بررسی تطبیقی رویکرد جمهوری اسلامی ایران و آمریکا در مواجهه با قیام‌های عربی

Following the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979 and the occupation of the United States Embassy in particular, Iran, and the United States emerged as primary rivals in the international system, particularly in West Asia. After the withdrawal of England in the 1970s, the United States and Iran sought to counterbalance each other's influence in the region. During the 2010s, the Arab uprisings posed a complex challenge to the foreign policy apparatuses of both countries, adding several variables to the ongoing political and historical conflict between the two states. This research aims to explore the differences between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America in their responses to the Arab uprisings. The study employs the conceptual framework of constructivism and uses descriptive and analytical methods to address this query. According to the findings of this study, both states, from a constructivist standpoint, seek to maximize their interests through new regional variables in an intersubjective structural framework. For the Islamic Republic, this intersubjective structure represents the notions of “Islamic awakening,” and “axis of resistance,” and, thus, removing the United States from the region and dismantling the Israeli regime considered the Islamic Republic's primary rival. For the United States, on the other hand, it denotes “democracy and secularism,” thus the prevention of “religious fundamentalism and terrorism” and “revolutions akin to Iran's Islamic Revolution.”

Introduction

The series of Arab uprisings, also known as the Arab Spring or the so-called Islamic awakening in Iranian political culture, was a chain of anti-government protests, uprisings, and armed rebellions that swept across many Arab countries in the early 2010s. In this context, two states played critical roles: Iran, due to its proximity to these developments, and the United States, due to its strong presence in the region. The "Islamic Awakening" notion was Iran's most significant attempt to identify these uprisings. Moreover, it interpreted them as movements that could potentially align with Iran's ideological positions and regional demands. According to the constructivist approach of this research, a state's discursive, cultural, and ideological positions have an impact on its foreign policy when confronted with international phenomena. By contrast, the United States' approach was marked by more cautious and varied reactions, driven by its strategic interests in the region, including the stability of the allied states and concern about the emergence of extremist and terrorist groups. The United States supported movements in these uprisings that appeared to align with its democratic values. Nevertheless, its overall position was complicated by the need to strike a balance between democracy promotion and geopolitical interests. As a result, this article employs a comparative method and draws on library documents to answer one primary question: what distinguishes the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America when confronting the Arab uprisings from an identity and normative perspective?

Theoretical Framework

Using the constructivist theoretical framework, this article attempts to answer the research question raised in the introduction. Constructivism is recognized as a novel approach in political science, particularly in international relations. Indeed, this approach offered new insights to experts in the field, allowing researchers to break free from the dominant assumptions of traditional approaches such as realism.

Methodology

This article employs a comparative approach, attempting to contrast the existing structures and sub-elements of the two states under investigation in their response to these uprisings using the components provided by the constructivist theoretical framework.

Results and Discussion

In response to the Arab uprisings of 2010, the Islamic Republic of Iran adopted a discourse of resistance and Islamic revolution. Thus, the Islamic Republic established a basic identity notion known as the "Islamic Awakening." This phenomenon represented a reclaiming of the true spirit of Islam as a result of disappointment with authoritarian states' modernization projects and the failure of their structural reforms. The failure of these projects increased Islamist groups' motivation and desire for alternative solutions. Iran's foreign policy is based on a set of principles and foundations that guide the country's behavior and actions on the global stage. As for the United States, it should be noted that the country is at the top of the international power hierarchy. The principles and norms supported by the US, namely liberalism and the spread of democracy, are at the forefront of global norms. According to construction theory, the United States of America was one of the key players in regional development during the Arab uprisings. The US's approach to this phenomenon should be viewed through the lens of its West Asian security concerns. As an agent, this country has actively participated in the maintenance or change of regional structures and institutions. These effects have been achieved by supporting or influencing various decisions in regional countries via public diplomacy, managed power transfer, humanitarian interventions, or election management. As the Arab uprisings began, the notion of "Islamic Awakening" emerged in Iran's ideological, political, and even press spheres so as to identify them. Iran sought to increase its Middle Eastern influence by supporting these uprisings. At a different juncture in the narrative, the United States attempted to project an image of support for the Arab uprisings and their ideals by redefining its own identity in West Asia. This opposed the fact that in the years following the 9/11 attacks, Washington attempted to tighten the arena on terrorist and extremist groups, as well as the Islamic Republic's influence, by supporting authoritarian and traditional Arab powers. On this occasion, however, the United States entered via a different pathway; rather than expelling Islamist parties and organizations from positions of authority, it attempted to integrate them into the center of political power in an effort to impede their progression toward extremism or diminish their desire to be close to the Islamic Republic.

Conclusions and Suggestions

The main difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran's and the United States' approaches to the Arab uprisings lies in their underlying motivations and perceptions of outcomes. Iran saw these uprisings as an opportunity to change the regional order, allowing it to reduce the influence of its rivals while increasing its strategic depth. On the other hand, the United States faced the challenge of supporting democratic ideals while also managing potential threats, such as those of extremist and terrorist groups, to its interests and allies, which resulted in a more cautious and sometimes contradictory approach. Furthermore, the United States placed greater emphasis on the democratic and human rights dimensions of the Arab uprisings, in contrast to Iran's portrayal of them as an Islamic awakening. These distinctions highlight the intricate interplay of ideology, strategic interests, and regional dynamics that shaped Iran's and the US's reactions to the Arab uprisings.
.