انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Analyzing Iran's Geopolitical Relations with China in the Asia-Pacific Region Analyzing Iran's Geopolitical Relations with China in the Asia-Pacific Region 1 30 230982 10.22034/igq.2025.460528.1903 FA Bahadur Zarei Associate Professor, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. Hamid Reza Mohammadi Associate Professor of Shahid Beheshti Faculty of Earth Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 0000-0002-6550-4897 Mohammad Reza Doroudian A Senior Student at the Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. 0009-0004-6955-1780 Journal Article 2024 06 01 From Iran’s perspective, China represents the most significant strategic partner in the Asia-Pacific region. Despite consistent political, geo-economic, and geo-strategic cooperation over the past decade, the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA has led China to adopt a more cautious approach toward Iran. Although bilateral ties have grown closer over the last four decades, particularly in economic domains, geopolitical relations have remained asymmetrical—favoring China's national interests. China does not perceive Iran as a strategic actor of equal geopolitical weight due to its broader global and regional ambitions. The 25-year strategic cooperation agreement signed in 2021 aimed to deepen bilateral ties, but has yet to produce tangible results, partly due to U.S. pressure. This research uses a descriptive-analytical method and is of a fundamental nature. It aims to examine the capacities, challenges, and obstacles shaping Iran–China relations, offering solutions to rebalance this asymmetry. The study also investigates the strategic role of China in shaping regional policies and explores the evolution of Iran’s geopolitical engagement in the Asia-Pacific realm. Data collection is based on library resources, academic papers, books, and online materials. The research concludes that Iran must engage more strategically and symmetrically with China, aligning bilateral ties with mutual geopolitical interests. Strengthening such cooperation can help Iran leverage its strategic capacities more effectively in light of ongoing regional and global shifts. From Iran’s perspective, China represents the most significant strategic partner in the Asia-Pacific region. Despite consistent political, geo-economic, and geo-strategic cooperation over the past decade, the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA has led China to adopt a more cautious approach toward Iran. Although bilateral ties have grown closer over the last four decades, particularly in economic domains, geopolitical relations have remained asymmetrical—favoring China's national interests. China does not perceive Iran as a strategic actor of equal geopolitical weight due to its broader global and regional ambitions. The 25-year strategic cooperation agreement signed in 2021 aimed to deepen bilateral ties, but has yet to produce tangible results, partly due to U.S. pressure. This research uses a descriptive-analytical method and is of a fundamental nature. It aims to examine the capacities, challenges, and obstacles shaping Iran–China relations, offering solutions to rebalance this asymmetry. The study also investigates the strategic role of China in shaping regional policies and explores the evolution of Iran’s geopolitical engagement in the Asia-Pacific realm. Data collection is based on library resources, academic papers, books, and online materials. The research concludes that Iran must engage more strategically and symmetrically with China, aligning bilateral ties with mutual geopolitical interests. Strengthening such cooperation can help Iran leverage its strategic capacities more effectively in light of ongoing regional and global shifts.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_230982_50cc68438017695b55dfa8a11ea6fbc5.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Meta-Anti-Geopolitics: Moving Beyond Violent Binary Oppositions toward Multifaceted and Anti-Hegemonic Approaches Meta-Anti-Geopolitics: Moving Beyond Violent Binary Oppositions toward Multifaceted and Anti-Hegemonic Approaches 31 50 231196 10.22034/igq.2025.526403.2044 FA Eskandar Moradi Assistant Professor, Political Geography, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran. Seyed Mohammad Taghi Raeissadat Assistant Professor, Political Geography, Department of Management, Touran Institute of Higher Education, Damghan, Iran. 0000-0002-8025-9711 Journal Article 2025 07 12 In recent decades, geopolitical analysis has been shaped by binary, state-centered narratives that perpetuate conflict, exclusion, and hierarchical power structures. Both traditional and critical geopolitical discourses have often relied on oppositional categories like state/non-state, East/West, and friend/enemy, which oversimplify complex realities and reinforce hegemonic frameworks. This paper seeks to move beyond these epistemological limitations by proposing a meta-anti-geopolitical (or post-geopolitical) framework. It examines how dismantling binary divisions and embracing multidimensional, decolonial, and anti-hegemonic perspectives can foster more inclusive and emancipatory geopolitical narratives, reflecting the fluid, contested, and networked character of contemporary political spaces. In this Adopting, a qualitative, interpretive methodology based on critical discourse analysis and conceptual deconstruction, the study analyzes key geopolitical texts, policy discourses, and cases of spatial resistance. Drawing on post-structuralist and decolonial theories, the paper critiques dominant geopolitical imaginaries and highlights the agency of marginalized actors, proposing a relational, multi-scalar understanding of power, space, and identity. In recent decades, geopolitical analysis has been shaped by binary, state-centered narratives that perpetuate conflict, exclusion, and hierarchical power structures. Both traditional and critical geopolitical discourses have often relied on oppositional categories like state/non-state, East/West, and friend/enemy, which oversimplify complex realities and reinforce hegemonic frameworks. This paper seeks to move beyond these epistemological limitations by proposing a meta-anti-geopolitical (or post-geopolitical) framework. It examines how dismantling binary divisions and embracing multidimensional, decolonial, and anti-hegemonic perspectives can foster more inclusive and emancipatory geopolitical narratives, reflecting the fluid, contested, and networked character of contemporary political spaces. In this Adopting, a qualitative, interpretive methodology based on critical discourse analysis and conceptual deconstruction, the study analyzes key geopolitical texts, policy discourses, and cases of spatial resistance. Drawing on post-structuralist and decolonial theories, the paper critiques dominant geopolitical imaginaries and highlights the agency of marginalized actors, proposing a relational, multi-scalar understanding of power, space, and identity.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_231196_4b56e3dba00a2bc9cafe7e4a4c3362d0.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Echoes of Conflict in South Asia: Human Lives in the India-Pakistan Rivalry (Post-2014) Echoes of Conflict in South Asia: Human Lives in the India-Pakistan Rivalry (Post-2014) 51 72 224535 10.22034/igq.2025.487000.1970 FA Akriti Uppal Research Scholar, Department of National Security Studies, Central University Jammu, J&K, India. 0009-0003-7977-8455 Subir Jamwal - Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. 0009-0005-1689-8171 Neeta Rani Associate Professor, Department of National Security Studies, Central University Jammu, J&K, India. 0000-0002-8571-1164 Journal Article 2024 11 11 The conflict between India and Pakistan represents a critical issue in South Asian geopolitics, with profound implications for human security. While national security has traditionally dominated discussions, this study identifies a significant gap in understanding how military tensions affect the well-being of civilians. The research explores how the ongoing India-Pakistan proxy war, particularly post-2014, has exacerbated human security challenges. These include infringements on human rights, hindered economic progress, and strained diplomatic ties. By emphasizing the socio-economic impact of these tensions, this study aims to provide a framework for addressing conflict through a human-centric approach. The perpetual cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation may result in persistent infringements of human rights, hindered economic progress, and strain diplomatic ties. In the absence of a resolution, the current disagreement may easily escalate into a drawn-out war. This situation has the potential to solidify differences, prolong violence, and significantly weaken stability in the region. The conflict between India and Pakistan represents a critical issue in South Asian geopolitics, with profound implications for human security. While national security has traditionally dominated discussions, this study identifies a significant gap in understanding how military tensions affect the well-being of civilians. The research explores how the ongoing India-Pakistan proxy war, particularly post-2014, has exacerbated human security challenges. These include infringements on human rights, hindered economic progress, and strained diplomatic ties. By emphasizing the socio-economic impact of these tensions, this study aims to provide a framework for addressing conflict through a human-centric approach. The perpetual cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation may result in persistent infringements of human rights, hindered economic progress, and strain diplomatic ties. In the absence of a resolution, the current disagreement may easily escalate into a drawn-out war. This situation has the potential to solidify differences, prolong violence, and significantly weaken stability in the region.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_224535_db68e5642dac6fb7a686331c99071391.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 The Sovereignty of Upstream States over Water Resources and the Realization of Sustainable Development for Downstream States: With Emphasis on Iran’s Geopolitical Water Disputes (2015–2025) The Sovereignty of Upstream States over Water Resources and the Realization of Sustainable Development for Downstream States: With Emphasis on Iran’s Geopolitical Water Disputes (2015–2025) 73 107 222998 10.22034/igq.2025.488842.1977 FA Seyyed Mohammad Amin Mousavi Ph.D. student of Department of Public International Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. 0009-0006-3767-9442 Masoud Raei Dehaqi Department of Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran. 0000-0002-0494-5058 Leila Raisi Dezaki Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. 0000-0001-8973-3531 Journal Article 2025 02 07 The principle of the permanent sovereignty of states over natural resources, including water resources, has become one of the foundations of international law since the 1950s, and has been emphasized in numerous international instruments, such as Article 2(1) of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (1974). In its classical interpretation, this principle pertains to the absolute and exclusive authority of states to exploit natural resources within their territorial domain, such that no foreign state may claim precedence or intervene in this exploitation. However, in cases where unilateral exploitation of shared water resources results in the violation of the principles of sustainable development, causes transboundary harm, or threatens international peace and security, the right of sovereignty is accordingly restricted, and the obligations of states are elevated beyond customary duties to the level of peremptory norms or erga omnes obligations. This article, focusing on the conflict between the exercise of upstream states' sovereignty over water resources and the necessity of observing the principle of sustainable development in relation to downstream states, seeks to revisit conceptual developments in international water law. Within this framework, international instruments and judicial precedents of the International Court of Justice are examined. The article further analyzes the concept of "water security" as an emerging doctrine, along with notions such as "water aggression" and "anticipatory self-defense." In the final section, Iran's recent water and legal challenges with its neighbors over the Helmand and Harirud rivers and Turkey's Anatolia Project, are critically assessed. The principle of the permanent sovereignty of states over natural resources, including water resources, has become one of the foundations of international law since the 1950s, and has been emphasized in numerous international instruments, such as Article 2(1) of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (1974). In its classical interpretation, this principle pertains to the absolute and exclusive authority of states to exploit natural resources within their territorial domain, such that no foreign state may claim precedence or intervene in this exploitation. However, in cases where unilateral exploitation of shared water resources results in the violation of the principles of sustainable development, causes transboundary harm, or threatens international peace and security, the right of sovereignty is accordingly restricted, and the obligations of states are elevated beyond customary duties to the level of peremptory norms or erga omnes obligations. This article, focusing on the conflict between the exercise of upstream states' sovereignty over water resources and the necessity of observing the principle of sustainable development in relation to downstream states, seeks to revisit conceptual developments in international water law. Within this framework, international instruments and judicial precedents of the International Court of Justice are examined. The article further analyzes the concept of "water security" as an emerging doctrine, along with notions such as "water aggression" and "anticipatory self-defense." In the final section, Iran's recent water and legal challenges with its neighbors over the Helmand and Harirud rivers and Turkey's Anatolia Project, are critically assessed.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_222998_5431678b7303e6bd12b8faedc63ac20e.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Türkiye and BRICS: Realities and Perspectives on Future Integration Türkiye and BRICS: Realities and Perspectives on Future Integration 108 129 223082 10.22034/igq.2025.493130.1986 FA Elnur T Mekhdiev Associate Professor, Faculty of International Economic Relations, Financial University, Moscow, Russian. 0000-0001-6248-6673 David G Bdoyan Associate Professor, School of Governance and Politics, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia. 0000-0002-2810-3808 Ilia E Pastukhov Master's Student, School of Governance and Politics, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia. Journal Article 2024 12 30 Global politics and international relations today are experiencing the most turbulent period in recent history. Amidst the whirlwind of divergent global development trends, the independent interests of the so-called "Global South" countries, advocating for the development of multipolarity and multi-format approaches in international relations and the world economy, are becoming increasingly distinct. BRICS is emerging as one of such key institutions of the developing multipolarity. Türkiye, a country situated at the geopolitical crossroads of Europe and Asia, being one of the leaders of the Turkic world, seeks to enhance its influence in international affairs through participation in new formats offered by non-Western countries. Türkiye's interest in cooperating within the BRICS framework is rapidly becoming more evident. While the temptation to unite all those opposed to Western hegemony under "the same roof" remains strong, both for BRICS member-states and for Türkiye itself, full membership of the latter in the union would bring both benefits and costs, which necessitates distinguishing between the desired and the real. Global politics and international relations today are experiencing the most turbulent period in recent history. Amidst the whirlwind of divergent global development trends, the independent interests of the so-called "Global South" countries, advocating for the development of multipolarity and multi-format approaches in international relations and the world economy, are becoming increasingly distinct. BRICS is emerging as one of such key institutions of the developing multipolarity. Türkiye, a country situated at the geopolitical crossroads of Europe and Asia, being one of the leaders of the Turkic world, seeks to enhance its influence in international affairs through participation in new formats offered by non-Western countries. Türkiye's interest in cooperating within the BRICS framework is rapidly becoming more evident. While the temptation to unite all those opposed to Western hegemony under "the same roof" remains strong, both for BRICS member-states and for Türkiye itself, full membership of the latter in the union would bring both benefits and costs, which necessitates distinguishing between the desired and the real.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_223082_a89e1a282fe89883718f86cd12710cc4.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Appraising the Comprehensive Strategic Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation Appraising the Comprehensive Strategic Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation 130 156 225534 10.22034/igq.2025.508143.2015 FA Mosayeb GharehBeygi PhD in Geopolitics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. 0000-0002-4082-9003 Seyyed Mohammad Isanedjad PhD in Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. 0000-0002-4504-1979 Journal Article 2025 02 23 The objective of this study is to critically examine the Comprehensive Strategic Agreement signed between Iran and Russia on December 17, 2024. The research employs a dual-methodological approach, integrating the framework of critical geopolitics with Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis (CDA). The CDA methodology is applied in detail at three analytical levels: structures, forces, and context. At the structural level, the agreement’s text is dissected to identify Russia as a security-guaranteeing object, with the guarantee of Iran’s geopolitical security serving as a floating signifier. This security is positioned in opposition to the counter-securitization discourses advanced by the United States and Israel, which are constructed as threatening geopolitical objects. These actors are shown to employ complex strategies to consolidate pressure on Iran. The analysis of forces focuses on Russia’s strategic partnership with Iran, which is pursued through two main actions: first, by placing Iran on a non-securitized agenda, and second, by creating distance and imposing its own geopolitical perspective. At the contextual level, the study examines how the U.S. seeks to minimize Iran’s benefits from the agreement by linking it to the nuclear dossier, thereby influencing the broader geopolitical context. The findings reveal that, despite the agreement’s intentions, Russia is unable to persuade other geopolitical actors to establish robust, hardware-based relations with Iran. As a result, Russia cannot logically guarantee Iran’s geopolitical security, highlighting the limitations of the agreement within the current geopolitical landscape. The objective of this study is to critically examine the Comprehensive Strategic Agreement signed between Iran and Russia on December 17, 2024. The research employs a dual-methodological approach, integrating the framework of critical geopolitics with Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis (CDA). The CDA methodology is applied in detail at three analytical levels: structures, forces, and context. At the structural level, the agreement’s text is dissected to identify Russia as a security-guaranteeing object, with the guarantee of Iran’s geopolitical security serving as a floating signifier. This security is positioned in opposition to the counter-securitization discourses advanced by the United States and Israel, which are constructed as threatening geopolitical objects. These actors are shown to employ complex strategies to consolidate pressure on Iran. The analysis of forces focuses on Russia’s strategic partnership with Iran, which is pursued through two main actions: first, by placing Iran on a non-securitized agenda, and second, by creating distance and imposing its own geopolitical perspective. At the contextual level, the study examines how the U.S. seeks to minimize Iran’s benefits from the agreement by linking it to the nuclear dossier, thereby influencing the broader geopolitical context. The findings reveal that, despite the agreement’s intentions, Russia is unable to persuade other geopolitical actors to establish robust, hardware-based relations with Iran. As a result, Russia cannot logically guarantee Iran’s geopolitical security, highlighting the limitations of the agreement within the current geopolitical landscape.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_225534_e02b0a7f71c130019fc94841d647eb6f.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Investigating the Reasons for Choosing Iran as an Immigration Destination for Afghans Investigating the Reasons for Choosing Iran as an Immigration Destination for Afghans 157 185 225535 10.22034/igq.2025.499043.2000 FA Gholam Abbas Hosseini Ph.D. Student in International Relations, Department of Political Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran. 0000-0001-9712-8593 Mohammad Radmard Associate Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran. 0000-0001-5681-0019 Journal Article 2025 02 06 Today, migrations are classified into different categories in terms of type and nature. While Iran has been among the main regions receiving immigrants since the Aryans immigrated 4500 years ago, Afghanistan has been an epicenter of sending immigrants since the establishment of the Durrani dynasty. So, Iran has always been a main destination for Afghan immigrants. As the latest statistic shows about 4.5 million Afghan immigrants live in Iran. The question is which features of Iran, particularly in the age of the Islamic Republic, have made it the primary destination for Afghan immigrants? In response, some features can be addressed such as special geographical conditions, socio-cultural cognateness, economic situation, and the Islamic republic regime`s immigration policies. Taking advantage of Ravenstein and Evert lee`s “push and pull” theory as a theoretical framework, the paper conducts a descriptive–analytical narration built on an investigation of history and statistics. The data is collected in a library-based method. Today, migrations are classified into different categories in terms of type and nature. While Iran has been among the main regions receiving immigrants since the Aryans immigrated 4500 years ago, Afghanistan has been an epicenter of sending immigrants since the establishment of the Durrani dynasty. So, Iran has always been a main destination for Afghan immigrants. As the latest statistic shows about 4.5 million Afghan immigrants live in Iran. The question is which features of Iran, particularly in the age of the Islamic Republic, have made it the primary destination for Afghan immigrants? In response, some features can be addressed such as special geographical conditions, socio-cultural cognateness, economic situation, and the Islamic republic regime`s immigration policies. Taking advantage of Ravenstein and Evert lee`s “push and pull” theory as a theoretical framework, the paper conducts a descriptive–analytical narration built on an investigation of history and statistics. The data is collected in a library-based method.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_225535_d244c398616f9211df6f4899637419c5.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Theory of Intelligence Deterrence in Foreign Policy (From Military Deterrence by Punishment to Intelligence Deterrence by Denial) Theory of Intelligence Deterrence in Foreign Policy (From Military Deterrence by Punishment to Intelligence Deterrence by Denial) 186 225 225536 10.22034/igq.2025.496174.1994 FA Rouholah Ghaderi Kangavri Associate Professor at International Relations in Imam Hossein Comprehensive Univesrity, Tehran, Iran. Journal Article 2025 02 01 Due to the anarchic nature of international relations and the era of uncertainty, the right to self- defense is impossible without endogenous security and indigenous self-help. Force and power are still necessary and integral parts of international relations. It means the ruling of the logic of power, not the power of the logic in the global politics. Anyway, Self-defense and self-help are two sides of the same coin. In such a system, outsourcing security is a grave strategic mistake. Accordingly, Security under no circumstances can be negotiable, let alone outsourcing to others, otherwise it will lead to security dependency and, as a result, lack of political independence and violation of national sovereignty by intervening powers. Therefore, there is no other way to resist against strategy of bandwagoning than internal/external balancing policy. The main question of this article is what kind of deterrence can guarantee national security against external threats?, The hypothesis is that military deterrence will be vulnerable and unreliable without intelligence deterrence, more specifically the intelligence deterrence by deniable is complementary and protective necessity to the military deterrence by punishment. It is argued that independent countries that oppose the existing order in the international system cannot and should not place their national security solely on the basis of military deterrence by punishment, but their deterrence should be spill over to intelligence deterrence by denial. By the way, it seems deterrence and balancing policy in the framework of coercive diplomacy determines the fate of the strategic conflict between the two orders namely resistance-based order and dominance-centric order. Needless to say Resistance has active/offensive orientation in nature, not passive/ defensive approach. Because of that, we do not have legitimate or illegitimate resistance. Righteousness is a source of inspiration for resistance. In fact, attention to deterrence and coercion is rooted in a belief in resistance. Due to the anarchic nature of international relations and the era of uncertainty, the right to self- defense is impossible without endogenous security and indigenous self-help. Force and power are still necessary and integral parts of international relations. It means the ruling of the logic of power, not the power of the logic in the global politics. Anyway, Self-defense and self-help are two sides of the same coin. In such a system, outsourcing security is a grave strategic mistake. Accordingly, Security under no circumstances can be negotiable, let alone outsourcing to others, otherwise it will lead to security dependency and, as a result, lack of political independence and violation of national sovereignty by intervening powers. Therefore, there is no other way to resist against strategy of bandwagoning than internal/external balancing policy. The main question of this article is what kind of deterrence can guarantee national security against external threats?, The hypothesis is that military deterrence will be vulnerable and unreliable without intelligence deterrence, more specifically the intelligence deterrence by deniable is complementary and protective necessity to the military deterrence by punishment. It is argued that independent countries that oppose the existing order in the international system cannot and should not place their national security solely on the basis of military deterrence by punishment, but their deterrence should be spill over to intelligence deterrence by denial. By the way, it seems deterrence and balancing policy in the framework of coercive diplomacy determines the fate of the strategic conflict between the two orders namely resistance-based order and dominance-centric order. Needless to say Resistance has active/offensive orientation in nature, not passive/ defensive approach. Because of that, we do not have legitimate or illegitimate resistance. Righteousness is a source of inspiration for resistance. In fact, attention to deterrence and coercion is rooted in a belief in resistance.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_225536_33209bfe9d2c455d32b809035b715de5.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Women Political Participation in Persian Gulf Countries Women Political Participation in Persian Gulf Countries 226 245 246232 10.22034/igq.2025.497789.1997 FA Jalil Dara Associate Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. 0000-0003-3751-9212 Elahe Sadeghi Assistant Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. Journal Article 2025 01 20 Political participation among the members of a political government is one of the most essential factors influencing efficiency and sustainability in such systems. In this regard, women as half of the workforce contributing in macro decision making can play an important role in political system development and efficiency. Thus, most countries to be in the direction of political development through different policies are trying to strengthen the women political participation in political decision making and power structure. Nevertheless, in Arab countries, women yet do not possess a suitable position in the field of politics and ministry arena. Thus, this study is seeking to find the answer to the question of what are the most influential factors in the limited number of women ministers in Persian Gulf Arab countries. To answer the research question, Delphi and Shannon techniques ware used and the researchers compiled the viewpoints of ten political experts in Arab countries. The findings revealed that the most important factor for the limited number of women ministers in such countries is "political” issues and then “cultural”, “social”, “economic”, and “personal” respectfully. Political participation among the members of a political government is one of the most essential factors influencing efficiency and sustainability in such systems. In this regard, women as half of the workforce contributing in macro decision making can play an important role in political system development and efficiency. Thus, most countries to be in the direction of political development through different policies are trying to strengthen the women political participation in political decision making and power structure. Nevertheless, in Arab countries, women yet do not possess a suitable position in the field of politics and ministry arena. Thus, this study is seeking to find the answer to the question of what are the most influential factors in the limited number of women ministers in Persian Gulf Arab countries. To answer the research question, Delphi and Shannon techniques ware used and the researchers compiled the viewpoints of ten political experts in Arab countries. The findings revealed that the most important factor for the limited number of women ministers in such countries is "political” issues and then “cultural”, “social”, “economic”, and “personal” respectfully.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_246232_77192edb9a3383b5c202be9cc8d5ca93.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Evaluation of Peace Incentives for Terrorist Group on Deradicalization Programs in Indonesia Evaluation of Peace Incentives for Terrorist Group on Deradicalization Programs in Indonesia 246 262 229718 10.22034/igq.2025.467247.1919 FA Surwandono Surwandono International Relations, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 0000-0003-0559-527X Journal Article 2024 07 13 This article evaluates the policy of deradicalization of terrorist groups in Indonesia by using a mix method approach to explore the message structure in terrorism regulation related to the idea of peace incentives. Through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, this study analyzes how current terrorism regulations communicate and implement peace incentives. The findings of the study show that despite deradicalization efforts, terrorism activities in Indonesia are still ongoing. This is closely related to the lack of institutionalization of the idea of comprehensive peace incentives for families and terrorism networks. The lack of integration of peace incentives in deradicalization programs causes the approach applied to be incremental and partial, not touching the root of the problem holistically. This research highlights the importance of developing more inclusive deradicalization policies, which not only focus on terrorist individuals, but also pay attention to and engage their families and networks. Thus, the deradicalization program can run more effectively and sustainably, support the achievement of a more stable peace and significantly reduce terrorism activities in Indonesia. This article evaluates the policy of deradicalization of terrorist groups in Indonesia by using a mix method approach to explore the message structure in terrorism regulation related to the idea of peace incentives. Through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, this study analyzes how current terrorism regulations communicate and implement peace incentives. The findings of the study show that despite deradicalization efforts, terrorism activities in Indonesia are still ongoing. This is closely related to the lack of institutionalization of the idea of comprehensive peace incentives for families and terrorism networks. The lack of integration of peace incentives in deradicalization programs causes the approach applied to be incremental and partial, not touching the root of the problem holistically. This research highlights the importance of developing more inclusive deradicalization policies, which not only focus on terrorist individuals, but also pay attention to and engage their families and networks. Thus, the deradicalization program can run more effectively and sustainably, support the achievement of a more stable peace and significantly reduce terrorism activities in Indonesia.