The Zionist Regime and the Challenges Facing the Liberal School in International Relations: Strategic Imperatives for the Islamic Republic of Iran

The conduct of the Zionist regime over the past two years—culminating in its attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran between June 12 and June 23, 2024—can be regarded as a major challenge to the liberal school of thought in the field of international relations. Despite the regime’s discursive self-presentation as committed to the principles of institutional liberalism, the available evidence and data clearly demonstrate that it not
only lacks genuine adherence to the foundations of liberalism but, in practice, operates according to the logic of classical realism.On the other hand, the international institutions and organizations that emerged from the paradigm of institutional liberalism have not only failed to contain the crises precipitated by the Zionist regime’s actions but have, through their demonstrated ineffectiveness, actually reinforced an instrumentalist perception of these bodies. This view holds that such organizations ultimately serve the interests of the core powers—in Wallerstein’s terminology—and, in particular, those of the Zionist regime itself. This study, by focusing on the foundational principles of liberalism and realism in international relations and comparing them with the actual conduct of the Zionist regime over the past two years, concludes that liberalism in international relations has effectively lost its efficacy. In practice, the Zionist regime, the United States, and Western governments follow the logic of realism, while employing liberal discourse merely as a su Wallerstein perficial legitimizing tool and a means of deceiving Third World countries. Consequently, one can distinguish between two distinct types of policy pursued by major powers: a declared policy grounded in a liberal approach and an operational policy rooted in classical realism. In such circumstances, and in accordance with the principles and teachings of the Quran, the strategic posture of the Islamic Republic of Iran must be organized around the maximum strengthening of national power. The fundamental difference between the Western (and Zionist) realist conception of power and the concept of power in the worldview of the Islamic Republic lies in the following: in the Western approach, power is inherently aggressive and domineering, defined by the objective of domination and subjugation. In Islamic thought, by contrast, maximum power is sought exclusively for the purposes of defense and deterrence. Moreover, from an Islamic perspective, “others” are divided into two categories: opponents and enemies. Opponents are those who do not accept our doctrines and viewpoints yet conduct their interactions on the basis of peaceful coexistence. Far from having cause to fear the power of the Islamic Republic, such opponents should regard it as a source of their own security. Enemies, however, are those who seize every opportunity to inflict harm upon the Islamic community. The only effective means of preventing their aggression is to instill in them a profound dread of superior power.