The superior strategic and political position, a large population and various and significant natural resources, as well as historical and civilizational background of Iran and its cultural influence across the region, the strengthening potentials of the Islamic Revolution which led to the exporting of the concept of resistance to the world particularly the Muslim countries and also despite experiencing an eight-year-long war (the Iran-Iraq War) and extensive sanctions, this country has made astonishing progress in various fields and has exemplified the leadership and strategic management of the various regional and global events occur in the troubled world such that even its rivals have acknowledged Iran’s progress. All these factors have made the Islamic Republic the centre of global resistance to the system of domination. With this brief explanation, the scope of this confrontation will be explained. The importance of developing this research is that it would elaborate on the areas of this confrontation and will shed some light on the importance of the West in world politics.
The Areas of the Confrontation of the Two Powers
The events which have occurred in the region in the last three decades show that the security and destiny of the Islamic Republic of Iran are tied to the security and fate of the region, and therefore the West Asian region has become the most important region in which the strategic depth of the Islamic Republic of Iran is defined. On the other hand, for reasons that will be explained, the Americans see the domination of the West Asian region as a requirement for the achievement of global hegemonic power. Accordingly, today the two American and Islamic concepts of power are confronting each other in West Asia. We try to briefly explain this confrontation in three strategic, economic, and cultural areas.
The Strategic Area
The Americans used many strategies to advance their macro-political goals. For instance, with the help of some expensive analysts, they sought to change the “balance of power” theory that had long dominated the relations. Analyzing the strength of the United States military and economic power, and addressing the country’s position as the world’s leading power after the Cold War, the analysts argued that other countries, instead of trying to create a balance against the United States, should pursue the policy of following the hegemony of the United States.
From a military point of view, the Americans believe that they possess the largest military capability in the world so that one-third of the military costs of the world belongs to them and in 2002 during the implementation of the Greater Middle East project, the United States military budget was more than $390 billion whereas the budgets of the fifteen largest European countries for the same year totalled $118 billion, that is to say, less than a third of the United States military budget. In the same year, the United States government prepared a $2.1 billion worth of a military plan for the next few years, in fact, to put its macro goals in foreign policy into action. Hence, they believed that in the next thirty years China will no longer be considered as a rival for the United States in terms of military capabilities.
Accordingly, and also based on Hobbes’ view, because the United States is considered as the most powerful military power in the world, this power and the world’s need for a superpower will justify American domination over the world’s strategic regions. Today, the world’s most strategic region is West Asia, the United States’ domination of which is necessary since it seeks to become a hegemonic power.
In contrast, many analysts believe that the unipolarity of the world cannot be justified, arguing that the great powers will soon start creating a balance against the United States. On the other hand, at least it can be said that the events after September 11 indicate that considering the sources and tools of power in theories of international relations, especially the realist theories that limit the resources and tools of power in terms of quantity, is inevitable. Furthermore, the emergence of the “asymmetrical power” means that today, even weak governments and small groups can become great powers and attack a great country.
The Americans, regardless of their motive, have acknowledged this fact in the National Security Document of 2002. On the other hand, the real power of the countries stems from their societies, and that is why the United States was defeated in the Vietnam War. Moreover, its defeat by the Islamic Revolution of Iran, which did not rely on any conventional power except the faithful people who sought divine help also reflects the fact that the main component of power is spiritual power. That is why the Islamic Revolution caused that the identity, ideological, value, and doctrinal components, in parallel with the way material resources are used, play a role in generating national power and resisting against international threats.
Theorists such as Manuel Castells also emphasize that even military power is effective only when it has the potential and social capital. Two evidence of this theory is the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in which the United States and the United Kingdom despite deploying 300,000 soldiers and security forces and spending more than $6 billion, and while they had announced that they would stay in Iraq at least for one year, have been forced to endure their worst historic defeat in Iraq and leave the country in 2011 after leaving about 5,000 people dead and about 50,000 wounded and mentally ill.
The second case is Saudi Arabia’s brutal invasion of Yemen, regarding which the Saudi Defence minister promised the Americans that he would occupy Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, within a week. Now after about two years since the invasion began, the whole world witnesses the mythical resistance of the oppressed people of Yemen. In addition, before that, the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, and now in Syria, proved the fact that by using faithful forces who rely on divine power and defending the religious, cultural, and national ideals and values one could confront the threatening powers that are in a strategic position and even defeat them.
However, for many reasons, today the West Asian region is strategically an important and perhaps the greatest priority in international relations. As it is the link between the three continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa, which constituted seven-eighths of the world’s population and therefore the world’s largest military conflicts have occurred in this region. The second reason that prompted the United States to dominate this region is the economic reason, that is to say, the existence of two-thirds of the world’s energy in this region.
The Economic Area
In the economic field, also, according to the theory of the “hegemonic stability” in international relations, attempts have been made to show the order and stability of the international liberal economy as a prerequisite to the leadership of a superpower.
