Political Sociology
Mohammad Dadpanah; Hossein Harsij; Amir Masud Shahramnia; Gholamreza Davazdah Emami
Abstract
IntroductionSocial cohesion, as a key indicator of good governance, forms the foundation of development in any country. Without social cohesion, the process of national development faces significant challenges. Despite the constitutional revision and certain institutional reforms, social cohesion in ...
Read More
IntroductionSocial cohesion, as a key indicator of good governance, forms the foundation of development in any country. Without social cohesion, the process of national development faces significant challenges. Despite the constitutional revision and certain institutional reforms, social cohesion in Iran has declined, posing a major obstacle to the country’s development. In this regard, the present study aimed to examine the changes in social cohesion in Iran from the onset of the Islamic Revolution up to 2024, focusing on the periods before and after the 1989 constitutional revision.Literature ReviewMany studies have addressed the definition, factors, and criteria for measuring social cohesion, offering various solutions and initiatives aimed at fostering social cohesion, addressing potential threats, and enhancing the resilience of society. The earliest sociological work related to social cohesion can be traced back to Ibn Khaldun in the 14th century A.D. In The Muqaddimah, he introduced the concept of ‘asabiyyah, which is closely related to concept of social cohesion. Ibn Khaldun defines ‘asabiyyah as the harmony of tribal, kinship, and religious affiliations, establishing a direct link between ‘asabiyyah and the stability and power of civilizations, dynasties, and states. He identifies the decline of ‘asabiyyah in societies as a key factor contributing to the collapse of civilizations, while emphasizing that strong ‘asabiyyah represents one of the most important sources of opportunity and power for any human society. Another significant work on the concept of social cohesion is John Jenson’s 2010 book Defining and Measuring Social Cohesion, which addresses the concepts and variables used to assess social cohesion. Jenson examined the historical perspectives on social cohesion and exploredits relationship with social capital. He further identified key indicators for measuring social cohesion and discussed the role of institutions and government in creating social cohesion. Moreover, Jenson presented social cohesion as a key factor in economic growth and development, arguing that political elites are able to implement their policies with fewer threats and challenges from competitors and citizens in countries that exhibit strong social cohesion. In Social Cohesion Contested, Swain and Urban (2024) presented social cohesion as a desirable political goal and as a foundation for economic growth and individual well-being. They highlighted the concept of social cohesion and provide a distinct definition. They note that while the term is often used to imply broad consensus and understanding at the societal and governance levels, in practice it is subject to varying interpretations and definitions. They attempted to define cohesion as the coexistence of diverse thoughts and identities under the guidance of scientific authority and normative legitimacy. The lack of consensus on the concept of social cohesion is a key reason why it is often not achieved and presents a challenge for policymakers seeking to realize this goal. The book offers not only a critique of the conventional understanding of social cohesion but also serves as an example of how philosophical critique can inform research and social policy.In addition, the article “Social Cohesion: Definitions, Causes and Consequences” (Moustakas, 2023) examined social cohesion at the micro, meso, and macro levels of society. He emphasized the development of relationships and solidarity as a source of new resources and opportunities. Moustakas identified several behaviors and concepts associated with social cohesion, including shared values,common experiences, civic participation, mutual aid, trust in others, social networks, social order, acceptance of diversity, welfare, equality, and social mobility. From his perspective, social cohesion is an ongoing process that fosters well-being, a sense of belonging, and voluntary social participation, while enabling citizens to tolerate and promote multiple values and cultures within society. The study by Lukosch et al. (2018), titled “Social Cohesion Revisited: A New Definition and How to Characterize It,” reviewed existing definitions of social cohesion and examined the concept at three levels: individual, social, and institutional. The review of the literature indicates that the concept of social capital is fundamentally grounded in sustainable social cohesion, making social networks a valuable asset. These networks enable citizens to cooperate not only with those they know directly but also with others for mutual benefit. Furthermore, as the research literature shows, social cohesion is influenced by both positive and negative factors, which are shaped by the characteristics of society and political institutions.Materials and MethodsThe present study used the SWOT analytical framework and the comparative method to address the research question. The SWOT model allows for an assessment of both institutional and environmental conditions. By identifying institutional strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats, the study evaluated social cohesion vis-à-vis good governance in a comparative manner across the two specified time periods.Results and DiscussionThe variables of social cohesion did not follow a uniform trend across the two periods under study; some indicators showed improvement, while others reflected a decline in social cohesion. The analysis helped identify the key variables influencing social cohesion, including equality of opportunity, economic growth, development of civil institutions, education, structural cohesion, shared beliefs, globalization, media, and external threats. A comparison of these variables indicated that the political system’s inability to ensure the livelihood of citizens, the lack of distributive justice, and unbalanced development, combined with environmental pressures such as the effects of globalization and the expansion of interactive media, contributed to a decline in the social capital of the political structure. As a result, the gap between society and the government widened compared to the period before the 1989 constitutional revision, leading to an overall decrease in social cohesion.ConclusionA comparative evaluation of the institutional and environmental components of social cohesion before and after the 1989 constitutional revision revealed that social cohesion actually declined in the period following the constitutional changes. This is contrary to the view of some intellectuals and policy elites who argued that structural reforms and constitutional revision would not only enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the political system but also promote social cohesion.
Political Sociology
Mahmoudreza Rahbarqazi; Morteza Ebrahimi; reza mahmoudoghli
Abstract
IntroductionIn Iran, social capital has been widely studied to explore its various dimensions and its influence on social and political life. However, one area that remains under-researched—and represents a significant gap in the literature—is the mediating role of modern cultural values. ...
Read More
IntroductionIn Iran, social capital has been widely studied to explore its various dimensions and its influence on social and political life. However, one area that remains under-researched—and represents a significant gap in the literature—is the mediating role of modern cultural values. Understanding these cultural dynamics is essential for fostering a more participatory society in Iran. In this respect, the current study aimed to examine the impact of social capital on social activism, with particular emphasis on how modern values shape and condition this relationship. Examining this issue within the context of contemporary Iranian society is important because it reveals, on the one hand, how social capital functions as a key factor in the development of social activism, and on the other hand, how civic participation is influenced by cultural factors. Such insights can inform more effective strategies for strengthening civic engagement in today’s societies. The study sought to answer the following questions: How do the components of social capital (i.e., social trust and social networks) directly increase social activism among citizens? And how do the components of social capital indirectly increase social activism through modern cultural values?Literature ReviewIn the modern era, the role of social capital in fostering citizen engagement and participation in social and political affairs is a prominent topic of discussion. In his seminal book Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville offered an in-depth analysis of civil society and highlighted the crucial role played by associations and voluntary groups in strengthening democracy and encouraging citizen participation. According to Tocqueville, these civic institutions enhance social capital and make a substantial contribution to the consolidation of civic action. He argued that civil associations serve as intermediaries between individuals and the state, fostering greater citizen involvement in public affairs. Beyond monitoring government actions, these organizations also cultivate social solidarity and reinforce citizens’ sense of civic responsibility. For these reasons, Tocqueville regarded them as essential to the stability of democratic systems. In Islamic societies, social capital can indirectly increase social and civic engagement among citizens by reducing—rather than enhancing—modern values. In Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy, Hashemi (2009) argued that Islamic societies can achieve civic development and participation by drawing on their indigenous religious values rather than adopting modern Western models. According to Hashemi, progress and democracy can emerge through the religious and cultural institutions unique to Islamic societies, rather than through the norms of modernity. Similarly, An-Na’im, in Islam and the Secular State (2008), argued that social capital in Islamic societies can foster social and civic engagement through religious and traditional institutions and values. He thus demonstrated how Islamic civic values can promote civic activity in these societies without relying on modern values.Materials and MethodsThe present research used a quantitative method and relied on the secondary data analysis. To test the hypotheses, partial least squares (PLS) analysis was conducted in the SmartPLS modeling software. The data for hypothesis testing was drawn from the Wave 7 World Values Survey for Iran.Results and DiscussionTable 1 presents the t-values associated with the main hypotheses. Table 1. Significance Coefficients (t-values)Independent variablesMediating variablesDependent variablestSig.Social trustCultural values 37.120.00Social networksCultural values 3.320.00Social trust Social activism6.460.00Social networks Social activism3.730.00Cultural values Social activism4.730.00Social trustCultural valuesSocial activism4.670.00Social networksCultural valuesSocial activism2.590.01Based on the results, the interpretation of the path coefficients, t-values, and significance levels is as follows. First, social trust has a negative and significant effect on cultural values, but a positive and significant effect on social activism. This indicates that social trust directly and significantly increases social activism. Second, social networks also show a negative and significant effect on cultural values, alongside a positive and significant effect on social activism, suggesting that social networks produce modest yet significant changes in this area. Third, cultural values have a negative effect on social activism, indicating that higher levels of cultural values are associated with a significant decrease in social activism. The results for indirect effects further show that social trust has an indirect and significant influence on social activism through cultural values. This finding suggests that social trust increases social activism by reducing cultural values. Finally, social networks also exert an indirect and significant effect on social activism through cultural values, although this effect is weaker than that of social trust. Overall, the findings demonstrated that social networks, indirectly and through cultural values, can contribute to increased social activism.ConclusionFirst, the research findings were consistent with the theories of Alexis de Tocqueville, Robert David Putnam, and Elinor Ostrom, demonstrating that social trust and social networks are significant factors influencing citizens’ social activism. Social trust, as a key dimension of social capital, provides the foundation for citizen participation in civic activities. Individuals with higher levels of social trust are more likely to cooperate and engage in collective affairs. Furthermore, social networks—by facilitating interaction and the exchange of information—contribute to enhanced participation in social activism. Thus, in societies where strong social networks and mutual trust exist, collective cooperation and civic activities are more easily formed. This is because shared norms and a sense of group belonging encourage individuals to collaborate and participate in social matters. In essence, social capital functions as a powerful resource for social mobilization and civic engagement.Second, the findings were also consistent with the theories underscoring the important mediating role of cultural values in this process. In societies where modern cultural values are expanding, social capital can contribute to increased social activism. In the case of Iran, given its distinct cultural and social context, social capital may indirectly enhance citizens’ social activism by offsetting some of the negative effects associated with modern values. In other words, in a society where social capital emphasizes social bonds and mutual trust, individuals tend to prioritize collective interests over the individualistic orientations promoted by modern values. This shift in priorities can enhance their inclination to participate in civic and social activities. Therefore, in Iran, reinforcing social relationships and emphasizing cultural values grounded in cooperation, solidarity, and mutual support can help foster greater civic engagement and more active participation in public affairs. This process not only contributes to the strengthening of civil society but also promotes social development and enhances the overall quality of social life for citizens.
Political Science
Zahra Mohamadpuor dehsorkhi; Mahdi Najafzadeh; Vahid Sinaee
Abstract
Introduction Throughout history, Iranian society has often presented a kind of public speech and action before those in power, while expressing very different forms away from their direct supervision. This conservative approach has been shaped by social structures and processes, in which elements of ...
Read More
Introduction Throughout history, Iranian society has often presented a kind of public speech and action before those in power, while expressing very different forms away from their direct supervision. This conservative approach has been shaped by social structures and processes, in which elements of mystery, secrecy, and introspection lead to the formation of hidden transcripts in opposition to the overt transcripts intended by the rulers. Thus, although people may publicly show agreement with the state’s official narratives of power, they are simultaneously engaged in creating an alternative, hidden discourse. Therefore, Iranians often employ symbolic elements in their speeches and writings to convey complex concepts. To conceal their beliefs and give depth and nuance to their positions, they draw on the full range of mystical allegories, similes, and coded language found in Persian literature. At various points in history, the interaction between institutional contexts and hidden transcripts has created the foundation for unity and alliance among different groups against power, at times even contributing to the overthrow of ruling powers by challenging political and social structures. Thus, these hidden transcripts have played an important role in shaping political and social developments in Iran. Without understanding their essential elements and underlying concepts, it is impossible to fully grasp the country’s political and social transformations. The present research aimed to analyze the role of various structures in shaping hidden transcripts that have influenced the political behavior, silent resistance, and hidden transcripts of subordinate groups in Iranian society. Since hidden narratives reflect a form of covert discourse, they should be regarded as a kind of hidden power exercised from below—a mechanism capable of weakening and challenging the ruling power.Literature ReviewIn numerous studies addressing the oppression, conservatism, and fear prevalent in Iranian society, it is commonly argued that this fear and secrecy stem from the theory of Iranian despotism. However, it may be more accurate to view even this theory as a product of the broader social structure of Iranian society—one that has taken shape and persisted over a long historical process. In Language, Status, and Power in Iran, Beeman (1986) argued that the tension between inside and outside, as well as issues of status, had profoundly influenced Iranian thought and many aspects of daily life. He stated that these characteristics, rooted in distrust and social insecurity, shape interpersonal interactions in such a way that what Iranians express outwardly often differs from their true intentions or beliefs. In the Persian-language book titled On the Self-Centeredness of Iranians, Ghazi-Moradi (1999) argues that the historical dominance of authoritarian governments over Iranian society has led to the subordination of personal interests to social ones. In this context, Iranians’ inclination toward the private sphere of life has often resulted in self-centeredness and passive confrontation, with self-control being a particularly important aspect. In Iranian culture, self-control serves as a means of self-concealment and protection against the aggressions and encroachments of others. Rafie’pour (2014), in It Is a Pity If Iran Should Be Ruined, examined the dual structure of Iranian society. In his view, the formation of the state was never intended to meet the needs of society; instead, it has traditionally relied on tyranny to pursue its goals. Consequently, society—particularly the informal sector—has developed its own narratives and norms in an autochthonous and spontaneous manner. In The Displacement of Two Revolutions, Najafzadeh (2016) argued that the formation of the hidden transcript is shaped by the structural and cultural characteristics of Iranian society. According to Najafzadeh,repeated invasions by various foreign forces, along with the overwhelming power and tyranny of the state, have compelled Iranians to adopt shaky, ambiguous social and individual behaviors as a means of self-protection and survival. In most studies on this topic, little attention has been given to the structures of Iranian society in shaping hidden transcripts. In fact, what matters are the dialectical relationships among the four macro-structural elements of Iranian society, which have facilitated the formation of hidden transcripts throughout its political and social history.Materials and MethodsThis study employed the interpretive method to examine the structures of Iranian society, their internal elements, and the relationships between them. The interpretive method seeks to clarify meaning, following a semantic analysis instead of causal one. Interpretation, therefore, is an activity centered on understanding and a process through which social reality is meaningfully constructed. In addition to the interpretive method, Scott’s theory of hidden transcripts was used to examine how the structures of Iranian society shape the hidden transcript as a social reality.Results and DiscussionThe historical cases demonstrate that the logic behind the formation of hidden transcripts in Iranian society—and their relative breadth compared to other societies—is shaped by the particular social structure developed and stabilized over a long historical process. The structural logic of Iranian society suggests that its political and social developments are formed and interpreted through the interconnected relationships among four key structures. The research findings indicated that the four structures governing Iranian society (i.e., political, sociocultural, religious, and linguistic) shape the behavioral tendencies and capacities of Iranians. The dualistic patterns of behavior, expressed through demonstrativeness and hiding, play a crucial role in the emergence and expression of the hidden transcript and its contrast with the public transcript, resulting in the hidden transcript being far more pervasive and resilient than the public one. This influence is evident in Persian literature, where texts and manuscripts are often rich with secrets, codes, and hidden allusions. Beyond their apparent meanings, these works frequently carry esoteric meanings, and a common feature across many manuscripts is the deliberate obscurity and concealment of their content.ConclusionInvestigating hidden narratives requires understanding the forms of social relations, situations, and societal structures that give rise to these narratives at specific times and places. Throughout history, the authoritarian political structure of Iranian society, together with other social structures, has allowed aspects of the society’s silent resistance to be expressed extensively through hidden transcripts, thus being immune to the violence of the ruling elite. The findings of the present study helped decode four main structures—political, sociocultural, religious, and linguistic—which collectively shape individual and social behavior in Iranian society. These structures appear to emerge from a coherent logic while simultaneously interacting synergistically throughout Iran’s sociopolitical history. Any analysis of Iranian society, particularly its micro- and macro-level ethology, that overlooks these structures risks being misleading.
Developments in the Middle East
Mahdi Khanalizadeh; Hossein Salimi
Abstract
Introduction After the end of the First Persian Gulf War, the George H. W. Bush administration announced a new security strategy for West Asia. The period from 1993 to 2001 was marked by a policy of encirclement—one of the traditional tools of American foreign policy and a continuation of the Cold ...
Read More
Introduction After the end of the First Persian Gulf War, the George H. W. Bush administration announced a new security strategy for West Asia. The period from 1993 to 2001 was marked by a policy of encirclement—one of the traditional tools of American foreign policy and a continuation of the Cold War balance-of-power policy—based on the assumption that any change in the region would undermine the stability of U.S. interests. However, this policy not only failed to produce the desired results in Iraq, but also placed the U.S. in a difficult position in terms of regional consequences. The deployment of U.S. military forces—initially regarded as one of Washington’s post–Cold War successes in the Middle East—generated its own antithesis and contributed to the emergence of resistance-oriented military groups.Literature ReviewThe regional security complex theory (RSCT) is based on the assumption that the end of the Cold War ushered in a new era of insecurity. This insecurity stems from emerging sectors or areas of action that have become sources of threat. These sectors include the military sector, the political sector, the economic sector, the societal sector, and the environmental sector. Each of these areas can serve as a new source of insecurity within the perceptions of different states and actors (Buzan et al., 1998). According to the RSCT, the world’s sudden shift toward insecurity can be traced to the flawed assumptions and prescriptions of the realist and globalist schools. Realists and globalists, respectively, treat the state and the international system as the only issue or factor of security, therefore, both have overlooked the regional centers where the most significant security dynamics actually unfold. Buzan and Wæver argue that security cannot be understood by examining individual units in isolation; rather, a more comprehensive understanding emerges from analyzing regional security complexes. The security concerns of states within a region are so deeply interconnected that they cannot be meaningfully studied on a standalone basis.Materials and MethodsThe present study relied on the regional security complex theory (RSCT) to examine the security developments in West Asia. The RSCT adopts the regional level of analysis as its primary framework for understanding international security issues.Results and DiscussionAn examination of indicators from the Copenhagen School shows that, in West Asia, all four major components of the regional security complex have undergone significant transformation following the expansion of the Resistance Front. As a result of these developments, it seems that the security order desired by the hegemonic power has not materialized. Instead, a different security system has taken shape in the region. Moreover, the main areas of action have undergone fundamental changes. In the aftermath of the Arab world’s revolutionary developments, the system of regional security interdependence elevated Iran’s role as a security anchor. At the same time, shifts in the U.S. approach to West Asia—for example, its reluctance to fully support the Saudi crown prince following the murder of Jamal Khashoggi—helped generate new patterns of alignment and rivalry among regional states. The official end of the Syrian war and Syria’s re-invitation to the Arab League Summit further reshaped the landscape of regional security. These developments distanced Saudi Arabia from Qatar and Turkey while recognizing Iran as the axis of the Resistance Front. This reflected a broader shift in the perceptions of regional political units: effective security actors were no longer external hegemonic powers but regional ones. Taken together, these trends suggest that recent security developments in West Asia represent a transformation in the prevailing security model in the region.ConclusionThe 12-year war in Syria and the 8-year war in Yemen—both of which ended in failure for the U.S. and its regional allies—not only shifted the geopolitical initiative in West Asia to the Resistance Front but also fundamentally altered how regional states view the security structure of West Asia. These developments were significant enough that Saudi Arabia, long considered one of the pillars of American security architecture in the region, has openly challenged Washington; indeed, it appears that the Abraham Accords may stall at this point. In effect, the Resistance Front has succeeded in transforming West Asia’s security order from a hegemonic model to a regional-group model, drawing major regional actors (e.g., Turkey and Saudi Arabia) toward this new paradigm.
International Relations
mohamad sajjad esperi; Hamidreza Shirzad
Abstract
IntroductionIn general, limited access to resources and operating within a sanctioned environment can directly and indirectly produce numerous negative effects on the ability of a government to define its goals, requirements, and needs. Economic sanctions impact the target country in two primary ways: ...
Read More
IntroductionIn general, limited access to resources and operating within a sanctioned environment can directly and indirectly produce numerous negative effects on the ability of a government to define its goals, requirements, and needs. Economic sanctions impact the target country in two primary ways: through the direct damage inflicted on its economy and through the explicit or implicit threats that accompany these sanctions. Even when not directly expressed, the element of threat plays a crucial role in influencing the target country’s behavior. The moral or reputational costs of complying with sanctions may be even greater than the material damages. This is why escalating sanctions to the point of political disruption or collapse can be considered justifiable. This raises key questions: What are the mechanisms and instruments of U.S. sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and how do they operate? In this respect, a hypothesis is that the U.S. government seeks to leverage its economic, technological, informational, and media power, along with the legal authority granted by Congress and the Treasury Department, to establish an international framework that both identifies and restricts Iran’s access to foreign resources. Simultaneously, this framework provides the necessary tools to enforce multilateral and unilateral sanctions against Iran.Literature ReviewU.S. sanctions against Iran has been a subject of several studies. For example, in the article “The Role of Congress and the US Treasury Department in Imposing Economic Sanctions Against the Islamic Republic of Iran (2010–2014),” Alavi and Amiri (2016) analyzed relevant legal documents and clauses. It concluded that, especially after 2010, the U.S. expanded the scope of its sanctions from unilateral to multilateral measures. They also argue that sanctions are considered a legal right of every country, particularly in economic relations. In another study titled “The Strategic Role of Congress in Determining US Policies Towards Iran During the Obama Era,” Dehshyar and Moradi (2017) examined the U.S. foreign policy process and highlighted the significant role of Congress. They analyzed Congress in two periods: before and after Barack Obama’s presidency. Overall, they found that there was a general consensus between Congress and the presidency regarding the purpose of sanctions against Iran. However, Congress and its internal divisions aimed to limit the president’s diplomatic authority on Iran and favored direct pressure on the country. Additionally, in “Legislative Diplomacy of the US Congress Towards the Islamic Republic of Iran: The Case Study of Sanctions,” Delavarpour-Aghdam and Dehghani-Firouzabadi (2017) based their theoretical framework on the neoconservative approach within Congress, which emphasizes the creation of adversarial strategies to protect public and national integrity. In this approach, preemptive diplomacy becomes active when the opposing actor’s power grows, and the emphasis on the Iranophobia project can be analyzed within this framework. They argued that Congress employed multiple levers in its foreign policy confrontation with Iran, including: legislative diplomacy through bills and resolutions; supervisory diplomacy through monitoring the implementation of laws; public parliamentary diplomacy via lobbying; issuing statements; communicating with intellectual and research centers; think tanks; and diplomatic consultations.Materials and MethodsThe present research employed a descriptive–analytical method. It used a documentary approach to collect the data, drawing on authentic texts, scientific and research articles, as well as resolutions, laws, and approvals related to the sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran.Results and DiscussionThe idea of sanctions was first introduced by Johan Galton in “On the Effects of International Economic Sanctions, With Examples from the Case of Rhodesia” (1967). It was presented as a means to express dissatisfaction and deter certain behaviors of states. Economic sanctions can be categorized in terms of their objectives, the number of participating countries, and the scope of their economic coverage. In terms of objectives, sanctions are generally employed for three purposes: to control a government, to change a government’s behavior, or to change the type of government. Regarding the number of participating countries, sanctions may be unilateral, multilateral, or comprehensive. Unilateral sanctions are imposed by a single country, while comprehensive sanctions require a resolution from the U.N. Security Council and the activation of Article 41 of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. With respect to coverage, sanctions can be comprehensive or targeted. Comprehensive sanctions have broad, often uncontrollable effects, impacting all economic sectors and socio-demographic groups. Targeted sanctions, on the other hand, focus on specific economic activities and limit the scope of damage to particular social groups. ConclusionThe results indicated that America, while maintaining the primary function of sanctions (i.e., restraining and changing the behavior of the Iranian government), also seeks to use them as a means to undermine and potentially overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran. The impact of the U.S. sanctions mechanism is particularly evident in its two powerful institutions: Congress and the Treasury Department. On one hand, the influence of neoconservatives in Congress, especially after the September 11, has been increasingly exercised through preemptive diplomacy, using tools such as bills and resolutions, legal supervision of their implementation, and public and media diplomacy—all aimed at regulating and enforcing international sanctions against Iran. On the other hand, the U.S. Treasury Department, particularly through the Office of Foreign Assets Control, employs intelligence and legal mechanisms to identify, block, and neutralize Iran’s trade routes. Despite the undeniable and severe impacts of sanctions on Iranian society and the economy over the decades, several factors suggest that the effectiveness of this approach is now limited. The factors include the gradual intensification of sanctions due to the failure to achieve primary objectives, the continued resilience and unchanged behavior of the target, the challenges faced by the U.S. in securing the cooperation of other countries, and the lack of access to Iran’s markets in the global economic competitive environment. Moreover, efforts by other states - particularly emerging economic powers - to engage with Iran’s economy and increase their market share, coupled with Iran’s growing ability to develop alternative tools and pathways to circumvent sanctions, further reduce their overall effectiveness. Consequently, while sanctions continue to influence Iran, their efficiency and impact are likely to change fundamentally compared to previous years, and their future application may undergo significant changes.
International Relations
Majid Abbasi; Mohammadreza Abidian
Abstract
IntroductionThe concept of human rights emerged and developed in Western Europe in the 17th century, and by the 18th and 19th centuries it had spread widely across the world. Human rights soon became central to the foreign policies of many countries. For example, the constitutions and declarations of ...
Read More
IntroductionThe concept of human rights emerged and developed in Western Europe in the 17th century, and by the 18th and 19th centuries it had spread widely across the world. Human rights soon became central to the foreign policies of many countries. For example, the constitutions and declarations of states such as the United States and France include sections devoted to human rights and have led to the establishment of national and international institutions concerned with the protection of human rights. After the formation of the European Union, its Common Foreign and Security Policy also emphasized the importance of human rights. Respect for human rights even became a fundamental principle guiding the EU’s relations with other countries. By the 20th century, human rights—along with the concepts and institutions associated with them—were established in the international system. Because of their close connection to the concept of democracy, human rights increasingly attracted the attention of politicians, scholars, and experts in international relations and came to be viewed as a foundation of democracy. Human rights are generally divided into several categories, including the right to life, the right to self-determination, the right to property, the right to freedom, the right to justice, the right to dignity, and the rights of individuals and minorities. Many actors around the world claim to be protectors of human rights. One such country is the U.S., which regularly presents itself as a global champion of human rights. However, numerous examples contradict this claim. West Asia is one of the clearest regions where the U.S. has acted under the guise of human rights—yet largely in pursuit of its own foreign policy objectives. In this regard, the present study sought to answer the following question: What are the U.S. human rights policies in the West Asian region?Literature ReviewIn an article titled “A Study of the Human Rights Policy-Making Process of the United States of America in the Middle East,” Chehr-Azad (2019) compared the human rights approaches of Presidents Obama and Bush, emphasizing that Obama generally sought to reshape the country’s policies in the Middle East. Chehr-Azad argues how the Middle East has consistently been a region of interest for the U.S., particularly because of the presence of Israel. He notes that U.S. leaders frequently invoke human rights principles in their interactions with the Islamic world. In “Investigating America’s Dual Approach to Human Rights: A Case Study of U.S. Domestic Society and West Asia,” Sotoudeh (2021) examined the claim that the U.S. not only uses human rights as a tool to advance its own interests but also undermines this principle by adopting a double standard in its human rights practices. In addition, Soleimani-Porlak (2011), in Soft Power in America’s Middle East Strategy, explained various theories about security and specifically examined soft power approaches to security.Materials and MethodsThis study used a descriptive–analytical method to examine the topic.Results and Discussion The most important international human rights instruments include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and various conventions protecting individual rights, including those of women, children, and minorities. In the West Asian region, the issue of human rights has long been a source of serious concern for the international community due to the region’s sensitive security environment and frequent political developments. Following World War II, major powers increased their involvement in the region under the pretext of supporting and promoting human rights. Among these powers is america. Although the U.S. claims to champion human rights and asserts that human rights occupy a central place in its foreign policy, it also uses the promotion of human rights, peace, and democratic norms as a justification for its presence in West Asia. However, U.S. actions in the region over several decades reveal significant contradictions in its policies. With regard to three key human rights components (i.e., the right to peace, the right to life, and the right to self-determination), U.S. policies in West Asia constitute clear violations of its stated commitment to promoting democracy and protecting human rights—particularly through its cooperation with and support for authoritarian regimes.Moreover, the U.S. has demonstrated that its political priorities and strategic interests outweigh fundamental human rights principles, including the right to life and the right to peace. This is evident in the military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, support for the actions of the Israeli regime in Palestine and Lebanon and the resulting consequences, the emergence and expansion of terrorist groups such as ISIS, and the use of weapons such as depleted uranium and phosphorus bombs in violation of the laws of war. Contradictions in U.S. policy are also evident regarding the right to self-determination. Although the U.S. claims to prioritize human rights and the right to self-determination for the people of West Asia, its actions frequently contradict this stance by supporting the regimes such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—both of which face serious criticism for violations of human rights and democratic norms. Likewise, the U.S. ambivalent approach to popular movements in the region further reflects its disregard for the self-determination of west Asian populations. In some instances, Washington has openly supported public uprisings, particularly when such movements challenge governments unfavorable to the U.S. interests. In other cases, however, the U.S. has criticized or opposed these demonstrations. Furthermore, its interventionist policies and support for Israel have placed significant constraints on the Palestinian people’s ability to exercise their right to self-determination. Overall, the findings indicated that the U.S. contradictory human rights policies in West Asia have not contributed to the promotion or protection of human rights in the region. On the contrary, America, at times, become a violator of human rights itself or a supporter of those who violate them, despite its stated commitments to the contrary.ConclusionThe findings revealed a significant contradiction between the U.S. human rights rhetoric and its actual behavior in West Asia. This discrepancy can be understood through the theoretical lens of realism, which argues that states primarily pursue national interests and the maximization of power within the international system. In line with this perspective, human rights have not been treated as an inherent objective of U.S. policy, but rather as an instrumental tool used to legitimize interventions, weaken regional rivals, and advance strategic priorities such as ensuring Israel’s security and maintaining the steady flow of energy resources. The consequences of these contradictory policies include the erosion of democratic principles and human rights, the support for dictatorial regimes, and the intensification of instability and armed conflict across the region. This selective approach has not only resulted in direct violations of the rights to life, peace, and self-determination—most notably in Palestine, Iraq, and Syria—but has also damaged the U.S. credibility in its self-asserted role as a global advocate of human rights, thereby deepening mistrust within the international community. Ultimately, the research suggests that U.S. conduct in West Asia, rather than promoting humanitarian values, has itself become a factor leading to the systematic violation of human rights.
Political economy
Sara Tajik; Seyed Masoud Mousavi Shafaee
Abstract
Introduction After the Cold War, the world order shifted from military–ideological rivalry ...
Read More
Introduction After the Cold War, the world order shifted from military–ideological rivalry to economic and geoeconomic competition. Major powers such as the U.S. and China began using economic instruments to expand their influence. The Middle East—owing to its strategic location and energy resources—has become a central arena in this new form of rivalry. In this context, China aims to deepen its influence through the Belt and Road Initiative and extensive investment in infrastructure and trade with the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Meanwhile, the U.S., the traditional hegemon, has sought to counterbalance Beijing through diplomatic, military, and economic initiatives, including the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). This rivalry reflects a broader transition of power from military dominance to economic competition, carrying the potential to reshape both the geoeconomic landscape of the Middle East and the global structure of power. In this respect, the present aimed to draw on power transition theory to examine how China–U.S. competition influences the GCC states and redefines the regional economic–political order.Literature ReviewSeveral studies examined the competitive dynamics between China and the U.S. amid the current global power transition, as well as and their implications for the Middle East’s evolving geoeconomic landscape. For example, the edited volume titled Geo-economics and Power Politics in the 21st Century (Wigell et al., 2019) offered a valuable analytical framework for understanding geoeconomic rivalry among states. It argues that the structural features of the contemporary international system shape the strategic imperatives guiding foreign policy; moreover, countries tend to pursue their political objectives through the use of economic tools. The geopolitical rivalry between China and the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific during the 21st century is further examined in the article “The US-China Geo-Economic War and Its Impact on the International Economic Order” (Salehi & Mousavi Shafaee, 2023). It focused on infrastructure projects and the geoeconomic and geopolitical significance of both powers in the region.Materials and MethodsAs a qualitative inquiry, the present study employed a descriptive–analytical approach to address the China–U.S. geoeconomic competition in the GCC. The data was collected from library and online sources. Moreover, power transition theory was used as the theoretical framework.Results and DiscussionThe rise of China’s economic power in recent decades is widely regarded as a primary driver of contemporary shifts in global power dynamics, given its far-reaching effects across international and regional spheres. Within the framework of power transition theory, the intensifying rivalry between China (as an emerging power) and the U.S. (as the established hegemon)—coupled with the resurgence of regionalism—has become a central focus of analysis. China’s growing presence in the Middle East coincides with the continued influence of a long-standing superpower in the region. Despite the economic rise of states such as China and Japan, the U.S. still retains substantial strategic interest in Middle Eastern oil and gas resources, both to meet its own energy needs and to prevent competitors from gaining access to these vital resources. The implications of this competition for the global system and the regional order of the Middle East have thus emerged as critical issues in the current international landscape. Recent efforts by both China and the U.S. to bolster ties with Middle Eastern oil-producing states—particularly members of the GCC—underscore their strategic maneuver to secure access to key energy resources. The geo-economic landscape of the GCC member states is shaped primarily by their abundant oil and gas reserves and their strategic geographical location. China has employed the economic means and launched major infrastructure initiatives—most notably the Belt and Road Initiative—to attract regional partners, resulting in strengthened trade relations with the GCC countries and substantial investments in energy security, technology, and transportation. In response to China’s perceived aggression, the U.S., together with its allies, has proposed initiatives such as the IMEC to counterbalance China’s regional influence. As the long-standing superpower in the Middle East, the U.S. has sought to deepen security cooperation with its partners to limit China’s expanding presence among the GCC states. However, despite the U.S. efforts, the GCC member states are increasingly inclined to establish closer ties with the East, aligning themselves with China’s economic policies and infrastructure projects. Consequently, this competition, embedded within broader global transformations, signals significant shifts in the global value chain and, by extension, in the economic and geoeconomic structure shaping the Middle East and the GCC region.ConclusionThe geoeconomic rivalry between China and the U.S. within the GCC was analyzed through the lens of power transition theory, which highlights the ongoing transformation of the international order. This rivalry extends beyond economic competition to encompass significant geopolitical and strategic implications for the states of the region. China has substantially expanded its economic influence by strengthening trade and investment ties, particularly in the energy and infrastructure sectors. Meanwhile, the U.S. seeks to maintain its hegemonic position through financial mechanisms, sanctions, and trade agreements. This competition has reshaped global value chains and altered the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, leaving the GCC states in a precarious position as they seek to formulate future strategic initiatives.
