A Comparative Analysis of Foundational Concepts in Resistance Theory and Realist, Structuralist, and Post-Structuralist Theories

Authors

1 Scientific Vice President of the Supreme Council for Theory, Criticism and Debate, Faculty Member of the Supreme National Defense University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Doctoral student of National Security, Supreme National Defense University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Political Science, Department of Law, Theology and Islamic Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Golestan University, Golestan, Iran

Abstract

In Shi'a political jurisprudence, resistance - modeled after the uprising of Imam Hussein - is considered an active strategy for confronting obstacles and threats. Its application in the Islamic Revolution of Iran yielded at least two major outcomes: first, the victory of the revolution and its successes across various domains, and second, the expansion of discursive and strategic power regionally and globally through the establishment of a transnational alliance known as the "Axis of Resistance," aimed at confronting the oppression and exploitation of hegemonic powers. These developments challenged prominent international security paradigms, such as the realist tradition. From this perspective, explicating the dimensions and nuances of resistance theory as a theoretical framework - particularly in comparison to other prominent security schools - becomes an unavoidable necessity. Just as it has altered the balance of power in hard and semi-hard conflicts, it must also replace other strategies and theories in the realm of scholarly and theoretical foundations of security and soft power, securing the conviction and consensus of elites and policymakers regarding its superiority. This study employs a library research method for data collection and a descriptive-explanatory method for analysis.

Keywords

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics