이스라엘-미국-이란 전쟁의 문화적 차원 분석
The Domain of Culture in the Israel-US War with Iran - Hasht-e Subh Daily
이스라엘-미국-이란 전쟁의 문화적 차원 분석은 즉각적인 시장 영향력을 미치는 촉매가 부족합니다.
핵심 요약
이스라엘, 미국, 이란이 전쟁의 의미를 3가지 다른 문화적 관점에서 해석한다는 분석을 제시
핵심요약
- 이스라엘, 미국, 이란이 전쟁의 의미를 3가지 다른 문화적 관점에서 해석
- 문화적 메커니즘이 전쟁의 정당성을 부여하는 방식 분석
- 물질적 요인과 문화적 요인의 상호작용 강조
도입
이 기사는 투자자에게 중요한 의미를 가집니다. 문화적 관점이 전쟁의 이해와 해석에 미치는 영향을 분석함으로써, 단순한 지정학적 갈등을 넘어 더 깊은 이해를 제공하기 때문입니다. 특히 이스라엘의 생존과 존재 위협에 대한 인식, 미국의 전략적 목적, 이란의 저항과 정의 개념이 어떻게 형성되는지 탐구합니다.
본문 1: 이스라엘의 문화적 관점 분석
이스라엘은 전쟁의 이해를 역사적 상처, 특히 홀로코스트라는 트라우마와 연결 earth. 이 기억이 현재 위협을 인식하는 방식에 3가지 다른 차원을 부여합니다. 홀로코스트의 기억은 이스라엘이 전쟁의 정당성을 부여하는 핵심적인 문화적 토대 역할을 합니다. 이는 이스라엘이 전쟁의 의미를 어떻게 해석하는지 이해하는 데 필수적입니다. 이스라엘의 문화적 관점을 이해하면, 전쟁의 장기적인 전망을 예측하는 데 중요한 단서가 됩니다.
본문 2: 미국의 전략적 목적과 문화적 정당화
미국은 전쟁의 의미를 전략적 목적과 연결 earth. 미국은 이스라엘과의 동맹을 통해 지역 안보를 유지하고, 동시에 자신의 국가적 이익을 보호하는 전략을 수립합니다. 이 전략은 문화적 정당화를 통해 강화됩니다. 미국이 전쟁의 의미를 어떻게 해석하는지는, 이스라엘과 이란 간의 갈등에 어떻게 개입할지를 결정하는 데 중요한 역할을 합니다. 문화적 정당화가 없는 전략은 장기적으로 지속 가능하지 않을 가능성이 높습니다.
본문 3: 이란의 저항과 정의 개념
이란은 전쟁의 의미를 저항과 정의라는 개념과 연결 earth. 이란은 자신의 행동이 정당한 저항이라는 믿음을 가지고 있습니다. 이 믿음은 이란의 문화적, 종교적 가치관에서 비롯됩니다. 이란의 저항과 정의 개념을 이해하는 것은, 이란이 전쟁에 어떻게 대응할지를 예측하는 데 중요한 역할을 합니다. 문화적 관점을 고려하지 않으면, 이란의 행동 패턴을 정확히 예측하기 어려울 수 있습니다.
결론
이 기사는 이스라엘, 미국, 이란이 전쟁의 의미를 어떻게 문화적 관점에서 해석하는지를 분석했습니다. 문화적 메커니즘이 전쟁의 정당성을 부여하는 방식과 물질적 요인과 어떻게 결합되는지를 탐구했습니다. 향후 이스라엘-미국-이란 간의 갈등이 어떻게 전개될지에 대한 전망을 제시하는 데 중요한 기반이 될 것입니다. 문화적 관점을 고려하지 않은 분석은 정확한 예측을 어려울 수 있습니다.
Original Article
The Domain of Culture in the Israel-US War with Iran - Hasht-e Subh Daily
Introduction: War on the Field of Culture The war waged by Israel and the United States (US) against Iran cannot be analyzed solely through concepts such as deterrence, material interests, or geopolitical rivalry, because this confrontation also acquires meaning and legitimacy within the framework of culture, religion, historical memory, myth, and narratives of identity. The role of culture remains evident in the justification of territorial aims (in Israel) and of strategic and material aims (in the US). These aims are most often represented in the language of historical right, security, mission, and moral necessity. It is clear that Israel, the US, and Iran each approach the interpretation of the war through different cultural lenses, and that each of them derives the categories of threat, resistance, survival, order, or righteousness from its own particular religious, historical, and symbolic sources. The central question is how cultural mechanisms grant meaning and legitimacy to war within the three discourses mentioned above or, under different conditions, make peace possible. Adopting an interpretive approach, this article seeks to examine the ongoing war within the context of these structures and to reveal the cultural mechanism of war within the Israeli, American, and Iranian discourses. The aim of the present article is not to deny the material, territorial, strategic, and geo-economic factors in this conflict, but rather to examine how they are justified within the horizon of the languages and cultures surrounding the war, to expose the interwoven relationship between culture and power in this complex confrontation. Israel: War on the Horizon of Survival and Existential Threat In Israel, the understanding of war is bound up with historical wounds, particularly the Holocaust (the genocide of Jews carried out by Nazi Germany), which casts its shadow over the way present-day dangers are perceived. This memory shapes a kind of "siege mentality" (a permanent sense of being threatened by others), which interprets every new danger as a return of the same catastrophe. The principle of "Never Again," which is well known in the literature of this country, likewise refers to the prevention of any repetition of the Holocaust. In Israel, the logic of war is also tied to the consolidation of territorial control; this concrete objective is, too, most often presented in the language of historical right and in connection with religious considerations. Consequently, the exercise of violence by this country can take on the aspect of a moral necessity, and war can largely be presented in the guise of a defense of existence itself. Religious and mythical elements also lend support to this logic in Israel. One important example is the invocation of the myth of "Amalek" (a mythical enemy in the Jewish tradition). The reinterpretation of "Amalek" in the ongoing war elevates the enemy beyond a mere military actor and turns it into a foe bent on annihilation. Likewise, the claim of the "Promised Land," which has promised Israel a territory stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, is prominent at certain intellectual and political levels. For this reason, Israel's interpretation of the war cannot be separated from its current policy of territorial expansion and settlement growth, and this approach lends the war greater depth. From this perspective, the dispute over land moves far beyond the level of a territorial disagreement and is situated at the level of identity and the dictates of destiny. In addition to this, expressions such as "a time for war and a time for peace," or dualities such as "the children of light" and "the children of darkness" found in Israeli sacred texts, give this conflict a religious and moral form. Furthermore, apocalyptic readings on the margins of this discourse may also present the ongoing war as a fateful and predestined event. Mourning ceremonies play an important role in shaping collective sentiment because they transform individual suffering into a national experience and heighten the sense of solidarity in the face of an external threat, so that society comes to understand the war as an existential threat. In this regard, "Hostages Square" in Tel Aviv became one of the principal centers of mourning after October 7, 2023. The events of October 7 were also seen as a sign of the failure of the narrative of security and authority, and this sentiment caused the war to be perceived and justified as a means of restoring collective trust and recovering security authority. America: War on the Horizon of Security, World Order, and Historical Mission In the US, the ongoing war is explained largely through concepts such as security, national interest, and the preservation of the country's global role. It goes without saying that the concept of "national interest" is itself situated within the fabric of political culture. From this perspective, the projection of power abroad serves to consolidate the standing of policymakers and becomes part of the mechanism for generating domestic credibility. American political culture rests upon several important myths. "American exceptionalism," the belief in this country's special mission in the world, is among the most significant of these myths. Concepts such as "the city upon a hill" (which presents this country as a moral model for the world), "manifest destiny," or the historical belief in the expansion of America's role in the world, and "the frontier" (progress and self-reliance) all reinforce this same self-understanding. In certain peripheral religious readings, these myths present intervention and war as something beyond purely strategic aims and assess them as a civilizational and historical duty. Of course, emphasis on a civilizational role is not unique to the US. Iran takes pride in its civilizational heritage of thousands of years; the difference, however, is that in the US, this self-understanding has been formulated more in the form of a global mission and international leadership. The events of September 11 also support this logic. After that event in the US, the "war on terrorism" became one of the principal frameworks for interpreting war. Many subsequent wars were likewise represented as a battle of security against terror, and even as a struggle of good against evil, and this construction of a duality presents the American war as a defense