Todays, there are at least two views and different images of the power of the West. The first picture says that with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, Western hegemony and values are spreading to other regions and civilizations of the world, and Western values will continue to play a major role in shaping the future political, economic and security relations of the world. Based on this point of view, nonwestern societies will need to follow western values in order to achieve development, otherwise they will not be able to achieve ideal progress. Against this optimistic view of the West, there is another image that introduces the Western civilization in decline and degeneration. This narrative believes that the current century should be considered the beginning of the end of Western power. From this point of view, it seems that Iran and China have a common vision to contain, reduce or confront the global hegemony of the West. From a political and ideological point of view, Iran has been able to redefine the anti-hegemonic power in the West Asian region, and on the other hand, China's economic performance has been able to expand the Chinese development model in the world and design a full-scale competition against the American hegemony. Meanwhile, most of the leaders of Iran and China believe that the current system ruling the world under the leadership of the United States is unfair and the existing international system cannot and should not continue to rule on this basis. The main question of this article is how the leaders of Iran and China view the structure of the international system. The findings of the research using the discourse content analysis method show that while the Iranian leaders' view of the structure of the international system is confrontational and philosophical, the Chinese leaders' view of the structure of the international system is based on political and economic cooperation. The article shows that despite the similarities between the discourses of the leaders of Iran and China, the critical positions of the leaders of the two countries towards the international order and the attempt to weaken the American hegemony have fundamental differences.
Ashraf, Nussaiba, (2019), Revisiting international relations legacy on hegemony The decline of American hegemony from comparative perspectives, Review of Economics and Political Science, Adreess: www.emeraldinsight.com/2631-3561.htm
Berman, Sheri (1998), The Social Democratic Moment: Ideas and Politics in the Making of Interwar Europe, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Byun, Won, (2021), Chinese Views of Hegemony and Multilateralism in the Biden Era, Adreess: https://theasanforum.org/chinese-views-of-hegemony-and-multilateralism-in-the-biden-era/#1
Callco, David, (1987), “Beyond American Hegemony: The Future of the Western Alliance”, Published by Basic Books.
Cox, R. (1983), “Hegemony, and international relations: an essay in the method”, Millenium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 162-175.
Giplin, R. (1981), War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge university press, Cambridge.
Goldstone, J.A. (1987), Untitled [Review of the book Empire, by MichaelW. Doyle], American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 730-732.
Gramsci, Antonio, (1971), “Hegemony”, Intellectuals and steak: selections from prison Notebooks, London.
Graneheim, UH. Lundman, B (2004), “Qualitative Content Analysis in NursingResearch: Concepts, Procedures and Measures to Achieve Trustworthiness”, Nurse Education Today, 24.
Ikenberry, G. John & Daniel H. Nexon, (2019), “Hegemony Studies 3.0: The Dynamics of Hegemonic Orders” Security Studies, Pages 395-421 | Published online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2019.1604981
Ikenberry, G.J. (1999), “Institutions, strategic restraint, and the persistence of American postwar order”, International Security, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 43-78.
Ikenberry, J. (1998), “Constitutional politics in international relations”, European Journal of
Ikenberry, John J. (2006), After Victory, Chicago: Stanford University Press
Jervis, Robert, (1978), “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma”, World Politics, 214-167: (2)30.
Kaufman, Stuart J, Wohlforth, William C and Little, Richard, (2007), “The Balance of Power in World History”, Cambridge University Press.
Kindelberger, C.P. (1973), The World in Depression, 1929-1939, University of Columbia press, New York, NY.
Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Muffe (1985), Hegemony & Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, London – Now York: Verso.
Torki,H. and Shariati,S. (2023). Discourse Analysis of Iran and China Leaders towards the International System. International Quarterly of Foreign Relations, 15(3), 134-156. doi: 10.22034/fr.2023.393157.1370
MLA
Torki,H. , and Shariati,S. . "Discourse Analysis of Iran and China Leaders towards the International System", International Quarterly of Foreign Relations, 15, 3, 2023, 134-156. doi: 10.22034/fr.2023.393157.1370
HARVARD
Torki H., Shariati S. (2023). 'Discourse Analysis of Iran and China Leaders towards the International System', International Quarterly of Foreign Relations, 15(3), pp. 134-156. doi: 10.22034/fr.2023.393157.1370
CHICAGO
H. Torki and S. Shariati, "Discourse Analysis of Iran and China Leaders towards the International System," International Quarterly of Foreign Relations, 15 3 (2023): 134-156, doi: 10.22034/fr.2023.393157.1370
VANCOUVER
Torki H., Shariati S. Discourse Analysis of Iran and China Leaders towards the International System. Int Q Foreign Relat, 2023; 15(3): 134-156. doi: 10.22034/fr.2023.393157.1370