The Islamic State and Diplomacy of Ever-Increasing Dynamic Resistance

According to the religious teachings, needs and necessities of life in today’s world, the Islamic state should have relations with other nations and countries in terms of political, cultural and economic aspects. For these relationships, Islam outlines principles, including the principle of negation of accepting the domination. According to this principle, derived from the verses of the Holy Quran and sayings of the infallible Imams, we should maintain Islamic independence, dignity and negate any types of domination.

Of course, in some cases, the application of this principle might be in conflict with the principle of the fulfillment of the promise. Basically, in such cases, the latter would be the priority but in general, one cannot choose one principle over the other. Instead, the priority given to a principle should be based on the interests of the Islamic state and Muslims and the “ important and more important rule “

The Islamic government should establish relations with other nations and governments to convey the divine message to the world. Of course, the Islamic state’s relations with other countries are built upon justice. This principle requires that the Islamic country would establish peaceful relations with non-Muslim groups and states that do not fight with the Islamic government and Muslims and adhere to their agreements and treaties with Muslims (Quran: 60:7-8). The Islamic Republic of Iran has relations with all countries of the world based on mutual respect. Therefore, it neither seeks to dominate other states nor accepts to be dominated or oppressed by other powers.

Imam Khomeini explained this principle within the framework of the Islamic state’s foreign relations: “if other countries maintain the mutual respect, we will do the same. If governments and countries want to impose something on our country we will not accept that. We neither oppress others nor go under the burden of oppression.” (Imam Khomeini, ibid., volume 4, page 338)

Therefore, Islamic Iran, while analyzing the prospect of future developments, has created a new model of struggle against the rule of the domineering system. This pattern is not merely adopting a confrontational approach nor is it a call for isolation in the international arena.

The author believes that the encounter between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the international system which has an unfair and authoritative structure should occur within the framework of the diplomacy of an ever-increasing resistance, which the author calls “putting the ball in the opponent’s court.” This is a type of affirmative-negative attitude toward the system and the nature of the international order.

In other words, the author is of the opinion that the existence of what is called interactive or de-escalation policy will lead to the government waste taking place and undermining of the capacities. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Iran should not adopt a passive policy with respect to the events that occur through the international scene, rather this country as a pioneer in fighting against the domineering system should gain the upper hand in an attempt to oppose the domineering system in terms of political, cultural, social and even legal confrontations within the international arena.

On the one hand, this approach differs from the confrontation policy that calls for leaving the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – as North Korea did – and on the other hand, it is in conflict with reconciliation and adopting a passive approach – as Libya did. As far as the confrontation between Iran and the United States is concerned, each country has resorted to a tool to achieve and advance its goals. The West resorted to the US-led diplomacy of imposing sanctions and psychological warfare. They are struggling to influence public opinion and create a global consensus against Iran’s nuclear activities through the “Iranophobia” project.

Industrial countries use different patterns to preserve their hegemony. The behaviour of these countries can be identified as emphasizing the limiting industrial and strategic capabilities of Iran. (Vakili, Active Resistance Diplomacy) On the contrary, the Islamic Republic of Iran needs to shift the balance in its favour through adopting the diplomacy of active resistance and raising awareness among people by the means of public diplomacy. This, of course, does not mean wasting the public expenditures, rather it means that the Islamic Republic of Iran can gradually improve its position and aim at a better use of international instruments. Therefore, by choosing an interactive anti-domination policy and diplomacy of dynamic resistance along with focusing on public diplomacy as the main backbone of formal diplomacy, we should move towards being in a position of a plaintiff rather than the defendant and try to get media attention over the globe.

In this context, it should be noted that the presence in and making a speech at the United Nations are the symbol of implementation of the diplomacy of dynamic resistance. The level of public diplomacy implemented in a country would determine the level of diplomacy of dynamic resistance in that country. As a result, the president’s presence in such meetings and delivering a speech on Iran’s views and agendas and exposing the reality of the West’s goals, will expand the sphere of influence of Iran and increase our bargaining power and leverage within the international system.

Conclusion

In the present study, we have described the pattern of interactive anti-domination policy as a practical pattern and the concrete theory of the Islamic state. The Islamic Republic of Iran, as the only Islamic government and the leader of the camp of the anti-domination, uses two elements of resistance and the pursuit of justice in confronting the domineering system. Moreover, Iran does not recognize the existing order within the international system and calls for upholding the rights of the oppressed people around the world. Thus, by choosing the model of an interactive anti-domination policy as the main backbone of official diplomacy, we should move towards being in a position of a plaintiff rather than the defendant. In addition, the country should utilize its capacities in terms of public diplomacy to strike a balance and promote justice in the international system.