Today’s world, scene of hegemonic powers’ soft war (4)

Welcome to the 4th episode of the series: Today’s world, scene of hegemonic powers’ soft war. As a reminder, we spoke of the different aspects of soft war and terms of infiltration in the political and social layers of the targeted communities.

Today, we study one of the important goals of soft war which is the subversion of political systems opposed to domineering powers. Stay with us.

Subversion is in principle a military term, referring to illegal actions which are carried out against the interests of a country, with the aim of overthrowing the incumbent ruling system. It is said that subversion is a branch of unconventional wars. In another definition, subversion is referred to as the change of the political system of a country and/or formation of a major change and development in the fundamental values of a ruling system. This change is at times carried out via violent measures such as coups, assassinations, and imposition of wars, while in other cases; change is implemented by compromise, in addition to long-term calculated plots for infiltration in the political foundations of a ruling system, which is otherwise referred to as ‘soft subversion’.

Today, a number of different definitions are rendered for soft subversion, which might display minor, delicate differences, but are in fact ultimately the same. Meanwhile, the goal of soft subversion is to change values and to change the members of the ruling system, if necessary, with more peaceful approaches, and via utilization of the existing capacities in the rules and regulations set by the ruling system.

Meanwhile, soft subversion maintains a social identity, within which social factors challenge the rule of the political system. In other words, in this political and social process, the community turns into a scene of power struggle and rivalry of non-governmental organizations and the government for attainment of social power.

Meanwhile, soft subversion is a long-term and continuous process, throughout which the loyalty of the community and approval of the ruling system is partly transferred to other centers of power such as non-governmental organizations, and/or ethnic organizations.

In this process, ineffective performance of the government in domains such as social security, health system, urban affairs, and inflation facilitate soft subversion. In fact, the foreign players only enter the scene for soft subversion when the social backgrounds for soft subversion are evident in the targeted community. Otherwise, as long as the government is powerful, soft subversion will not be feasible in the targeted community.

One of the prime examples of efforts for achievement of soft subversion can be seen in the conduct of the US against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Upon the victory of Islamic Revolution in Iran, and halt of the two countries’ ties, several tactics were adopted by the US to somehow undermine, isolate, challenge, and squander the resources of Islamic Republic of Iran, and to dishearten Iranian people. In fact, in a general outlook, soft subversion has been the main policy adopted by the US against Islamic Republic of Iran.

In the recent years, US has made strenuous efforts for accomplishment of soft subversion in Iran via a number of means such as assistance to the so-called opposition overseas, and organization of their measures; provocation of ethnic, sectarian, and guild-related disputes and demands; imposition and reinforcement of economic sanctions; multilateral and continuous psychological warfare; and misuse of international humanitarian dialog in a futile bid to pile up pressure on Iran.

An act which was approved by the US Congress on December 18, 2015, imposed major restrictions on the nationals of 38 important countries in the world, in regard to traveling, investing, and trading with Iran. In addition to allocation of a budget for implementation of US sanctions against Iran, an especial budget is earmarked by the US for soft subversion in Iran, under the authority of the US State Department. The related budget allocated for soft subversion in Iran by the US has not been specified and is apparently confidential.

Meanwhile, despite all these plots, the US president, Barack Obama, has claimed that the US has no intention of changing the Islamic ruling system in Iran. However, realities are in stark difference to what he says. The remarks of the Leader of Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, in one of his keynote speeches, in the best response to this US move.

The Leader of Islamic Revolution pointed out: We are concerned over whether you intend to change the Islamic establishment or not. On the day in which you clearly intended to change the Islamic ruling system, you utterly failed, and you will also utterly fail to do so in the future.

SS