International Relations
Leila Morovati; Arsalan Ghorbani Sheikhkeshin; Seyed Ali Monavari
Abstract
IntroductionThe September 11 attacks expanded the scope of terrorist activities on a global scale, thus redirecting the attention of actors in the international system toward the threats posed by terrorism. This incident is widely regarded as a turning point in the history of international relations, ...
Read More
IntroductionThe September 11 attacks expanded the scope of terrorist activities on a global scale, thus redirecting the attention of actors in the international system toward the threats posed by terrorism. This incident is widely regarded as a turning point in the history of international relations, to the extent that global developments are often interpreted in terms of two distinct periods: pre- and post-September 11. The attacks transformed the scope, geography, nature, and conceptualization of terrorism, revealing a new form of terrorism operating at the global level. In this sense, post-September 11 terrorism transcended traditional boundaries of time and space and emerged as a truly global phenomenon. As a result, actors in international relations were compelled to adopt specific approaches and strategies to confront terrorism in order to protect themselves from the threats posed by international terrorism and to maintain their security. Accordingly, each actor’s counterterrorism strategy and discourse can be analyzed within the framework of the logic of consequences–appropriateness. Broadly speaking, the behavior of actors in the international system is governed by either consequence-oriented logic or appropriateness logic. In this respect, the present research aimed to explain the counterterrorism discourses of two major powers in the international system—namely, the United States and China—within the framework of the logic of consequences–appropriateness. The main research question is: How can the logic of consequences–appropriateness explain the ways in which the United States and China confront the phenomenon of terrorism?Literature ReviewThe relevant literature can be divided into three main categories: a) the studies focusing on U.S. counterterrorism measures, b) the research examining China’s counterterrorism policies, and c) the studies analyzing terrorism through the lens of discourse analysis. For example, Tanner and Bellacqua (2016), in the report China’s Response to Terrorism, analyzed China’s evolving approach to terrorism and examine how terrorist threats are evaluated, defined, and understood within the frameworks of domestic borders and foreign policy. In “International Law and the ‘War on Terrorism’: Post-9/11 Responses by the United States and Asia Pacific Countries,” Marks (2016) argues that the United States has used the concept of terrorism as a tool to justify intervention in the internal affairs of other states. Li (2019), in “Fighting the ‘Three Evils’: A Structural Analysis of Counter-Terrorism Legal Architecture in China,” emphasizes that China has consistently framed the fight against the “three evils”—terrorism, extremism, and separatism—as a foundational element of its political, legal, and cultural system. Finally, Gruenewald et al. (2019), in “American Jihadi Terrorism: A Comparison of Homicides and Unsuccessful Plots,” argued that following the September 11 attacks, counterterrorism and the prevention of terrorist attacks became the primary priority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.Materials and MethodsThis research adopted a qualitative methodology within a post-positivist framework. The library research was used to collect the data from various resources. Moreover, the study employed Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis framework. According to Laclau and Mouffe, discourses play a central role in shaping the identities of actors. These discursively constructed identities define the intellectual and political boundaries between self and other. In turn, actors’ identity representations reflect and shape their interests, preferences, and priorities in both foreign and domestic policy domains.Results and DiscussionTo examine the logic governing the behavior of international actors, it is necessary to engage with metatheoretical approaches in international relations. The current analysis focused on two major metatheoretical perspectives: positivism and interpretivism. Positivists in international relations view international phenomena and events as mechanical and calculable. From this perspective, international actors are rational and self-interested entities that constantly assess the consequences of their actions by weighing costs and benefits. Rationalists argue that the interests of states and other actors are pre-social, and that actors in international interactions seek to maximize their gains. Accordingly, rationalists conceptualize the international actor as homo economicus. In their view, the anarchic international system constitutes a strategic environment in which states are primarily concerned with the outcomes of their behavior—an approach referred to as the logic of consequences. By contrast, interpretivists reject the notion of international actors as purely mechanical or instrumental. Instead, they regard actors as socially embedded beings whose interests are shaped by their identities. These identities are constructed through social interaction and discourse. As a result, the interpretivist approach is dynamic and discursive. Its proponents argue that international actors behave in accordance with their own beliefs, values, and cultural understandings in the international arena. From this perspective, the international actor is conceptualized as a social man who follows the logic of appropriateness, with behavior deriving from beliefs, mindsets and values.ConclusionWith regard to the counterterrorism actions of the United States and China, the main finding of this research is that the American counterterrorism approach is grounded in its hegemonic position and the notion of American exceptionalism and operates within the framework of the logic of consequences. U.S. counterterrorism decisions in foreign policy have primarily aimed at achieving desired outcomes through rational strategies, including the use of war and military force against so-called rogue states. By contrast, China has adopted a multilateral and interactive approach in cooperation with other countries and regions within its sphere of influence. Regime-building efforts, participation in international organizations and institutions, and multilateral security and defense agreements constitute key elements of China’s cooperative response to terrorism. China has generally acted in accordance with the rules and principles governing the international system, emphasizing respect for the principle of peaceful coexistence. Therefore, China’s counterterrorism approach can be understood as operating within the framework of the logic of appropriateness.
