Resistance identity in martyred Leader’s strategic vision
By Ali Rahbar
International affairs expert
From the perspective of international relations theory, the concept of resistance in the Islamic Republic of Iran can be understood as one of the most significant alternative paradigms to the liberal international order and the security structures shaped under the hegemony of Western powers. It is not merely a temporary political stance or a tactical response to regional developments. Rather, at a deeper level, it represents an intellectual and strategic framework for defining the role and position of peripheral actors within the international system.
Within this framework, the "Axis of Resistance" has emerged as a transnational network of state and non-state actors that can be analyzed through their shared perception of threats, historical experience of foreign intervention, and a common identity formed in opposition to the dominance of hegemonic powers. Within the intellectual framework of Iran’s martyred Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, resistance is viewed not as a temporary choice but as a structural necessity in a world that continues to be governed by the logic of anarchy, unequal power distribution, and hierarchical relations. Accordingly, political actors operating in the international arena must develop new forms of both hard and soft power to ensure their survival, security, and influence. From this perspective, security is not simply the product of the balance of power among states but the outcome of a combination of strategic depth, ideological bonds, social mobilization, and transnational networking capabilities. Consequently, the Axis of Resistance is understood not merely as a military alliance but as a complex political, security, and even identity-based structure in which states and non-state actors are interconnected through a multilayered network.
From a theoretical standpoint, this phenomenon can be interpreted through the lens of neorealism as an effort to balance threats and strengthen deterrence. Within this framework, peripheral actors turn to informal and asymmetric alliances to counter pressure from dominant regional and extra-regional powers. Nevertheless, reducing the Axis of Resistance solely to the power-centered logic of neorealism fails to capture its full significance. From a constructivist perspective, the importance of this axis lies primarily in the construction and reproduction of a shared political identity founded on concepts such as independence, opposition to occupation, and resistance to foreign domination. This common identity enables collective action that transcends the traditional boundaries of the nation-state and fosters a form of transnational solidarity that has received comparatively little attention in conventional international relations analyses.
Strategic depth is a central concept in the late Leader's intellectual framework. In this view, strategic depth extends far beyond geographical reach or a military presence beyond national borders. It refers instead to expanding political, cultural, and security influence through a network of allies and partners. This approach elevates national security from the domestic sphere to the regional and even transnational levels, transforming it into a multilayered and network-based phenomenon. On this basis, the Axis of Resistance functions as an informal security architecture in which ideological ties, security cooperation, and political objectives are closely intertwined.
Page 2