Technonationalism and the Logic of the Iran–US Confrontation
Author: Luqman Qanbari
We are entering a new structure in the international system, which will ultimately have an impact on relations between states and their strategies. The internal logic of this new structure is an economy-centric and technology-centric order. Hence, in recent years, the two approaches that have most prominently emerged within this new structure are geoeconomics and technonationalism.
Indeed, over the past decade or two, these two approaches have been embedded in the macro-strategies of great powers. Geoeconomics examines the influence of geographical and economic factors on one another and on international relations. In other words, geoeconomics is the study of how states and other actors use economic instruments—such as trade, investment, and sanctions—to advance national interests and, consequently, national identity. Technonationalism, meanwhile, is technology-centric and exerts influence over other countries. Therefore, technonationalism considers the foundation of any social order, national security, social stability, and ultimately national development to be dependent on the creation, production, and use of new technology.
In other words, the current arena is one of technological competition for economic gains and the augmentation of economic power, which consequently increases national development and security, and ultimately the national identity of states. China, Indonesia, and the United States are examples of countries that have adopted this approach. Even in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, there are indications that they are experiencing a paradigm shift in the formulation of their policies in order to align themselves with this new formula.
Moreover, Iran has apparently made substantial investments in various dimensions of technology over the past few years. However, contrary to other countries and contrary to the logic of technonationalism, the Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted a strategy of technological utopianism aimed at techno-populism, which—contrary to technonationalism—has resulted not only in internal development and national cohesion, but has also provoked the sensitivity of the great powers. It may be for this very reason that one can say the confrontation of the Islamic Republic with the United States can be hypothesized within the framework of a confrontation between geoeconomics and technonationalism on the one hand, and technological utopianism on the other. Technonationalism is tied to a certain type of commerce. Therefore, it can be said that here the Trump administration is a technonationalist government.
The imposition of tariffs and sanctions are two clear examples of Trump’s technonationalism. Although the imposition of embargoes on Iran existed previously, the policy of maximum pressure, the imposition of new sanctions, and also the threat of war against Iran fall within the framework of the same logic of technonationalism. In conclusion, it must be said that the authorities of Western countries, particularly the United States, believe that the technological utopianism that Iran has adopted not only contributes to the development and consolidation of national identity in Iran, but can also challenge the desired order of the great powers.
The same procedure prevails in the case of the confrontation between Iran and Israel, because they assume that the technological utopianism that Iran has adopted poses an existential threat to themselves. It should also be noted that the project known as the Abraham Accords in the region derives from the strategy of technonationalism, which naturally requires stability and order for progress. They believe that any factor that disrupts this order must be eliminated, even if military means need to be employed.