In this regard, it is argued that the hegemonic power, on the one hand, has economic potential along with a high level of military power and ideological influence, and, on the other hand, it promotes the liberal economy in the international arena. According to this theory, the sphere of international relations is the arena of the rivalries and conflicts of the states (nation-states) over the power, and also because power is a negative phenomenon, the free flow of economics will only follow the equations.
Thus, as the proponents of this theory state, the hegemonic power, in order to maintain systemic stability, on the one hand, implements the regulations of liberal economics while making the weaker governments satisfied, and, on the other hand, it monitors the way these regulations are being implemented.
According to the theory of hegemonic stability, a hegemonic leader in the world should have some characteristics the most important of which in the view of Simon Bromley are:
1) Promoting a free-market economy against supportive economies;
2) Enjoying the unilateral military superiority in the international system;
3) Controlling the market resources and raw materials, including world oil resources;
4) Preventing the emergence of “peer rivals” in the international arena.
Accordingly, given the theory of hegemonic stability, the implementation of the United States’ hegemony justifies the United States’ domination of the Persian Gulf because in addition to controlling the region’s energy reserves, which is one of the most important material pillars for the continued hegemony of the United States, the rival economic powers such as China, Europe, and Japan would also be controlled and the military power of the United States as the guarantee of the hegemonic stability of the world will be acknowledged.
That is why in 1999, Dick Cheney, when running the Halliburton, said in a statement: “up to 2010, we will need 50 million barrels a day, while two-thirds of the world’s oil is in the Middle East and is produced at a very low cost.” Moreover, after the new Conservatives came to power in the Bush administration and when the United States plan to occupy Iraq was being discussed in the media, in response to the question that why the invasion of Iraq and not an attack on North Korea? Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence of that time, said: “Iraq is swimming in oil!” Also, Dick Cheney, the Vice President said: Countries sitting on the world’s energy reserves can’t make any decisions they want, and they can’t plan for and use the energy resources.”
Therefore, because energy and security are the most important factors in determining global strategies, while one of the two goals announced in the United States’ National Security Strategy during the years after World War II was to control the energy centres of the Persian Gulf region, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and based on the interventionist doctrines of the United States, the focus was shifted towards controlling the global energy sources, the centre of which is the Persian Gulf. Because any power that controls the energy resources of the Persian Gulf will also have control over the global economy as well as the order of international politics.
For the new conservatives who control the White House, the importance of energy in the Persian Gulf in achieving a new structure in the security of the political economy of the world will justify the heavy financial and spiritual costs of the invasion of Iraq. The increase of United States’ dependence on Persian Gulf oil, on the one hand, and the United States’ efforts to compensate the costs of purchasing oil and make the money return to the New York banks or the great United States’ industrial and military cartels, illustrates the attempts made by this country to form a new structure for world security after September 11. Since in the post-Cold War world, and especially with the emergence and multiplicity of emerging economic powers the war will be over resources and controlling them, it is therefore the important strategic goals of United States military campaigns in the important Persian Gulf region were preserving and maintaining the exploitation of its energy and preventing the domination of other economic competitors such as Europe, China, Japan as well as the new emerging economic powers thereby controlling these countries due to their need to the energy resources of the region. Of course, the United States has so far failed to achieve this goal though it has pursued it through starting proxy wars in the region, and it is much less likely that this country would be able to dominate the region. Another area that has been a requirement for the United States since the implementation of the project of the Greater Middle East began to make the United States the hegemonic power in the world, was the cultural sphere.
The Cultural Area
The third issue that paved the way for the confrontation of the American and Islamic concepts of power is the issue of culture. It is related to the restoration of Islamic identity in the region and the Islamic world by Muslims, which has its origins in the Islamic Revolution. The revival of the Islamic identity and its strengthening elements have broken many of the norms imposed by the victorious powers of World War II, and this has played an important role, especially in the formation of resistance movements in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and Yemen and yielded surprising results in international politics, making it clear that positivist materialism cannot play a central role in international politics and forcing Western analysts to consider the cultural and social signs in their political and social analysis.
It is an undeniable fact that the challenge of Islamic revolutionary schools for the domination system has become the biggest historical problem in the West so that the domineering countries under the leadership of the United States have made every effort to confront this new power, which has many components different from the ones of the material power of the West.
Even though making efforts for dismantling Iran and imposing an eight-year-long war, as well as imposing economic sanctions after the war, the United States failed to achieve its goals. Hence, following the doctrines of the Fukuyama and Huntington, the Americans, who were proud of their success after the collapse of the Soviet Union, alone and only in some cases with the cooperation of the British government and while not giving importance to their other foreign friends who had once helped them in the face of the Soviet Union, began to propose this theory that the “American culture is unique” and that the cultural conflicts will shape the conflicts within the international scene, that is to say, the theory of the “Clash of Civilizations.” By doing so, they sought to dominate the Islamic world, especially its centre, that is, West Asia through the project of the Greater Middle East.
Archive of The Thought of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments