A study of the United States’ history of such events reveals that with the end of the Cold War, the policy of maintaining the status quo gave way to a kind of engineering “management and guidance” of the new situation that aimed to serve the interests of the only superpower, the United States. The onset of the Persian Gulf War and the United States’ invasion of Iraq in the 1990s is considered the beginning of new United States policies towards the region, following the changes in the international system.
When the United States pursued its policies in a unipolar system based on the principles of hegemony, or in other words American peace, the Middle East became one of the strategic priorities of the country. On the one hand, having access to the richest region in terms of underground reserves was in line with the United States’ interests, and on the other hand, the need to ensure the security of producing, supplying and transferring energy as a hegemon’s duty towards its allies and other countries of the international system, required the United States’ role in the developments of the Middle East.
The events of September 11 provided the necessary motivation and excuse for the emergence and pursuit of this religious-political belief by American leaders. The invasion of Afghanistan and the achievement of transient successes in this country further consolidated that approach thereby causing the country to put the invasion of Iraq on the agenda. The United States claimed the purpose of attacking Iraq was to destroy weapons of mass destruction and to establish a democratic state which respects human rights based on a Western definition and serves as a role model for other countries in the Middle East.
The events of September 11, 2001, and the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in Washington are among the most significant events in United States’ political history and a turning point in the international system, which the United States officials considered an attack on American soil.
Defining the Concept of Extremism and Terrorism
Terrorism is a socio-political construct, based on which the notions of friendship with and enmity towards the United States would create such a concept as a political label that aims to degrade the opposition.
The Approach of the Islamic Revolution to Extremism and Terrorism
The behaviour and action of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the international arena are based on its foreign policy. The most significant elements in this regard include denying tyranny and submission to it; supporting the oppressed and liberation movements; defending the Muslims; avoiding interfering in the internal affairs of countries; observing mutual respect; and respecting the people’s right to self-determination.
The Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran, in line with their approach to the phenomenon of terrorism in the region, have put effort into establishing Islamic unity, being anti-arrogance, countering United States expansionism in the region, supporting Muslims in the region, especially the Lebanese people, rebuilding Iraq and restoring stability to the region, as well as addressing security concerns. In this regard, one may refer to the steps taken by Iran such as its stance towards the popular uprisings in the region, opposition to arrogance and United States aggression in the region, supporting Lebanese and Palestinian Muslims, as well as ideological endeavours in Iraq. One of the most important examples of the Islamic Revolution’s struggle against extremism and terrorism can be recognized in the field of “intellectual war” and “physical war.”
Terrorism in the Middle East is an anti-Islamic awakening movement that incites religious and ideological prejudices and has been used by Western countries, especially the United States. Based on this approach, the United States pursues the “constructive chaos” approach in the West Asian region.
Contrary to the constructive chaos approach, the Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to promote regional stability. In addition to the divine ideal, the religious foundations and the political thought of the leaders of the Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran considers its national and security interests to be rooted in the stability of the region and its countries which requires the formation of independent and democratic governments.
From the perspective of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution, terrorism is created, promoted and supported to restore lost interests. Terrorism in the Middle East is a proxy war in favour of arms companies. This colonial policy is carried out in the shadow of the United States’ endeavours to establish security in the countries of the region, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, and Palestine. In the statements of the Supreme Leader about the approach of the Islamic Revolution to terrorism, we read: “We have cooperated with those people who fought against terrorism in our country and Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. We helped them and we will continue to do that. We are opposed to terrorism. The most dangerous and vicious terrorists in the region are the Zionists. We are faced with and opposed to the Zionists. They say Iran supports terrorism. It is you who support terrorism! It is America that supports the terrorist Zionist regime. It is America that created Daesh. You supported those terrorists in Syria who kill people, burn individuals alive, tear open a dead man’s chest and pull out and sink their teeth into hearts. It was you who supported such terrorists. It was you who encouraged them.”
From the point of view of the Islamic Republic, terrorism has different levels, namely local, regional and international. The modern terrorism led by Daesh is international terrorism that is aimed at overthrowing governments, promoting Islamophobia and dominating the Islamic world. The current terrorism, from the perspective of the Islamic Republic, especially in the view of the Supreme Leader, is waging a “proxy war.” Moreover, the terrorist groups seek to carry out punitive actions against the Islamic World and the Islamic Revolution on behalf of the West and the United States
Today, confronting the aggression of Daesh is rooted in the discourse of the Revolution, and the Islamic Republic not only does so by providing financial support and manpower but also has sought to pursue this policy regarding the Islamic World and the Islamic Resistance Axis. Ayatollah Khamenei states: “We support the oppressed as much as we can. We support them within the scope of our capabilities because it is our responsibility to do so.”
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 Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments