Is Iran a form of Islamic Imperialism?

How do you define a country as being an Imperialist?

Gemini:

Defining a country as “imperialist” is complex because the term has evolved from strictly describing territorial conquest to encompassing economic and cultural dominance.

In political science and history, a country is generally defined as imperialist if it extends its power and influence through diplomacy or military force to control other territories or peoples. This control can be direct (governing a colony) or indirect (controlling a nation’s economy or politics).

Here are the primary lenses through which a country is typically defined as imperialist:

1. Territorial Imperialism (The Classical Definition)

This is the most traditional form, often associated with the Roman Empire or the 19th-century British Empire. A country is defined as imperialist here if it:

• Annexes Land: Physically takes over foreign territory.
• Establishes Colonies: Sets up settlements or administrative zones in other regions to house its own citizens or extract resources.
• Imposes Direct Rule: Installs its own government officials to manage the day-to-day affairs of the dominated territory.

2. Economic Imperialism

In the modern era, definitions often shift to economic control. A country may be considered imperialist without occupying land if it:

• Extracts Resources: Systematically siphons raw materials (oil, minerals, agriculture) from a weaker nation for its own industrial benefit, often at unfair prices.
• Creates Dependency: Structures trade agreements or debt in a way that makes the weaker nation economically reliant on the stronger one (sometimes referred to as Neocolonialism).
• Controls Markets: Forces a weaker nation to buy its manufactured goods or prevents them from trading freely with others.

3. Political and Military Imperialism

This involves exerting control over a sovereign nation’s internal affairs. Characteristics include:

• Puppet Regimes: Installing or propping up a government that acts in the interest of the dominant country rather than its own people.
• Sphere of Influence: Claiming exclusive rights to intervene in a specific region’s politics or military affairs.
• Military Presence: Maintaining military bases within another country against the popular will of that nation to project power.

4. Cultural Imperialism

This is a “soft power” definition. A country might be labeled imperialist if it:

• Imposes Values: Aggressively exports its language, religion, or social values, eroding the local culture and traditions of the recipient nation.
• Dominates Media: Floods a foreign market with its media and information, effectively shaping how the local population views the world.

Summary of Differences

• Formal Empire: Visible control, flags planted, official governors (e.g., British India).
• Informal Empire: The dominated country keeps its own flag and government, but its economy and foreign policy are directed by the imperial power (e.g., the relationship between the US and certain Latin American countries during the Cold War).

Academic vs. Rhetorical Use

It is important to note that “imperialist” is often used as a rhetorical or political charge rather than a strictly technical classification.

• Technically: It refers to specific policies of expansion and hegemony.
• Rhetorically: It is often used to criticize any foreign policy that involves interventionism or perceived arrogance on the world stage.

---

Sudabeh:

By your definition based on facts on the ground, Would you consider Islamic Republic of Iran an imperialist country?

Gemini:

Based on the “facts on the ground” and applying the four definitions established previously, the classification of the Islamic Republic of Iran as “imperialist” depends entirely on which definition you prioritize.

Here is an assessment of Iran’s actions through those specific lenses:

1. Territorial Imperialism (The Classical Definition)

Verdict: No.

• Facts on the ground: Iran has not annexed territory or set up formal colonies in the modern era. It has not redrawn borders to include parts of Iraq or Afghanistan into a “Greater Iran.”
• Analysis: If you define imperialism strictly as “conquering land and planting a flag,” Iran does not fit the definition. Its borders have remained static.

2. Economic Imperialism

Verdict: Generally No (with nuance).

• Facts on the ground: Classic economic imperialism involves extracting wealth (resources/capital) from a colony to enrich the homeland.
• The Reverse Dynamic: In Iran’s case, the flow of capital is often reversed. Iran exports its own wealth (oil revenues) to support allies in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, often at a detriment to its own domestic economy. It spends billions propping up the economies of allies (like supplying oil to Syria) rather than extracting profit from them.
• Analysis: It lacks the economic power to capture foreign markets or entrap nations in debt in the way superpowers (or institutions like the IMF/World Bank) are often accused of doing.

3. Political and Military Imperialism

Verdict: Yes, if “Sphere of Influence” is the metric.

This is where the strongest argument for Iranian imperialism exists.

• Proxy Governance: In Lebanon (via Hezbollah) and Iraq (via the PMF/PMU militias), Iran exercises veto power over national politics. It has created “states within states”—armed factions that operate outside the control of the national government but answer to Tehran.
• Military Intervention: Iran has deployed the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) to fight directly in Syria to keep Bashar al-Assad in power, overriding the will of the local opposition.
• Strategic Depth: Iran views these countries as its “strategic depth”—a defensive perimeter. While Iran calls this the “Axis of Resistance,” critics argue it is a form of imperial management where decisions about war and peace for Beirut or Baghdad are effectively made in Tehran.

4. Cultural Imperialism

Verdict: Yes.

• Facts on the ground: The state explicitly aims to “export the revolution.” This involves spreading the specific ideology of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist).
• Sectarian Influence: Iran funds religious schools, cultural centers, and media across the region (and in Africa/Latin America) to promote its specific interpretation of Shia Islam, often challenging local traditions or secular governance.

Summary Analysis

If you look at the “facts on the ground”:

• You would NOT consider Iran imperialist if your definition requires the extraction of economic wealth or the formal annexation of land. In fact, many political scientists argue Iran acts more like a “Fortress State”—using aggressive forward defense to prevent encirclement by enemies (USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia).
• You WOULD consider Iran imperialist if your definition focuses on the violation of sovereignty. By funding militias that erode the state authority of its neighbors (Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen) to project its own power, it mimics the behavior of imperial powers managing a sphere of influence.

The most accurate geopolitical term often used is “Hegemon” (regional dominant power) rather than “Empire,” as its goal appears to be security and political dominance rather than territorial expansion.

Sudabeh:

Based on Islamic Regime leaders, their ultimate goal to expand their Islamic rule all over the world., and as you mentioned their funding and arming militia groups from Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine, and north Africa, they are a form of Islamic Imperialism, that could expand economically as they are entering arms export markets?

Gemini:

Yes, based on the criteria you have outlined—an explicit ideological goal of global expansion, the use of proxy militias to violate sovereignty, and the entry into global arms markets to create client dependencies—the Islamic Republic of Iran fits the definition of a “Revolutionary” or “Ideological” Imperialist power.

Your synthesis points to a specific form of imperialism that resembles the early Soviet Union (Comintern) more than the British Empire: it is less about occupying land with settlers and more about occupying the political and security architecture of other nations.

Here is a breakdown of how your points validate this definition:

1. The Ideological Goal: “Universal Rule”

You are correct that the state’s foundational texts explicitly outline a goal that goes beyond its own borders.

• The Constitution: The Preamble and Article 154 of the Iranian Constitution explicitly commit to the “Export of the Revolution” (Sudur-e Enghelab). It states the goal is to “pave the way for the formation of a single world community” (Universal Islamic Rule).
• Imperialist Trait: Unlike a standard nation-state that seeks security within its borders, an imperialist power believes its system is the only legitimate one and must be exported. By declaring itself the leader of the “oppressed” (Mustazafin) worldwide—regardless of nationality—Tehran claims a supranational authority that supersedes local governments.

2. The Method: “Militia Imperialism” (Proxies)

Your mention of North Africa is a key indicator of imperial expansion.

• Expansion beyond “Defense”: For years, analysts argued Iran’s militias in Iraq and Lebanon were for “forward defense” against Israel or the US. However, your point about North Africa (supporting the Polisario Front against Morocco, or engagement in Sudan) weakens the “self-defense” argument.
• Violating Sovereignty: By arming groups like the Houthis (Yemen), Hezbollah (Lebanon), and various PMF factions (Iraq), Iran effectively nullifies the sovereignty of these states. It creates a “state within a state” where decisions on war and peace are made in Tehran, not in the local capital. This is the definition of Political Imperialism.

3. The New Economic Frontier: “Arms Export Imperialism”

This is the most modern evolution you identified.

• From Client to Patron: Historically, Iran was an importer of weapons. By becoming a major exporter of drones (Shahed series) and missiles to countries like Russia, Sudan, and potentially Venezuela, Iran is transitioning into a Patron State.
• Creating Dependency: In imperial dynamics, the “Metropole” (imperial center) binds peripheral nations to it through security dependence. If a country relies on Iranian technicians and supply chains to maintain its air force (drones), Iran gains leverage over that country’s foreign policy. This is a nascent form of Military-Industrial Imperialism.

Imperial Pillar	Traditional Empire (e.g., British)	Iranian “Revolutionary” Imperialism
Goal	Resource Extraction	Ideological Hegemony (Velayat-e Faqih)
Force	Colonial Governor & Army	Proxy Militias & Advisors (IRGC)
Economy	Trade Monopolies	Arms Diplomacy & Illicit Finance Networks

Conclusion: Under your definition, the Islamic Republic is an imperialist power because it does not recognize the legitimacy of existing borders as final. It views them as temporary obstacles to a universal ideological order, and it uses military and economic tools to erode the sovereignty of other nations to achieve that order.

Sudabeh:

Why the anti Imperialist groups in the west, turn a blind eye on Imperialistic nature of Islamic regime of Iran and come to its defend against rival Imperialists?

The phenomenon you are observing is often called “Campism” by political scientists and critics within the left.

It refers to a geopolitical worldview where the world is divided into two opposing “camps”: the Imperialist Camp (led by the U.S. and “the West”) and the Anti-Imperialist Camp (anyone opposed to the U.S.).

For groups that subscribe to this view, the “facts on the ground” regarding Iran’s expansionism matter less than Iran’s position as a counter-weight to American hegemony. Here is a breakdown of the specific ideological mechanisms that lead to this defense:

1. The “Primary Contradiction” Theory

This is the most common intellectual justification. Many anti-imperialist groups operate on the belief that U.S. imperialism is the single greatest threat to world peace and stability.

• The Logic: They argue that because the U.S. has global military reach (800+ bases), any power that challenges the U.S. (like Iran, Russia, or China) is performing a necessary service for the world.
• The Blind Spot: They view Iran’s actions (arming militias, intervening in Syria) as defensive reactions to U.S. encirclement. Therefore, criticizing Iran is seen as “aiding the greater enemy” (the U.S.).

2. Differing Definitions of “Imperialism”

As discussed earlier, you are using a political/military definition of imperialism (expansion, proxies, violating sovereignty). However, many Western Marxist-Leninist groups use a specific economic definition derived from Lenin.

• Their Definition: To them, “Imperialism” is strictly the “highest stage of capitalism,” requiring the export of finance capital and the global domination of markets by monopolies.
• The Exemption: Since Iran is not a global financial superpower exporting capital to exploit foreign labor markets (in the way the IMF or Western corporations do), these groups argue Iran cannot be imperialist by definition. They classify Iran instead as a “sovereign nation” defending itself, regardless of its military behavior.

3. “Campism” and the “Enemy of My Enemy”

This is a simpler, binary mindset.

• The Narrative: If the U.S. and Israel (the “Imperialist Camp”) hate Iran, then Iran must be doing something right.
• The Outcome: This leads to a reflexive defense of the Islamic Republic. When Iranian protestors rise up against their government (as in 2009, 2019, or 2022), “Campist” groups often label the protestors as “Western-backed assets” or “CIA plants” because they cannot conceive of an organic movement fighting against an “anti-imperialist” government.

4. Orientalism / “Noble Savage” Trope

Paradoxically, some Western groups strip agency from non-Western nations.

• Passive Actors: They view countries like Iran only as victims of Western policy, never as independent actors with their own imperial ambitions.
• Ignoring Local Voices: By focusing entirely on U.S. foreign policy, they often ignore the voices of the actual people living under Iranian influence (Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, or Iranian women), dismissing their grievances as secondary to the “larger struggle” against the West.

5. The “Axis of Resistance” Branding

The Islamic Republic has been highly effective at marketing its expansionist foreign policy as “Resistance.”

• By framing its proxies (Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas) strictly as “liberation movements” fighting Zionism, they tap into genuine sympathy for the Palestinian cause in the West.
• Western groups often conflate support for Palestinians with support for the Iranian state, failing to separate the cause from the state actor exploiting it.

Summary

These groups turn a blind eye because their ideology creates a hierarchy of evils. In their view, Western Imperialism is the “primary” evil, and any force fighting it—even an expansionist, theocratic one like the Islamic Republic—is viewed as a “lesser evil” or a tactical ally that must be protected from criticism.

Sudabeh:

Was there anyone in Iranian Left that condemned Khomeini’s anti- imperialist rhetoric as reactionary and backward? Thus not every anti-imperialist stand comes from progressive views.

Gemini:

Yes, there were voices within the Iranian Left who recognized this, but they were a tragic minority.

The dominant narrative of the 1979 Revolution is that the major Leftist groups (like the Tudeh Party and the Fedaiyan-e Khalq Majority) disastrously supported Khomeini. They operated under the “Campist” logic we discussed: they believed that because Khomeini was fighting the U.S. (the “Great Satan”), he was objectively progressive, even if his domestic policies were repressive.

However, there were specific factions and intellectuals who identified Khomeini’s anti-imperialism as “Reactionary Anti-Imperialism”—a form of opposition to the West that seeks to return to a pre-modern past rather than advance to a socialist future.

Here are the key figures and groups who condemned Khomeini’s rhetoric as reactionary:

1. Mansoor Hekmat and the “Union of Communist Militants”

The most articulate theoretical critique came from Mansoor Hekmat (Zhoobin Razani) and his circle.

• The Critique: Hekmat argued that there is a fundamental difference between Socialist Anti-Imperialism (which seeks to overcome capitalism) and Reactionary Anti-Imperialism (which seeks to protect pre-capitalist, traditional, or feudal structures from modern encroachment).
• The Myth of the “National Bourgeoisie”: Hekmat famously critiqued the Tudeh Party’s belief that the clergy represented a “nationalist petty bourgeoisie” that could be allied with. He argued that the Islamic regime was a distinct, repressive capitalist entity that used “anti-Americanism” as a populist tool to crush the working class.
• The Warning: While the Tudeh Party was cheering the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979, Hekmat’s group warned that this “anti-imperialist theater” was being used to silence internal opposition and consolidate a dictatorship.

2. Komala (Revolutionary Organization of the Toilers of Kurdistan)

While not strictly a “theoretician” group like Hekmat’s initially, the Kurdish Leftist group Komala was one of the first to militarily and politically oppose the regime.

• Facts on the Ground: Because the Islamic Republic attacked Kurdistan almost immediately after the revolution (August 1979), Komala saw the “reactionary” nature of the regime firsthand.
• The Stance: They rejected the idea that the regime was “anti-imperialist” in any meaningful way. They viewed the regime’s war on the Kurds as proof that it was a chauvinistic, reactionary power that had simply replaced the Shah’s repression with religious repression.

3. The Fedaiyan-e Khalq (Minority Faction)

The Marxist guerilla group Fedaiyan-e Khalq split into two in 1980 specifically over this issue.

• The Majority (Aksariyat): Aligned with the Tudeh Party and supported the Islamic Republic as an “anti-imperialist” state.
• The Minority (Aghaliyat): Broke away, arguing that the regime was a counter-revolutionary force. They argued that supporting a theocracy just because it shouted slogans against America was a betrayal of Marxist principles. They recognized that a regime could be anti-West and anti-worker simultaneously.

4. Mustafa Shoaeyan (The “Lone Wolf”)

Although he was killed (in 1976) before the 1979 revolution, Mustafa Shoaeyan is a crucial figure to mention. He was an independent leftist who fiercely criticized the “Soviet-worshipping” left (Tudeh).

• The Prophecy: His writings predicted the danger of “Islamic Marxism” and the alliance between the Left and the Clergy. He argued that the Clergy represented a backward, feudal class that would never lead to progress. His intellectual lineage influenced the independent leftists who refused to bow to Khomeini in 1979.

The Core Theoretical Distinction

Your insight captures exactly what these dissenting groups argued: The Direction of History.

• Progressive Anti-Imperialism: Looks forward. It opposes Western hegemony because it wants to replace global capitalism with internationalism, equality, and secular democracy.
• Reactionary Anti-Imperialism: Looks backward. It opposes Western hegemony because Western culture (women’s rights, secularism, individual liberty) threatens traditional religious hierarchy.

The tragedy of the Iranian Left is that the loud majority (Tudeh/Fedaiyan Majority) ignored this distinction. They helped consolidate the regime’s power, believing they were fighting “Imperialism,” only to be crushed and executed by that very same “Anti-Imperialist” regime a few years later.

---

Iran in Revolt: Beyond Campism and Theocracy

---

Article by Sudabeh & Gemini

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IranOnline.com.