For the past six months, Israel and Iran have ceased military attacks against each other. Although the situation appears unstable, there is hope that a renewed “war of cities” will not afflict civilians. This has provided an opportunity to reflect on the reasons behind a conflict that has been anticipated for years. Does the dispute between Israel and Iran stem from Iran’s nuclear programs? Would the conflict between them come to an end if Iran did not possess the program or it were to halt its nuclear activities entirely? Or should the roots of their disagreements be sought in other factors?
Evidently, the conflict between Israel and the countries of West and South Asia and North Africa is rooted more deeply in the identity foundations of these societies than in political and military issues. Since the end of the WWII, the struggles in the region have been over “territorial identity” rather than the “lands”. As a symbol of Western civilization in this part of the world, Israel has made considerable efforts to carve out a place for itself. And although it has sometimes succeeded, through war or dialogue, in aligning certain governments with itself and rendering others indifferent, it has nonetheless failed to find a stronghold among the peoples of various societies.
The Iranian society’s animosity towards this Western symbol dates back to the Pahlavi era. Despite the Pahlavi government’s diplomatic relations with Israel, memoirs left by policymakers of the time reveal the extent to which the government was cautious of public reactions to expanding relations with Israel.
With the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, a new discourse emerged in the region that emphasized Eastern civilization and identity in contrast to what was labeled as Western colonialism and imperialism. In this new context, Israel was once again perceived as a symbol of the imposition of Western policies upon the nations of the East. In the post-Cold War era, Israel identified itself more with the Global North and alongside Western powers, rather than being defined within the Global South. These cultural and identity differences among the peoples of the WANA region have repeatedly led to wars in which Israel has been a party. Accordingly, it can be argued that while Israeli leaders might believe that initiating wars and attacking countries’ nuclear facilities can provide them with physical security, they have no doubt that identity and existential security will never be achieved through these means.
During the 12 days war, despite the stances taken by certain governments, numerous academics in various countries have sent messages and expressed sympathy and solidarity with the Iranian people, which well demonstrate the direction of global public opinion regarding the conflict. However, what demands greater attention is that many of the messages received from academics within our shared civilizational sphere—from Istanbul to Islamabad and New Delhi, and from Astana and Tashkent to Doha—have emphasized a number of key points: Firstly, they have expressed prayers for the safety and victory of the Iranian people. Secondly, they have stressed that they are constantly following the news and advised us to leave large cities for safer places. Some even kindly offered to host Iranian friends in their countries and homes should the war continue. And thirdly, in several messages, particularly from countries within the Nowruz cultural sphere, it was explicitly stated that they support Iran as a symbol of a civilizational identity to which they themselves belong.
Poetry and literature form an important part of the culture within our civilizational sphere. In recent months, many poems from academic friends in various countries of the region have reached us. I share one here as an instance, penned by an Afghan professor residing in Europe:
Tehran is a wounded lady,
Kabul’s sister city.
A bloody poem
In a two-and-a-half-millennium-old divan of civilization,
And a tale of struggle and patience
In the Shahnameh.
Tehran
Is the Cyrus Cylinder,
Blood-stained in the clutches of the demon of war,
And Persepolis,
Anxiously gazing towards tomorrow.
Tehran is our heart,
Beating from Lahore to Kabul,
From Dushanbe to Samarkand,
From Bukhara to Balkh,
And from Herat to Isfahan.
Tehran is our soul.
In this poem, as in many other empathetic messages that have reached our universities to date, Israel’s attack on Iran has been portrayed not as a war over nuclear issues, nor as a conflict over ideological or religious matters, but as a war between civilizations. The United States and its European allies’ support for Israel has also strengthened the belief among academics in the region that they need greater convergence with one another to preserve their cultural and civilizational foundations.
In this situation, it seems that we, as academics in different countries, need to have a fresh identification and discussion of our shared cultural and identity values within the framework of the ancient civilizations of our lands. Moreover, we can consider pathways for dialogue with other civilizations to establish lasting peace and security. Should we adopt more civilized methods of interaction, including dialogue, diplomacy, and the recognition of differences, civilizational conflicts can be prevented from escalating into war.
In the 1990s, when Huntington proposed the idea of the clash of civilizations, amidst various criticisms from around the world, Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, then President of Iran, put forth the initiative for a “Dialogue among Civilizations” at the United Nations. This laid the groundwork for 2001 to be designated as the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations. It seems that the path to stability in the region is to return to that idea.
Author:
Mandana Tishehyar – Faculty Member, Department of Asian Studies, ECO College, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