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_229718_cff680b98313a8cfc123c24e0e8a1692.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 National Interests of the United States in the Global Coalition against ISIS in Iraq and Its Geopolitical Implication: A Critical Analysis National Interests of the United States in the Global Coalition against ISIS in Iraq and Its Geopolitical Implication: A Critical Analysis 263 286 230983 10.22034/igq.2025.512208.2026 FA Dina Yulianti Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang, Indonesia. 0009-0006-2487-2745 Mohamad Hery Saripudin Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang, Indonesia. 0009-0005-4506-888X Mandla A Mubecua Business School, Faculty of Management Sciences, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa. 0000-0002-3830-5788 Anggit Akbar Anugrah Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang, Indonesia. 0009-0008-2682-6149 Journal Article 2025 05 07 Although the Iraqi government declared its military campaign against ISIS concluded in 2017, and the Pentagon officially acknowledged this in 2019, the United States has maintained its military presence in Iraq. This study examines the underlying motives behind the continued U.S. involvement in Iraq under the justification of "fighting ISIS." Adopting a critical perspective on national interest, it explores the intersection between U.S. strategic objectives and the agendas of powerful economic actors, while situating this within the broader geopolitical landscape. Employing qualitative methods, the study analyzes secondary data from journal article, books, online media, news sources, and official government reports. The evaluation of U.S. national interest focuses on three key dimensions: security, economy, and politics. In terms of security, the U.S. has struggled to establish long-term stability in Iraq or to enhance regional safety, particularly in light of intensifying rivalries with regional powers such as Iran and Turkey. Economically, while the U.S. invested significant taxpayer funds in the conflict, the primary beneficiaries have been major oil and defense corporations, reflecting the entanglement between foreign policy and corporate interests. Politically, U.S. influence in Iraq has waned, challenged by both growing domestic opposition and the expanding geopolitical footprints of competing actors, notably Iran, Russia, and China. Given these findings, the study argues that the United States must reassess whether its ongoing military engagement in Iraq aligns with its broader strategic interests amidst the shifting geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East. Although the Iraqi government declared its military campaign against ISIS concluded in 2017, and the Pentagon officially acknowledged this in 2019, the United States has maintained its military presence in Iraq. This study examines the underlying motives behind the continued U.S. involvement in Iraq under the justification of "fighting ISIS." Adopting a critical perspective on national interest, it explores the intersection between U.S. strategic objectives and the agendas of powerful economic actors, while situating this within the broader geopolitical landscape. Employing qualitative methods, the study analyzes secondary data from journal article, books, online media, news sources, and official government reports. The evaluation of U.S. national interest focuses on three key dimensions: security, economy, and politics. In terms of security, the U.S. has struggled to establish long-term stability in Iraq or to enhance regional safety, particularly in light of intensifying rivalries with regional powers such as Iran and Turkey. Economically, while the U.S. invested significant taxpayer funds in the conflict, the primary beneficiaries have been major oil and defense corporations, reflecting the entanglement between foreign policy and corporate interests. Politically, U.S. influence in Iraq has waned, challenged by both growing domestic opposition and the expanding geopolitical footprints of competing actors, notably Iran, Russia, and China. Given these findings, the study argues that the United States must reassess whether its ongoing military engagement in Iraq aligns with its broader strategic interests amidst the shifting geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_230983_bb23a8bfa870f32f5c8d43ac8661406e.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 The Role of Events and Power Struggle in Shaping the Islamic Political Order in Post-Revolutionary Iran The Role of Events and Power Struggle in Shaping the Islamic Political Order in Post-Revolutionary Iran 287 321 246233 10.22034/igq.2025.534114.2054 FA Hadi Salehi Assistant Professor, Department of Public Law and International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran. Mohammad Ali Tavana Associate Professor of Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran Journal Article 2025 07 25 How was the political order formed in Iran after the 1979 revolution? The dominant narrative emphasizes that this order arose from the Islamic nature of the Iranian revolution and was the most natural order possible. In contrast, there is another narrative that considers the order to be the result of the power struggle in the post-revolutionary space. By designing a simple theoretical model, the present article analyzes the role of the ideological field, political and social events, and the actions of rival groups in the formation of the post-revolutionary political order, and therefore attempts to present a new reading of the second narrative. Based on the findings of this research, in the ideological (space) field after the revolution, there was a relative balance of power and no group could dominate its ideas alone and at once. According to this research, each event led to the formation of a coalition of supporters and opponents, and the conflict between these two coalitions played a fundamental role in the formation of the post-revolutionary political order. Also, these coalitions were not fixed; that is, they changed with each event. Meanwhile, the jurisprudential Islamists, through temporary alliances with other rivals; institution-building - such as the establishment of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Revolutionary Council, and the Islamic Republic Party - and ultimately closeness to Imam Khomeini, gradually transformed their ideas - such as the Islamic Republic, the principle of Velayat al-Faqih, and the fundamentalist Islamization of Iranian society - into the hard core of the post-revolutionary Iranian political order, while the ideological differences between the leftists (Marxists) and the nationalists were so fundamental that they could not even have common ideas. Although at the beginning of the revolution, the nationalists and Islamic liberals collaborated with the jurisprudential Islamists, they did not succeed in introducing any ideas into the hard core of the political order. On the other hand, the leftists achieved success in one case; namely, they succeeded in transforming the idea of fighting imperialism and anti-Westernism into part of the hard core of the political order. How was the political order formed in Iran after the 1979 revolution? The dominant narrative emphasizes that this order arose from the Islamic nature of the Iranian revolution and was the most natural order possible. In contrast, there is another narrative that considers the order to be the result of the power struggle in the post-revolutionary space. By designing a simple theoretical model, the present article analyzes the role of the ideological field, political and social events, and the actions of rival groups in the formation of the post-revolutionary political order, and therefore attempts to present a new reading of the second narrative. Based on the findings of this research, in the ideological (space) field after the revolution, there was a relative balance of power and no group could dominate its ideas alone and at once. According to this research, each event led to the formation of a coalition of supporters and opponents, and the conflict between these two coalitions played a fundamental role in the formation of the post-revolutionary political order. Also, these coalitions were not fixed; that is, they changed with each event. Meanwhile, the jurisprudential Islamists, through temporary alliances with other rivals; institution-building - such as the establishment of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Revolutionary Council, and the Islamic Republic Party - and ultimately closeness to Imam Khomeini, gradually transformed their ideas - such as the Islamic Republic, the principle of Velayat al-Faqih, and the fundamentalist Islamization of Iranian society - into the hard core of the post-revolutionary Iranian political order, while the ideological differences between the leftists (Marxists) and the nationalists were so fundamental that they could not even have common ideas. Although at the beginning of the revolution, the nationalists and Islamic liberals collaborated with the jurisprudential Islamists, they did not succeed in introducing any ideas into the hard core of the political order. On the other hand, the leftists achieved success in one case; namely, they succeeded in transforming the idea of fighting imperialism and anti-Westernism into part of the hard core of the political order.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_246233_b226548307ced26b869e4701392ccc45.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Reevaluating the Legal and Jurisprudential Foundations of Economic Sanctions in the Context of Geopolitical Shifts Reevaluating the Legal and Jurisprudential Foundations of Economic Sanctions in the Context of Geopolitical Shifts 322 343 232757 10.22034/igq.2025.547914.2091 FA Abdoljabbar Zargoosh Nasab Associate Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Ilam University, Iran. 0000-0002-5908-2173 Journal Article 2025 07 18 Economic sanctions, a widely used tool in international diplomacy, significantly influence global dynamics, particularly in response to political and economic threats. In light of ongoing geopolitical shifts, these sanctions not only have notable economic and political effects on target countries but also present critical legal and jurisprudential challenges concerning state sovereignty and human rights. This paper offers a fresh analysis of the legal and jurisprudential underpinnings of economic sanctions in the context of these geopolitical changes, exploring the multifaceted nature of sanctions from both Islamic jurisprudential and international legal perspectives. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the legitimacy of sanctions from both a legal and jurisprudential standpoint, considering the evolving geopolitical environment and recent advancements in international law. This research follows a descriptive-analytical methodology, utilizing a broad range of legal, jurisprudential, and international resources. The paper particularly emphasizes the impact of sanctions on human rights and the challenges of aligning Islamic jurisprudential principles with international legal frameworks governing sanctions. The research highlights key conflicts and challenges in reconciling legal and jurisprudential frameworks for sanctions, stressing the necessity to revisit international legal standards, especially in regard to human rights and the sovereignty of affected states in the face of geopolitical transformations. Ultimately, the paper proposes the creation of new legal frameworks that incorporate both geopolitical transformations and jurisprudential principles. Economic sanctions, a widely used tool in international diplomacy, significantly influence global dynamics, particularly in response to political and economic threats. In light of ongoing geopolitical shifts, these sanctions not only have notable economic and political effects on target countries but also present critical legal and jurisprudential challenges concerning state sovereignty and human rights. This paper offers a fresh analysis of the legal and jurisprudential underpinnings of economic sanctions in the context of these geopolitical changes, exploring the multifaceted nature of sanctions from both Islamic jurisprudential and international legal perspectives. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the legitimacy of sanctions from both a legal and jurisprudential standpoint, considering the evolving geopolitical environment and recent advancements in international law. This research follows a descriptive-analytical methodology, utilizing a broad range of legal, jurisprudential, and international resources. The paper particularly emphasizes the impact of sanctions on human rights and the challenges of aligning Islamic jurisprudential principles with international legal frameworks governing sanctions. The research highlights key conflicts and challenges in reconciling legal and jurisprudential frameworks for sanctions, stressing the necessity to revisit international legal standards, especially in regard to human rights and the sovereignty of affected states in the face of geopolitical transformations. Ultimately, the paper proposes the creation of new legal frameworks that incorporate both geopolitical transformations and jurisprudential principles.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_232757_6dccafe6d4eb21b987afc940e3f788a5.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 The Transformation of Russia's Middle East Policy (From Geopolitical Play to Geoeconomic Role) The Transformation of Russia's Middle East Policy (From Geopolitical Play to Geoeconomic Role) 344 364 230984 10.22034/igq.2025.540550.2063 FA Jahangir Karami Professor of Eurasian Studies Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. 0000-0001-8815-7069 Journal Article 2025 08 11 Russia's policy in the Middle East has changed in the years following the Ukrainian war, and therefore the main purpose of this article is to analyze how this transformation and its consequences have occurred, and to answer the question of how Russia's policy has changed during this period? The author claims that during this period we are witnessing a gradual shift from a political and security strategy to a primarily economic strategy, and in fact, the game based on the geopolitical element has turned into a geoeconomic role-playing game. Although the context for such a situation began with the beginning of the Ukrainian war in 2022, the fall of the Assad regime has consolidated this situation. To discuss the hypothesis, the article uses the method of qualitative analysis of the hypothesis variables, by studying strategic documents on Russian national security and foreign policy, statements by government officials, the course of developments, and some economic statistics. Therefore, it first deals with the features of Russia's Middle East policy since the beginning of the Syrian civil war. The Ukrainian war and its consequences for Russia's Middle East policy will be discussed in the second section. Finally, it concludes by examining the major developments in the Middle East since the Ukrainian war. The main finding of this article is that Russia has not had a fundamental, long-term policy in the region and that, in general, the Kremlin’s strategy has been reactive to events and conditioned on seizing opportunities and avoiding problems for its regional interests. Given the strategic turn in its Middle East policy, it will not seriously intervene in future developments in the region. Perhaps the most important manifestation of this new game can be seen in Russia’s positions towards the Israel-Iran war. Russia's policy in the Middle East has changed in the years following the Ukrainian war, and therefore the main purpose of this article is to analyze how this transformation and its consequences have occurred, and to answer the question of how Russia's policy has changed during this period? The author claims that during this period we are witnessing a gradual shift from a political and security strategy to a primarily economic strategy, and in fact, the game based on the geopolitical element has turned into a geoeconomic role-playing game. Although the context for such a situation began with the beginning of the Ukrainian war in 2022, the fall of the Assad regime has consolidated this situation. To discuss the hypothesis, the article uses the method of qualitative analysis of the hypothesis variables, by studying strategic documents on Russian national security and foreign policy, statements by government officials, the course of developments, and some economic statistics. Therefore, it first deals with the features of Russia's Middle East policy since the beginning of the Syrian civil war. The Ukrainian war and its consequences for Russia's Middle East policy will be discussed in the second section. Finally, it concludes by examining the major developments in the Middle East since the Ukrainian war. The main finding of this article is that Russia has not had a fundamental, long-term policy in the region and that, in general, the Kremlin’s strategy has been reactive to events and conditioned on seizing opportunities and avoiding problems for its regional interests. Given the strategic turn in its Middle East policy, it will not seriously intervene in future developments in the region. Perhaps the most important manifestation of this new game can be seen in Russia’s positions towards the Israel-Iran war.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_230984_703aa4b33cabc513e3b8d4d312544821.pdf

انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 2 2026 06 22 Analyzing the Common Identity Factor in Turkey-Azerbaijan Strategic Relations Before and After the 2020 War Analyzing the Common Identity Factor in Turkey-Azerbaijan Strategic Relations Before and After the 2020 War 365 388 246234 10.22034/igq.2025.530288.2060 FA Nelli Minasyan Associate Professor, Research Fellow, Department of Strategic Research of the Countries Adjacent to Armenia and Near Abroad at the Institute for Armenian Studies of YSU, Yerevan, Armenia. 0000-0002-1372-111X Narek Grigoryan Associate Professor, The head of the RA National Security Research and Forecasting Group at the Institute for Armenian Studies of YSU, Yerevan, Armenia. 0000-0002-3110-8255 Journal Article 2025 09 02 This research analyzes the role of the common identity factor in shaping Turkey-Azerbaijan strategic relations, examined within the framework of the pre and post 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war context. The formation of this common identity factor is grounded and deeply rooted in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and historical affinities shared by the two countries. The central argument is that the notion of a shared identity – embodied in the ideological and value-based formulation of “one nation, two states” – has significantly contributed to the evolution of bilateral alliance-building between the two countries. Both before and after the 2020 war, the factor of common identity has consistently served as one of the foundational pillars of strategic cooperation between Turkey and Azerbaijan, both prior to and following the 2020 conflict. Moreover, the study highlights how this identity narrative has been extended beyond bilateral ties to support broader Turkic integration initiatives involving both Turkish-Azerbaijani ties and relations with other Turkic-speaking states. This research analyzes the role of the common identity factor in shaping Turkey-Azerbaijan strategic relations, examined within the framework of the pre and post 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war context. The formation of this common identity factor is grounded and deeply rooted in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and historical affinities shared by the two countries. The central argument is that the notion of a shared identity – embodied in the ideological and value-based formulation of “one nation, two states” – has significantly contributed to the evolution of bilateral alliance-building between the two countries. Both before and after the 2020 war, the factor of common identity has consistently served as one of the foundational pillars of strategic cooperation between Turkey and Azerbaijan, both prior to and following the 2020 conflict. Moreover, the study highlights how this identity narrative has been extended beyond bilateral ties to support broader Turkic integration initiatives involving both Turkish-Azerbaijani ties and relations with other Turkic-speaking states.

https://journal.iag.ir/article_246234_628f291494ad43eb2a9f36955ec48578.pdf