Geopolitical Reading of Iran-Iraq War in the Context of Islamic Revolution Discourse in Iran

ABSTRACT
With the arrival of 1979, coinciding with the rise of Arab nationalism under the ruling Ba'ath Party in Iraq and the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, military tension on the Iran-Iraq border intensified and escalated into a full-scale war (1980-1988). This research examines how the discourse components of the Islamic Revolution are interpreted within a geopolitical reading of Iraq's invasion of Iran, framed by the views of Laclau and Mouffe. Within this framework, geopolitical actions at a particular historical moment, shaped by the dominant discourse, are conceptualized and understood from an identity perspective, distinct from other discourses. In the Iranian political context, following the 1979 invasion of Iraq, the geopolitical interpretation of this crisis evolved into a conflict between three discourses: liberal nationalist, Marxist left, and Islamic revolutionary. Following the removal of Bani Sadr from the presidency in 1981 and the subsequent dominance of the Islamic Revolution discourse until 1986, the geopolitical conceptualization of the war was prioritized based on religious genealogy. Within this discourse, the borders of the Islamic world were defined based on the unity of Muslims against non-believers. This discourse did not recognize any inherent distinction between the Islamic Ummah and nation-states, viewing all Muslims as a single political and religious unit. Additionally, given the anti-Western bias within the discourse of political Islam, the geopolitical interpretation of the war was doubly reinforced by the conflict between Islamic and polytheistic territories. So, the Ba'ath government in Iraq was considered as a Western government puppet in order to weaken the Islamic revolution ideals and true Islam.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
War, a complex social reality, is often framed as an objective conflict over material issues such as territory. However, each political-historical force uses language to construct a specific narrative of the war's geopolitical causes. This narrative is not a preexisting reality but rather a tool to justify its own actions. A discourse analysis of geopolitical crises investigates the interrelationships among geopolitical elements and the role of discourse in shaping public perceptions of war, often privileging certain interpretations over others. In this regard, the Iran-Iraq War of 1979 was fundamentally a clash of ideologies and discourses, rather than a mere territorial dispute. In other words, discourse played a crucial role in shaping the complex and multifaceted conflict between the two countries, which went beyond mere territorial disputes. In this regard, concurrently with the rise of Arab nationalism in Iraq and the victory of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, political-military tensions on the Iran-Iraq border escalated dramatically. On the other hand, following the 1980 Iraqi invasion of Iran, three dominant discourses emerged within Iran: Islamic revolutionary, liberal intellectual, and Marxist-influenced left. By defining a set of legitimizing factors, each of these competing discourses sought to establish its hegemony in the interpretation of war. This research aims to conduct a geopolitical reading of the Islamic Revolution discourse in Iran, which held a hegemonic position during the early years of the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). Within the framework of Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory, we will examine the differences between this discourse and its competitors and investigate how the geopolitical components of the Islamic Revolution discourse contribute to the semantic construction of Iraq's invasion of Iran.
 
Methodology
This research, as a "temporal" research type, investigates, based on the discourse model of Laclau and Mouffe, the equivalence of Islamic Revolution discourse components in the semantic construction of Iraq's invasion of Iran as a geopolitical factor. In this regard, by analyzing and interpreting the texts and works of discourse commentators, the study examines how the Ba'ath Party constructs the semantics of components such as border disputes and territorial expansion. Additionally, it investigates how this war was interpreted to foster social solidarity among the Iranian people and to reject competing internal discourses.
  
Results and discussion
Following the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, there was a conflict between the Islamic Revolution discourse and other discourses, including leftist discourse inclined towards Marxism and liberal nationalist discourse. With the Islamic Revolution discourse becoming dominant, the conceptualization of war was framed through a religious genealogy and reflected as a conflict between heresy (the ruling Ba'ath Party in Iraq) and true Islam (Iran). Therefore, the defense of Iran's geographical borders against Iraq was presented as a defense of the divine nature of humanity. Unlike nationalist discourse, this defense was not solely interpreted as a means to prevent the occupation of Iran's territory. By emphasizing historical metaphors from Shi'a Islam, this discourse sought to reinforce the metaphysical dimensions of the war, aligning with Shi'a mythological concepts to counter rival discourses. According to Laclau and Mouffe, invoking the past positively has been a longstanding strategy of political power to legitimize its actions, foster solidarity and harmony, and differentiate itself from competing discourses. In particular, the mythmaking surrounding the war patterns of the Prophet of Islam and Shi'a leaders, as propagated by interpreters and rulers of the Islamic Revolution discourse, played a significant role in shaping the perceived sanctity of Iran's territory against the Iraqi invasion. On the other hand, the Islamic Revolution discourse employed a strategy of general mobilization, activating and guiding social values. This strategy, which relied on geopolitical components, was legitimized under the banner of defending the borders of the Islamic nation. In this discourse, the extraction of spiritual themes such as jihad, martyrdom, and sacrifice for the Islamic Ummah led to this war being interpreted as a preservation of the Islamic Ummah's territorial integrity against the infidels. Therefore, within the political geography of the Islamic Ummah, Islamic values should extend beyond its borders, providing the foundation for the emergence of numerous centers advocating the Islamic Revolution discourse. Furthermore, by demonstrating the failure of Iraq's aggression, a geopolitical analysis of this discourse highlighted Iran's political and military efficiency.
 
Conclusion
Between 1980 and 1985, under the dominance of the political Islam discourse, a national-scale war concept was constructed to alienate liberal and Marxist discourses. This concept aimed to build social cohesion by sanctifying the territory. On a transnational scale, alienation and rejection of regional secular governments and Arab nationalism ruling in Iraq were represented in the form of conflict between Islam and disbelief. By transforming geopolitical components such as territory, borders, and the state into the 'religious', this discourse was able to frame their defense as a social responsibility. By comparing the Iran-Iraq war with the battles of the Prophet and Shi'a imams, this discourse positioned Iran's territory as the sacred geographical origin of Islam. Therefore, according to Laclau and Mouffe, by constructing a network of meanings, the Islamic Revolution discourse leveraged the Iran-Iraq war to marginalize competing discourses on both national and transnational scales.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved the content of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.