Introduction
The post-Cold War era has witnessed a fundamental transformation in the structural and geopolitical configuration of the international system. The collapse of the bipolar order has generated competing visions for systemic organization. Some scholars interpret this period as a form of "hierarchical order," while others regard a balance-of-power arrangement as the more plausible emergent structure (Mearsheimer, 2014: 75–82). Empirical realities, however, suggest that the United States has been unable to consolidate a stable hierarchy, while major powers have shown little sustained inclination to embrace balance-of-power frameworks. Consequently, manifestations of "chaos" and "geopolitical crisis" have proliferated across both the global order and regional subsystems (Kaplan, 2012: 32–40).
The devastating wars from 2023 to 2026 in Ukraine, Gaza, and southern Lebanon, together with the two stages of military aggression against Iran by the United States and Israel, have profoundly altered the behavioral patterns of state and non-state actors. These conflicts have generated unmistakable indicators of "geopolitical crisis" and "chaotic order" within their respective subsystems. Structural theorists, including Mearsheimer, Walt, and Pape, attribute the primary cause of such crises to the security challenges inherent in the fragile architecture of the global order, underscoring that order-building amid twenty-first-century geopolitical crises constitutes a costly and high-risk endeavor.
The principal research question of this article is: "What form of geopolitically oriented strategic policy does Iran require in the third decade of the twenty-first century, particularly following the imposed wars of June 2025 and February–April 2026?" The objective is to formulate an appropriate strategy for Iran amid geopolitical crisis and regional turbulence. Navigating escalating crises requires regional actors such as Iran to employ robust mechanisms and strategies for survival.
Research Gap: Although a substantial body of literature addresses the structural dynamics of geopolitical crisis and the shatterbelt concept, relatively few studies have systematically examined how secondary powers such as Iran can formulate and operationalize a survival strategy in response to compounded security threats. This article addresses that gap by integrating Kaplan's and Cohen's contributions into a coherent analytical framework applied to Iran's post-2025 strategic environment.

2. Methodology
This research employs a descriptive-analytical method designed to explain and analyze the strategic policy appropriate for Iran within the context of regional geopolitical transformations and the evolving international system. The descriptive component enables the systematic identification of prevailing geopolitical and security realities, while the analytical phase examines collected data through comparative theoretical lenses. Data analysis draws upon qualitative content analysis and comparative analysis. Key concepts—including "survival strategy," "shatterbelt," "chaotic order," and "balance of power"—serve as primary analytical categories.
Theoretical Framework: The framework synthesizes Robert Kaplan's concept of the "shatterbelt and chaotic order" with Saul Cohen's "Shatterbelt Theory." Kaplan identifies regions situated at the intersection of great-power spheres of influence as "shatterbelts"—zones perpetually subject to competition and conflict—and argues that the twenty-first-century global order is trending toward chaos and instability (Kaplan, 2012). Cohen refines the concept to describe regions structurally and politically on the verge of collapse, comprising three layers: the core (great powers), the periphery, and the shatterbelt (critical regions) (Cohen, 2003). Within this context, "survival strategy" emerges as a strategic response adopted by regional actors to conditions of chaos and crisis.

3. Results and Discussion
The findings are organized into two sections: (1) core indicators of survival strategy, and (2) the orientation of Iran's communicative action in survival policy-making.
Core Indicators of Survival Strategy: Four fundamental indicators are identified. First, power reproduction and resistance—directly connected to Cohen's shatterbelt concept. Iran, as a principal actor within the Middle Eastern shatterbelt, confronts composite threats at multiple geopolitical levels. Power reproduction signifies not expansion but resistance against threats and the preservation of structural position. Second, diplomatic flexibility—interpreted through Kaplan's chaotic-order approach. Diplomatic flexibility entails cooperative engagement with other actors on the basis of shared interests, serving as a tool for creating equilibrium among competing objectives in crisis conditions. Third, service provision to citizen groups—pertaining to domestic legitimacy. Public service provision and welfare economy optimization function as instruments for enhancing domestic legitimacy and consolidating structural survival during security crises. Fourth, international cooperation—the imperatives of survival policy require that multilateralism be incorporated into Iran's behavioral paradigm. During the American-Israeli war against Iran, the absence of institutional criticism from international organizations emboldened further aggression.
Orientation of Iran's Communicative Action: Four patterns are identified: (1) Balancing—Iran must adopt a balancing posture against combined American-Israeli threats, overcoming its strategic isolation through countervailing equilibria with great powers and regional actors. (2) Geopolitics—as a land bridge between three continents with significant oil reserves and a strategic position at the Strait of Hormuz, Iran possesses distinct capacity for energy diplomacy, though the power deficit in a high-risk environment necessitates that crisis-era policy-making prioritize power-political considerations. (3) Multilateralism—Iran has made limited efforts to leverage multilateral institutions, largely due to a self-sufficiency paradigm for confronting external threats. (4) Peaceful Transition—China's "peaceful rise" strategy offers an instructive model, demonstrating how balancing, multilateralism, and constructive communicative action can enhance a state's strategic position (Kissinger, 2011).

4. Conclusion
The power equation and communicative behavior of Middle Eastern regional actors during 2025–2026 have been characterized by war, crisis, conflict, and sustained hostility. Since 2023, Iran and the resistance front have confronted extensive threats, creating acute security and strategic challenges for the Islamic Republic. Survival policy necessitates that the agents of the Islamic Republic employ mechanisms that minimize threats. In an environment saturated with shatterbelt indicators, Iran must adopt survival-oriented policy-making by strategic necessity. The current American administration employs a strategy of conflict escalation and crisis expansion, implying that threats against Iran are likely to intensify. This approach relies on "tactical victory" and "strategic dominance" thinking, seeking to create incrementally the conditions for further regional escalation. To counter increasing threats, Iran must place constructive communicative action at the center of its strategic agenda. Sound crisis management demands the reduction of security risk-taking and the prioritization of mechanisms that optimize communicative space through multilateral engagement. Ultimately, survival strategy rests upon the foundations of the power equation, diplomacy, multilateralism, constructive cooperation, tactical flexibility, structural adaptability, and comprehensive communicative action.