of civilization and of universal values. Of course, America's presence in the war is not framed only through the language of security, mission, and world order; it is also linked to geo-economic and energy-centered interests, interests that range from the Strait of Hormuz and vital energy transit routes to containing shocks in global markets and strengthening America's energy position. Even so, these material interests, too, are usually legitimized under the cover of a global mission, freedom of navigation, and the preservation of international order. Despite the dominance of secular language in this country's official approach, religious elements are also present on its margins. Evangelical Christianity and Christian Zionism (the religious and political support of some Christians for Israel) lend a kind of sanctity to certain American policies and reinterpret them in the form of mission and ordained right. The idea of "Armageddon," which in Evangelical readings speaks of a final battle, can also promote its own particular understanding of the ongoing war. Although this discourse is not the official language of all American institutions, its presence on the margins of power can serve as a reminder of the apocalyptic dimension of the war. Iran: War on the Horizon of Resistance, Dignity, and the Rejection of Domination In Iran, the culture of war has taken shape upon concepts such as resistance, independence, dignity, and the struggle against arrogance. At the same time, part of Iran's tenacity in this war can also be understood within the horizon of a kind of existential fear connected to the dread of collapse, fragmentation, regime change, and the loss of territorial integrity and independence. From this perspective, resistance in Iran is not merely an ideological or political reaction, but can also acquire meaning as a defense of the very principle of the country's survival and unity. The Islamic Revolution is likewise considered one of the sources that lend meaning to war in Iran, and many of the values mentioned above have acquired a particular meaning within the discourse of the revolution. In general terms, an external threat is not merely a geopolitical event for this country; rather, it can evoke the domineering pressures and interventions of the past and intensify sensitivity toward independence and self-reliance. In the memory of foreign interventions in Iran, the "Sacred Defense" (the official name, in the narrative of the Islamic Republic, of the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988) also holds great importance and plays a prominent role in shaping this country's view of war. In Iran, the wound of foreign intervention and the eight-year war is bound more closely to the culture of resistance. For this reason, strategic decisions in Iran are most often assessed in relation to values such as independence, honor, and steadfastness. Religion, in the midst of all this, plays a central role in giving meaning to the suffering and the costs of war. The invocation of Quranic promises and the idea of divine assistance place Iranian resistance within a faith-based and moral horizon. In this view, enduring hardship can be regarded as part of the path of perseverance on the side of righteousness and acquires meaning within the framework of hope for ultimate victory and reliance upon divine aid. It should be noted that the promise of divine assistance is not unique to this narrative, and examples of it exist in other religious traditions involved in this war as well; but in Iran, this concept is linked more explicitly with hope and with steadfastness in the face of domination. One of the most important cultural mechanisms for giving meaning to war in Iran is the concept of martyrdom. Martyrdom binds suffering and death to dignity and to loyalty to a collective ideal. Within this framework, death can be assessed as the pinnacle of self-sacrifice in the path of righteousness and in the defense of independence and honor. This view also bears a direct relation to the model of "Karbala" (the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, grandson of the fourth caliph of the Muslims). Consequently, the harmed individual or community is not merely a passive victim, but an actor who, by enduring suffering, defends the truth. Alongside all of this, the belief in the appearance of the Twelfth Imam also lends greater depth to war in Iran's religious and political readings. This belief does not refer only to a distant future; rather, it regards present-day suffering and perseverance as the very moral preparation for welcoming the appearance of the Twelfth Imam, so that the war takes on a testing, historical, and spiritual value. Of course, the strength of this view is not uniform across the perceptions of different social groups, but its presence in Iran's political and religious imagination is undeniable. In addition to religious and revolutionary structures, at the level of Iranian mythical memory, one can also recognize patterns of tyranny and deliverance, such as the confrontation between Zahhak and Fereydoun, which narrates the overthrow of domination. The duality of truth and falsehood also reinforces these perceptions. In this view, the enemy is not merely a military rival, but is placed in the position of falsehood and domination. For this reason, standing firm against it appears not only as a political necessity but as a moral and religious duty. From this same perspective, sanctions and external pressures are also regarded as part of that same test of loyalty to dignity and independence, and resistance against them takes on a sacred and moral form. Comparing the Binaries and Cultural Mechanisms If we compare "American exceptionalism" with the "siege mentality" in Israel, it becomes apparent that American exceptionalism speaks from a position of global power and responsibility and justifies its own violence within the framework of preserving international order and defending superior values. The siege mentality in Israel, however, arises from the experience of vulnerability and the fear of a repetition of catastrophe, and sees reliance on violence as a necessity for preventing its own destruction or for fulfilling the promise of the "Promised Land." In Iran, the experience of foreign intervention and the eight-year war with Iraq is bound more closely to the culture of resistance than to a fear of destruction. The culture of war in Iran also differs from America's civilizational mission, because here the talk is of a front-line resistance that sees itself in the position of righteousness and oppressed innocence. If we compare the culture of martyrdom in Iran with the culture of safeguarding survival in Israel, we come to recognize their relative differences. Of course, both sides draw to a greater or lesser degree upon similar concepts; but in Israel, the endurance of suffering and the justification of violence acquire meaning above all in service of protecting collective existence, and the enemy is recognized, before anything else, as a threat to this principle, whereas Iran represents the enemy more in the image of a usurper dominating over honor and independence, and suffering and self-sacrifice are evaluated chiefly in relation to dignity, honor, and moral steadfastness. Despite these differences, all three countries share important similarities in the way they justify violence. Among these, in all three cases, war acquires meaning within religious, historical, cultural, and identity-based spaces, and is highlighted and reproduced by means of political statements, institutions, and the media. Each of these countries presents war in a language that is most often bipolar, as a defensive, moral, religious, or historical necessity, to make its own position appear more moral and more natural than that of its adversary. Israel defines this war through the binaries of survival and destruction, America through an emphasis on good and evil or security and terror, and Iran through reference to truth and falsehood, or dignity and humiliation, the confrontation of Zahhak and Fereydoun, and even the preservation of survival. Culture: An Aggravator of War or a Bearer of Peace? The bipolar language arising from religion and culture is also one of the important obstacles to diplomacy, because the parties to the war present one another not as political rivals, but as an existential threat, a manifestation of evil, or a symbol of domination, and as a result, the possibility of dialogue is constrained. In such an atmosphere, compromise and flexibility can easily be interpreted as the acceptance of humiliation, an immoral act, or the disregard of an existential threat. If apocalyptic dimensions, whether in the form of Armageddon, in the guise of predestined final battles, or in the belief in the awaited Mahdi, cast their shadow over this conflict, then the present-day war will be understood as an event on the scale of destiny and the end of history, something that will make the scope of the catastrophe far broader and deeper. Even so, it should not be overlooked that culture, even as it can aggravate war and delay peace, is still capable of acting successfully toward containing war and encouraging peace. That is to say, a rethinking of the mechanisms for justifying violence and of the function of the narratives and oppositional binaries that culture itself provides can make fruitful dialogue possible and can effectively assist in the search for a lasting peace. Conclusion Ultimately, it can be said that Israel, the US, and Iran each grant meaning and legitimacy to the present war through their own particular memory, religion, myth, and narratives of identity, and accordingly choose their own political language and conduct. In all three cases, culture and religion are not marginal elements of war, but are among the principal mechanisms for giving it meaning, mechanisms that transfer violence from the level of a military instrument to the level of something justified, social, and tolerable. Even so, the campaign of culture in this confrontation operates not only in granting identity-based, religious, and moral meaning to war, but also has a share in legitimizing territorial, strategic, and material aims; in the sense that hard interests are most often represented in the language of historical right, security, mission, freedom, dignity, and moral necessity. For this reason, war in these three countries is understood and justified not only in the form of national survival, global mission, or moral resistance, but also in connection with land, strategic passages, energy, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. In addition to this, one of the less observed damages of this war is the erosion of the linguistic and symbolic infrastructure of political culture. When words such as peace, freedom, security, understanding, and international order are repeatedly used alongside threat, bombardment, siege, unverified claims, and the instability of commitments, language no longer remains merely a means of expressing policy, but itself becomes a field of injury. In such a situation, one of the important consequences of war is not only the destruction of cities, facilities, and material infrastructure, but also the erosion of trust in the fundamental words of political and collective life. The new development is that this campaign's meaning has now spread from the battlefield to the language of peace, understanding, and conditional implementation of agreements. In this way, peace too is not a neutral concept in this conflict, emptied of power; rather, each side seeks to define it within the framework of its own particular interests, conditions, and narrative. Therefore, an understanding of this confrontation is not possible merely by examining material instruments and without attention to its religious, cultural, mythical, identity-based, and apocalyptic layers; just as the search for peace, too, can hardly lead to a lasting peace without drawing upon cultural capacities and without rethinking the narratives that legitimize violence. From this perspective, post-war reconstruction requires not only capital and development, but also the rebuilding of the credibility of language, of public trust, and of the possibility that words such as peace, commitment, and understanding might once again carry meaning. *This article was previously published under the title "The Campaign of Culture in the Confrontation of Israel and America with Iran." It is now being republished with revisions, additions, and supplementary material, in light of recent developments and in order to clarify certain analytical layers. The change of title, more than being a sign of any shift in the main direction of the discussion, reflects an expansion of the scope of analysis and greater precision regarding the relationship between culture, war, language, and material interests in this conflict.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here: