The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 A Structural Analysis of the Obstacles to Economic Orientation in the Foreign Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran A Structural Analysis of the Obstacles to Economic Orientation in the Foreign Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran 7 36 227100 10.22034/irr.2025.541524.2752 FA Fereshteh Bahramipour Corresponding Author, PhD, Department of Political Science, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran, bahramipoor1373@gmail.com 0000-0002-4927-0509 Kamran Karami PhD, Department of Political Science, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran; Visiting Researcher at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies, kamrank63@gmail.com 0009-0003-8069-7548 Journal Article 2025 08 16 The contemporary international order, with rapid changes and significant geopolitical transformations, is transitioning towards a new order in which the foreign policy of states is increasingly economic-centered, and the logic of economic give-and-take has gained a central role in foreign interactions. In such a context, economic diplomacy has become the main tool for integration into global value chains and for positioning in the international economy. This article, relying on the theoretical framework of international political economy, particularly the perspectives of Robert Gilpin and Susan Strange, examines the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the perspective of the capabilities and obstacles of economic centrism. The research utilizes an analytical-documentary method, selecting five key areas-international trade, global finance, multinational corporations, North-South relations, and the concept of hegemony-as the main indicators for analysis. The findings show that Iran's foreign policy, despite the rhetorical emphasis on the economy, lacks the necessary structural and strategic coherence to achieve effective economic diplomacy. As a result, without a fundamental rethink of the foreign policy view on the economic components of power, the possibility of playing an active and sustainable role in the new global order will not be provided. Introduction In recent years, the international system has experienced profound transformations in economic, technological, and institutional domains, fundamentally reshaping the foreign policy priorities of states. Traditional elements of power, including military capabilities, geopolitical positioning, and ideological discourse, have gradually become insufficient to secure a nation’s influence. Economic considerations and the capacity to engage effectively in global economic structures have increasingly emerged as critical determinants of national power. Economic diplomacy has become a principal instrument for states to integrate into global value chains, attract investment, and enhance strategic influence. Many countries have successfully aligned foreign policy with economic objectives, leveraging institutional networks, trade relations, and financial mechanisms to achieve sustainable development and international standing. Despite Iran’s significant geo-economic advantages, including abundant energy resources, strategic transit location, and a highly educated workforce, its foreign policy continues to prioritize traditional security and geopolitical concerns over economic opportunities. The repeated rhetorical emphasis on concepts such as "resistance economy," "economic diplomacy," and "production leap" contrasts sharply with the lack of structural alignment necessary for effective economic engagement. This study investigates the obstacles preventing Iran from fully adopting an economy-centered foreign policy and explores the structural and institutional reforms required to reposition Iran in the global economic order. Theoretical Framework This research is grounded in the international political economy perspectives of Susan Strange and Robert Gilpin. Strange’s concept of structural power emphasizes the ability of states to shape international economic rules, priorities, and behaviors rather than relying solely on coercion. She identifies production, finance, security, and knowledge as critical domains through which a state can exert influence. In this context, economic diplomacy depends on a state’s capacity to secure advantageous positions within these structures and leverage them strategically. Gilpin’s framework underscores the interaction between geopolitical interests and economic power, highlighting that failure to align political strategy with economic logic constrains national capabilities. By integrating these approaches, the study frames Iran’s foreign policy as a system influenced by institutional, structural, and discursive factors that collectively determine the effectiveness of economic engagement. The theoretical framework thus provides a lens to analyze how Iran’s structural position in international economic institutions and its domestic capacity affect its ability to conduct coherent economic diplomacy. Methodology The study employs a descriptive-analytical approach based on documentary research. Key domains—international trade, global finance, multinational corporations, North–South relations, and hegemony—were examined as indicators of structural capacity and alignment with economic objectives. Data were gathered from official documents, policy statements, and secondary literature. Analytical techniques were applied to evaluate the coherence between rhetoric and actual foreign policy practice, identifying structural constraints and strategic gaps Discussion The analysis reveals significant structural and institutional gaps that hinder Iran’s economy-centered foreign policy. Across the examined domains, Iran demonstrates limited participation in global economic institutions, inefficient trade and tariff systems, and restricted access to international financial networks. The absence of strong multinational corporations and technological integration further weakens structural positioning. Iran’s adversarial approach toward global South partnerships and reliance on hard power instruments exacerbate the marginalization of economic priorities. From Gilpin’s perspective, Iran fails to reconcile geopolitical imperatives with the strategic use of economic power, missing opportunities for leverage in regional and global negotiations. According to Strange, the fragile structural position in critical domains such as production, finance, and knowledge constrains Iran’s influence, even if policy discourse favors economic objectives. This misalignment limits foreign investment, technological development, integration into global value chains, and participation in multilateral initiatives such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Belt and Road Initiative. Economic power is not merely complementary to political power; it is foundational. Without addressing institutional and structural deficits, Iran’s foreign policy remains reactive and fragmented, compromising its ability to achieve sustainable development and effective engagement in the evolving global order. Conclusion The study concludes that Iran’s inability to adopt an economy-centered foreign policy stems not only from external pressures, such as sanctions, but also from internal asymmetries at structural, institutional, and discursive levels. Effective economic diplomacy requires comprehensive rethinking of the intellectual, institutional, and structural foundations guiding foreign policy. Transitioning toward an economy-oriented approach demands reforms to align domestic capacity, structural positioning, and decision-making processes with the logic of global economic power. Strengthening multilateral engagement, fostering domestic economic actors, and integrating into international financial and trade networks are essential steps to overcome existing constraints. Only through such holistic transformation can Iran leverage its economic potential to enhance geopolitical influence, secure sustainable development, and play an active and stable role in the emerging global order. Reconciling geopolitical priorities with economic strategy is imperative for coherent and forward-looking foreign policy outcomes. The contemporary international order, with rapid changes and significant geopolitical transformations, is transitioning towards a new order in which the foreign policy of states is increasingly economic-centered, and the logic of economic give-and-take has gained a central role in foreign interactions. In such a context, economic diplomacy has become the main tool for integration into global value chains and for positioning in the international economy. This article, relying on the theoretical framework of international political economy, particularly the perspectives of Robert Gilpin and Susan Strange, examines the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the perspective of the capabilities and obstacles of economic centrism. The research utilizes an analytical-documentary method, selecting five key areas-international trade, global finance, multinational corporations, North-South relations, and the concept of hegemony-as the main indicators for analysis. The findings show that Iran's foreign policy, despite the rhetorical emphasis on the economy, lacks the necessary structural and strategic coherence to achieve effective economic diplomacy. As a result, without a fundamental rethink of the foreign policy view on the economic components of power, the possibility of playing an active and sustainable role in the new global order will not be provided. Introduction In recent years, the international system has experienced profound transformations in economic, technological, and institutional domains, fundamentally reshaping the foreign policy priorities of states. Traditional elements of power, including military capabilities, geopolitical positioning, and ideological discourse, have gradually become insufficient to secure a nation’s influence. Economic considerations and the capacity to engage effectively in global economic structures have increasingly emerged as critical determinants of national power. Economic diplomacy has become a principal instrument for states to integrate into global value chains, attract investment, and enhance strategic influence. Many countries have successfully aligned foreign policy with economic objectives, leveraging institutional networks, trade relations, and financial mechanisms to achieve sustainable development and international standing. Despite Iran’s significant geo-economic advantages, including abundant energy resources, strategic transit location, and a highly educated workforce, its foreign policy continues to prioritize traditional security and geopolitical concerns over economic opportunities. The repeated rhetorical emphasis on concepts such as "resistance economy," "economic diplomacy," and "production leap" contrasts sharply with the lack of structural alignment necessary for effective economic engagement. This study investigates the obstacles preventing Iran from fully adopting an economy-centered foreign policy and explores the structural and institutional reforms required to reposition Iran in the global economic order. Theoretical Framework This research is grounded in the international political economy perspectives of Susan Strange and Robert Gilpin. Strange’s concept of structural power emphasizes the ability of states to shape international economic rules, priorities, and behaviors rather than relying solely on coercion. She identifies production, finance, security, and knowledge as critical domains through which a state can exert influence. In this context, economic diplomacy depends on a state’s capacity to secure advantageous positions within these structures and leverage them strategically. Gilpin’s framework underscores the interaction between geopolitical interests and economic power, highlighting that failure to align political strategy with economic logic constrains national capabilities. By integrating these approaches, the study frames Iran’s foreign policy as a system influenced by institutional, structural, and discursive factors that collectively determine the effectiveness of economic engagement. The theoretical framework thus provides a lens to analyze how Iran’s structural position in international economic institutions and its domestic capacity affect its ability to conduct coherent economic diplomacy. Methodology The study employs a descriptive-analytical approach based on documentary research. Key domains—international trade, global finance, multinational corporations, North–South relations, and hegemony—were examined as indicators of structural capacity and alignment with economic objectives. Data were gathered from official documents, policy statements, and secondary literature. Analytical techniques were applied to evaluate the coherence between rhetoric and actual foreign policy practice, identifying structural constraints and strategic gaps Discussion The analysis reveals significant structural and institutional gaps that hinder Iran’s economy-centered foreign policy. Across the examined domains, Iran demonstrates limited participation in global economic institutions, inefficient trade and tariff systems, and restricted access to international financial networks. The absence of strong multinational corporations and technological integration further weakens structural positioning. Iran’s adversarial approach toward global South partnerships and reliance on hard power instruments exacerbate the marginalization of economic priorities. From Gilpin’s perspective, Iran fails to reconcile geopolitical imperatives with the strategic use of economic power, missing opportunities for leverage in regional and global negotiations. According to Strange, the fragile structural position in critical domains such as production, finance, and knowledge constrains Iran’s influence, even if policy discourse favors economic objectives. This misalignment limits foreign investment, technological development, integration into global value chains, and participation in multilateral initiatives such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Belt and Road Initiative. Economic power is not merely complementary to political power; it is foundational. Without addressing institutional and structural deficits, Iran’s foreign policy remains reactive and fragmented, compromising its ability to achieve sustainable development and effective engagement in the evolving global order. Conclusion The study concludes that Iran’s inability to adopt an economy-centered foreign policy stems not only from external pressures, such as sanctions, but also from internal asymmetries at structural, institutional, and discursive levels. Effective economic diplomacy requires comprehensive rethinking of the intellectual, institutional, and structural foundations guiding foreign policy. Transitioning toward an economy-oriented approach demands reforms to align domestic capacity, structural positioning, and decision-making processes with the logic of global economic power. Strengthening multilateral engagement, fostering domestic economic actors, and integrating into international financial and trade networks are essential steps to overcome existing constraints. Only through such holistic transformation can Iran leverage its economic potential to enhance geopolitical influence, secure sustainable development, and play an active and stable role in the emerging global order. Reconciling geopolitical priorities with economic strategy is imperative for coherent and forward-looking foreign policy outcomes.

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_227100_adb3b417f6570eed0f3beef9db06431d.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 "Assessing the Influence of EU Economic Conditionalities on Turkey’s Emergence as an Economic Power (1980–2020)" "Assessing the Influence of EU Economic Conditionalities on Turkey’s Emergence as an Economic Power (1980–2020)" 37 63 227372 10.22034/irr.2025.518583.2699 FA Homeyra Aryanmehr PhD student in International Relations, Department of Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch. Tehran. Iran 0009-0002-1381-6343 Alireza Soltani Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran 0000-0003-0936-3257 Hamidreza SHirzad Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran 0000-0002-3469-144X Journal Article 2025 04 22 Since the 1980s, Turkey has embarked on a developmental trajectory that, by the early 21st century, gradually positioned the country as an emerging economic power. Simultaneously, Turkey initiated its accession process to the European Union during the same decade. Although this process has not culminated in full membership as of 2025—and has in fact weakened over the past two decades—it has nevertheless remained an active and influential factor in Turkey's macro-level policymaking and strategic orientation. In particular, the EU accession process has played a significant role in shaping Turkey's transformation into an emerging economic power over the past three decades. Given this context, the central research question of the present study is as follows: How has Turkey’s EU accession process—with its specific institutional and economic requirements—influenced objective indicators of economic development and the country’s status as an emerging economic power during the period 1980 to 2025? To address this question, the following hypothesis is proposed: Although Turkey has not achieved full EU membership, the institutional and economic standards imposed by the accession process—particularly through conditionality mechanisms in areas such as trade liberalization, privatization, improvement of the business environment, attraction of foreign direct investment, and enhancement of competitive infrastructure—have contributed to sustained economic growth and the elevation of Turkey’s position as an emerging economic power in the international system. Introduction Turkey’s transformation from a largely state-controlled and crisis-prone economy into an emerging economic power represents one of the most prominent development trajectories among middle-income countries. Since the 1980s, Turkey has implemented structural reforms aimed at liberalizing its economy, promoting privatization, and integrating into global markets. Simultaneously, Turkey pursued accession to the European Union, a process that, despite remaining incomplete, has exerted a significant influence on its economic policies and strategic development. EU membership aspirations created an external framework of conditionalities that shaped domestic policy-making, governance reforms, and institutional strengthening. These conditionalities were not merely formal prerequisites for membership; they functioned as mechanisms for promoting sustainable economic growth, enhancing competitiveness, and aligning Turkey with international economic norms. This article examines how Turkey’s engagement with EU economic conditionalities has influenced its evolution as an emerging economic power, emphasizing the interplay between external incentives and domestic developmental strategies. It explores the question of how conditionalities in trade liberalization, investment promotion, privatization, and institutional capacity have contributed to Turkey’s economic modernization, structural reforms, and positioning in the global economy. By analyzing these dynamics, the study contributes to understanding how strategic integration into regional economic frameworks can accelerate domestic development even without formal membership. Methodology This study employs a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach to examine the influence of EU economic conditionalities on Turkey’s economic emergence. Data were collected through extensive library research, analysis of official reports, academic publications, and international datasets from organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, OECD, and WTO. The research focuses on key indicators reflecting economic growth, investment, trade performance, institutional reforms, and competitiveness. Using process tracing and documentary analysis, the study identifies causal relationships between the EU’s conditionality mechanisms and structural economic transformations in Turkey. The methodology allows for integrating historical, institutional, and policy perspectives, offering a comprehensive understanding of the conditionality-driven development process. Theoretical Framework The study draws upon three complementary theoretical perspectives. First, the developmental state theory emphasizes the central role of state-led strategic planning and policy coordination in driving economic modernization, highlighting how governments can direct resources and implement reforms to achieve sustained growth. Second, the EU conditionality framework provides insight into how external requirements and standards act as incentives for candidate countries to reform domestic institutions, policies, and regulatory structures. Conditionalities cover areas such as trade liberalization, privatization, investment promotion, and governance improvement. Third, new regionalism theory contextualizes Turkey’s integration efforts within broader regional and global economic networks, illustrating how regional organizations can influence domestic trajectories and promote structural convergence. Together, these frameworks explain how Turkey’s developmental state strategies were reinforced and shaped by EU conditionalities, creating a dynamic interaction between domestic policy-making and external incentives that underpins Turkey’s emergence as an economic power. Discussion Turkey’s economic transformation demonstrates the synergistic effects of domestic reforms and external incentives. EU conditionalities functioned as both a roadmap and a catalyst for structural change, guiding policy decisions across key sectors. Trade liberalization facilitated the integration of Turkish markets into global networks, enhancing export capacity and competitiveness. Privatization and regulatory reforms improved efficiency in previously state-dominated sectors, while measures to attract foreign investment strengthened capital inflows and technological transfer. Institutional reforms aligned domestic governance structures with international norms, fostering policy coherence and enhancing investor confidence. These processes collectively enabled Turkey to diversify its economic base, reduce dependency on state-led interventions, and develop a more resilient, export-oriented economy. While full EU membership has not been realized, the adherence to conditionalities has effectively embedded EU-inspired standards into Turkey’s economic governance, demonstrating that external incentives can shape domestic trajectories even in the absence of formal institutional inclusion. This experience highlights the importance of strategic engagement with regional institutions, illustrating how conditionality mechanisms can serve as drivers of reform and modernization. It also underscores the interplay between domestic political will and external pressures, showing that sustainable development requires a combination of internal commitment and alignment with external standards. The Turkish case provides valuable lessons for other developing countries seeking to leverage regional and international frameworks to accelerate structural reforms, improve competitiveness, and enhance global integration. By linking conditionality compliance to measurable policy outcomes, the study illustrates the potential of institutionalized external influence to complement domestic developmental strategies, ultimately reinforcing Turkey’s position as an emerging economic power within a complex global landscape. Conclusion The study confirms that EU economic conditionalities have played a decisive role in Turkey’s emergence as an economic power. Although formal EU membership has not been achieved, Turkey’s compliance with conditionality requirements fostered structural reforms, institutional strengthening, and economic modernization. Conditionalities incentivized liberalization of trade, privatization, investment promotion, and the enhancement of governance frameworks, facilitating integration into global economic networks. The Turkish experience highlights the dynamic interaction between domestic developmental strategies and external institutional pressures, demonstrating that strategic engagement with regional organizations can accelerate reforms and elevate a country’s international economic status. Furthermore, the findings illustrate that external conditionalities can serve as effective mechanisms for promoting long-term sustainable growth, even when formal institutional recognition is absent. For policymakers in developing countries, the Turkish case underscores the importance of leveraging external frameworks to guide domestic reform, optimize policy outcomes, and strengthen global competitiveness. Ultimately, Turkey’s trajectory illustrates that a proactive developmental state, in conjunction with carefully navigated external incentives, can successfully transform national economies, enhance institutional capacity, and establish a robust foundation for emerging economic power status. The study emphasizes that strategic alignment with regional and international standards is not merely an administrative procedure but a central driver of economic development, offering critical insights for countries pursuing similar pathways of structural transformation and integration into the global economy. Since the 1980s, Turkey has embarked on a developmental trajectory that, by the early 21st century, gradually positioned the country as an emerging economic power. Simultaneously, Turkey initiated its accession process to the European Union during the same decade. Although this process has not culminated in full membership as of 2025—and has in fact weakened over the past two decades—it has nevertheless remained an active and influential factor in Turkey's macro-level policymaking and strategic orientation. In particular, the EU accession process has played a significant role in shaping Turkey's transformation into an emerging economic power over the past three decades. Given this context, the central research question of the present study is as follows: How has Turkey’s EU accession process—with its specific institutional and economic requirements—influenced objective indicators of economic development and the country’s status as an emerging economic power during the period 1980 to 2025? To address this question, the following hypothesis is proposed: Although Turkey has not achieved full EU membership, the institutional and economic standards imposed by the accession process—particularly through conditionality mechanisms in areas such as trade liberalization, privatization, improvement of the business environment, attraction of foreign direct investment, and enhancement of competitive infrastructure—have contributed to sustained economic growth and the elevation of Turkey’s position as an emerging economic power in the international system. Introduction Turkey’s transformation from a largely state-controlled and crisis-prone economy into an emerging economic power represents one of the most prominent development trajectories among middle-income countries. Since the 1980s, Turkey has implemented structural reforms aimed at liberalizing its economy, promoting privatization, and integrating into global markets. Simultaneously, Turkey pursued accession to the European Union, a process that, despite remaining incomplete, has exerted a significant influence on its economic policies and strategic development. EU membership aspirations created an external framework of conditionalities that shaped domestic policy-making, governance reforms, and institutional strengthening. These conditionalities were not merely formal prerequisites for membership; they functioned as mechanisms for promoting sustainable economic growth, enhancing competitiveness, and aligning Turkey with international economic norms. This article examines how Turkey’s engagement with EU economic conditionalities has influenced its evolution as an emerging economic power, emphasizing the interplay between external incentives and domestic developmental strategies. It explores the question of how conditionalities in trade liberalization, investment promotion, privatization, and institutional capacity have contributed to Turkey’s economic modernization, structural reforms, and positioning in the global economy. By analyzing these dynamics, the study contributes to understanding how strategic integration into regional economic frameworks can accelerate domestic development even without formal membership. Methodology This study employs a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach to examine the influence of EU economic conditionalities on Turkey’s economic emergence. Data were collected through extensive library research, analysis of official reports, academic publications, and international datasets from organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, OECD, and WTO. The research focuses on key indicators reflecting economic growth, investment, trade performance, institutional reforms, and competitiveness. Using process tracing and documentary analysis, the study identifies causal relationships between the EU’s conditionality mechanisms and structural economic transformations in Turkey. The methodology allows for integrating historical, institutional, and policy perspectives, offering a comprehensive understanding of the conditionality-driven development process. Theoretical Framework The study draws upon three complementary theoretical perspectives. First, the developmental state theory emphasizes the central role of state-led strategic planning and policy coordination in driving economic modernization, highlighting how governments can direct resources and implement reforms to achieve sustained growth. Second, the EU conditionality framework provides insight into how external requirements and standards act as incentives for candidate countries to reform domestic institutions, policies, and regulatory structures. Conditionalities cover areas such as trade liberalization, privatization, investment promotion, and governance improvement. Third, new regionalism theory contextualizes Turkey’s integration efforts within broader regional and global economic networks, illustrating how regional organizations can influence domestic trajectories and promote structural convergence. Together, these frameworks explain how Turkey’s developmental state strategies were reinforced and shaped by EU conditionalities, creating a dynamic interaction between domestic policy-making and external incentives that underpins Turkey’s emergence as an economic power. Discussion Turkey’s economic transformation demonstrates the synergistic effects of domestic reforms and external incentives. EU conditionalities functioned as both a roadmap and a catalyst for structural change, guiding policy decisions across key sectors. Trade liberalization facilitated the integration of Turkish markets into global networks, enhancing export capacity and competitiveness. Privatization and regulatory reforms improved efficiency in previously state-dominated sectors, while measures to attract foreign investment strengthened capital inflows and technological transfer. Institutional reforms aligned domestic governance structures with international norms, fostering policy coherence and enhancing investor confidence. These processes collectively enabled Turkey to diversify its economic base, reduce dependency on state-led interventions, and develop a more resilient, export-oriented economy. While full EU membership has not been realized, the adherence to conditionalities has effectively embedded EU-inspired standards into Turkey’s economic governance, demonstrating that external incentives can shape domestic trajectories even in the absence of formal institutional inclusion. This experience highlights the importance of strategic engagement with regional institutions, illustrating how conditionality mechanisms can serve as drivers of reform and modernization. It also underscores the interplay between domestic political will and external pressures, showing that sustainable development requires a combination of internal commitment and alignment with external standards. The Turkish case provides valuable lessons for other developing countries seeking to leverage regional and international frameworks to accelerate structural reforms, improve competitiveness, and enhance global integration. By linking conditionality compliance to measurable policy outcomes, the study illustrates the potential of institutionalized external influence to complement domestic developmental strategies, ultimately reinforcing Turkey’s position as an emerging economic power within a complex global landscape. Conclusion The study confirms that EU economic conditionalities have played a decisive role in Turkey’s emergence as an economic power. Although formal EU membership has not been achieved, Turkey’s compliance with conditionality requirements fostered structural reforms, institutional strengthening, and economic modernization. Conditionalities incentivized liberalization of trade, privatization, investment promotion, and the enhancement of governance frameworks, facilitating integration into global economic networks. The Turkish experience highlights the dynamic interaction between domestic developmental strategies and external institutional pressures, demonstrating that strategic engagement with regional organizations can accelerate reforms and elevate a country’s international economic status. Furthermore, the findings illustrate that external conditionalities can serve as effective mechanisms for promoting long-term sustainable growth, even when formal institutional recognition is absent. For policymakers in developing countries, the Turkish case underscores the importance of leveraging external frameworks to guide domestic reform, optimize policy outcomes, and strengthen global competitiveness. Ultimately, Turkey’s trajectory illustrates that a proactive developmental state, in conjunction with carefully navigated external incentives, can successfully transform national economies, enhance institutional capacity, and establish a robust foundation for emerging economic power status. The study emphasizes that strategic alignment with regional and international standards is not merely an administrative procedure but a central driver of economic development, offering critical insights for countries pursuing similar pathways of structural transformation and integration into the global economy.

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_227372_b88cfc1ccab788f0903cac38c894caa3.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Fall of Bashar al-Assad: Strategic Implications The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Fall of Bashar al-Assad: Strategic Implications 65 92 227303 10.22034/irr.2025.504752.2661 FA غلامرضا کریمی 0000-0003-3139-9504 Journal Article 2025 02 08 The fall of Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, is one of the key events in the political developments of the Middle East following the Al-Aqsa Storm, which has had far-reaching consequences for both regional and international actors. This paper analyzes the potential impact of this fall on the strategies and priorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Utilizing a futures studies analytical approach, the strategic implications of this crisis on Iran’s strategic priorities are examined. Therefore, this study seeks to answer the question: “How will the fall of Bashar al-Assad affect the strategies and priorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran?” In other words, in the post-Assad era and with the relative weakening of the Resistance Axis, what scenarios does the Islamic Republic of Iran face? Based on the futures studies research methodology, several scenarios are presented, and their various dimensions are analyzed. Given that futures studies aim to address uncertainties and complexities about the future and identify multiple possible pathways, the formulation of hypotheses is not conventional. Consequently, hypotheses can only be proposed after resolving future uncertainties and presenting the proposed scenarios. The main finding of the paper emphasizes the need for a revision of Iran’s strategies and the future developments in the Middle East. Introduction The contemporary international order is experiencing profound and rapid transformations. Shifts in geopolitical alignments, coupled with the growing centrality of economic considerations, are gradually shaping a new global configuration in which foreign policy is increasingly economy-oriented. Within this framework, economic diplomacy has emerged as a crucial tool for states seeking to integrate into global value chains and to strengthen their positions in international politics. While many states have adjusted their foreign policy to reflect these realities, the Islamic Republic of Iran has largely retained a foreign policy orientation driven by ideological commitments and geopolitical imperatives. One of the central pillars of Iran’s regional strategy has been its long-standing alliance with Syria, a relationship dating back to the Iran–Iraq War. Syria has provided Iran with strategic depth, a corridor for supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, and a pivotal position in the Axis of Resistance. The potential collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, however, introduces significant uncertainty into Iran’s regional calculations. This study addresses the central research question: *How would the downfall of Assad impact Iran’s strategic priorities and foreign policy orientation?* By situating the issue within the broader transformations of the international system, the article explores the implications of such a development for Iran’s security, diplomacy, and regional influence. Theoretical Framework The study is framed within the field of International Political Economy (IPE), with particular reliance on the theoretical contributions of Robert Gilpin and Susan Strange. Gilpin emphasizes the inseparability of economics and security in world politics, while Strange highlights the structural dimensions of power embedded in finance, production, trade, and knowledge. Drawing upon these perspectives, the article evaluates Iran’s foreign policy in relation to five key domains of IPE: international trade, global finance, multinational corporations, North–South relations, and the dynamics of hegemony. This framework allows for a dual-level analysis: first, it highlights the structural constraints Iran faces in linking its foreign policy to economic power; second, it reveals how geopolitical disruptions, such as a regime change in Syria, might further exacerbate these challenges. While Iran rhetorically underscores the economic dimensions of foreign policy, it has not developed the institutional coherence or long-term strategy necessary to conduct effective economic diplomacy. The fall of Assad could intensify this gap, forcing Tehran to confront the contradiction between its ideology-driven security orientation and the economy-centered logic of the emerging international order. Methodology The research employs a futures studies approach, relying on scenario-building and cross-impact analysis as its core methods. Futures studies offer a systematic means to anticipate uncertain outcomes by identifying key drivers, analyzing potential interactions, and constructing plausible trajectories for decision-making. The analysis is descriptive–analytical in nature and is informed by secondary sources, including scholarly literature, policy analyses, and historical records. By integrating scenario-based thinking with comparative historical analysis, the study seeks to capture both the complexity of current regional dynamics and the structural dilemmas facing Iran. This methodology provides policymakers with the tools to anticipate multiple possible outcomes and to design flexible strategies for navigating a volatile environment. Although no single scenario can predict the future with certainty, scenario-building highlights the trade-offs and risks that must be managed if Iran is to preserve its regional influence and adapt to systemic change. Discussion The potential collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime would represent a watershed moment in Middle Eastern politics with far-reaching consequences for Iran’s foreign policy. Syria has long served as a linchpin in Tehran’s regional strategy, providing territorial and political depth for its influence in the Levant. The loss of this ally would thus weaken Iran’s ability to project power through its network of non-state actors and partner movements. It would also embolden rival states such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, while simultaneously creating new openings for global powers to expand their influence in Syria. On the international level, Assad’s downfall would intersect with Iran’s fragile economic position. Already constrained by sanctions and economic mismanagement, Tehran would face heightened challenges in sustaining its foreign policy commitments. The contradiction between ideology-driven regional activism and the demands of an increasingly economy-centered world order would become more apparent. Iran’s ability to mobilize resources, secure external partnerships, and integrate into global economic structures would be further constrained. Domestically, the costs of regional entanglements would intensify public and elite debates over the direction of Iran’s foreign policy. The legitimacy of investing in regional struggles, while domestic economic and social issues remain acute, would be increasingly questioned. This could deepen divisions within the political establishment and pressure policymakers to rethink the balance between ideology and pragmatism. In sum, Assad’s downfall would force Iran to confront several interrelated dilemmas: how to safeguard its regional influence in the absence of a key ally, how to avoid strategic isolation in a shifting balance of power, and how to reconcile its ideological commitments with pressing economic imperatives. Addressing these dilemmas would require greater diplomatic flexibility, a willingness to engage selectively with rival and global powers, and an explicit incorporation of economic priorities into foreign policy design. Conclusion This study demonstrates that the potential collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime is more than a regional disruption—it is a structural challenge to the foundations of Iran’s foreign policy. Without Syria, Tehran risks losing a critical ally that has underpinned its strategic depth and legitimacy as the leader of the Axis of Resistance. The resulting pressures, both external and internal, could constrain Iran’s capacity to sustain its current foreign policy orientation. The analysis concludes that Iran’s ability to navigate the post-Assad landscape will depend on adopting a flexible, proactive, and economy-oriented strategy. While ideological commitments will remain important, they must be balanced with pragmatic diplomacy, regional engagement, and expanded economic partnerships with emerging powers such as China and India. Integrating economic diplomacy into foreign policy is not merely an option but a necessity if Iran seeks to maintain its relevance in the evolving international order. Ultimately, the study underscores that Iran’s strategic resilience in the aftermath of Assad’s downfall will hinge on its capacity to reconcile ideology with pragmatism, security with economy, and resistance with adaptation. By anticipating potential futures and aligning its policies accordingly, Tehran may mitigate the risks of regional contraction and reposition itself within a rapidly transforming global system. . The fall of Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, is one of the key events in the political developments of the Middle East following the Al-Aqsa Storm, which has had far-reaching consequences for both regional and international actors. This paper analyzes the potential impact of this fall on the strategies and priorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Utilizing a futures studies analytical approach, the strategic implications of this crisis on Iran’s strategic priorities are examined. Therefore, this study seeks to answer the question: “How will the fall of Bashar al-Assad affect the strategies and priorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran?” In other words, in the post-Assad era and with the relative weakening of the Resistance Axis, what scenarios does the Islamic Republic of Iran face? Based on the futures studies research methodology, several scenarios are presented, and their various dimensions are analyzed. Given that futures studies aim to address uncertainties and complexities about the future and identify multiple possible pathways, the formulation of hypotheses is not conventional. Consequently, hypotheses can only be proposed after resolving future uncertainties and presenting the proposed scenarios. The main finding of the paper emphasizes the need for a revision of Iran’s strategies and the future developments in the Middle East. Introduction The contemporary international order is experiencing profound and rapid transformations. Shifts in geopolitical alignments, coupled with the growing centrality of economic considerations, are gradually shaping a new global configuration in which foreign policy is increasingly economy-oriented. Within this framework, economic diplomacy has emerged as a crucial tool for states seeking to integrate into global value chains and to strengthen their positions in international politics. While many states have adjusted their foreign policy to reflect these realities, the Islamic Republic of Iran has largely retained a foreign policy orientation driven by ideological commitments and geopolitical imperatives. One of the central pillars of Iran’s regional strategy has been its long-standing alliance with Syria, a relationship dating back to the Iran–Iraq War. Syria has provided Iran with strategic depth, a corridor for supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, and a pivotal position in the Axis of Resistance. The potential collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, however, introduces significant uncertainty into Iran’s regional calculations. This study addresses the central research question: *How would the downfall of Assad impact Iran’s strategic priorities and foreign policy orientation?* By situating the issue within the broader transformations of the international system, the article explores the implications of such a development for Iran’s security, diplomacy, and regional influence. Theoretical Framework The study is framed within the field of International Political Economy (IPE), with particular reliance on the theoretical contributions of Robert Gilpin and Susan Strange. Gilpin emphasizes the inseparability of economics and security in world politics, while Strange highlights the structural dimensions of power embedded in finance, production, trade, and knowledge. Drawing upon these perspectives, the article evaluates Iran’s foreign policy in relation to five key domains of IPE: international trade, global finance, multinational corporations, North–South relations, and the dynamics of hegemony. This framework allows for a dual-level analysis: first, it highlights the structural constraints Iran faces in linking its foreign policy to economic power; second, it reveals how geopolitical disruptions, such as a regime change in Syria, might further exacerbate these challenges. While Iran rhetorically underscores the economic dimensions of foreign policy, it has not developed the institutional coherence or long-term strategy necessary to conduct effective economic diplomacy. The fall of Assad could intensify this gap, forcing Tehran to confront the contradiction between its ideology-driven security orientation and the economy-centered logic of the emerging international order. Methodology The research employs a futures studies approach, relying on scenario-building and cross-impact analysis as its core methods. Futures studies offer a systematic means to anticipate uncertain outcomes by identifying key drivers, analyzing potential interactions, and constructing plausible trajectories for decision-making. The analysis is descriptive–analytical in nature and is informed by secondary sources, including scholarly literature, policy analyses, and historical records. By integrating scenario-based thinking with comparative historical analysis, the study seeks to capture both the complexity of current regional dynamics and the structural dilemmas facing Iran. This methodology provides policymakers with the tools to anticipate multiple possible outcomes and to design flexible strategies for navigating a volatile environment. Although no single scenario can predict the future with certainty, scenario-building highlights the trade-offs and risks that must be managed if Iran is to preserve its regional influence and adapt to systemic change. Discussion The potential collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime would represent a watershed moment in Middle Eastern politics with far-reaching consequences for Iran’s foreign policy. Syria has long served as a linchpin in Tehran’s regional strategy, providing territorial and political depth for its influence in the Levant. The loss of this ally would thus weaken Iran’s ability to project power through its network of non-state actors and partner movements. It would also embolden rival states such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, while simultaneously creating new openings for global powers to expand their influence in Syria. On the international level, Assad’s downfall would intersect with Iran’s fragile economic position. Already constrained by sanctions and economic mismanagement, Tehran would face heightened challenges in sustaining its foreign policy commitments. The contradiction between ideology-driven regional activism and the demands of an increasingly economy-centered world order would become more apparent. Iran’s ability to mobilize resources, secure external partnerships, and integrate into global economic structures would be further constrained. Domestically, the costs of regional entanglements would intensify public and elite debates over the direction of Iran’s foreign policy. The legitimacy of investing in regional struggles, while domestic economic and social issues remain acute, would be increasingly questioned. This could deepen divisions within the political establishment and pressure policymakers to rethink the balance between ideology and pragmatism. In sum, Assad’s downfall would force Iran to confront several interrelated dilemmas: how to safeguard its regional influence in the absence of a key ally, how to avoid strategic isolation in a shifting balance of power, and how to reconcile its ideological commitments with pressing economic imperatives. Addressing these dilemmas would require greater diplomatic flexibility, a willingness to engage selectively with rival and global powers, and an explicit incorporation of economic priorities into foreign policy design. Conclusion This study demonstrates that the potential collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime is more than a regional disruption—it is a structural challenge to the foundations of Iran’s foreign policy. Without Syria, Tehran risks losing a critical ally that has underpinned its strategic depth and legitimacy as the leader of the Axis of Resistance. The resulting pressures, both external and internal, could constrain Iran’s capacity to sustain its current foreign policy orientation. The analysis concludes that Iran’s ability to navigate the post-Assad landscape will depend on adopting a flexible, proactive, and economy-oriented strategy. While ideological commitments will remain important, they must be balanced with pragmatic diplomacy, regional engagement, and expanded economic partnerships with emerging powers such as China and India. Integrating economic diplomacy into foreign policy is not merely an option but a necessity if Iran seeks to maintain its relevance in the evolving international order. Ultimately, the study underscores that Iran’s strategic resilience in the aftermath of Assad’s downfall will hinge on its capacity to reconcile ideology with pragmatism, security with economy, and resistance with adaptation. By anticipating potential futures and aligning its policies accordingly, Tehran may mitigate the risks of regional contraction and reposition itself within a rapidly transforming global system. .

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_227303_8770c8d9fa132dc9f03c4f5e97a0e04f.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 The Invasion of Russia on Ukraine; A Case of 21st Century Warfare in Point The Invasion of Russia on Ukraine; A Case of 21st Century Warfare in Point 93 111 227304 10.22034/irr.2025.455392.2541 FA Davoud Gharayagh-Zandi Department of Political science, Faculty of Economic and Political Science, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran-Iran. 0000-0002-4778-4805 Journal Article 2024 05 02 Russia’s invasion on Ukraine in 2022 and its developments in advance connotes a watershed in manner of battle which would be calling it as the 21st battle. It deems that the new conception of battle – means the hybrid warfare and the narrative turn- is able to figure out the Ukraine crisis. A review on trajectory of the crisis from the collapse of the Soviet Union called as the period of translon from the cold war to the post-cold war era, we witnessed some new manner in fighting such as exerting influence, planned sabotage to irredentism used before the military one comes true in order to gain the political objectives. It is pre-phase of military operation because of its low-cost profit to achieve the ends and when it does not reach a net result, it enters into the complementary phase means the military one. For doing so, it needs to justify about it in a narrative turn. It makes a complicated situation because the both sides are tried to justify its efforts as an inevitably actions called as a natural resistance endeavor to preserve its principle of sovereign. It may getting worse when use of the nuclear weapons would be quite possibly in amid of the controversial and paradoxical narrations. The crisis management due to the narrative turn would be tightened in the threshold of the nuclear struggle and may resulted to switch a volatile situation with unprecedented outcomes. Introduction The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a defining moment in contemporary international security, illustrating the emergence of twenty-first-century warfare. Unlike traditional conflicts, this war integrates hybrid strategies and narrative framing, combining military maneuvers, political pressure, economic sanctions, and information operations to achieve strategic goals. Russia’s initial strategy involved deceptive troop movements along Ukraine’s borders, creating the impression of a single-front concentration while simultaneously preparing attacks from multiple directions—a classic application of the “deny-then-act” approach. The conflict has underscored the limitations of conventional agreements, revealing that acceptance of Russian objectives does not guarantee regional security. At the same time, the crisis has elevated the role of competing global narratives, enhancing anti-Western discourse and consolidating China’s geopolitical influence. These dynamics demonstrate how contemporary conflicts extend beyond physical battlefields, encompassing geopolitical, strategic, and informational dimensions. The Ukraine crisis therefore offers a lens through which to analyze the complex interplay between hybrid tactics, narrative power, and strategic decision-making in the twenty-first century. Methodology This study employs a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach, drawing on a comprehensive review of scholarly literature, official statements, and online sources. The research examines hybrid warfare strategies, narrative competition, and geopolitical consequences, using scenario-based analysis to assess potential outcomes. Key drivers, such as military capability, international support, and domestic stability, are evaluated to understand the dynamics shaping conflict trajectories and their implications for regional and global security. Theoretical Framework The analysis is grounded in theories of hybrid warfare, strategic deception, and narrative conflict. Hybrid warfare is conceptualized as the integration of conventional and unconventional military operations with political, economic, and informational tools to achieve objectives while minimizing direct confrontation. Narrative conflict emphasizes the role of organized, symbolic stories in legitimizing actions and shaping perceptions among domestic and international audiences. This dual framework explains how states justify actions, maintain sovereignty, and influence global opinion. The Ukraine war exemplifies the convergence of these dimensions, where strategic deception, multi-front operations, and competing narratives create an intricate security environment. Understanding this theoretical intersection is essential for analyzing the escalation, deterrence, and potential outcomes of modern conflicts. Discussion The Ukraine crisis highlights several key dynamics. First, Russia’s hybrid tactics, including multi-directional military advances and strategic deception, demonstrate the evolving methods of power projection. Second, acceptance of Russian objectives is insufficient for ensuring long-term security, as unstable political conditions can lead to the revision of agreements. Third, narrative competition has profound effects on global legitimacy, with Western and anti-Western discourses influencing both regional and international alignments. Four, the crisis has elevated the risk of nuclear escalation, as strategic stalemates increase the likelihood of considering nuclear options, particularly under conditions of domestic unrest or battlefield stalemates. Three potential scenarios illustrate the stakes: domestic collapse in either Russia or Ukraine could dramatically reshape the conflict; battlefield success by Ukraine could provoke direct confrontation with NATO and elevate nuclear risks; and nuclear armament in contested regions could trigger a cycle of deterrence and escalation. Each scenario underscores the complexity and unpredictability of modern conflict, emphasizing that both hybrid tactics and narrative framing are central to understanding contemporary warfare. The conflict also demonstrates the challenges faced by third-party states in navigating competing narratives and the importance of strategic prudence in mitigating collateral risks. Conclusion The analysis of the Russian-Ukrainian war confirms that twenty-first-century conflicts transcend conventional military engagement, combining hybrid operations with narrative strategies. Hybrid tactics complicate conflict dynamics, allowing states to pursue political objectives while minimizing immediate costs, yet introducing extensive regional and international repercussions. Narrative competition further amplifies these effects, framing actions in terms of sovereignty, resistance, and legitimacy while shaping global perceptions. The crisis exemplifies how geopolitical, strategic, and informational considerations are increasingly interdependent, heightening the risk of escalation, including potential nuclear engagement. Effective conflict management in such environments requires careful balancing of military, political, and informational tools, as well as awareness of third-party vulnerabilities. For Eurasian and global actors, navigating the Ukraine crisis demonstrates the necessity of measured, strategic responses to avoid entanglement in broader conflicts and to stabilize volatile regional dynamics. Ultimately, the war underscores the emergence of a new era of complex, multi-dimensional warfare, where hybrid tactics and narrative power define strategic outcomes Russia’s invasion on Ukraine in 2022 and its developments in advance connotes a watershed in manner of battle which would be calling it as the 21st battle. It deems that the new conception of battle – means the hybrid warfare and the narrative turn- is able to figure out the Ukraine crisis. A review on trajectory of the crisis from the collapse of the Soviet Union called as the period of translon from the cold war to the post-cold war era, we witnessed some new manner in fighting such as exerting influence, planned sabotage to irredentism used before the military one comes true in order to gain the political objectives. It is pre-phase of military operation because of its low-cost profit to achieve the ends and when it does not reach a net result, it enters into the complementary phase means the military one. For doing so, it needs to justify about it in a narrative turn. It makes a complicated situation because the both sides are tried to justify its efforts as an inevitably actions called as a natural resistance endeavor to preserve its principle of sovereign. It may getting worse when use of the nuclear weapons would be quite possibly in amid of the controversial and paradoxical narrations. The crisis management due to the narrative turn would be tightened in the threshold of the nuclear struggle and may resulted to switch a volatile situation with unprecedented outcomes. Introduction The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a defining moment in contemporary international security, illustrating the emergence of twenty-first-century warfare. Unlike traditional conflicts, this war integrates hybrid strategies and narrative framing, combining military maneuvers, political pressure, economic sanctions, and information operations to achieve strategic goals. Russia’s initial strategy involved deceptive troop movements along Ukraine’s borders, creating the impression of a single-front concentration while simultaneously preparing attacks from multiple directions—a classic application of the “deny-then-act” approach. The conflict has underscored the limitations of conventional agreements, revealing that acceptance of Russian objectives does not guarantee regional security. At the same time, the crisis has elevated the role of competing global narratives, enhancing anti-Western discourse and consolidating China’s geopolitical influence. These dynamics demonstrate how contemporary conflicts extend beyond physical battlefields, encompassing geopolitical, strategic, and informational dimensions. The Ukraine crisis therefore offers a lens through which to analyze the complex interplay between hybrid tactics, narrative power, and strategic decision-making in the twenty-first century. Methodology This study employs a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach, drawing on a comprehensive review of scholarly literature, official statements, and online sources. The research examines hybrid warfare strategies, narrative competition, and geopolitical consequences, using scenario-based analysis to assess potential outcomes. Key drivers, such as military capability, international support, and domestic stability, are evaluated to understand the dynamics shaping conflict trajectories and their implications for regional and global security. Theoretical Framework The analysis is grounded in theories of hybrid warfare, strategic deception, and narrative conflict. Hybrid warfare is conceptualized as the integration of conventional and unconventional military operations with political, economic, and informational tools to achieve objectives while minimizing direct confrontation. Narrative conflict emphasizes the role of organized, symbolic stories in legitimizing actions and shaping perceptions among domestic and international audiences. This dual framework explains how states justify actions, maintain sovereignty, and influence global opinion. The Ukraine war exemplifies the convergence of these dimensions, where strategic deception, multi-front operations, and competing narratives create an intricate security environment. Understanding this theoretical intersection is essential for analyzing the escalation, deterrence, and potential outcomes of modern conflicts. Discussion The Ukraine crisis highlights several key dynamics. First, Russia’s hybrid tactics, including multi-directional military advances and strategic deception, demonstrate the evolving methods of power projection. Second, acceptance of Russian objectives is insufficient for ensuring long-term security, as unstable political conditions can lead to the revision of agreements. Third, narrative competition has profound effects on global legitimacy, with Western and anti-Western discourses influencing both regional and international alignments. Four, the crisis has elevated the risk of nuclear escalation, as strategic stalemates increase the likelihood of considering nuclear options, particularly under conditions of domestic unrest or battlefield stalemates. Three potential scenarios illustrate the stakes: domestic collapse in either Russia or Ukraine could dramatically reshape the conflict; battlefield success by Ukraine could provoke direct confrontation with NATO and elevate nuclear risks; and nuclear armament in contested regions could trigger a cycle of deterrence and escalation. Each scenario underscores the complexity and unpredictability of modern conflict, emphasizing that both hybrid tactics and narrative framing are central to understanding contemporary warfare. The conflict also demonstrates the challenges faced by third-party states in navigating competing narratives and the importance of strategic prudence in mitigating collateral risks. Conclusion The analysis of the Russian-Ukrainian war confirms that twenty-first-century conflicts transcend conventional military engagement, combining hybrid operations with narrative strategies. Hybrid tactics complicate conflict dynamics, allowing states to pursue political objectives while minimizing immediate costs, yet introducing extensive regional and international repercussions. Narrative competition further amplifies these effects, framing actions in terms of sovereignty, resistance, and legitimacy while shaping global perceptions. The crisis exemplifies how geopolitical, strategic, and informational considerations are increasingly interdependent, heightening the risk of escalation, including potential nuclear engagement. Effective conflict management in such environments requires careful balancing of military, political, and informational tools, as well as awareness of third-party vulnerabilities. For Eurasian and global actors, navigating the Ukraine crisis demonstrates the necessity of measured, strategic responses to avoid entanglement in broader conflicts and to stabilize volatile regional dynamics. Ultimately, the war underscores the emergence of a new era of complex, multi-dimensional warfare, where hybrid tactics and narrative power define strategic outcomes

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_227304_4ec419b316fd1723f4fc2d311b00d3d7.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 The model of the Iran-Saudi Arabia category with globalization and its relation to the national and regional economic and political activity of the two countries The model of the Iran-Saudi Arabia category with globalization and its relation to the national and regional economic and political activity of the two countries 113 148 227772 10.22034/irr.2025.531458.2715 FA Yasser Ghaemi PhD Candidate in Political Science, Faculty of Social and Educational Sciences, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran. 0009-0004-5414-500X Farhad Daneshnia Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Razi University 0000-0002-4264-490X Ghodrat Ahmadian Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Razi University 0000-0001-9796-1251 Journal Article 2025 06 27 In today's world, where globalization has emerged as a pervasive interaction and integration in various economic, political, cultural, technological, and other spheres and relationships, no person, nation, country, or institution is exempt from the inclusion and effects of globalization. Iran and Saudi Arabia, as two regional power poles and two important and influential countries in the international system, are no exception to this rule. The present study, using library and Internet data, using an analytical-descriptive method and a comparative approach, seeks to conduct a comparative study of the pattern of these two countries in facing the phenomenon of globalization, and what the background for the formation of patterns in the foreign policy and international relations of Iran and Saudi Arabia was, and how its outcome on the political economy and regional and international positioning of these two countries can be understood. Therefore, the question that arises for the present study is; what has been the pattern of Iran and Saudi Arabia's encounter with the globalization process and its outcome on the national and regional political economy? The study is based on the hypothesis that the economic and technological approach of Saudi Arabia has led to the embeddedenss of Saudi Arabia's political economy, and the ideological and cultural approach of the Iranian Republic has led to the disembeddedness of Iran's political economy from the globalization process. The outcome of the two aforementioned patterns of confrontation with globalization has been the development of a dual movement at the national and regional levels. Introduction Globalization has affected all countries, organizations, companies, and nations of the world, and no country is exempt from this rule. Iran and Saudi Arabia are also affected by globalization. The question raised for the present study is; What has been the pattern of Iran and Saudi Arabia's confrontation with the issue of globalization and its outcome on the development of the interactions between the national and regional political economy of the two countries? The research is based on the hypothesis that the economic and technological approach of Saudi Arabia has led to the carving of the political economy of Saudi Arabia, and the ideological and cultural approach of the Iranian Republic has led to the detachment of Iran's political economy from the globalization process. The result of the two different patterns of confrontation by Iran and Saudi Arabia towards globalization, both at the national level (Islamism versus liberalism) and at the regional level (resistance versus conservatism), has been the creation of a dual movement (double movement). Methodology The present study, using library and internet data, using an analytical-descriptive method and a comparative approach, seeks to conduct a comparative study of the pattern of these two countries in facing the phenomenon of globalization, and to understand the context in which the patterns were formed in the foreign policy and international relations of Iran and Saudi Arabia, and how its outcome on the political economy and regional and international positioning of these two countries can be understood. Theoretical Framework In the present study, the opinions and thoughts of Karl Polanyi, especially her theories on political economy in the book The Great Transformation and its basic concepts such as emdeddedness, disembeddedness, and double movement, and finally her criticism of liberal economics, have been utilized. In contemporary times, the study of Polanyi's ideas is important for the discussions on the development of regionalism and the new world order, and can be compared with Hayek's work after World War II when the question of the post-war order was raised. The discussions on alternative global regionalism, in contrast to the American peace and neoliberal world order, are very much inspired by Polanyi's discussions and ideas. In contrast to neo-imperialism and the hard power of the global superpower, new regional formations and regionalism are emerging. With the end of World War II, after an unprecedented devastation, the question of the post-war order was raised again. Polanyi's and Hayek's ideas were compared, they approached this issue from very different perspectives. Inspired by Polanyi's views, regionalism and alternative world orders are discussed in the context of resistance to global neo-imperialism. Polanyi pointed out a very strong generalization about the dialectic of the market state. He pointed to the dual movement of market expansion and political interventionism in defense of society, which implied the revival of a moral society. Discussion Iran follows an endogenous, resistance-oriented economy, while Saudi Arabia follows an exogenous, convergent economy with the current neoliberal global economic system. Although the endogenous, resistance-oriented, state-led economic model comes with many challenges, it can also have short-term benefits in certain circumstances. For example, in times of economic crises, wars, or sanctions, this model may help reduce dependence on external resources and enhance self-sufficiency. However, this is not a long-term strategy and is more acceptable as an emergency response. Since the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979, the policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has not changed and has had a confrontational and resistance-oriented reaction towards the so-called Western international system and current globalization, and has faced globalization (the globalization project in the definition of the Iranian regime) with a resistance-oriented and order-building model throughout all these years. On the other side is Saudi Arabia, which, given the nature of the political system of the Kingdom of Al Saud, has had a conservative policy throughout its history. With the beginning of regional developments after 2011 and the beginning of the Arab revolutions, Saudi Arabia saw the position of the House of Saud and its conservative system in danger and, along with soft power, relied on hard power and political and military interference in the region and the countries of the Islamic world, and an aggressive policy with the help of the West and America, trying to control the situation in favor of its conservative system. However, what is important in this research is the recent period and after 2018, when the Saudi model towards the world and the current international system, the region and the Islamic world underwent a significant turn and in order to preserve the conservative system of its monarchy and the position of the Saudi system in the region, it has pursued an economic model towards the region and the international system and the current globalization process. Conclusion As a developing country, Iran needs foreign trade and exports for economic growth and increased public welfare. Cutting off ties with global markets may limit trade opportunities, resulting in reduced foreign exchange earnings, reduced employment, and even inflation. A resilient and endogenous economy can help the country on the one hand in a situation where international sanctions and pressures are severe, but on the other hand, if it is unable to rebuild and improve external economic relations, economic pressures and sanctions will intensify sharply. This challenge is also clearly seen in the case of Iran. In a resilient economy, foreign investment naturally decreases, as economic and trade connections are severely limited. This can lead to a lack of financial resources for the development of large projects, innovation, and infrastructure development. Ultimately, it seems that the global economy and its connection to it are essential for a country like Iran that needs growth and development. In today's world, where globalization has emerged as a pervasive interaction and integration in various economic, political, cultural, technological, and other spheres and relationships, no person, nation, country, or institution is exempt from the inclusion and effects of globalization. Iran and Saudi Arabia, as two regional power poles and two important and influential countries in the international system, are no exception to this rule. The present study, using library and Internet data, using an analytical-descriptive method and a comparative approach, seeks to conduct a comparative study of the pattern of these two countries in facing the phenomenon of globalization, and what the background for the formation of patterns in the foreign policy and international relations of Iran and Saudi Arabia was, and how its outcome on the political economy and regional and international positioning of these two countries can be understood. Therefore, the question that arises for the present study is; what has been the pattern of Iran and Saudi Arabia's encounter with the globalization process and its outcome on the national and regional political economy? The study is based on the hypothesis that the economic and technological approach of Saudi Arabia has led to the embeddedenss of Saudi Arabia's political economy, and the ideological and cultural approach of the Iranian Republic has led to the disembeddedness of Iran's political economy from the globalization process. The outcome of the two aforementioned patterns of confrontation with globalization has been the development of a dual movement at the national and regional levels. Introduction Globalization has affected all countries, organizations, companies, and nations of the world, and no country is exempt from this rule. Iran and Saudi Arabia are also affected by globalization. The question raised for the present study is; What has been the pattern of Iran and Saudi Arabia's confrontation with the issue of globalization and its outcome on the development of the interactions between the national and regional political economy of the two countries? The research is based on the hypothesis that the economic and technological approach of Saudi Arabia has led to the carving of the political economy of Saudi Arabia, and the ideological and cultural approach of the Iranian Republic has led to the detachment of Iran's political economy from the globalization process. The result of the two different patterns of confrontation by Iran and Saudi Arabia towards globalization, both at the national level (Islamism versus liberalism) and at the regional level (resistance versus conservatism), has been the creation of a dual movement (double movement). Methodology The present study, using library and internet data, using an analytical-descriptive method and a comparative approach, seeks to conduct a comparative study of the pattern of these two countries in facing the phenomenon of globalization, and to understand the context in which the patterns were formed in the foreign policy and international relations of Iran and Saudi Arabia, and how its outcome on the political economy and regional and international positioning of these two countries can be understood. Theoretical Framework In the present study, the opinions and thoughts of Karl Polanyi, especially her theories on political economy in the book The Great Transformation and its basic concepts such as emdeddedness, disembeddedness, and double movement, and finally her criticism of liberal economics, have been utilized. In contemporary times, the study of Polanyi's ideas is important for the discussions on the development of regionalism and the new world order, and can be compared with Hayek's work after World War II when the question of the post-war order was raised. The discussions on alternative global regionalism, in contrast to the American peace and neoliberal world order, are very much inspired by Polanyi's discussions and ideas. In contrast to neo-imperialism and the hard power of the global superpower, new regional formations and regionalism are emerging. With the end of World War II, after an unprecedented devastation, the question of the post-war order was raised again. Polanyi's and Hayek's ideas were compared, they approached this issue from very different perspectives. Inspired by Polanyi's views, regionalism and alternative world orders are discussed in the context of resistance to global neo-imperialism. Polanyi pointed out a very strong generalization about the dialectic of the market state. He pointed to the dual movement of market expansion and political interventionism in defense of society, which implied the revival of a moral society. Discussion Iran follows an endogenous, resistance-oriented economy, while Saudi Arabia follows an exogenous, convergent economy with the current neoliberal global economic system. Although the endogenous, resistance-oriented, state-led economic model comes with many challenges, it can also have short-term benefits in certain circumstances. For example, in times of economic crises, wars, or sanctions, this model may help reduce dependence on external resources and enhance self-sufficiency. However, this is not a long-term strategy and is more acceptable as an emergency response. Since the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979, the policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has not changed and has had a confrontational and resistance-oriented reaction towards the so-called Western international system and current globalization, and has faced globalization (the globalization project in the definition of the Iranian regime) with a resistance-oriented and order-building model throughout all these years. On the other side is Saudi Arabia, which, given the nature of the political system of the Kingdom of Al Saud, has had a conservative policy throughout its history. With the beginning of regional developments after 2011 and the beginning of the Arab revolutions, Saudi Arabia saw the position of the House of Saud and its conservative system in danger and, along with soft power, relied on hard power and political and military interference in the region and the countries of the Islamic world, and an aggressive policy with the help of the West and America, trying to control the situation in favor of its conservative system. However, what is important in this research is the recent period and after 2018, when the Saudi model towards the world and the current international system, the region and the Islamic world underwent a significant turn and in order to preserve the conservative system of its monarchy and the position of the Saudi system in the region, it has pursued an economic model towards the region and the international system and the current globalization process. Conclusion As a developing country, Iran needs foreign trade and exports for economic growth and increased public welfare. Cutting off ties with global markets may limit trade opportunities, resulting in reduced foreign exchange earnings, reduced employment, and even inflation. A resilient and endogenous economy can help the country on the one hand in a situation where international sanctions and pressures are severe, but on the other hand, if it is unable to rebuild and improve external economic relations, economic pressures and sanctions will intensify sharply. This challenge is also clearly seen in the case of Iran. In a resilient economy, foreign investment naturally decreases, as economic and trade connections are severely limited. This can lead to a lack of financial resources for the development of large projects, innovation, and infrastructure development. Ultimately, it seems that the global economy and its connection to it are essential for a country like Iran that needs growth and development.

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_227772_3efaedb3c4f660ce54ebf56a2b409d7c.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 The Conflict of Interests between Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Egypt: An Examination of Geopolitical, Economic, and Ideological Competition The Conflict of Interests between Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Egypt: An Examination of Geopolitical, Economic, and Ideological Competition 149 177 227949 10.22034/irr.2025.533755.2726 FA Omid Azizyan Faculty Member, University of Kurdistan 0009-0003-5707-0042 Bahram Nasrollahizadeh Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Political Geography, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran. 0000-0003-2844-8504 Journal Article 2025 07 11 This study aims to analyze the conflict of interests between Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Egypt following the Arab Spring developments, focusing on geopolitical, ideological, and economic dimensions. In recent decades, Egypt has become one of the most significant arenas for geopolitical competition between Turkey and Saudi Arabia. This rivalry intensified considerably after the events known as the Arab Spring, and particularly following the ousting of Mohamed Morsi's government in 2013. The central research question has been how this conflict of interests between the two countries has transformed the regional balance of power and challenged traditional equations of leadership and legitimacy. The research method is qualitative, based on content analysis of credible documents including academic articles, international reports, and primary sources. This was conducted using an integrated theoretical framework combining balance of power theory, constructivism, and power transition theory. The findings indicate that Turkey and Saudi Arabia have utilized different tools to increase their influence in Egypt; Turkey has maintained an active presence by emphasizing public diplomacy and supporting Muslim Brotherhood groups, while Saudi Arabia has done so through massive investments and support for Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's government. The conflict of interests between the two countries is rooted in geopolitical, ideological, and economic differences. This competition has not only impacted the balance of power in the Middle East but has also led to changes in the region's security and economic equations. Furthermore, the aforementioned rivalry has influenced political and security alignments in the region. Introduction This study aims to provide a multifaceted analysis of the conflict of interest between Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Egypt following the Arab Spring uprisings, with a specific focus on the period after the 2013 military coup that ousted President Mohamed Morsi. The primary objective is to decipher how this rivalry, rooted in divergent geopolitical ambitions, ideological orientations, and economic competitions, has fundamentally altered the regional balance of power in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The research seeks to move beyond one-dimensional explanations by investigating how this bilateral contest has challenged traditional paradigms of leadership and political legitimacy within the Arab world, using Egypt as a critical case study. The central research question explores the foundational pillars of this conflict and its profound implications for regional order, stability, and alliance structures. Methodology The research adopts a qualitative approach based on systematic content analysis. It draws on a wide range of credible sources, including peer-reviewed academic articles, analytical reports from international research institutes (e.g., IISS), official documents, and reputable press archives. The integrated three-theory framework allows for a simultaneous examination of the material, ideological, and structural levels of the rivalry, ensuring a holistic analysis. Theoretical Framework This study employs an integrated theoretical framework to analyze the complex conflict of interests between Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Egypt. Given the multifaceted nature of their rivalry, a single theory is insufficient for a comprehensive explanation. Therefore, a combination of three theories—Balance of Power, Constructivism, and Power Transition—provides a more precise tool for examining the bilateral relations, their impact on Egypt, and related political-economic dynamics. The Balance of Power theory, rooted in realist thought, explains the strategic and material competition between the two regional powers. It frames their actions as efforts to prevent the other from achieving dominance, leading to alliance-building and diplomatic maneuvers to shift the regional equilibrium in their favor. Constructivism adds a crucial ideational layer to the analysis. It highlights the role of identity and competing ideological projects—Turkey's support for Political Islam (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood) versus Saudi Arabia's promotion of conservative Wahhabism. This ideological clash transforms Egypt into a discursive battleground for regional leadership of the Sunni Muslim world. Finally, Power Transition theory offers a macro-structural perspective. It situates the rivalry within a broader shift in the regional order, where a rising Turkey seeks to challenge the status quo and redefine its strategic depth, while Saudi Arabia actively resists to maintain its influential position. Egypt serves as a critical arena for this potential hegemonic transition. Discussion The findings are structured across three dimensions: Geopolitical and Strategic: Egypt’s pivotal role made it the primary arena for a proxy struggle. Saudi Arabia provided extensive financial and political backing to the el-Sisi government to bolster a conservative order and counter the Muslim Brotherhood. Conversely, Turkey became the foremost international defender of the ousted Morsi government, offering sanctuary to Brotherhood leaders. This confrontation became entangled with other regional crises (Syria, Yemen, Qatar blockade), leading to polarized blocs—a Saudi-Emirati-Egyptian axis versus a Turkish-Qatari alignment. Ideological and Identity-Based: A deep-seated ideological schism was a core driver. Turkey’s AKP, under a "Neo-Ottoman" vision, promoted a model of political Islam and supported the Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia, perceiving the Brotherhood as an existential threat to its legitimacy based on Wahhabism, led a campaign to designate it as a terrorist organization. Thus, Egypt became a symbolic battleground for defining the future of political Islam. Economic: Economic tools were key instruments of influence. Saudi Arabia leveraged its vast resources with multi-billion-dollar aid packages to create structural dependencies in Egypt. Turkey, whose economic influence had expanded during Morsi's tenure, saw it drastically diminish after 2013. This economic rivalry reflected and reinforced the political split. Conclusion The study confirms that the Turkey-Saudi rivalry in Egypt is a complex, multi-level contest intricately sustained by geopolitical rivalry, ideological divergence, and economic competition. It is not merely a classic power struggle but a profound contest over identity, regional order, and political legitimacy. This competition has acted as a major destabilizing force, polarizing Egyptian politics, reshaping regional alliances, and creating a more volatile map. The underlying structural and ideological drivers remain potent and will continue to influence the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape for the foreseeable future, making their understanding crucial for policymakers and scholars. This study aims to analyze the conflict of interests between Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Egypt following the Arab Spring developments, focusing on geopolitical, ideological, and economic dimensions. In recent decades, Egypt has become one of the most significant arenas for geopolitical competition between Turkey and Saudi Arabia. This rivalry intensified considerably after the events known as the Arab Spring, and particularly following the ousting of Mohamed Morsi's government in 2013. The central research question has been how this conflict of interests between the two countries has transformed the regional balance of power and challenged traditional equations of leadership and legitimacy. The research method is qualitative, based on content analysis of credible documents including academic articles, international reports, and primary sources. This was conducted using an integrated theoretical framework combining balance of power theory, constructivism, and power transition theory. The findings indicate that Turkey and Saudi Arabia have utilized different tools to increase their influence in Egypt; Turkey has maintained an active presence by emphasizing public diplomacy and supporting Muslim Brotherhood groups, while Saudi Arabia has done so through massive investments and support for Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's government. The conflict of interests between the two countries is rooted in geopolitical, ideological, and economic differences. This competition has not only impacted the balance of power in the Middle East but has also led to changes in the region's security and economic equations. Furthermore, the aforementioned rivalry has influenced political and security alignments in the region. Introduction This study aims to provide a multifaceted analysis of the conflict of interest between Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Egypt following the Arab Spring uprisings, with a specific focus on the period after the 2013 military coup that ousted President Mohamed Morsi. The primary objective is to decipher how this rivalry, rooted in divergent geopolitical ambitions, ideological orientations, and economic competitions, has fundamentally altered the regional balance of power in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The research seeks to move beyond one-dimensional explanations by investigating how this bilateral contest has challenged traditional paradigms of leadership and political legitimacy within the Arab world, using Egypt as a critical case study. The central research question explores the foundational pillars of this conflict and its profound implications for regional order, stability, and alliance structures. Methodology The research adopts a qualitative approach based on systematic content analysis. It draws on a wide range of credible sources, including peer-reviewed academic articles, analytical reports from international research institutes (e.g., IISS), official documents, and reputable press archives. The integrated three-theory framework allows for a simultaneous examination of the material, ideological, and structural levels of the rivalry, ensuring a holistic analysis. Theoretical Framework This study employs an integrated theoretical framework to analyze the complex conflict of interests between Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Egypt. Given the multifaceted nature of their rivalry, a single theory is insufficient for a comprehensive explanation. Therefore, a combination of three theories—Balance of Power, Constructivism, and Power Transition—provides a more precise tool for examining the bilateral relations, their impact on Egypt, and related political-economic dynamics. The Balance of Power theory, rooted in realist thought, explains the strategic and material competition between the two regional powers. It frames their actions as efforts to prevent the other from achieving dominance, leading to alliance-building and diplomatic maneuvers to shift the regional equilibrium in their favor. Constructivism adds a crucial ideational layer to the analysis. It highlights the role of identity and competing ideological projects—Turkey's support for Political Islam (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood) versus Saudi Arabia's promotion of conservative Wahhabism. This ideological clash transforms Egypt into a discursive battleground for regional leadership of the Sunni Muslim world. Finally, Power Transition theory offers a macro-structural perspective. It situates the rivalry within a broader shift in the regional order, where a rising Turkey seeks to challenge the status quo and redefine its strategic depth, while Saudi Arabia actively resists to maintain its influential position. Egypt serves as a critical arena for this potential hegemonic transition. Discussion The findings are structured across three dimensions: Geopolitical and Strategic: Egypt’s pivotal role made it the primary arena for a proxy struggle. Saudi Arabia provided extensive financial and political backing to the el-Sisi government to bolster a conservative order and counter the Muslim Brotherhood. Conversely, Turkey became the foremost international defender of the ousted Morsi government, offering sanctuary to Brotherhood leaders. This confrontation became entangled with other regional crises (Syria, Yemen, Qatar blockade), leading to polarized blocs—a Saudi-Emirati-Egyptian axis versus a Turkish-Qatari alignment. Ideological and Identity-Based: A deep-seated ideological schism was a core driver. Turkey’s AKP, under a "Neo-Ottoman" vision, promoted a model of political Islam and supported the Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia, perceiving the Brotherhood as an existential threat to its legitimacy based on Wahhabism, led a campaign to designate it as a terrorist organization. Thus, Egypt became a symbolic battleground for defining the future of political Islam. Economic: Economic tools were key instruments of influence. Saudi Arabia leveraged its vast resources with multi-billion-dollar aid packages to create structural dependencies in Egypt. Turkey, whose economic influence had expanded during Morsi's tenure, saw it drastically diminish after 2013. This economic rivalry reflected and reinforced the political split. Conclusion The study confirms that the Turkey-Saudi rivalry in Egypt is a complex, multi-level contest intricately sustained by geopolitical rivalry, ideological divergence, and economic competition. It is not merely a classic power struggle but a profound contest over identity, regional order, and political legitimacy. This competition has acted as a major destabilizing force, polarizing Egyptian politics, reshaping regional alliances, and creating a more volatile map. The underlying structural and ideological drivers remain potent and will continue to influence the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape for the foreseeable future, making their understanding crucial for policymakers and scholars.

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_227949_954119b4abae2073180b5d775e439474.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 China's elite policy in establishing relations with America in 1969 China's elite policy in establishing relations with America in 1969 179 200 228720 10.22034/irr.2025.451363.2529 FA Mojgan Ghorbani PhD in International Relations, Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Iran. m.ghorbani@ut.ac.ir 0000-0002-6477-2267 Journal Article 2024 04 06 Researchers in the field of China's foreign relations have generally argued that the military conflicts between China and the Soviet Union in Zhenbao (Damansky) in March 1969 and the increasing threat of the Soviet Union have caused a change in the direction of China's foreign policy and the country's approach to the United States. However, newly published documents show that the Chinese started a border conflict with the Soviet Union. The question is what was Mao's purpose for this action? Did Beijing start border conflicts to improve its international diplomatic position? The documents show that Mao with the purpose of "attracting the attention and turning to the Americans" deliberately designed the military conflicts and the rapprochement between China and the United States was the result of Mao's grand strategy and diplomatic decision. In addition, the bitter lesson to the Soviet Union and the internal mobilization of the people for the development of the Cultural Revolution and Mao's concerns about it were other goals of this strategy. The main goal of the article is to understand how China and America are getting closer in the bipolar era. New documents from Chinese sources clearly show the important role of Chinese initiative in advancing Sino-American relations during 1969. In this research have used from Cold War history and Cold War studies magazines, whose articles have written based on Chinese first-hand documents Introduction The rapprochement between the People’s Republic of China and the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s represents a pivotal moment in Cold War diplomacy. Conventional scholarly interpretations attribute this shift primarily to the escalating Soviet military threat, particularly after the Sino-Soviet border clashes at Zhenbao (Damansky) Island in March 1969. According to this view, Beijing, alarmed by Moscow’s assertiveness and potential nuclear threat, sought closer ties with Washington as a strategic counterbalance. However, newly available Chinese archival materials challenge this narrative. These documents indicate that Mao Zedong did not merely react to Soviet provocations but instead orchestrated limited border clashes to achieve broader political objectives. These included sending a calculated “bitter lesson” to Moscow, consolidating domestic unity in the wake of the Cultural Revolution, and, most importantly, facilitating rapprochement with the United States. This article offers a reinterpretation of Chinese elite decision-making in 1969, demonstrating how Mao strategically leveraged controlled conflict to reposition China within the bipolar international order. Methodology This article employs a historical-analytical approach, utilizing three primary sources of evidence: Newly declassified Chinese archival documents, which reveal internal debates, Mao’s strategic calculations, and the intentional nature of the limited border clashes. Cold War scholarship—including works by Chen Jian, Geoffrey Warner, Yang Kuisong, and Yafeng Xia—which integrates both Chinese and Western perspectives. Comparative analysis of archival records, official publications, and contemporary media, to reconstruct the timeline of events and identify causal linkages between military confrontations and diplomatic overtures. Through triangulation, this study uncovers how external diplomacy and internal political imperatives coalesced to shape Chinese foreign policy between 1969 and 1972. Theoretical Framework This study adopts a dual analytical framework, combining realism and constructivism. From a realist perspective, the Sino-Soviet split compelled China to reassess its strategic environment, identifying the Soviet Union—not the United States—as the principal threat. Rapprochement with Washington thus emerged as a rational balancing strategy. Simultaneously, constructivist insights illuminate the role of ideology and legitimacy. The Cultural Revolution had fractured China’s political system and undermined Party authority. By orchestrating conflict with the Soviet Union and engaging in symbolic gestures toward the United States, Mao reasserted ideological control and prepared the public for a significant foreign policy shift. The intersection of realist security imperatives and constructivist identity politics provides a more nuanced understanding of China’s diplomatic transformation Discussion The Zhenbao Island Incident The March 1969 border clashes were not spontaneous. Evidence suggests Chinese forces deliberately prepared an ambush against Soviet troops under Mao’s directive for a controlled confrontation. The intent was political: to signal strength without escalating into full-scale war. Domestic Mobilization The clashes redirected societal focus toward national defense, restoring ideological cohesion in a post-Cultural Revolution context. Propaganda campaigns framed the confrontation as a moral victory over Soviet “revisionism,” reinforcing Party legitimacy and Mao’s personal authority. The Four Marshals Study Group Mao convened four senior military leaders—Chen Yi, Ye Jianying, Xu Xiangqian, and Nie Rongzhen—to assess the international balance of power. Their reports concluded that full-scale Soviet aggression was unlikely and advised cautious engagement with the United States. Their assessments laid the intellectual foundation for strategic realignment. Symbolic Diplomacy Mao complemented military maneuvers with symbolic gestures, including publicizing President Nixon’s inaugural address, hosting American journalist Edgar Snow in 1970, and initiating “Ping-Pong diplomacy” in 1971. These efforts helped mitigate public hostility and established informal diplomatic channels via Pakistan and Romania, ultimately enabling Kissinger’s secret visit and Nixon’s 1972 trip to China. Ping-Pong Diplomacy and Diplomatic Opening The invitation extended to the U.S. table tennis team in 1971 marked a significant break from two decades of antagonism. Coinciding with American trade policy liberalization and Nixon’s pro-engagement rhetoric, the event was widely publicized in China and prepared the public for normalization. It laid the groundwork for the Shanghai Communiqué and China's reentry into the global diplomatic arena. Strategic Outcomes Through this calculated strategy, Mao achieved multiple objectives: Enhanced China’s bargaining position with both superpowers. Reduced the likelihood of a Soviet pre-emptive strike. Reestablished domestic cohesion following the Cultural Revolution. Elevated China’s international standing, culminating in its 1971 admission to the UN and acquisition of a permanent Security Council seat. Conclusion This study concludes that the Sino-American rapprochement was not merely a defensive reaction to Soviet pressure but the result of Mao’s proactive grand strategy. By engineering controlled military confrontations and deploying symbolic diplomacy, Mao reshaped China’s foreign relations on his own terms. Key Conclusions Chinese strategic agency: Mao and Zhou Enlai actively manipulated Cold War dynamics to China’s advantage. Domestic-foreign policy linkage: Foreign policy served as a tool for post-Cultural Revolution political consolidation. Symbolic statecraft: Public gestures and narrative shifts were central to legitimizing policy change. Strategic pragmatism: Ideological flexibility was employed to serve national security interests. Suggestions for Future Research Future studies could examine Soviet internal deliberations during the 1969 crisis, assess the long-term global consequences of the Sino-American thaw, and explore Chinese public perceptions of the rapprochement. Theoretically, the case provides a valuable lens through which to reconsider how secondary powers navigate bipolar systems to enhance strategic autonomy. Researchers in the field of China's foreign relations have generally argued that the military conflicts between China and the Soviet Union in Zhenbao (Damansky) in March 1969 and the increasing threat of the Soviet Union have caused a change in the direction of China's foreign policy and the country's approach to the United States. However, newly published documents show that the Chinese started a border conflict with the Soviet Union. The question is what was Mao's purpose for this action? Did Beijing start border conflicts to improve its international diplomatic position? The documents show that Mao with the purpose of "attracting the attention and turning to the Americans" deliberately designed the military conflicts and the rapprochement between China and the United States was the result of Mao's grand strategy and diplomatic decision. In addition, the bitter lesson to the Soviet Union and the internal mobilization of the people for the development of the Cultural Revolution and Mao's concerns about it were other goals of this strategy. The main goal of the article is to understand how China and America are getting closer in the bipolar era. New documents from Chinese sources clearly show the important role of Chinese initiative in advancing Sino-American relations during 1969. In this research have used from Cold War history and Cold War studies magazines, whose articles have written based on Chinese first-hand documents Introduction The rapprochement between the People’s Republic of China and the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s represents a pivotal moment in Cold War diplomacy. Conventional scholarly interpretations attribute this shift primarily to the escalating Soviet military threat, particularly after the Sino-Soviet border clashes at Zhenbao (Damansky) Island in March 1969. According to this view, Beijing, alarmed by Moscow’s assertiveness and potential nuclear threat, sought closer ties with Washington as a strategic counterbalance. However, newly available Chinese archival materials challenge this narrative. These documents indicate that Mao Zedong did not merely react to Soviet provocations but instead orchestrated limited border clashes to achieve broader political objectives. These included sending a calculated “bitter lesson” to Moscow, consolidating domestic unity in the wake of the Cultural Revolution, and, most importantly, facilitating rapprochement with the United States. This article offers a reinterpretation of Chinese elite decision-making in 1969, demonstrating how Mao strategically leveraged controlled conflict to reposition China within the bipolar international order. Methodology This article employs a historical-analytical approach, utilizing three primary sources of evidence: Newly declassified Chinese archival documents, which reveal internal debates, Mao’s strategic calculations, and the intentional nature of the limited border clashes. Cold War scholarship—including works by Chen Jian, Geoffrey Warner, Yang Kuisong, and Yafeng Xia—which integrates both Chinese and Western perspectives. Comparative analysis of archival records, official publications, and contemporary media, to reconstruct the timeline of events and identify causal linkages between military confrontations and diplomatic overtures. Through triangulation, this study uncovers how external diplomacy and internal political imperatives coalesced to shape Chinese foreign policy between 1969 and 1972. Theoretical Framework This study adopts a dual analytical framework, combining realism and constructivism. From a realist perspective, the Sino-Soviet split compelled China to reassess its strategic environment, identifying the Soviet Union—not the United States—as the principal threat. Rapprochement with Washington thus emerged as a rational balancing strategy. Simultaneously, constructivist insights illuminate the role of ideology and legitimacy. The Cultural Revolution had fractured China’s political system and undermined Party authority. By orchestrating conflict with the Soviet Union and engaging in symbolic gestures toward the United States, Mao reasserted ideological control and prepared the public for a significant foreign policy shift. The intersection of realist security imperatives and constructivist identity politics provides a more nuanced understanding of China’s diplomatic transformation Discussion The Zhenbao Island Incident The March 1969 border clashes were not spontaneous. Evidence suggests Chinese forces deliberately prepared an ambush against Soviet troops under Mao’s directive for a controlled confrontation. The intent was political: to signal strength without escalating into full-scale war. Domestic Mobilization The clashes redirected societal focus toward national defense, restoring ideological cohesion in a post-Cultural Revolution context. Propaganda campaigns framed the confrontation as a moral victory over Soviet “revisionism,” reinforcing Party legitimacy and Mao’s personal authority. The Four Marshals Study Group Mao convened four senior military leaders—Chen Yi, Ye Jianying, Xu Xiangqian, and Nie Rongzhen—to assess the international balance of power. Their reports concluded that full-scale Soviet aggression was unlikely and advised cautious engagement with the United States. Their assessments laid the intellectual foundation for strategic realignment. Symbolic Diplomacy Mao complemented military maneuvers with symbolic gestures, including publicizing President Nixon’s inaugural address, hosting American journalist Edgar Snow in 1970, and initiating “Ping-Pong diplomacy” in 1971. These efforts helped mitigate public hostility and established informal diplomatic channels via Pakistan and Romania, ultimately enabling Kissinger’s secret visit and Nixon’s 1972 trip to China. Ping-Pong Diplomacy and Diplomatic Opening The invitation extended to the U.S. table tennis team in 1971 marked a significant break from two decades of antagonism. Coinciding with American trade policy liberalization and Nixon’s pro-engagement rhetoric, the event was widely publicized in China and prepared the public for normalization. It laid the groundwork for the Shanghai Communiqué and China's reentry into the global diplomatic arena. Strategic Outcomes Through this calculated strategy, Mao achieved multiple objectives: Enhanced China’s bargaining position with both superpowers. Reduced the likelihood of a Soviet pre-emptive strike. Reestablished domestic cohesion following the Cultural Revolution. Elevated China’s international standing, culminating in its 1971 admission to the UN and acquisition of a permanent Security Council seat. Conclusion This study concludes that the Sino-American rapprochement was not merely a defensive reaction to Soviet pressure but the result of Mao’s proactive grand strategy. By engineering controlled military confrontations and deploying symbolic diplomacy, Mao reshaped China’s foreign relations on his own terms. Key Conclusions Chinese strategic agency: Mao and Zhou Enlai actively manipulated Cold War dynamics to China’s advantage. Domestic-foreign policy linkage: Foreign policy served as a tool for post-Cultural Revolution political consolidation. Symbolic statecraft: Public gestures and narrative shifts were central to legitimizing policy change. Strategic pragmatism: Ideological flexibility was employed to serve national security interests. Suggestions for Future Research Future studies could examine Soviet internal deliberations during the 1969 crisis, assess the long-term global consequences of the Sino-American thaw, and explore Chinese public perceptions of the rapprochement. Theoretically, the case provides a valuable lens through which to reconsider how secondary powers navigate bipolar systems to enhance strategic autonomy.

