The recent statements by the US Secretary of State at a joint meeting with Robert Fico should be viewed as part of a pre-negotiation cognitive framing operation ahead of the Geneva talks. The claim that the United States is dealing with “Shia extremists” who make geopolitical decisions based on theology seeks to portray Iran’s conduct in the international system as irrational.
This narrative construction pursues two objectives: first, to delegitimize the intellectual foundations of Iran’s foreign policy; second, to prepare Western public opinion for intensified pressure should Washington’s demands not be met. In this sense, the discussion of theology is not an epistemological analysis but a political instrument designed to shift the playing field from rights and interests to identity-based constructs.
American Ideology and Behavioral Duality
While Iran is accused of ideological conduct, the record of US foreign policy shows that the United States itself has, for decades, structured its behavior within ideological frameworks. From the use of terms such as “crusade” in reference to the invasion of Afghanistan to the conceptualization of “Islamic terrorism,” official Washington discourse has consistently intertwined policy with belief-based constructs.
Moreover, the United States’ full alignment with the Israeli regime—many of whose actions are justified with reference to religious teachings—illustrates the instrumental use of religion in power politics. From this perspective, the binary of “rational geopolitics” versus “extremist theology” is less an analytical distinction than a political labelling strategy aimed at consolidating hegemony.
What Is Washington’s Preferred Geopolitics?
When American officials speak of a “geopolitical decision,” they do not merely mean the calculation of national interests; rather, they imply a change in the identity components of Iran’s foreign policy. Concepts such as “becoming a normal country,” “ending regional adventurism,” or “joining the international community,” as used in their discourse, effectively signify retreat from the principles of independence, rejection of subordination, and the reduction of defensive deterrent capabilities.
Within this framework, missile capability, peaceful nuclear advancement, regional partnerships, and support for the Palestinian people are defined not as legitimate elements of national power but as obstacles to Iran’s integration into the US-preferred order. In other words, the “geopolitical understanding” sought by Washington translates into acceptance of the unilateral rules of a dominant system—not an equal agreement between two independent actors.
Nuclear Issue, Fatwa, and the Question of Independence
A central point in this dispute is the overlooking of the most significant theological component of Iran’s foreign policy: the fatwa issued by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution prohibiting the production and use of nuclear weapons. This fatwa, as both a deterrent and ethical document, has established the peaceful framework of Iran’s nuclear program.
Nevertheless, the US insistence on “zero enrichment” and the dismantling of nuclear infrastructure indicates that the core issue is not concern over weapons but rather the containment of Iran’s scientific capacity and technological independence. From this perspective, the existing confrontation is less technical—or even purely security-related—than an identity-based competition over whether Iran will serve as a model within an evolving global order.
Geopolitical Consequences of Identity Stripping
Accepting the American definition of geopolitics would mean separating national interests from their historical and identity roots. Such an approach would effectively reduce foreign policy to the short-term management of livelihoods while disregarding long-term security.
The US strategy is based on sustained attritional pressure—a combination of security threats and economic sanctions—aimed ultimately at substituting “livelihood” for “identity.” Countering this trend cannot rely solely on defensive capability; it requires strengthening the domestic economy, fostering social persuasion, and enhancing media literacy to neutralize narrative warfare.
Accordingly, Rubio’s remarks should be understood not as a diplomatic slip but as part of a multilayered cognitive campaign whose ultimate objective is to alter the identity geometry of the Islamic Republic of Iran.