.jpg)
By Ali Aziz:
America inherited global leadership from Britain at the dawn of the 20th century, a position cemented during World War II. Then, the world began to divide into two camps: the liberal capitalist bloc led by America and the communist socialist bloc led by the Soviet Union. However, Soviet communist influence was mainly limited to military and ideological power. At the same time, American leadership was comprehensive, covering social, commercial, economic, media, scientific, and intellectual influence, alongside military and ideological dominance. The lifestyle that emerged from the rise of the socialist bloc was not compelling enough for the world’s populations to adopt, as the people of the Soviet Union endured extreme poverty, suppression of freedom, and widespread backwardness. This disparity fostered a natural division between the two blocs in the eyes of the world’s peoples. In other words, the superiority of Western civilisation became undeniable and unrivalled. Since the collapse of the socialist bloc in 1990, it has become clear that the world’s peoples are gravitating towards liberalism, free markets, democratic transfers of power, and social models that emulate the Western way of life. This trend is now evident, with many embracing liberalism as a way of life, as described by the Australian academic Alexander Lefebvre.
However, several regions around the world have opposed this shift and Western dominance, instead retreating to strengthen their own power bases by all available means. This reinforcement has often been limited to military and ideological spheres, a spontaneous echo of the socialist bloc’s experience of prioritising military force and ideological mobilisation. The Islamic movement, in its two forms—Shia, led by Iran, and Sunni, led by Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood-represents one of these regions that has sought to challenge the Western world. However, the Islamic movement has not only failed to offer an alternative model to Western civilisation but has also become a scourge and a disaster for Muslims, severely damaging the global image of Islam. Nonetheless, Iran, as a centre of Shi’ism and for many historical and geopolitical reasons, has managed to exploit numerous contradictions and paradoxes in global politics, especially those where the United States held the final say, such as the wars in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, the fight against ISIS in 2014, and other events that have destabilised the Middle East. In most of these cases, when major conflicts occurred that caused radical shifts in the political, economic, military, and social fabric of the Middle East, Iran benefited significantly, leading to a substantial increase in its military power and the expansion of its influence across many countries, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and, to some degree, the Gulf states, especially Qatar.
The question remains: how did Iran manage to turn US policy to its advantage, despite their ongoing conflict, where Iran denounced America as the Great Satan, while the US consistently called Iran part of the “axis of evil”? Since the end of World War II, American policy in the Middle East has largely been driven by economic and financial interests, often ignoring Western civilisational values. This intense focus on immediate gains, coupled with a conscious neglect of higher civilisational principles, has fostered a negative image of America as employing outright Machiavellian tactics, disregarding alliances and treaties, and appearing unreliable and untrustworthy. This view has been reinforced among regional and global populations through the US administration’s frequent statements and actions. One notable example is the Kurdish people, victims of the Sykes-Picot Agreement at the beginning of the 20th century. They have made immense sacrifices for freedom and continue to struggle against Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. America supported the Shah of Iran, ignoring the injustices faced by the Kurdish people there. However, during the 1960s and 70s, both America and the Shah backed the Kurdish movement in Iraq against Iraq, aiming to weaken it for Israel’s benefit during the Arab-Israeli conflict and for Iran’s interests in its conflict with Iraq. Once their goals were achieved, they abandoned the Kurds in Iraq in 1975, when the Kurds faced a significant setback after Iran and Iraq signed the Algiers Agreement. When Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State, was asked about the moral responsibilities of the US, he replied, “Politics is not charity.” Nearly four decades later, John Kerry, then Secretary of State under Obama, echoed this pattern when he opposed the Kurdistan Region’s referendum in 2014, following the fall of Arab cities in Iraq to ISIS. The US justified its opposition by arguing that the referendum could be held after ISIS’s defeat. In 2017, when America declared ISIS defeated, the Kurdistan Region held a referendum. Still, the US opposed it and, alongside Britain, deliberately took the oil-rich city of Kirkuk from the Kurds and handed it over to Iran under the leadership of General Qassem Soleimani.
Since 1979 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the United States has shown little willingness to support the Iranian opposition, particularly the Kurdish opposition. This has allowed the Iranian regime significant freedom of movement, enabling it to strengthen its military and economic position. American policy in such situations has been based on the belief that Shiites are a minority in the Islamic world, led by Iran. Therefore, maintaining this minority’s strength is seen as essential to counter the Sunni majority and pressure it into accepting American policies. These policies, which were unprecedentedly blatant under Donald Trump, included compelling Gulf states to pay enormous sums of money, the likes of which they had never seen before, in a publicly humiliating manner. These policies have delivered short-term benefits for the United States on several occasions, such as Iran’s cooperation with the US against Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, ISIS in 2014, and Iraqi Kurdistan in 2017. However, all of this has come at the expense of broader strategic interests, which should transcend temporary gains. What we see today, a perilous situation in the Strait of Hormuz, and the Iranian regime’s refusal to surrender despite intense attacks, is a consequence of American policies in the Middle East since 1990. These policies have favoured maintaining a strong Iran to serve American interests in the region. Due to the immense pressures of capitalism (to use a Marxist term) and the financial crises that have plagued America, most notably in 2008, preserving a strong regime in Tehran appeared to be the most effective way to sustain American hegemony, especially in the Arab Gulf states, as well as the financial gains involved. Yet, at the same time, Iran’s power has grown, supported by China, Russia, and North Korea. It has managed to build a substantial military arsenal, capable of harming Israel and allied countries in the region. Today, Iran has even inflicted damage on the global economy. While the Iranian regime remains ideologically rigid and terrorist in nature, much of its strength results from America’s complacency towards Iran’s expanding influence over the past three decades and its failure to support the Iranian people in resisting this intransigent regime.Had America supported oppressed groups within Iran, such as the Kurds, Baloch, and Ahwazis, and supplied them with deterrent arms like missiles, Iran’s regime would not remain so powerful, capable of harming Israel, regional allies, and severely impacting the global economy. Therefore, returning to Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of international relations and prioritising universal values such as freedom and human rights is essential to reshaping American policies, particularly as the United States remains the world’s superpower. Such a shift requires major reforms that prioritise Western values over immediate interests. This urgency is critical before the balance of power shifts further, because Western liberal civilisation still holds its appeal and evidence, with no better alternative, at least in our current context.
