Resistance Discourse

The subject of resistance mainly brings to mind the "Islamic Resistance Front" in the West Asian region. However, the Resistance Front is only a part of the resistance discourse. The purpose of this article is to explain the theory and experience of the resistance as a discourse. Resistance in the political thought and action of the Supreme Leader is a discourse rooted in the Qur'an, the history of Islam, Iran and especially the first four decades of the Islamic Revolution. According to these religious, historical and political principles, the discourse of resistance is the guiding role of the Islamic Revolution in step The second plays the Islamic Revolution. Resistance is a comprehensive discourse that includes various areas of domestic and foreign policy of the Islamic Republic. In this article, the roots, levels and function of the resistance discourse are explained based on the statements of the Supreme Leader and especially the supreme document of the second step of the Islamic Revolution. The data of this research have been extracted from the first category sources including the statements of the Supreme Leader and the latest sources and have been processed by descriptive-analytical method. Keywords: Resistance Discourse, Second Step Statement, Islamic Revolution, Supreme Leader, Dominance System

One of the key issues in international relations is the emergence of a new global order and the gradual transformation of power structures from a unipolar-multipolar system to a multipolar system. This significant and fundamental shift has driven national and transnational actors, particularly those dissatisfied with the status quo, to actively participate in this process and strive to become influential discourses and active players in the new international system.This article seeks to elucidate the ideal international system from the perspective of Ayatollah Khamenei's resistance discourse and to present his strategies and approaches for achieving the envisioned outcomes in the second phase of the Islamic Revolution. From his perspective, the ideal international system is based on a just global order, democracy, and mutual cooperation, pursuing objectives such as ensuring security, peace, and the prosperity of nations.This system, in particular, emphasizes the principles of dignity, wisdom, and expediency, the authenticity of identity, and the independence of nations. It seeks to fulfill human rights and the rights of nations, achieve unity, and uphold spiritual and divine values.The key endogenous strategies of the resistance discourse include the establishment of a model system, the explanation and teaching of resistance knowledge aligned with human nature, and the implementation of the resistance model in new geographical regions while considering the cultural and indigenous conditions of those areas.Additionally, the exogenous strategies involve strengthening the connections between various centers of resistance and establishing a comprehensive, coordinated system to supervise, guide, and lead all resistance fronts.

Iranian exceptionalism has been a major factor in preventing rapprochement between the US and Iran. There are two major factions within the foreign policy establishment of the Islamic Republic representing “reconciliation discourse” and “resistance discourse”. These two can be seen as sub-discourses within the Islamic Revolution discourse engaged in a struggle over its “correct” interpretation. The reconciliation discourse emphasizes on “prudence”, while the resistance discourse emphasizes upon “conscientiousness”, both signifiers within the Islamic Revolution discourse. Both movements agree that these signifiers exist within the discourse, but they disagree about the primacy and centrality of one over the other. The “reconciliation discourse” seeks development as the main goal of Iran’s foreign policy, and, hence, considers reconciliation with the US to be a precondition to that goal. Its arguments imply that Iran is not an exceptional country. The resistance discourse, on the other hand, is deeply exceptionalist and deems resistance against the US and maximalist independence to be the main objectives of Iran’s foreign policy. This discourse strongly opposes mending ties with the US because such a move would be understood as a threat to Iran’s exceptionalism. These sub-discourses also perceive the US differently; the reconciliation discourse considers US to be dynamic and heterogenous, while the resistance discourse considers US to be unchanging and monolithic, and this disagreement also contributes to their policy toward the US, and this understanding is also closely intertwined with exceptionalism. Overall, the dispute over Iranian exceptionalism has made relationship with the US the main issue of contention within Iranian foreign policy discourses.