Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has often been seen as an outlier in the Middle East for Western states. Media coverage and politicians have often treated the government of Iran with significant suspicion and cooperation has rarely been discussed. Likewise, the Western discourse has often associated Iran with being an irrationally religious fundamentalist state. However, the Western lens which Iran is seen through can be seen as problematic, as it is often based on deep-rooted Orientalist beliefs which create a narrative of an Iran-West rivalry that in the end does more damage than good. As we will see in this article, the discourse about Iran can be analysed through a postcolonial framework which will give a different view of the relationship between Iran and the West.
Understanding Postcolonial Theory
Postcolonial theory in international relations draws from already existing critical works of literature like Marxism, postmodernism and feminism, especially how these theories focus on aspects like race, gender and class regarding power. Understanding power through these different lenses leads to different kinds of questions and answers than other theoretical frameworks in IR such as neorealism and neoliberalism give, and causes alternative critiques of hierarchies and power relations in international relations. Postcolonial theory argues that imperialism constitutes a critical historical aspect of international relations, and postcolonial countries’ identities are constructed in opposition to Western identities, so we find ourselves in a world where the imperialist project has shaped and influenced the postcolonial world as well as the West. Furthermore, postcolonial literature addresses important concerns like the impact of colonial practices on the shaping of identity, relationships between the global economy, capital and power, and the dynamics between race, gender and class with understanding the domination and resistance of states. The study of power in IR is central to understanding and organising the knowledge in the discipline, and is closely linked up with understanding the state, sovereignty, anarchy and order in mainstream IR theory frameworks. By studying other major schools of thought’s view of power, we can better situate postcolonial contributions to the study of power.
Both realism and neo-realism focus on the anarchic state system and the rational, self-interested actors as key when analysing power relations in international relations. However, a problem that shows in this school of thought which others have critiqued it for, is its hierarchy, not anarchy, as well as a Eurocentric understanding of rationality that penetrates realists' view of international relations. Given realism's problematic assumptions about power and anarchy, post-colonialists argue that it is important to place IR in a political, historical, economic and social context. No less in the neo-liberal view of economic interdependence and a world with multiple actors, including non-state actors, states remain the central aspect of analysis in power relations. Both realists and liberalists subscribe to the idea of states being the most important actors.
Postcolonial is a contested term, that originates from a variety of fields and theories, and its interdisciplinary origins have problematised its development into a uniform understanding of the field. Chowdhry and Nair argue that the term postcolonial does not signify an end to colonialism, but rather the continuity and continued persistence of the practices of colonialism. They argue that this school of thought is relevant in IR because it gives insight into how imperial history continues to affect contemporary relations of power, hierarchy and domination in the international system.
The global voices in the dialogue of international relations are perhaps not so global after all. In most cases, IR remains a discipline mainly for the rich West, about the rich West, and little attention is paid to the majority of the world population living in the developing South. Recognizing this Eurocentric view of most mainstream IR schools of thought is precisely the basis of postcolonial IR theory. Postcolonialism argues that the way major theories like realism and liberalism interpret international relations and affairs are deeply grounded in Western experiences. Postcolonial theorists place the South and “subaltern” at the centre of analysis, while at the same time uncovering and changing the power relationships that make up today’s Western-dominated world order. Postcolonial theory encourages a refocusing of IR away from traditional state-centric, military and diplomacy focused IR, towards a focus on people, identity and resistance.
Postcolonialism has close links with the “post-positivist” turn in IR, specifically with poststructuralism and postmodernism, mainly grounded in its dissatisfaction with the status quo mainstream IR theories and its heavy focus on superpower politics, the balance of power and state centrism. Wanting to focus on the developing South and marginalised peoples, identity and culture, race and gender, and the continuation of colonial aspects of understanding global politics, post-colonialism criticises the “common sense” understandings of the social world as grounded in the Western perspective. Furthermore, postcolonialism is closely linked to Marxist theory and its tradition of criticism, and methodologies by combining the traditional materialist view with detailed effects of oppression. Postcolonialism also draws on feminist theory by sharing a commitment to end gendered oppression, and by drawing attention to different experiences of women in the developing South, while also recognizing the need for gender solidarity and international links for women’s political struggle. Possibly the most important source of information comes from the anticolonial writings of Third World intellectuals like Frantz Fanon, Mahatma Gandhi and possibly even Iranian scholar Ali Shariati. Criticising how practices of colonial powers undermined the very ideals of liberty, equality and human rights respect that European countries claimed to uphold and respect, these early voices of the South are invoked to illustrate the endurance of the postcolonial structures.
Postcolonialism views important issues in international relations as based on discourses of power. It highlights the impact that imperial history still has on shaping a “colonial” way of thinking about the world and how the Western world still marginalises the global South through its forms of knowledge and power. It questions how some countries exercise so much power over others, and how wealth inequality is so transparent in the world economic system. To exemplify this, take the issues of global inequality. Postcolonialism argues that to address and find solutions to global inequality, Western policymakers must discard their biases and accept that there are underlying structural factors like the allocation and flow of resources that are generating the global inequality.
Postcolonialism proposes a more complex view of concepts in traditional international relations theories, such as sovereignty and the modern state, which was imposed on the colonial world by European powers. The history and implications of this concept are usually taken for granted by realists and liberalists. Postcolonialism even challenges Marxist theory, in that it argues that race, not class struggle, is the root of and shapes historical change. Marxism fails to consider the way the West identifies the “Third World” as “backward, or “primitive” and how this is linked to economic marginalization. Also, while mainstream IR theories see the international system as anarchic, postcolonial theorists see it as hierarchical, through centuries of imperialism and continued domination of the West over the rest of the world, it lingers still in the postcolonial world. Cultural, economic and political domination by the West still clearly characterizes the modern world and global politics.
The History of Iranian-Western Relations
Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the Iran-Iraq war, a lot of Western media have associated the country with an irrationally religious fundamentalist actor. The country was the second-largest oil exporter in the world before an international embargo was put on the country in 2012. Iran’s geopolitical position as a crossroads between Asia, the Middle East and Europe has made it a key actor historically and in modern times. However, because of this Iran is deeply dependent on its foreign relations. Special attention is paid to Iran’s modern relations with the West, as these relations have shaped Iran’s foreign policy to a high degree. Especially its relations with the United States have substantially influenced Iranian politics.
Even when Iran was never formally colonised by any imperialist power, looking at Iranian modern history one can see the western powers’ imperialistic tendencies towards the country. To understand Iran and why postcolonial theory is relevant to its relations with the West, it is important to historically discern what western powers’ interests and agendas were in Iran. During the century before World War 2, the two European power who were competing for control in Iran were Great Britain and Russia. And while Iran was never formally colonized, the two countries split up Iran into three zones of influence; one British, one Russian and one neutral zone.
Any anti-imperialist attempts at “taming internal despotism and initiating political reforms” such as the 1906 Constitutional Revolution were crippled by the Russians and the British who wanted to stay in control and were worried about their interests in Iran. During both World Wars the Anglo-Russian, and later Anglo-Soviet, the occupation continued and they even abdicated the pro-German Shah Reza Pahlavi during the Second World War. However, the most important development happened after the war when the United States developed interests and imperialist interventions in Iranian internal affairs. The elected prime minister at the time after WW2, Mohammed Mosaddeq, wanted to nationalise the Iranian oil industry in 1951 and take control away from British, American and Soviet control, denouncing them as “economic imperialists”. These states’ interests in Iran were therefore endangered by the prime minister, leading to Mosaddeq’s government being overthrown by a joint British and American coup d’état in 1953, disguising their intentions as saving Iran from Soviet communist control. But in reality, this was Western imperial powers protecting their economic interests in the country by putting in a puppet dictator that would cooperate with American and British interests.
The Iranian Revolution and a Change of Iran-West Relations
Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was thus put into power, and the United States had secured their economic and political interests in Iran until the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The concessions that the shah made to regain his authority led to Iran looking more and more like a colony of the Western powers. The dismay in the population grew over two decades, and the iron fist which the shah ruled with, helped generate an increasingly anti-imperialist sentiment in Iran, with many movements leading up to the revolution being characterized as deeply anti-American. The anti-Western and anti-American sentiment Iran saw in the Islamic Revolution has deeply affected the post-revolution government’s strategic foreign policy. Many Iranians, especially in the government, believe that Iran’s place as a regional hegemon in the Middle East has been disrupted and compromised by American involvement in its internal affairs, which is a justification for Tehran to use an assertive foreign policy. Iran’s distrust of Western powers can be explained through its historical relations with the West as well as postcolonial structures in the global society. With the revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini taking power in Iran, the state fundamentally changed and shifted its foreign policy in a completely different direction than the shah’s government.
No longer was Iran to be a puppet oil state for the United States to use for its gain. However, the global structures that post-revolution Iran found itself in would eventually lead the country to become incredibly isolated from the global economy. The Iranian government would get punished by the Bush administration, pushing harsh anti-Iran measures through sanctions, as well as branding the country a terrorist state in the “axis of evil” along with the countries of North Korea and Iraq. 9/11 changed much of the positive developments Iran-West had seen during Khatami’s presidency, and a feeling of insecurity in Iran was suddenly felt overnight. When there suddenly was an immense presence of American troops in both neighbours Iraq and Afghanistan, Tehran concluded the only logical political decision-making should come from conservative hawks preaching fear and security.
