**1. The Role of Religion in International Politics**

International Relations theories have been based on the argumen<sup>t</sup> that the Westphalian Treaty excluded religion from international politics, pushing it outside of the public sphere. Religion belonged, according to this argument, to the sphere of individual and of the irrational, and as such could not be considered in analyzing international politics. Cold War international relations saw in religion a mere ideological tool, despite that the Irish issue, the India–Pakistan conflict and the Iran–Iraq war had an inherent religious element. Political science theories had, for analytical purposes, reduced religions to institutions and handily categorized them as non-governmen<sup>t</sup> or transnational organizations, mere elements of the civil society acting in accordance with rational choice theory. What stays out of scope in such definitions is the experience of the communion with God, the spiritual life of religious communities (Kubálková 2000, pp. 682–83).

Since the Enlightenment, among political and social thinkers and scientists prevailed the view that religion constitutes a relic system of ideas of pre-modern societies of the past, and that technological progress and the development of modern political institutions would minimize its role in society (Roussos 2015, p. 54). Central in this exclusion of religion from international relations is the theory of secularization in modern societies, understood either as a decline in people's religiosity and/or as a process of withdrawal of religion from the public to the private (Fox 2001, p. 56).

Following the secularization theory, the modernization processes not only would reduce religion to the private sphere, but they also would eliminate religious influence on the society. This approach overlooks, however, several issues that place religion at the center of the public sphere even during periods of modernization. First, the decline of the role of religion was never lineal; instead we observe several moments of religious revival in the midst of rapid modernization. The nineteenth century, an era of intense globalized modernization was also an era of tremendous reach of world religions and of their missionary, educational, publishing and cultural impact (Bayly 2004, p. 325). Pankaj Mishra focuses on two grea<sup>t</sup> late 19th century Asian intellectuals, al-Afghani and Liang Qichao, who tried to reconsider their religious tradition in order to bring it in harmony with an onward modern intellectual movement (Mishra 2012).

In the early twentieth century the Irish national movement enlisted the structural rigor and the spiritual influence of the Catholic Church (English 2008). The Algerian anticolonial movement, in the interwar period, was based mainly on the dichotomy between French and Muslims (Zack 2002, p. 80). Hindu and American Christian fundamentalisms were formed in the late 1920s.

Secularization theory treats all religions as monolithic, static and uniform. It also refers to a certain episode or episodes and historical periods and not to a wider circle of decline and reassertion of religion. Nationalism has been seen as a secular ideology but in fact it has integrated religion by nationalizing it. Greek, Hindu, Jewish and Irish nationalisms have been largely defined by religion, while Britain and the Netherlands were long considered Protestant nations before including the Catholics in the nation-state (van der Veer 2015, pp. 9–10). Two centuries after the Westphalian Treaty, religion had re-asserted its role in the public sphere, impacting considerably on the global order. In the early 19th century, religious leaders played a decisive role in the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and the Second and Third Great Religious Awakenings influenced modern American social culture and activism. Ibn Taimiyya, a 13th century Muslim thinker, influenced Islamist movements in the 20th century.

At the end of the 19th century, after two industrial revolutions and the most expansive globalization in human history, the world experienced a re-emergence of "world religions" at a pace unthinkable until then. Likewise, by the end of the 20th century, after grea<sup>t</sup> political upheavals, two world wars, the decolonization process and all the political, social and most importantly scientific revolutions, it is hard to miss that the de-secularization process has taken multiple trajectories and has made geopolitics of religion central in reshaping regional issues and in restructuring modes of international politics and international system's intervention particularly in the Middle East.

Religion influences international politics through decision-makers in various states as well as through the power of the voters who have strong religious affiliation. The evangelical communities influence on American foreign policy in the era of Reagan, Bush Jr. and Trump are cases in point. Religion is also a source of legitimation of authority and of support or opposition to certain state policies at national and international levels. By the end of the 20th century, more and more religious conflicts were becoming international issues (Fox 2001, p. 59) such as the Sunni–Shia divide in the Middle East, the conflict in Caucasus and the ascent of Jihadism in West Africa.

Furthermore, the tendency of secular policymakers to disregard the role of religion and religious institutions in contemporary affairs hinders our ability to respond to current challenges in international politics. Contrary to the notion that religion and religious grievances are fueling conflicts, religious actors have contributed most effectively in conflict resolution (Schewel 2014, pp. 57–58). Religion can be influential in shaping leadership style and re-directing leadership attention. It can also frame the socio-cultural context in which foreign policy is conducted. Such socio-cultural context may set the criteria of who is the enemy of the state or the enemy of the religion and the faithful, and it affects the role of the self and the other in regional politics (Warner and Walker 2010).

According to Elizabeth Hurd Shakman, religion cannot be neglected in the study of international politics for three main reasons. First, the United States and the rest of the Western world failed in imposing their model of secular democracy on the rest of the world. Second, superpower's foreign policy under Bush Jr., though nominally secular, was largely influenced by religious communities and ideologies. Third, there is a significant increase of religious movements and organizations of transnational character and international activism and outreach (Hurd Shakman 2008, p. 134).

The resurgence of religion in international politics is closely related to the crisis of modernity and the failure of the secular state to advance democracy and development in the less developed world. Scott M. Thomas argued that this religious resurgence is connected to a search for authentic identity and just development in the non-western world, and in this way it can be seen as a revolution against the West (Thomas 2000, pp. 816–17).

In the case of identity groups (nations), it is smaller groups that determine the threats to identity groups' right of survival, and they reserve the right to speak and act on its behalf (Wæver 1996, pp. 107–9). In states where religious and national identity are tightly intertwined, religion can play a decisive role in determining security threats and generating collective fear. Religious groups

can thus be more influential than political ones, claiming that they speak and act on behalf of the nation. They religionize foreign and security policy by setting security threats in a sacred context (Juergensmeyer 2001, p. 468).

Religious activism can take a violent turn. Theories of social movements, fundamentalism and apocalyptic warriors can, according to Gregg, explain the circumstances under which religious activism uses violent means. Religion may mobilize pre-existing groups, networks and resources forming social movements in new moral frameworks, where their members can find common meaning and purpose. Grassroots networks and alliances are united by their shared view of "just order" found on submission to God's sovereignty. With their political opportunities blocked or their aspirations frustrated these movements can resort to violence. According to fundamentalism theory, various religious groups are fighting to bring the societies back to the straight path of the true faith. They may choose violence when they perceive political authority or current international order as the main promoter of secularism and moral decay. Last, apocalyptic groups aim at violently "intervening" in human history bringing closer the End of the Days (Gregg 2016).
