HOME  >>  HOME >> تیتر یک
Publish Date: 29 September 2016 - 12:24  ,  
News ID: 1123
TEHRAN (Basirat)- Metaphors used by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in his remarks on the occasion of the first anniversary of the deadly Mina incident reflected epistemological and ontological factors of the Takfiri groups and Wahhabi affiliates’ ideological confrontation with Iran’s policy and resistance identity. Orientation of the Leader’s speech towards this issue showed that such a conflict could bring about serious repercussions for Iran’s ideological and regional objectives. Under such a circumstance, Iran has no choice but to reproduce its power of identity in the resistancegeopolitics.
A Discourse Analysis of Ideological Conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia

Metaphors used by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in his remarks on the occasion of the first anniversary of the deadly Mina incident reflected epistemological and ontological factors of the Takfiri groups and Wahhabi affiliates’ ideological confrontation with Iran’s policy and resistance identity. Orientation of the Leader’s speech towards this issue showed that such a conflict could bring about serious repercussions for Iran’s ideological and regional objectives. Under such a circumstance, Iran has no choice but to reproduce its power of identity in the resistancegeopolitics.


By Dr. Ibrahim Motaghi

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei’s recent comments on the occasion of the first anniversary of the deadly crush of people during the last year's Hajj rituals in Mina, Saudi Arabia, can be interpreted based on a semiotic approach towards discourse. Interpreting messages in terms of signs can be considered as a reflection of publicized strategic realities of countries’ political relations and identity models of action. Every cue has a reference upon which concepts and models of action are focused. Therefore, each cue has a semantic and content framework which its function is interpreted in accordance with psychological, social, structural and identity reference components.
 
Every political message can have diplomatic and strategic consequences. The comments made by Ayatollah Khamenei show that the discourse conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia has not only reduced but also escalated based on verbal cues. The verbal signs have a Contractual nature and serve as a country’s fundamental needs. The Leader’s message on the deadly Mina crush of people contained "holy signs” which reflected divine messages and implications. These holy signs indicate that the discourse gap is growing. 

Expressing such discourse framework conveys this meaning that differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia are widening and turning from a political status into an identity and ideological one. Every discourse cue has two separate sections aimed at clarifying an aim. Thus, it can be stressed that the discourse cues of the Leader’s speech are made up of two relevant parts, namely "reference” and "referent”. In the message, the Mina incident and political conflicts between Iran and Saudi Arabia are referent to Al Saud’s discourse, inherent and identity frameworks. 

From a semiotic perspective, the Leader’s remarks implied an ideological and geopolitical rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Such concepts and behavioral patterns have their roots in identity cues and regional players’ understanding of balance of power. The origins of such a comprehension may go back to historical era when signs of distinctive identity in relations of Iran and the Arab world states were formed and now are making their impacts on the balance of power and regional geopolitics.
The balance of power is regarded as part of the regional players’ political concerns. This is while whenever new signs of identitism emerge, a bond between power and identity will create the required ground for a structural conflict. That is why one can witness new models of strategic action against Iran emerging as a result of a link between signs of balance of power and conflict of identity. In this process, Saudi Arabia is considered the main axis for leading a "structural confrontation” with Iran in the 21st century.

1: Ideological signs of Ayatollah Khamenei’s discourse on Saudi Arabia

In the years after the Cold War, the issue of identity has played a determining role in the rivalry between political and international groups. Today, Takfiri and Salafi groups are regarded as Iranian resistance ideology’s anti-discourse in Western Asia. House of Al Saud, which has gained political meaning and ideological emergence through having bond with Wahhabsim in the Arabian Peninsula, has been the main supporter of such groups which reproduceterrorist ideology. from 2006 to 2016, Saudi authorities made use of Wahhabi ideology as a restrictive measure against Iran in order to consolidate their position in the region.
Political and militant forces are created by the Saudi regime and the Wahhabi ideology to counter Iran’s strategic capability. In this process, al-Qaeda and Daesh terrorist groups managed to reflect signs of a turbulent environment and security crisis in South East Asia. Creation of Takfiri terrorism can be regarded as a realization of Riyadh’s exploitation of the identity components of Wahhabi ideology stressed by the Leader in his message.

A significant portion of Saudi diplomatic efforts aimed at containing Iran’s growing influence is based on social mobilizing of identity groups. Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic and intelligence centers in the entire region are trying to organize and mobilize social groups against the Islamic Republic. In this process, identity elements have played an effective and determining role in line with facilitating Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic moves in the region. Identity plays a major, effective, and decisive role in security equations in the Middle East region. The Royal family in Saudi Arabia is trying to incite other countries in Western Asia to close ranks against Iran through the Balance of Threat (BoT). One part of the BoT is based on identity configurations and the other partis caused due to regional and national interests of those players which Saudi Arabia uses their tactical and operational tools to contain Iran.

The Leader highlighted in his comments that Riyadh’s role in a proxy war against Iran and the Resistance Front is developed based on the framework of the West’s strategic model. The ongoing identity rivalries in the Middle East have affected the process of change of power equation. The Takfiri and Salafi groups’ ideological and activism signs are based on the concept of violence in order to change power equation and identity in the region. Wahhabi groups are the main axis of strategic and identity terrorism in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia’s conventional support for Wahhabism in different parts of the world, particularly the Muslim and Arab world, has given impetus to Takfiris and fundamental groups, including al-Qaeda and Daesh. 

2. Geopolitical signs of Ayatollah Khamenei’s discourse on Saudi Arabia

Wahhabi ideology reflects only part of the realities of Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical rivalry with Iran in the region. The Saudi kingdom is seeking to use military, security, diplomatic, cultural and strategic models in confrontation with Iran’s regional position. Riyadh’s main purpose is to marginalize Iran’s power and erode strategic and geopolitical capabilities of the Islamic Republic. To that end, the Saudis are using a wide range of intelligence, security and diplomatic tactics. This shows that the regime has started an all-out conflict against Iran in the framework of a proxy and asymmetric war.

In addition to its diplomatic war of words as well as soft war against Iran, the regime is using proxy war mechanism against Iran with the help of identity groups. The ideological fundamentals of Takfiri groups provide a motive for the terrorists’ action against the Resistance Front. So far, IranianForeign Ministry’s diplomatic efforts for building trust between the two countries and managing the ongoing regional crises have been futile. Its reason can be traced back to Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic action, security, identity, and culture models. The Middle East’s future crisis will be a reflection of terrorist groups’ movements which enjoy operating in different geographical areas. In this process, Wahhabi-Salafi terrorism has expanded security crisis into other regional states. Creation of Daesh can be considered as part of "Anti- Resistance Discourse” strategy in the Middle East and Western Asia. This strategy is devised by certain Western-backed regional players. The main reason behind increasing the power of Daeshagainst the government of Bashar Assad should be regarded as a strategic attempt to limit Iran’s geopolitical power. The" anti-resistance discourse" is organized by the Saudi regime based on signs related to Salafi identitism of Takfiri groups.

In order to control the regional environment, the West and Saudi Arabia are trying to pave the ground required for crisis management in the region. Combating terrorism requires strategic, ideological and identity solidarity. In the process of confronting Iran’s regional role, Riyadh is trying to form security coalitions and benefit from them against the resistance geopolitics. In fact, the use of such a model shows that the kingdom is playing its role in the strategic framework of the US and Zionist regime.

Conclusion:

Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical and identity confrontation with Iran can be considered as part of the strategic model of Wahhabism and other Takfiri affiliates in line with limiting Iran’s regional power. In fact, Iran’s major role as the axis of the Resistance Front in the region has paved the way for a coalition between Saudi Arabia, conservative Arab regimes, the Zionist regime, and the West in confrontation with the Resistance Front. The message by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khamenei was a discourse reaction to Saudi Arabia’s political and ideological behaviors aimed at integrating the Arab and Islamic world’s power and confronting Iran’s ideology, identity and politics in the region.

Metaphors used by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in his remarks on the occasion of the first anniversary of the deadly Mina incident reflected epistemological and ontological factors of the Takfiri groups and Wahhabi affiliates’ ideological confrontation with Iran’s policy and resistance identity. Orientation of the Leader’s speech towards this issue showed that such a conflict could bring about serious repercussions for Iran’s ideological and regional objectives. Under such a circumstance, Iran has no choice but to reproduce its power of identity in the resistance geopolitics.

Name:
Email:
* Comment:
* Security Code:
Chaptcha
Enter the The letters that you see in the picture exactly in the opposite field
Most Visited
Send Newsletter
To subscribe to our newsletter enter your email.