Iran-West Relations Through a Postcolonial Lens
Since 1979, Tehran’s influence internationally has been bleak, as Iran has faced relentless efforts by Washington to isolate the country diplomatically and economically. Several rounds of international sanctions by the US have had a significant impact on the Iranian economy and further isolated the state. More often than not, the governments of China, India and Russia have only backed Iran when it has suited their diplomatic or economic interests and often end up leaving Iran out in the cold. This incredibly heavy isolation that Iran feels has been a large part of forming its foreign policy towards the West, and also the world as a whole. Continuing isolation and strategic loneliness have shaped Tehran’s outlook on the region.
For example, the anti-imperialist philosophies of Khomeini during the Islamic Revolution led to Iran abandoning the pro-Western stance and adopting a foreign policy that attempted to unite Islam, Third Worldism and anti-imperialism under one banner. Because of this policy- and paradigm shift, Tehran supported several liberations- and opposition movements in the Middle East and North Africa during the 1980s. These movements included close neighbours such as Kurdish groups in Iraq and Turkey, Islamic Jihad in Palestine and more significantly Hezbollah in Lebanon. This foreign policy strategy was controversial and threatening to Iran’s neighbours to this day, as Tehran’s broader involvement in the Middle East had not happened for a long time. Specifically, Saudi Arabia saw the involvement of Iran in Middle Eastern geopolitics as a direct threat, and many call the feuds between these two states the Cold War of the Middle East. This shows the world view of the Khomeini regime during its early years, and this postcolonial lens would continue into the 21st century as well.
The postcolonial theoretical framework demonstrates how the Western states view Islam, and more specifically political Islam, and how these views are a manifestation of its insecurities. The rise of political Islam across the Muslim world started with the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 and confronted the neo-imperialist aspects of the postcolonial world. As I have written about in this paper, Western powers have been especially active in Iran during the 20th century, from the British and Russians' de facto control of Iran’s oil sector and involving themselves in the country’s internal affairs to a coup d’état staged by the United States to put in a puppet leader. Even though the country was never formally colonized, Western powers had deep neo-imperialist tendencies towards Iran. These deeply shaped Iranian scholars’-, religious leaders’- and politicians’ anti-imperialist arguments that ultimately lead to the anti-Western discourse and confrontation that we saw during the Revolution and subsequent political system of Iran.
By revealing and confronting the neo-imperialist interventions of the West, the Islamic world showed the impact of cultural and social shifts in an increasingly interconnected global economy. The interpretations and discourse in the West of this resurgence, however, were entirely different, where prominent academics were announcing a future where civilizations would clash, or where these countries would constitute a direct threat to Western civilization. Edward Said argued that Western media, academia and political elite often frame a distorted picture when describing and understanding the history, culture and religion of people of the Islamic world. This distorted picture, being framed as “the Orient” that was distinguished from the West in its inhabitants’ characteristics essentially being the opposite of the Western people. People of the Orient (“The East” and the Middle East) were imposed negatively charged attributes by the West, while the people of the Western world often had more positive attributes associated with themselves. Orientalist discourse is still visible in Western representations of the Middle East region.
Racial Othering and Iranian Regional Insecurity
Postcolonialism brings focus on how different races are constructed as a “different”, “opposite”, or “other”, i.e., racialised othering, and how this aspect continues after colonial rule and into the postcolonial age. Racialised othering is framed in debates of nuclear politics, nationalism, national security, immigration and many more. Possibly the most relevant discourse in this paper is that of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The general framing of nuclear non-proliferation is that countries and the governments of the Global South are deemed not to be trusted with nuclear weapons, as these countries are often constructed as dangerous, unpredictable or non-accountable, and continuously breaking human rights norms.
Iran’s pursuit of nuclear proliferation can in many ways be seen as a reaction to the history it has with the West, as well as the current geopolitical picture in the Middle East. As discussed earlier, Iran’s history with Western countries gives it little reason to trust Western countries’ intentions, especially when we understand the Iranian Revolution as a reaction to Western, and especially the US, involvement in Iran’s internal affairs. Furthermore, Iran has more enemies than friends in the Middle East, and bordering countries of Afghanistan and Iraq have had a significant Western military presence.
Iranian government feeds on the insecurity of one day being destroyed by external forces, basing the claim on the discourse of Israeli and American leaders, for example when Bush named Iran in the “axis of evil”. Khomeini cancelled Iran’s nuclear program for a while after taking power, only to restart it after Saddam invaded Iran, thus deterring other countries and preventing another war is high on the list of reasons for the country having nuclear weapons. As Iran sees itself, and is in many ways, isolated from the world, and sees the Middle East largely against itself, they naturally would want nuclear deterrence (Fisher, 2015). Iran has had an adversarial relationship with the United States since the Islamic Revolution, and two US allies in the region – Israel and Pakistan – are already nuclear powers. Furthermore, the Bush- and Obama administrations had hinted at possible “military” operations to prevent the nuclearization of Iran. However, the Western narrative has been of an irrational Iran that is uncertain and weak, trying to assert its authority and project its power. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons has only ended in the Western portrayal of Iran as a rogue state that is only trying to fortify a national identity in an attempt to divert away attention from all its domestic issues and tip the regional balance of power scales in its favour.
The Western Narrative about the Iranian Nuclear Negotiations
Western countries disregarded the human rights abuses that are involved in uranium mining since it often takes place on indigenous peoples’ land, which in turn has caused sickness, death and irreversible environmental damage. Furthermore, what is often not mentioned in debates is that the United States is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in a war. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that some states can be better trusted with nuclear weapons on the basis that they are less developed, put less importance on human life or act less rational, as this would fall into the category of racialised discourse. Through postcolonial theory one can ask who is determining which countries to trust – and why, and in the case of Iran and nuclear proliferation, the Western discourse and narratives dominate the discussion.
The narrative of the West has been that the real danger that the nuclearization of Iran poses is to the international community and how it can suffer many consequences if Iran possesses nuclear weapons, which has been expressed in different ways. First of all, the argument from the West is that Iran is an aggressive and ideological country that will wreak nuclear havoc upon its enemies Israel, the US and even Europe. Secondly, irresponsible Iran will, unlike responsible nuclear powers, sell nuclear materials to terrorist organizations. Thirdly, the effects of Iranian nuclearization will be that other regional states will acquire nuclear weapons themselves out of fear of Iran. An important question then is to ask; “who is determining which countries should and should not have nuclear weapons?”, and the answer is usually “the West”.
When asked about Iran and the nuclear deal, US congress members often described a very realist-heavy understanding of the international system: Iran was a “bad actor” that threatened the stability of the system, and there has been much talk of Iran’s “bad behaviour” when figuring out how to approach the country in talks. What made Iran a bad actor that threatened international stability according to Western leaders had deep undertones of Orientalist tropes, i.e., giving Iran the personality trait of “irrational” and “fanatic” or simply “insane”, and making Iran the provoker in an otherwise calm and stable global order. This narrative is used both by politicians and the media to demonize and create a misleading image of Iran.
Nuclearization of Iran vs the “International Community”
Furthermore, media coverage of the nuclear negotiations was often referred to and framed in a way that made it seem like a “clash of civilizations”, with the media discussing it as Iran facing “the West”, the “international community”, or even the “world”, and politicians made it seem like that Iranian nuclearization was the chief concern of the world. Indeed, the media coverage and politicians’ statements in the West made it seem like they were speaking on behalf of the whole world. Specifically, in US coverage of the negotiations, it appeared that it was the West speaking for the “international community”, and inviting Iran to rehabilitate itself and enter “civilization”, once against showing significant undertones of Orientalist thinking.
On the surface, it looked like the Iran nuclear negotiations were a place where two equal parties could meet as partners, UN Permanent 5+1 (Germany) on one side, and Iran on the other. They were meeting as civilizational equals to have a civil dialogue with the goal of coming to a nuclear agreement. However, in reality, it was Iran’s actions and behaviours that were always scrutinized for tactics of deception and manipulation, while the legitimacy of the P5+1 countries during the dialogue was never in question. These discussions were never really equal and mutual to begin with.
Iran came to the negotiating table already extremely crippled by Western powers, through hacking operations and assassinations of nuclear scientists, not to mention strict sanctions imposed by the “international community”. What was, according to Western politicians and the media, “diplomatic outreaching” was in fact brute force exercise of power where Iran simply had no choice but to join the negotiation table. Thus, it is not surprising to see the opinions of Western politicians and media figures that Iran only truly understood the language of force and coercion. A lot of unfair and prejudiced assumptions were made about Iran during the negotiations, like how diplomacy with Iran could only be reached with the threat of force. And through those assumptions, how could any negotiators on Iran’s side ever speak in a language the West was willing to hear? The Orientalist prejudiced view that the Iranian were going to be deceptive, manipulative, unscrupulous “Middle-Easterners” made it nearly impossible for Iran’s side to be heard or understood in the West. The powerful countries make the rules and control the narrative.
It may be that the fears of a nuclear Iran are exaggerated, and it is possible to contain or deter a nuclear Iran. What is certain is that the exaggerated attention Iran received during the negotiations kept the attention away from questions around the reckless and dangerous aggression by countries like the US and Israel, plus P5 members, in the Middle East, with each of those countries being considerably stronger militarily than Iran. These states are also the ones that are recognized as the sole legitimate possessors of nuclear weapons according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, and together own 93% of all the nuclear weapons in the world. Throughout the talks, the narrative was that the P5+1 had “concerns” and “fears” regarding Iran’s nuclear sector, however, there was nearly no discussion of Iran being encircled by hostile powers and US military presence, or that Iran might have legitimate needs for the nuclear energy. Iran was always going to be the “bad actor” that was a threat to the international order during these negotiations.
Conclusion
Postcolonial theory in international relations draws from existing critical works of literature like Marxism, postmodernism and feminism regarding power. Understanding power through these different lenses leads to different kinds of questions and answers than other theoretical frameworks in IR such as neorealism and neoliberalism. Chowdhry and Nair argue that the term postcolonial does not signify an end to colonialism, but rather the continuity and continued persistence of practices of colonialism. Postcolonial theory encourages a refocusing of IR away from state-centric, military and diplomacy focused IR, towards a focus on people, identity and resistance. Postcolonialism has close links with the "post-positivist" turn in IR, specifically with poststructuralism and postmodernism.
The theory criticises how practices of colonial powers undermined the ideals of liberty, equality and human rights respect that European countries claimed to uphold and respect. Postcolonialism argues that race, not class struggle, is the root of and shapes historical change. It highlights the impact imperial history still has on shaping a "colonial" way of thinking about the world. The West still marginalises the global South through its forms of knowledge and power.
Furthermore, Iran's geopolitical position as a crossroads between Asia, the Middle East and Europe has made it a key actor historically and in modern times. Iran was never formally colonised by any imperialist power but its foreign relations with the West have shaped its foreign policy to a high degree. Iran's distrust of Western powers can be explained through its historical relations with the West as well as postcolonial structures in the global society. Many Iranians believe that Iran's place as a regional hegemon in the Middle East has been compromised by American involvement in its internal affairs.
With the postcolonial theory we see how races are constructed as a "different", "opposite", or "other" i.e., racialised othering. Iran's pursuit of nuclear proliferation can be seen as a reaction to the history it has with the West, and the geopolitical picture in the Middle East. Iranian government feeds on the insecurity of one day being destroyed by external forces. As Iran sees itself, and is in many ways, isolated from the world, they naturally would want nuclear deterrence. The Western narrative has been of an irrational Iran that is trying to assert its authority.
Lastly, it is difficult to argue that some states can be better trusted with nuclear weapons on the basis that they are less developed, put less importance on human life or act less rational, as this would fall into the category of racialised discourse. Furthermore, media coverage of the nuclear negotiations was often referred to and framed in a way that made it seem like a “clash of civilizations”. What was, according to Western politicians and the media, "diplomatic outreaching" was in fact brute force exercise of power where Iran had no choice but to join the negotiation table. A lot of unfair and prejudiced assumptions were made about Iran during the negotiations. Iran was always going to be the “bad actor” that was a threat to the international order during these negotiations.
Bibliography
Abrahamsen, R. (2007). Postcolonialism. In M. Griffiths, International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 111-122). New York: Routledge.
Biswas, S. (2018). Iran v ‘the international community: a postcolonial analysis of the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. ASIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 331-351.
Chowdhry, G., & Nair, S. (2002). Introduction: Power in a Postcolonial World. Race, Gender and Class in International Relations. In G. Chowdhry, & S. Nair, Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations. Reading Race, Gender and Class. New York: Routledge.
Fisher, M. (2015, February 25). The real reasons Iran is so committed to its nuclear program. Retrieved from Vox.com: https://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8101383/iran-nuclear-reasons
Ghaderi, F. (2018). Iran and Postcolonial Studies: Its Development and Current Status. International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 455-469.
Juneau, T., & Razavi, S. (2013). Iranian Foreign Policy since 2001. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Nair, S. (2017). Introducing Postcolonialism in International Relations Theory. E-International Relations, 1-5.
Rasmussen, K. B. (2009). The Foreign Policy of Iran: Ideology and Pragmatism in the Islamic Republic. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.
Comments