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_228720_538547f3a71fbe9ddffc5bb5183914e6.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 Hybrid Warfare in Contemporary Conflicts: Examining the Strategies and Consequences of Russia’s Hybrid War Against Georgia Hybrid Warfare in Contemporary Conflicts: Examining the Strategies and Consequences of Russia’s Hybrid War Against Georgia 201 230 228840 10.22034/irr.2025.511584.2679 FA Reza Rahmati Assistant Professor, International Relations, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan. Iran Hossein Emamverdi PhD Candidate in International Relations University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2025 03 15 In recent years, the emergence of hybrid warfare as a novel paradigm in security strategies has added new layers of complexity to the nature of international conflicts. Hybrid warfare represents a multilayered and integrated strategy that simultaneously employs military, informational, cyber, economic, diplomatic, and propaganda tools to weaken the political and security structures of a target state without engaging in full-scale conventional warfare. This model has gained particular prominence in Russia's foreign policy following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Accordingly, the central question of this study is: What are the main characteristics of hybrid warfare as a modern conflict strategy, and how have Russia’s strategic applications of this model affected Georgia’s national security and political landscape? This research adopts a historical-analytical method, utilizing both written and online sources. The findings indicate that hybrid warfare, as an emerging pattern in contemporary conflicts, is inherently multidimensional and synergistic, combining conventional and unconventional, military and non-military tools to achieve geopolitical objectives., Russia has utilized hybrid warfare as a multifaceted means of exerting political, military, and psychological pressure on states that seek closer alignment with Western institutions. Due to its strategic geopolitical location and aspirations to join NATO and the European Union, Georgia has become a primary target of Russia’s hybrid strategy. Russia’s use of unresolved conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, psychological operations, information infiltration, electoral interference, and cyberattacks are among the key tools employed to destabilize the Georgian government. Introduction In recent decades, the transformation of security strategies has profoundly reshaped the nature of conflicts, shifting them from conventional and linear patterns to fluid, complex, and multidimensional modes of confrontation. Among these emerging paradigms, the notion of hybrid warfare has gained increasing prominence as a defining feature of twenty-first century conflict. Unlike traditional wars, hybrid warfare employs a coordinated and simultaneous use of military and non-military instruments, including cyber operations, information campaigns, economic pressure, diplomatic maneuvering, and the exploitation of ethnic and political divisions. This phenomenon challenges the conventional distinction between war and peace, hard and soft power, and military and political tools. While the Western discourse often interprets hybrid warfare as a destabilizing offensive strategy, Russian security doctrine frames it as a defensive mechanism to counter the encroachment of Western institutions into its traditional sphere of influence. This conceptual divergence highlights the contested and fluid nature of hybrid warfare, making it difficult to establish a single definition. Nevertheless, case studies provide a meaningful avenue to explore its operationalization. One of the most significant cases is the Russian strategy toward Georgia, a state whose geopolitical location and aspiration to join NATO and the European Union have made it a key target of Moscow’s hybrid tactics. Unresolved conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, combined with cyberattacks, disinformation, electoral interference, and economic coercion, illustrate how hybrid warfare can destabilize domestic politics and weaken national sovereignty without resorting to full-scale war. By analyzing this case, the study seeks to shed light on the broader strategic implications of hybrid warfare in contemporary international relations. Methodology This study employs a qualitative historical approach, drawing on primary and secondary written sources as well as online databases. The method involves systematic analysis of historical events, policy documents, and scholarly interpretations to identify patterns in the design and application of hybrid strategies by Russia against Georgia. Data triangulation ensures credibility and validity, while a case-based focus allows for a deeper contextual understanding of how hybrid warfare manifests in practice. Theoretical Framework The research situates hybrid warfare within the broader theoretical debates in international relations. From a realist perspective, war emerges as a structural consequence of an anarchic system and the struggle for power; hybrid warfare is therefore interpreted as an instrument for maximizing influence and countering rival hegemonic aspirations. Liberalism, by contrast, emphasizes the role of institutions, interdependence, and democratic norms, framing hybrid tactics as threats to the liberal order and rule-based cooperation. Constructivism highlights the significance of identities, norms, and narratives, arguing that hybrid warfare functions not only through material instruments but also through symbolic and discursive practices that shape perceptions of legitimacy and security. By combining these approaches, the study demonstrates that hybrid warfare cannot be reduced to a single theoretical lens. Rather, it embodies the interplay of material capabilities, institutional constraints, and ideational constructs that together inform the strategies of contemporary powers. This tripartite framework provides analytical leverage for understanding both the design and the impact of Russia’s hybrid warfare against Georgia. Discussion The findings show that hybrid warfare represents a deliberate synthesis of conventional and unconventional instruments to achieve geopolitical objectives at relatively low cost. Russia’s strategy toward Georgia exemplifies this multidimensionality. Militarily, Moscow has relied on indirect engagement through support for separatist forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, thereby entrenching its influence without overt occupation. Politically, it has pursued electoral interference, covert propaganda, and disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining public trust in democratic institutions. Economically, sanctions, energy leverage, and trade restrictions have been deployed to reinforce dependency and weaken resilience. In the cyber domain, large-scale operations have targeted government infrastructure, critical networks, and media outlets, generating both immediate disruption and long-term insecurity. The combination of these tactics has produced destabilization across multiple levels of Georgian society: weakening state authority, fragmenting social cohesion, and obstructing the country’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. At the regional level, Russia has been able to contain Western influence in the South Caucasus by maintaining a permanent source of instability. This demonstrates that hybrid warfare is not an ad hoc tactic but a coherent grand strategy aligned with Moscow’s long-term objectives of securing its periphery and resisting NATO expansion. Importantly, the Georgian case also reveals the adaptability of hybrid strategies: Russia calibrates its tools according to local vulnerabilities, exploiting ethnic tensions, weak institutions, and geographic dependence to maximize leverage. These dynamics highlight both the effectiveness and the ethical ambiguity of hybrid warfare, which blurs the line between legitimate defense and covert aggression. Conclusion The study concludes that hybrid warfare constitutes one of the most significant innovations in contemporary security strategies. It redefines the conduct of war by integrating military, informational, economic, and political instruments into a synergistic framework that operates below the threshold of open conflict. From a realist standpoint, Russia’s use of hybrid warfare reflects its determination to preserve influence in its traditional sphere and prevent the integration of neighboring states into Western security institutions. From a liberal perspective, it undermines the principles of international law, cooperative security, and democratic governance. From a constructivist angle, it underscores the power of narratives, identities, and perceptions in legitimizing strategies that challenge sovereignty while avoiding overt confrontation. The case of Georgia demonstrates that hybrid warfare has tangible consequences for national security, regional stability, and global governance. It has weakened Georgia’s defense capabilities, impeded its integration into Euro-Atlantic structures, and generated long-term political instability. At the same time, it has enhanced Russia’s strategic position by consolidating its leverage over contested territories and curbing Western expansion. These findings suggest that hybrid warfare is likely to remain a central feature of international politics, not only in the post-Soviet space but also in broader geopolitical rivalries. For policymakers and scholars alike, understanding the mechanisms and implications of hybrid warfare is essential to developing effective responses that preserve stability and uphold international norms in an increasingly complex security environment. In recent years, the emergence of hybrid warfare as a novel paradigm in security strategies has added new layers of complexity to the nature of international conflicts. Hybrid warfare represents a multilayered and integrated strategy that simultaneously employs military, informational, cyber, economic, diplomatic, and propaganda tools to weaken the political and security structures of a target state without engaging in full-scale conventional warfare. This model has gained particular prominence in Russia's foreign policy following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Accordingly, the central question of this study is: What are the main characteristics of hybrid warfare as a modern conflict strategy, and how have Russia’s strategic applications of this model affected Georgia’s national security and political landscape? This research adopts a historical-analytical method, utilizing both written and online sources. The findings indicate that hybrid warfare, as an emerging pattern in contemporary conflicts, is inherently multidimensional and synergistic, combining conventional and unconventional, military and non-military tools to achieve geopolitical objectives., Russia has utilized hybrid warfare as a multifaceted means of exerting political, military, and psychological pressure on states that seek closer alignment with Western institutions. Due to its strategic geopolitical location and aspirations to join NATO and the European Union, Georgia has become a primary target of Russia’s hybrid strategy. Russia’s use of unresolved conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, psychological operations, information infiltration, electoral interference, and cyberattacks are among the key tools employed to destabilize the Georgian government. Introduction In recent decades, the transformation of security strategies has profoundly reshaped the nature of conflicts, shifting them from conventional and linear patterns to fluid, complex, and multidimensional modes of confrontation. Among these emerging paradigms, the notion of hybrid warfare has gained increasing prominence as a defining feature of twenty-first century conflict. Unlike traditional wars, hybrid warfare employs a coordinated and simultaneous use of military and non-military instruments, including cyber operations, information campaigns, economic pressure, diplomatic maneuvering, and the exploitation of ethnic and political divisions. This phenomenon challenges the conventional distinction between war and peace, hard and soft power, and military and political tools. While the Western discourse often interprets hybrid warfare as a destabilizing offensive strategy, Russian security doctrine frames it as a defensive mechanism to counter the encroachment of Western institutions into its traditional sphere of influence. This conceptual divergence highlights the contested and fluid nature of hybrid warfare, making it difficult to establish a single definition. Nevertheless, case studies provide a meaningful avenue to explore its operationalization. One of the most significant cases is the Russian strategy toward Georgia, a state whose geopolitical location and aspiration to join NATO and the European Union have made it a key target of Moscow’s hybrid tactics. Unresolved conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, combined with cyberattacks, disinformation, electoral interference, and economic coercion, illustrate how hybrid warfare can destabilize domestic politics and weaken national sovereignty without resorting to full-scale war. By analyzing this case, the study seeks to shed light on the broader strategic implications of hybrid warfare in contemporary international relations. Methodology This study employs a qualitative historical approach, drawing on primary and secondary written sources as well as online databases. The method involves systematic analysis of historical events, policy documents, and scholarly interpretations to identify patterns in the design and application of hybrid strategies by Russia against Georgia. Data triangulation ensures credibility and validity, while a case-based focus allows for a deeper contextual understanding of how hybrid warfare manifests in practice. Theoretical Framework The research situates hybrid warfare within the broader theoretical debates in international relations. From a realist perspective, war emerges as a structural consequence of an anarchic system and the struggle for power; hybrid warfare is therefore interpreted as an instrument for maximizing influence and countering rival hegemonic aspirations. Liberalism, by contrast, emphasizes the role of institutions, interdependence, and democratic norms, framing hybrid tactics as threats to the liberal order and rule-based cooperation. Constructivism highlights the significance of identities, norms, and narratives, arguing that hybrid warfare functions not only through material instruments but also through symbolic and discursive practices that shape perceptions of legitimacy and security. By combining these approaches, the study demonstrates that hybrid warfare cannot be reduced to a single theoretical lens. Rather, it embodies the interplay of material capabilities, institutional constraints, and ideational constructs that together inform the strategies of contemporary powers. This tripartite framework provides analytical leverage for understanding both the design and the impact of Russia’s hybrid warfare against Georgia. Discussion The findings show that hybrid warfare represents a deliberate synthesis of conventional and unconventional instruments to achieve geopolitical objectives at relatively low cost. Russia’s strategy toward Georgia exemplifies this multidimensionality. Militarily, Moscow has relied on indirect engagement through support for separatist forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, thereby entrenching its influence without overt occupation. Politically, it has pursued electoral interference, covert propaganda, and disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining public trust in democratic institutions. Economically, sanctions, energy leverage, and trade restrictions have been deployed to reinforce dependency and weaken resilience. In the cyber domain, large-scale operations have targeted government infrastructure, critical networks, and media outlets, generating both immediate disruption and long-term insecurity. The combination of these tactics has produced destabilization across multiple levels of Georgian society: weakening state authority, fragmenting social cohesion, and obstructing the country’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. At the regional level, Russia has been able to contain Western influence in the South Caucasus by maintaining a permanent source of instability. This demonstrates that hybrid warfare is not an ad hoc tactic but a coherent grand strategy aligned with Moscow’s long-term objectives of securing its periphery and resisting NATO expansion. Importantly, the Georgian case also reveals the adaptability of hybrid strategies: Russia calibrates its tools according to local vulnerabilities, exploiting ethnic tensions, weak institutions, and geographic dependence to maximize leverage. These dynamics highlight both the effectiveness and the ethical ambiguity of hybrid warfare, which blurs the line between legitimate defense and covert aggression. Conclusion The study concludes that hybrid warfare constitutes one of the most significant innovations in contemporary security strategies. It redefines the conduct of war by integrating military, informational, economic, and political instruments into a synergistic framework that operates below the threshold of open conflict. From a realist standpoint, Russia’s use of hybrid warfare reflects its determination to preserve influence in its traditional sphere and prevent the integration of neighboring states into Western security institutions. From a liberal perspective, it undermines the principles of international law, cooperative security, and democratic governance. From a constructivist angle, it underscores the power of narratives, identities, and perceptions in legitimizing strategies that challenge sovereignty while avoiding overt confrontation. The case of Georgia demonstrates that hybrid warfare has tangible consequences for national security, regional stability, and global governance. It has weakened Georgia’s defense capabilities, impeded its integration into Euro-Atlantic structures, and generated long-term political instability. At the same time, it has enhanced Russia’s strategic position by consolidating its leverage over contested territories and curbing Western expansion. These findings suggest that hybrid warfare is likely to remain a central feature of international politics, not only in the post-Soviet space but also in broader geopolitical rivalries. For policymakers and scholars alike, understanding the mechanisms and implications of hybrid warfare is essential to developing effective responses that preserve stability and uphold international norms in an increasingly complex security environment.

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_228840_748a83293a7f4f5c66a2defa9b767444.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 231 255 239813 10.22034/irr.2026.239813 FA Ruhollah Monem Corresponding Author, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran. Journal Article 2026 02 05 https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_239813_84be1dcd09df1f8b6ff10199fa7854fa.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 The role of government policies in facilitating or restricting international trade: A case study of Iran The role of government policies in facilitating or restricting international trade: A case study of Iran 257 276 241031 10.22034/irr.2026.554045.2788 FA Hamid Bazrpach **Associate Professor, Department of Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran** Journal Article 2025 10 18 International trade has become one of the key factors in the economic development of countries in recent years. However, in Iran, the impact of government policies on facilitating or restricting this process has always been discussed and studied. The aim of this research is to analyze and examine the effect of government exchange rate, tariff and institutional policies on Iran's foreign trade flow. This study, with a qualitative approach and based on the content analysis of domestic and international documents and studies, seeks to explain the relationship between government interventions and Iran's foreign trade performance within the theoretical framework of the political economy of trade and the theory of adaptation under sanctions. findings show that in the past four decades, Iran's trade policies have been a combination of facilitating and restricting measure otherrrency fluctuations, a multiple rate system, unbalanced tariffs and heavy bureaucracy have weakened formal trade and paved the way for the growth of informal markets. As a result, the net effect of government trade policies has tended towards instability and reduced confidence among economic actors The research results show that institutional weakness, lack of policy coordination, and the government’s reactive approach are the most important structural obstacles to sustainable trade development in Iran. Finally, the research suggests that by creating stability in the currency system, coordinating industrial and trade policies, expanding regional agreements, and promoting institutional transparency, the government can steer path of international trade from a state of resistance and emergency to one of competitiveness and sustainability. International trade has become one of the key factors in the economic development of countries in recent years. However, in Iran, the impact of government policies on facilitating or restricting this process has always been discussed and studied. The aim of this research is to analyze and examine the effect of government exchange rate, tariff and institutional policies on Iran's foreign trade flow. This study, with a qualitative approach and based on the content analysis of domestic and international documents and studies, seeks to explain the relationship between government interventions and Iran's foreign trade performance within the theoretical framework of the political economy of trade and the theory of adaptation under sanctions. findings show that in the past four decades, Iran's trade policies have been a combination of facilitating and restricting measure otherrrency fluctuations, a multiple rate system, unbalanced tariffs and heavy bureaucracy have weakened formal trade and paved the way for the growth of informal markets. As a result, the net effect of government trade policies has tended towards instability and reduced confidence among economic actors The research results show that institutional weakness, lack of policy coordination, and the government’s reactive approach are the most important structural obstacles to sustainable trade development in Iran. Finally, the research suggests that by creating stability in the currency system, coordinating industrial and trade policies, expanding regional agreements, and promoting institutional transparency, the government can steer path of international trade from a state of resistance and emergency to one of competitiveness and sustainability.

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_241031_2eb78195d7d55296267285190089a0ed.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 The Role of Renewable Energy in the Sustainable Development of Countries: A Case Study of Germany The Role of Renewable Energy in the Sustainable Development of Countries: A Case Study of Germany 277 301 219513 10.22034/irr.2025.517072.2695 FA Mohammadreza Mohamadian PhD student in International Relations, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran. Amir Hooshang Mirkoosh Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran. Ali Mohammadzadeh Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran. Journal Article 2025 04 15 The limited fossil energy resources and the problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions have made it clear to everyone the need to pay more attention to renewable energies. Sustainable development is a concept that has emerged due to the negative environmental and social consequences resulting from the one-sided economic development approaches after the industrial revolution and the change in human attitudes towards the concept of growth and progress. The aim of this research is to understand the role of renewable energies in the sustainable development of countries, a case study of Germany, which deals with this issue with a descriptive-analytical method by examining existing sources and texts, using the concept of sustainable development, and seeks to answer the question: What is the role of renewable energies in the sustainable development of Germany? The research findings show that Germany, with careful and scientific planning, has been able to significantly increase the share of renewable resources in its country's energy production in the past two decades. In such a way that it successfully replaces fossil energies with clean energies and is successful in meeting the needs of today without harming the needs of future generations. This country has been able to use energy resources properly, direct investments in the right direction, and take fundamental steps in technological development in the field of utilizing new and renewable energies to meet current and future needs and strengthen sustainable development infrastructure. The limited fossil energy resources and the problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions have made it clear to everyone the need to pay more attention to renewable energies. Sustainable development is a concept that has emerged due to the negative environmental and social consequences resulting from the one-sided economic development approaches after the industrial revolution and the change in human attitudes towards the concept of growth and progress. The aim of this research is to understand the role of renewable energies in the sustainable development of countries, a case study of Germany, which deals with this issue with a descriptive-analytical method by examining existing sources and texts, using the concept of sustainable development, and seeks to answer the question: What is the role of renewable energies in the sustainable development of Germany? The research findings show that Germany, with careful and scientific planning, has been able to significantly increase the share of renewable resources in its country's energy production in the past two decades. In such a way that it successfully replaces fossil energies with clean energies and is successful in meeting the needs of today without harming the needs of future generations. This country has been able to use energy resources properly, direct investments in the right direction, and take fundamental steps in technological development in the field of utilizing new and renewable energies to meet current and future needs and strengthen sustainable development infrastructure.

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_219513_f977a9297b465cf90abe18056009b80b.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 A Comparative Study of Political Legitimation Patterns in the Buyid and Seljuk States: Sacred, Sultanic, Bureaucratic, and Social Legitimacy A Comparative Study of Political Legitimation Patterns in the Buyid and Seljuk States: Sacred, Sultanic, Bureaucratic, and Social Legitimacy 303 328 242915 10.22034/irr.2026.579337.2838 FA Mahdia Vahabi PhD Student, Department of History, Sa.C., Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran. 0009-0002-8915-3136 Mohammad Sheikhahmadi Corresponding Author, Assistant Professor, Department of History, Sa.C., Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran. Kaivan Shafei Assistant Professor, Department of History, Sa.C., Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran. Amir Abdulahi Assistant Professor, Department of History, Ma.C., Islamic Azad University, Maku, Iran. 0000-0001-8934-8246 Journal Article 2025 04 30 Political legitimacy in the Buyid and Seljuk polities was constructed through multifaceted and diverse mechanisms. This research investigates how these two distinct dynasties, with their unique backgrounds and structures, transitioned from wielding military power and local or tribal influence to establishing recognized and legitimate rule within the Iranian-Islamic societal framework. It further explores the specific instruments employed in solidifying this legitimacy. Consequently, this study seeks to answer how the Buyid and Seljuk states utilized cultural, religious, administrative, and social tools to legitimize their sultanates and power, and what impact these endeavors had on the stability and acceptance of their regimes. Findings indicate that the Buyid dynasty cultivated an identity-based and regional legitimacy by emphasizing local lineage claims, reviving ancient Iranian kingship traditions, developing educational institutions, and implementing cultural and infrastructural policies. The Seljuk state, conversely, established a more institutionalized, layered, and encompassing legitimacy—leading to long-term stability and acceptance—by synthesizing Persianate and Islamic heritage, supporting the Abbasid Caliphate, organizing a centralized bureaucracy, and founding the Nizamiyya madrasas. In both dynasties, the interplay between institutions, elites, cultural and religious instruments, and military might played a decisive role in reinforcing legitimacy and ensuring social acceptance of their sovereignty. Employing a historical-analytical approach, this research comparatively examines the patterns of legitimacy during the Buyid and Seljuk periods. Data collection and analysis were conducted through the study of primary historical sources (such as chronicles and contemporary texts) and secondary scholarly literature. Introduction The concept of political legitimacy is central to understanding political order, particularly within the historical context of Iran and the greater Islamic world during the medieval era. This study analyzes the Buyid and Seljuk dynasties, focusing on the dimensions of legitimacy that characterize their governing frameworks. Legitimacy encompasses a reciprocal relationship between the "right to rule" and societal acceptance of that right, encompassing various sources of authority. As defined by Lipset, legitimacy is the capacity of a political system to foster the belief that existing institutions best serve societal interests (Lipset, 2004). Weber presents legitimacy as rooted in the belief in the normative validity of authority and the internal acceptance of rulers by the commanded (Weber, 1988). Political legitimacy goes beyond mere legality; it operates as a symbolic asset cultivated through social belief in the righteousness of power. Methodology This research employs a comparative historical analysis within a theoretical framework that encompasses multiple sources of authority operating in tandem. It uses a four-fold conceptual framework based on Weber's tripartite classification of authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational, extending to analyze the complexities of legitimacy in the Buyid and Seljuk contexts. The four levels identified include: 1) Sacred-Normative Legitimacy (relying on caliphate and religious institution), 2) Sultanistic-Military Legitimacy (based on coercive power), 3) Bureaucratic-Elite Legitimacy (supported by bureaucratic structures and political discourse), and 4) Social-Functional Legitimacy (emphasizing public acceptance and executive efficacy). Theoretical Framework The groundwork of this study is built upon multiple theoretical constructs of legitimacy, layered within the historical fabric of Iranian politics. It posits that legitimacy was not derived from a singular source but was rather an outcome of a complex interplay between military power, religious legitimacy, bureaucratic structures, and societal acceptance. The study traces the historical roots of these concepts back to pre-Islamic traditions, such as the notion of "Divine Glory," which integrated political authority with sacred endorsement. This was subsequently reinterpreted within the context of the Islamic caliphate, which served as a religious and institutional source of political legitimacy. Discussion Analyzing the Buyid and Seljuk governments reveals distinct approaches to establishing and sustaining political legitimacy. For instance, the Buyids adopted a selectively integrative approach with Shia scholars, fostering a locally resonant and flexible form of religious legitimacy. They managed to cultivate acceptance through their policies of religious tolerance and the promotion of Shia scholarship. In contrast, the Seljuks leveraged support from the Abbasid caliphate and cultivated a broader institutional legitimacy that was more organized and expansive. In terms of Sultanistic-Military legitimacy, both dynasties prioritized the military's role; however, they differed in their methodologies. The Buyids focused on a balance between the ruling power and military aristocrats, while the Seljuks developed a professional, centralized military force that became a cornerstone of their royal legitimacy. The bureaucratic and elite legitimacy during the Buyid era was characterized by local administration that supported cultural and scholarly elites, thereby reinforcing their prominence. In contrast, the Seljuks institutionalized their bureaucratic legitimacy through the establishment of centralized administrative bodies and academies that solidified their intellectual and institutional authority. Moreover, social-functional legitimacy manifested differently for the two dynasties. The Buyids engaged in initiatives that revived Iranian-Islamic identity, promoting urban development and supporting science and culture. The Seljuks, on the other hand, institutionalized their claims to social legitimacy through centralized governance structures, educational advancements, and expansive cultural projects. Conclusion The investigation into the Buyid and Seljuk dynasties reveals that political legitimacy in Islamic Iran was a multifaceted, historical process reliant on an intertwining of military power, religious endorsement, bureaucratic structures, and societal acceptance. While both dynasties effectively established their legitimacy through diverse mechanisms, their differences in the implementation and prioritization of these methods reflected the historical contexts and social characteristics of their respective eras. The Buyids cultivated legitimacy through local identity and scholarly engagement, whereas Seljuks' legitimacy was more comprehensive and sustained, arising from bureaucratic, doctrinal, and military integrative methods. This study underscores the significance of political legitimacy's complexity and suggests that future analyses of governance must consider the intricate relationships among power, society, and political culture. The findings provide valuable insights into the dynamics of power within Islamic states and continue to resonate within the governance structures of later Islamic administrations. Political legitimacy in the Buyid and Seljuk polities was constructed through multifaceted and diverse mechanisms. This research investigates how these two distinct dynasties, with their unique backgrounds and structures, transitioned from wielding military power and local or tribal influence to establishing recognized and legitimate rule within the Iranian-Islamic societal framework. It further explores the specific instruments employed in solidifying this legitimacy. Consequently, this study seeks to answer how the Buyid and Seljuk states utilized cultural, religious, administrative, and social tools to legitimize their sultanates and power, and what impact these endeavors had on the stability and acceptance of their regimes. Findings indicate that the Buyid dynasty cultivated an identity-based and regional legitimacy by emphasizing local lineage claims, reviving ancient Iranian kingship traditions, developing educational institutions, and implementing cultural and infrastructural policies. The Seljuk state, conversely, established a more institutionalized, layered, and encompassing legitimacy—leading to long-term stability and acceptance—by synthesizing Persianate and Islamic heritage, supporting the Abbasid Caliphate, organizing a centralized bureaucracy, and founding the Nizamiyya madrasas. In both dynasties, the interplay between institutions, elites, cultural and religious instruments, and military might played a decisive role in reinforcing legitimacy and ensuring social acceptance of their sovereignty. Employing a historical-analytical approach, this research comparatively examines the patterns of legitimacy during the Buyid and Seljuk periods. Data collection and analysis were conducted through the study of primary historical sources (such as chronicles and contemporary texts) and secondary scholarly literature. Introduction The concept of political legitimacy is central to understanding political order, particularly within the historical context of Iran and the greater Islamic world during the medieval era. This study analyzes the Buyid and Seljuk dynasties, focusing on the dimensions of legitimacy that characterize their governing frameworks. Legitimacy encompasses a reciprocal relationship between the "right to rule" and societal acceptance of that right, encompassing various sources of authority. As defined by Lipset, legitimacy is the capacity of a political system to foster the belief that existing institutions best serve societal interests (Lipset, 2004). Weber presents legitimacy as rooted in the belief in the normative validity of authority and the internal acceptance of rulers by the commanded (Weber, 1988). Political legitimacy goes beyond mere legality; it operates as a symbolic asset cultivated through social belief in the righteousness of power. Methodology This research employs a comparative historical analysis within a theoretical framework that encompasses multiple sources of authority operating in tandem. It uses a four-fold conceptual framework based on Weber's tripartite classification of authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational, extending to analyze the complexities of legitimacy in the Buyid and Seljuk contexts. The four levels identified include: 1) Sacred-Normative Legitimacy (relying on caliphate and religious institution), 2) Sultanistic-Military Legitimacy (based on coercive power), 3) Bureaucratic-Elite Legitimacy (supported by bureaucratic structures and political discourse), and 4) Social-Functional Legitimacy (emphasizing public acceptance and executive efficacy). Theoretical Framework The groundwork of this study is built upon multiple theoretical constructs of legitimacy, layered within the historical fabric of Iranian politics. It posits that legitimacy was not derived from a singular source but was rather an outcome of a complex interplay between military power, religious legitimacy, bureaucratic structures, and societal acceptance. The study traces the historical roots of these concepts back to pre-Islamic traditions, such as the notion of "Divine Glory," which integrated political authority with sacred endorsement. This was subsequently reinterpreted within the context of the Islamic caliphate, which served as a religious and institutional source of political legitimacy. Discussion Analyzing the Buyid and Seljuk governments reveals distinct approaches to establishing and sustaining political legitimacy. For instance, the Buyids adopted a selectively integrative approach with Shia scholars, fostering a locally resonant and flexible form of religious legitimacy. They managed to cultivate acceptance through their policies of religious tolerance and the promotion of Shia scholarship. In contrast, the Seljuks leveraged support from the Abbasid caliphate and cultivated a broader institutional legitimacy that was more organized and expansive. In terms of Sultanistic-Military legitimacy, both dynasties prioritized the military's role; however, they differed in their methodologies. The Buyids focused on a balance between the ruling power and military aristocrats, while the Seljuks developed a professional, centralized military force that became a cornerstone of their royal legitimacy. The bureaucratic and elite legitimacy during the Buyid era was characterized by local administration that supported cultural and scholarly elites, thereby reinforcing their prominence. In contrast, the Seljuks institutionalized their bureaucratic legitimacy through the establishment of centralized administrative bodies and academies that solidified their intellectual and institutional authority. Moreover, social-functional legitimacy manifested differently for the two dynasties. The Buyids engaged in initiatives that revived Iranian-Islamic identity, promoting urban development and supporting science and culture. The Seljuks, on the other hand, institutionalized their claims to social legitimacy through centralized governance structures, educational advancements, and expansive cultural projects. Conclusion The investigation into the Buyid and Seljuk dynasties reveals that political legitimacy in Islamic Iran was a multifaceted, historical process reliant on an intertwining of military power, religious endorsement, bureaucratic structures, and societal acceptance. While both dynasties effectively established their legitimacy through diverse mechanisms, their differences in the implementation and prioritization of these methods reflected the historical contexts and social characteristics of their respective eras. The Buyids cultivated legitimacy through local identity and scholarly engagement, whereas Seljuks' legitimacy was more comprehensive and sustained, arising from bureaucratic, doctrinal, and military integrative methods. This study underscores the significance of political legitimacy's complexity and suggests that future analyses of governance must consider the intricate relationships among power, society, and political culture. The findings provide valuable insights into the dynamics of power within Islamic states and continue to resonate within the governance structures of later Islamic administrations.

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_242915_d0704847d2668d78b8d71b4f03a2a4c6.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2025 08 23 A Historical Analysis of the Evolution of Legal Mechanisms for the Preservation of Peace, with Emphasis on the Procedures and Implications of the Gaza Case (2020–2026) A Historical Analysis of the Evolution of Legal Mechanisms for the Preservation of Peace, with Emphasis on the Procedures and Implications of the Gaza Case (2020–2026) 329 356 243089 10.22034/irr.2026.580270.2846 FA Mohsen Omidian Far Phd Candidate, General International Law, Bu.C, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran Abdolmohammad Afrogh Department of International Law, Da.C, Islamic Azad University, Dashtestan, Bushehr, Iran Abbas Barzegarzadeh Department of International Law, Bu.C, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran Journal Article 2026 05 03 The rapid evolution of international relations over the past decade has fundamentally challenged the functionality of legal mechanisms for maintaining peace. The aim of this article is to examine the historical transformation of these mechanisms within the international legal order, focusing on the legal procedures and consequences of the Gaza crisis between 2020 and 2026. The research employs an analytical–descriptive approach using documentary and legal content analysis methods. Data were gathered from official UN documents, humanitarian organization reports, and academic sources, and analyzed through an institutional–functional transformation framework. Findings reveal that the Gaza crisis triggered a functional shift in peacekeeping mechanisms: while weakening the centralized decision-making efficiency of the Security Council, it strengthened the role of judicial institutions, international monitoring, and global public opinion as non-binding yet influential tools. Moreover, the international peace maintenance system has transitioned from a state-centric toward a multi-layered, multi-actor model. The study concludes that the Gaza crisis acted as a normative catalyst, exposing the gap between norms and implementation, and highlighting the need for structural reform, institutional coordination, and effective enforcement mechanisms. The future of the international peacekeeping system thus depends on simultaneous structural and functional transformation. Introduction The historical evolution of legal mechanisms for maintaining peace in the international system has consistently been shaped by a persistent tension between “norms” and “power.” On the one hand, international law—grounded in the prohibition of the use of force, the obligation to settle disputes peacefully, the protection of civilians, and the principle of accountability—claims the capacity to regulate the conduct of states and other actors in times of crisis. On the other hand, the institutional architecture of collective security and the political arrangements underpinning it often constrain, redirect, or selectively activate those norms. Within this broader landscape, the Gaza crisis between 2020 and 2026 stands out as one of the most complex and protracted arenas of contemporary conflict, functioning as a “legal mirror” in which both the capacities and shortcomings of peace-maintenance mechanisms have been revealed with unusual clarity. The continuity of the crisis over time, its severe humanitarian impact, and the multiplicity of actors involved—states, non-state armed groups, international organizations, humanitarian agencies, and transnational civil society—have challenged the conventional understanding of peace maintenance as a primarily centralized process driven by the UN Security Council or traditional peacekeeping operations. Instead, Gaza has increasingly demonstrated that peace maintenance operates as a multi-level set of arrangements ranging from norm production and legal interpretation to documentation, monitoring, accountability initiatives, and hybrid political–legal forms of pressure. In this sense, Gaza has become a setting in which the traditional boundaries between international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international criminal law, and collective security practices are continually intertwined and re-articulated. From this perspective, the core issue is not merely “which rules apply,” but rather which institutions interpret and operationalize those rules, what patterns of practice emerge in implementation, and what long-term consequences follow for the future of the legal order of peace maintenance—particularly where the gap between global normative expectations and the enforcement capacity of classical institutions becomes structurally visible. Accordingly, this article—entitled “Revisiting the Historical Transformation of Legal Mechanisms for Maintaining Peace with Emphasis on the Practices and Consequences of the Gaza Case (2020–2026)”—examines how the Gaza crisis has acted as a catalyst for functional and institutional change, and how practices ranging from resolutions and interpretive statements to fact-finding, judicial engagement, and global public mobilization have gradually reshaped the horizon of how international peace maintenance is understood and potentially reorganized. The central question, therefore, is what transformations legal peace-maintenance mechanisms have experienced in responding to the Gaza crisis, and what implications the resulting practices generate for the future of the international legal system of peace maintenance—an inquiry requiring simultaneous attention to historical trajectories, institutional structures, operational practices, and the relationship between legal legitimacy and practical effectiveness. Methodology This research is basic–analytical in purpose and descriptive–analytical in design. It employs documentary research and legal content analysis to explain the transformation of legal peace-maintenance mechanisms in relation to the Gaza crisis. A corpus of textual materials—including institutional documents and practices (such as decisions, positions, and legal framings by relevant bodies), monitoring and fact-finding reports, academic studies, and literature on the evolving concept of peace and human security—was collected and subjected to conceptual coding. The analytical strategy rested on two complementary axes: (1) historical–institutional analysis to trace shifts and redistributions of functions between classical mechanisms and complementary or alternative channels; and (2) practice-oriented analysis to identify recurring patterns in legal engagement with the crisis (including documentation techniques, normative pressure, accountability framing, and reliance on non-binding instruments). Analytical robustness was enhanced through cross-comparison of extracted themes and consistency checks across categories. Ultimately, the study’s explanatory framework links structural constraints of political decision-making with the normative and judicial dynamics that shape how peace-maintenance law is articulated and mobilized.. Theoretical Framework The Gaza crisis (2020–2026) generated a significant “functional transformation” in legal mechanisms for maintaining peace—one that occurred less through explicit amendments to Charter-based rules or the creation of entirely new institutions than through altered patterns of use and intensified interaction among existing mechanisms. The first level of change lies in the exposure of limitations within the classical collective security model centered on the UN Security Council. Under conditions of political polarization, the Council often fails to produce effective binding outcomes at key moments, which in turn activates alternative institutional pathways to compensate for decision-making paralysis. The second level involves the growing salience of “non-binding yet influential tools,” including representative-body resolutions, emergency sessions, interpretive statements, and monitoring mechanisms that operate not through coercion but through shaping normative expectations, raising reputational costs, and generating legal evidence. The third level is the gradual strengthening of judicial and quasi-judicial dimensions in the broader configuration of peace maintenance, as issues of individual criminal responsibility, accountability for serious violations, and possibilities of legal proceedings become increasingly integrated into the language through which peace is framed and pursued. The fourth level concerns a shift in the perceived “object” of peace maintenance: peace is no longer treated merely as the cessation of hostilities, but is increasingly connected in practice to civilian protection, humanitarian access, prevention of mass harm, and human rights imperatives—thereby positioning human rights and humanitarian mechanisms as active components alongside security-centered tools. The findings further show that the Gaza crisis has accelerated the multi-actor character of peace-maintenance processes, reduced the exclusivity of state-driven agendas and amplifying the influence of international bodies, civil society networks, media ecosystems, and emerging documentation technologies in shaping legal practices. Yet a structural consequence emerges as well: as normative and monitoring instruments expand, the absence of strengthened enforcement pathways increases the risk of “normative density without corresponding practical impact,” potentially undermining confidence in the overall peace-maintenance system. The Gaza case thus reflects both legal dynamism and enduring implementation constraints, illustrating the international system’s difficulty in translating humanitarian norms into effective outcomes under conditions of institutional blockage. . Discussion The results suggest that Gaza represents not merely an instance of institutional ineffectiveness but a turning point in the logic of change within the legal mechanisms of peace maintenance. In this crisis, peace-maintenance instruments were forced to operate amid simultaneously heightened normative pressure—from public opinion and human rights actors—and intensified structural constraints on binding political decision-making. This conjunction of “pressure to act” and “inability to compel” produced strategic adaptation: rather than relying exclusively on classical tools, the system moved toward a composite approach combining norm-setting, monitoring, judicial engagement, and political–legal diplomacy. This can be interpreted as a shift from “peace as a decision” to “peace as a process,” where each legal act—even when non-binding—may function as part of an architecture of pressure, legitimacy production, and future accountability. Such a shift carries important implications for collective security: it becomes less a singular unified response to threats to peace and more a set of coordinated actions aimed at constraining violence, reducing human harm, and raising the long-term costs of violations. However, this adaptation does not automatically guarantee effectiveness and may generate new paradoxes. One is the “inflation of soft instruments” alongside the “poverty of hard instruments,” meaning that the accumulation of reports, statements, condemnations, and monitoring processes—if not linked to actions capable of altering behavior—may gradually lose deterrent force and become repetitive and predictable. A second paradox is the tension between legal logic and political logic: as accountability and civilian protection gain prominence, political resistance by influential actors may increase, thereby weakening enforcement pathways. Gaza thus demonstrates that norms can be “resistance-generating” as much as legitimacy-producing, intensifying struggles over interpretation and implementation. The future of peace-maintenance mechanisms depends on the system’s ability to manage this tension: can institutional arrangements be designed such that, even without full consensus, minimal enforceable measures for immediate civilian protection and crisis de-escalation can be activated? Moreover, while the multi-actor nature of peace maintenance creates new capacities, it also raises the risk of fragmentation and incoherence. If institutions pursue separate narratives and agendas, the outcome may be “multiplicity of action without unity of effect.” Therefore, the central claim of this discussion is that the legal transformation observed in Gaza becomes sustainable only if it is connected to coordination mechanisms, shared standards, and implementable pathways; otherwise, the system may become normatively richer yet operationally more fragile.. Conclusion The study concludes that legal mechanisms for maintaining peace, in responding to the Gaza crisis (2020–2026), underwent three major transformations: a shift in institutional centrality, a shift in the logic of instruments, and a shift in the functional definition of peace. First, regarding institutional centrality, while the UN Security Council retains privileged legal authority, the Gaza crisis in practice highlighted complementary and alternative channels and pushed the system toward polycentricity. This polycentricity does not entail a full transfer of authority away from classical institutions but rather a redistribution of functions, where some bodies increasingly generate meaning and legitimacy, others develop documentation and monitoring, and still others activate accountability pathways. Second, in terms of instruments, peace maintenance has increasingly moved from hard, binding tools toward a combined repertoire of soft, norm-producing, and judicial mechanisms. Although such tools may not deliver immediate results, they can cumulatively increase the costs of violations, shape dominant legal narratives, and build foundations for future accountability. Yet if this shift is not accompanied by stronger enforcement, it may normalize the gap between rhetoric and practice, producing a condition in which the international community is normatively active but practically unable to interrupt cycles of violence. Third, the Gaza crisis demonstrates that peace has become a more interdisciplinary concept: no longer merely a security objective, peace is increasingly understood as an outcome shaped by humanitarian protection, access, accountability, and constraints on civilian harm. This redefinition elevates the role of human rights, humanitarian law, and international criminal law within peace-maintenance discourse and practice, expanding success metrics from “ending conflict” to “reducing human suffering and ensuring minimum protective standards.” Consequently, the legal implications of Gaza-related practices for the future peace-maintenance system can be summarized as follows: (1) the legitimacy of civilian-protection demands has strengthened and expectations of accountability have risen; (2) new pathways of normative and judicial pressure have emerged that may contribute over time to standardizing conduct and limiting practical impunity; and (3) the risk of eroding confidence in formal institutions increases if implementation deadlocks persist. The future of the legal order of peace maintenance therefore hinges on converting normative dynamism into institutional and enforcement reforms—enhancing coordination, reducing the capacity for total blockage in vital decisions, designing phased and implementable tools for immediate civilian protection, and forging effective links between documentation and accountability. Ultimately, Gaza shows that the peace-maintenance system is changing, but the transformation remains incomplete; without structural and enforcement reforms, change may remain discursive, whereas if the lessons of Gaza lead to an effective redesign of mechanisms, the crisis may mark a transition from “symbolic peace maintenance” to “implementable peace maintenance.” . The rapid evolution of international relations over the past decade has fundamentally challenged the functionality of legal mechanisms for maintaining peace. The aim of this article is to examine the historical transformation of these mechanisms within the international legal order, focusing on the legal procedures and consequences of the Gaza crisis between 2020 and 2026. The research employs an analytical–descriptive approach using documentary and legal content analysis methods. Data were gathered from official UN documents, humanitarian organization reports, and academic sources, and analyzed through an institutional–functional transformation framework. Findings reveal that the Gaza crisis triggered a functional shift in peacekeeping mechanisms: while weakening the centralized decision-making efficiency of the Security Council, it strengthened the role of judicial institutions, international monitoring, and global public opinion as non-binding yet influential tools. Moreover, the international peace maintenance system has transitioned from a state-centric toward a multi-layered, multi-actor model. The study concludes that the Gaza crisis acted as a normative catalyst, exposing the gap between norms and implementation, and highlighting the need for structural reform, institutional coordination, and effective enforcement mechanisms. The future of the international peacekeeping system thus depends on simultaneous structural and functional transformation. Introduction The historical evolution of legal mechanisms for maintaining peace in the international system has consistently been shaped by a persistent tension between “norms” and “power.” On the one hand, international law—grounded in the prohibition of the use of force, the obligation to settle disputes peacefully, the protection of civilians, and the principle of accountability—claims the capacity to regulate the conduct of states and other actors in times of crisis. On the other hand, the institutional architecture of collective security and the political arrangements underpinning it often constrain, redirect, or selectively activate those norms. Within this broader landscape, the Gaza crisis between 2020 and 2026 stands out as one of the most complex and protracted arenas of contemporary conflict, functioning as a “legal mirror” in which both the capacities and shortcomings of peace-maintenance mechanisms have been revealed with unusual clarity. The continuity of the crisis over time, its severe humanitarian impact, and the multiplicity of actors involved—states, non-state armed groups, international organizations, humanitarian agencies, and transnational civil society—have challenged the conventional understanding of peace maintenance as a primarily centralized process driven by the UN Security Council or traditional peacekeeping operations. Instead, Gaza has increasingly demonstrated that peace maintenance operates as a multi-level set of arrangements ranging from norm production and legal interpretation to documentation, monitoring, accountability initiatives, and hybrid political–legal forms of pressure. In this sense, Gaza has become a setting in which the traditional boundaries between international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international criminal law, and collective security practices are continually intertwined and re-articulated. From this perspective, the core issue is not merely “which rules apply,” but rather which institutions interpret and operationalize those rules, what patterns of practice emerge in implementation, and what long-term consequences follow for the future of the legal order of peace maintenance—particularly where the gap between global normative expectations and the enforcement capacity of classical institutions becomes structurally visible. Accordingly, this article—entitled “Revisiting the Historical Transformation of Legal Mechanisms for Maintaining Peace with Emphasis on the Practices and Consequences of the Gaza Case (2020–2026)”—examines how the Gaza crisis has acted as a catalyst for functional and institutional change, and how practices ranging from resolutions and interpretive statements to fact-finding, judicial engagement, and global public mobilization have gradually reshaped the horizon of how international peace maintenance is understood and potentially reorganized. The central question, therefore, is what transformations legal peace-maintenance mechanisms have experienced in responding to the Gaza crisis, and what implications the resulting practices generate for the future of the international legal system of peace maintenance—an inquiry requiring simultaneous attention to historical trajectories, institutional structures, operational practices, and the relationship between legal legitimacy and practical effectiveness. Methodology This research is basic–analytical in purpose and descriptive–analytical in design. It employs documentary research and legal content analysis to explain the transformation of legal peace-maintenance mechanisms in relation to the Gaza crisis. A corpus of textual materials—including institutional documents and practices (such as decisions, positions, and legal framings by relevant bodies), monitoring and fact-finding reports, academic studies, and literature on the evolving concept of peace and human security—was collected and subjected to conceptual coding. The analytical strategy rested on two complementary axes: (1) historical–institutional analysis to trace shifts and redistributions of functions between classical mechanisms and complementary or alternative channels; and (2) practice-oriented analysis to identify recurring patterns in legal engagement with the crisis (including documentation techniques, normative pressure, accountability framing, and reliance on non-binding instruments). Analytical robustness was enhanced through cross-comparison of extracted themes and consistency checks across categories. Ultimately, the study’s explanatory framework links structural constraints of political decision-making with the normative and judicial dynamics that shape how peace-maintenance law is articulated and mobilized.. Theoretical Framework The Gaza crisis (2020–2026) generated a significant “functional transformation” in legal mechanisms for maintaining peace—one that occurred less through explicit amendments to Charter-based rules or the creation of entirely new institutions than through altered patterns of use and intensified interaction among existing mechanisms. The first level of change lies in the exposure of limitations within the classical collective security model centered on the UN Security Council. Under conditions of political polarization, the Council often fails to produce effective binding outcomes at key moments, which in turn activates alternative institutional pathways to compensate for decision-making paralysis. The second level involves the growing salience of “non-binding yet influential tools,” including representative-body resolutions, emergency sessions, interpretive statements, and monitoring mechanisms that operate not through coercion but through shaping normative expectations, raising reputational costs, and generating legal evidence. The third level is the gradual strengthening of judicial and quasi-judicial dimensions in the broader configuration of peace maintenance, as issues of individual criminal responsibility, accountability for serious violations, and possibilities of legal proceedings become increasingly integrated into the language through which peace is framed and pursued. The fourth level concerns a shift in the perceived “object” of peace maintenance: peace is no longer treated merely as the cessation of hostilities, but is increasingly connected in practice to civilian protection, humanitarian access, prevention of mass harm, and human rights imperatives—thereby positioning human rights and humanitarian mechanisms as active components alongside security-centered tools. The findings further show that the Gaza crisis has accelerated the multi-actor character of peace-maintenance processes, reduced the exclusivity of state-driven agendas and amplifying the influence of international bodies, civil society networks, media ecosystems, and emerging documentation technologies in shaping legal practices. Yet a structural consequence emerges as well: as normative and monitoring instruments expand, the absence of strengthened enforcement pathways increases the risk of “normative density without corresponding practical impact,” potentially undermining confidence in the overall peace-maintenance system. The Gaza case thus reflects both legal dynamism and enduring implementation constraints, illustrating the international system’s difficulty in translating humanitarian norms into effective outcomes under conditions of institutional blockage. . Discussion The results suggest that Gaza represents not merely an instance of institutional ineffectiveness but a turning point in the logic of change within the legal mechanisms of peace maintenance. In this crisis, peace-maintenance instruments were forced to operate amid simultaneously heightened normative pressure—from public opinion and human rights actors—and intensified structural constraints on binding political decision-making. This conjunction of “pressure to act” and “inability to compel” produced strategic adaptation: rather than relying exclusively on classical tools, the system moved toward a composite approach combining norm-setting, monitoring, judicial engagement, and political–legal diplomacy. This can be interpreted as a shift from “peace as a decision” to “peace as a process,” where each legal act—even when non-binding—may function as part of an architecture of pressure, legitimacy production, and future accountability. Such a shift carries important implications for collective security: it becomes less a singular unified response to threats to peace and more a set of coordinated actions aimed at constraining violence, reducing human harm, and raising the long-term costs of violations. However, this adaptation does not automatically guarantee effectiveness and may generate new paradoxes. One is the “inflation of soft instruments” alongside the “poverty of hard instruments,” meaning that the accumulation of reports, statements, condemnations, and monitoring processes—if not linked to actions capable of altering behavior—may gradually lose deterrent force and become repetitive and predictable. A second paradox is the tension between legal logic and political logic: as accountability and civilian protection gain prominence, political resistance by influential actors may increase, thereby weakening enforcement pathways. Gaza thus demonstrates that norms can be “resistance-generating” as much as legitimacy-producing, intensifying struggles over interpretation and implementation. The future of peace-maintenance mechanisms depends on the system’s ability to manage this tension: can institutional arrangements be designed such that, even without full consensus, minimal enforceable measures for immediate civilian protection and crisis de-escalation can be activated? Moreover, while the multi-actor nature of peace maintenance creates new capacities, it also raises the risk of fragmentation and incoherence. If institutions pursue separate narratives and agendas, the outcome may be “multiplicity of action without unity of effect.” Therefore, the central claim of this discussion is that the legal transformation observed in Gaza becomes sustainable only if it is connected to coordination mechanisms, shared standards, and implementable pathways; otherwise, the system may become normatively richer yet operationally more fragile.. Conclusion The study concludes that legal mechanisms for maintaining peace, in responding to the Gaza crisis (2020–2026), underwent three major transformations: a shift in institutional centrality, a shift in the logic of instruments, and a shift in the functional definition of peace. First, regarding institutional centrality, while the UN Security Council retains privileged legal authority, the Gaza crisis in practice highlighted complementary and alternative channels and pushed the system toward polycentricity. This polycentricity does not entail a full transfer of authority away from classical institutions but rather a redistribution of functions, where some bodies increasingly generate meaning and legitimacy, others develop documentation and monitoring, and still others activate accountability pathways. Second, in terms of instruments, peace maintenance has increasingly moved from hard, binding tools toward a combined repertoire of soft, norm-producing, and judicial mechanisms. Although such tools may not deliver immediate results, they can cumulatively increase the costs of violations, shape dominant legal narratives, and build foundations for future accountability. Yet if this shift is not accompanied by stronger enforcement, it may normalize the gap between rhetoric and practice, producing a condition in which the international community is normatively active but practically unable to interrupt cycles of violence. Third, the Gaza crisis demonstrates that peace has become a more interdisciplinary concept: no longer merely a security objective, peace is increasingly understood as an outcome shaped by humanitarian protection, access, accountability, and constraints on civilian harm. This redefinition elevates the role of human rights, humanitarian law, and international criminal law within peace-maintenance discourse and practice, expanding success metrics from “ending conflict” to “reducing human suffering and ensuring minimum protective standards.” Consequently, the legal implications of Gaza-related practices for the future peace-maintenance system can be summarized as follows: (1) the legitimacy of civilian-protection demands has strengthened and expectations of accountability have risen; (2) new pathways of normative and judicial pressure have emerged that may contribute over time to standardizing conduct and limiting practical impunity; and (3) the risk of eroding confidence in formal institutions increases if implementation deadlocks persist. The future of the legal order of peace maintenance therefore hinges on converting normative dynamism into institutional and enforcement reforms—enhancing coordination, reducing the capacity for total blockage in vital decisions, designing phased and implementable tools for immediate civilian protection, and forging effective links between documentation and accountability. Ultimately, Gaza shows that the peace-maintenance system is changing, but the transformation remains incomplete; without structural and enforcement reforms, change may remain discursive, whereas if the lessons of Gaza lead to an effective redesign of mechanisms, the crisis may mark a transition from “symbolic peace maintenance” to “implementable peace maintenance.” .

https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_243089_f6235efbf37eacc4b2245df200d4a686.pdf

The Iranian Association of International Studies International Relations Researches 2251-8444 15 2 2026 06 23 Policy Factors and State Responsibility for the Desiccation of Lake Urmia from the Perspective of Islamic Jurisprudential Rules Policy Factors and State Responsibility for the Desiccation of Lake Urmia from the Perspective of Islamic Jurisprudential Rules 357 392 246116 10.22034/irr.2025.246116 FA Ezzatollah Ganjkhanlou Ph.D. Candidate in Private Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran. Azizollah Fahimi Corresponding Author,Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran Ahmad Deylami Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran. deylami@qom.ac.ir Journal Article The desiccation of Lake Urmia has become one of Iran’s most serious environmental crises, producing significant economic, social, health, and ecological consequences and affecting the rights of present and future generations. This study aims to identify and prioritize the factors contributing to the desiccation of Lake Urmia and to analyze them within the framework of state responsibility based on the Islamic legal maxims of La Darar (No-Harm Principle) and Ehteram (Principle of Respect). This applied qualitative study employed the Delphi technique. Eighteen experts in Islamic jurisprudence and law, water resources management, environmental studies, and geography were selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected in three Delphi rounds and analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance. The reliability of the instrument was confirmed by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87. The findings revealed that 17 out of 24 initial indicators were confirmed within four dimensions: jurisprudential–legal, policy–managerial, developmental, and natural–climatic. The most important factors included the state’s responsibility to prevent environmental harm, the expansion of irrigated agriculture, unsustainable water management, and unequal water allocation. The results indicate that the Lake Urmia crisis is influenced more by policy and managerial decisions than by natural factors. From the perspective of Islamic legal maxims, these findings provide a basis for establishing state responsibility in protecting public resources and preventing environmental damage. The desiccation of Lake Urmia has become one of Iran’s most serious environmental crises, producing significant economic, social, health, and ecological consequences and affecting the rights of present and future generations. This study aims to identify and prioritize the factors contributing to the desiccation of Lake Urmia and to analyze them within the framework of state responsibility based on the Islamic legal maxims of La Darar (No-Harm Principle) and Ehteram (Principle of Respect). This applied qualitative study employed the Delphi technique. Eighteen experts in Islamic jurisprudence and law, water resources management, environmental studies, and geography were selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected in three Delphi rounds and analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance. The reliability of the instrument was confirmed by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87. The findings revealed that 17 out of 24 initial indicators were confirmed within four dimensions: jurisprudential–legal, policy–managerial, developmental, and natural–climatic. The most important factors included the state’s responsibility to prevent environmental harm, the expansion of irrigated agriculture, unsustainable water management, and unequal water allocation. The results indicate that the Lake Urmia crisis is influenced more by policy and managerial decisions than by natural factors. From the perspective of Islamic legal maxims, these findings provide a basis for establishing state responsibility in protecting public resources and preventing environmental damage. https://www.iisajournals.ir/article_246116_8dfc6bf83800d081dd4bcec2468d6b9e.pdf