Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies

Abstract This paper reexamines the economic security dynamics of the Persian Gulf by applying a neoliberal institutionalist framework to the evolving relationship between Iran and the United States, with particular attention to recent geopolitical shocks, including the 12-day war between Iran and Israel and the US's direct involvement in that conflict. The study explores how shifting patterns of sanctions, trade disruptions, and maritime security risks affect regional economies, particularly those of Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Using process tracing, the analysis identifies causal pathways linking US policy changes to Iran’s economic resilience and the adaptive strategies of Persian Gulf actors. Special emphasis is placed on the mediating and stabilizing role of Qatar, whose neutral diplomacy has grown in importance amid heightened tensions. Findings suggest that economic interdependence, institutional cooperation, and pragmatic mediation—especially by Persian Gulf states like Qatar and Oman—offer pathways to mitigate conflict and preserve economic stability in a region increasingly shaped by sanctions, oil market volatility, and asymmetric warfare. The paper concludes with actionable policy recommendations for Iran to improve regional integration, crisis response, and economic diversification under ongoing US pressure.

Abstract These days, celebrities play an extensive role in people’s lives. They have entered cultural, social, economic—and also political—spheres and influence their audiences. One area that, over recent decades, has been affected by and entangled with celebrities’ involvement is elections in various countries. By endorsing a like-minded candidate, celebrities call on their audiences to support that person and thus advocate for them.



This study, using a comparative approach and Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis method, examines how celebrities expressed support during Iran’s 2017 election and the United States’ 2016 election at the candidates’ campaign rallies. To that end, three celebrities from each country were selected for analysis: Beyoncé, Katy Perry, and Demi Lovato from the U.S., and Sahar Dolatshahi, Baran Kosari, and Leili Rashidi from Iran. The findings indicate that in both countries, celebrity discourse is shaped by the political, cultural, and social context. Iranian celebrities tended to present themselves as aligned with the people and sharing their vote, criticizing existing structures, the previous government, and obstacles to civil liberties, with a stronger emphasis on reform. American celebrities, by contrast, focused more on the values of freedom and on welfare issues.

Abstract This article examines how political rivals are represented in Persian-language discussions on X and identifies the point at which ordinary political disagreement develops into deeper relational conflict. Focusing on the relationship constructed toward political opponents, the study analyzes three major political cases: Iran’s 2024 presidential runoff election, debates over the enforcement of the Chastity and Hijab Law, and controversies surrounding negotiations between Iran and the United States. Using a qualitative, text-centered, and processual-comparative design, the research takes the interactional-discursive cluster as its primary unit of analysis. The findings are based on six clearly documented and auditable sets of evidence. Results show that differences among the cases cannot be explained solely by conflict intensity. In the electoral case, conflict intensifies mainly through challenges to legitimacy and belonging. In the hijab case, moral judgments concerning coercion, humiliation, and harm shape the dominant pattern. In the negotiation case, evidence is more fragmented, with strategic distrust sometimes approaching moral interpretations of compromise. Across all three cases, evidence does not support political hatred as the dominant logic of interaction

Abstract Barack Obama entered office promising engagement with Tehran; by the end of his first term, his administration had assembled an exceptionally broad multilateral sanctions regime. This article explains that reversal and uses the case of Iran’s nuclear program to extend the Copenhagen School's theory of securitization in two ways. First, it treats sanctions and institutional measures not just as consequences of a completed securitization but as part of the securitizing process itself: UN Security Council Resolution 1929, the IAEA's 2011 report on possible military dimensions, and the 2012 oil embargo each reset the discursive ground and enabled the next move, so discourse and material action co-produced one another. Second, it theorizes the target state's responses as a structural enabling condition of securitization rather than a factor external to it. Using explanatory-outcome process tracing, the analysis follows the campaign through four stages - discursive entrapment (2009), institutional coalescence around Resolution 1929 (2010), scientific validation through the IAEA (2011), and the normalization of sanctions (2012) - and identifies the United States and its allies as the securitizing actors. Iran's legalism, its missed diplomatic openings, and the timing of its enrichment disclosures emerge as conditions that facilitated the campaign without being its cause.

Abstract The fundamental norms of the United Nations Charter, particularly the prohibition on the use of force and the inviolability of state sovereignty, have been repeatedly challenged in the modern security landscape. The June 2025 military attacks by Israel, with direct support from the United States, on Iranian territory and its safeguarded nuclear facilities represent a critical juncture in this historical context, testing the resilience of the international legal order. This article aims to provide a comprehensive legal assessment of the legality of these actions under international law. Employing a doctrinal legal research methodology, the study conducts a systematic analysis of primary legal sources, including the UN Charter, ICJ jurisprudence, and non-proliferation treaties, integrated with secondary scholarly commentaries and institutional reports. Findings demonstrate that the attacks constitute a manifest act of aggression in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the jus cogens rule prohibition on the use of force, as they were undertaken without Security Council authorization or a valid claim to self-defense under Article 51. Furthermore, the targeting of IAEA-safeguarded nuclear facilities breached the NPT and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, eroding the global non-proliferation regime. The study also concludes that Iran’s defensive response was a legitimate exercise of its inherent right to self-defense. In conclusion, the attacks underscore a profound crisis in the UN collective security system, exacerbated by the Security Council's paralysis. The article ends with normative recommendations for upholding accountability and reinforcing the integrity of international law against unilateral militarism.

Abstract This article examines the U.S. presidents’ securitization and desecuritization of post-revolutionary Iran. Employing securitization theory as its theoretical framework and qualitative content analysis as its research method, it analyzes 104 paramount instances of U.S. presidential rhetoric including State of the Union addresses, speeches delivered during the United Nations General Assembly's General Debates, and National Security Strategy reports. The analysis shows how successive U.S. presidents have framed Iran as an existential threat across multiple security sectors—military, political, societal, economic, and emerging cybersecurity—to justify their extraordinary policies regarding the country. A key finding of the research is the distinction between U.S. presidents’ securitization of the Iranian state and the Iranian nation, which first emerged during George W. Bush’s first term. Moreover, the study identifies both continuity and change in U.S. securitization and desecuritization of Iran over the past four decades, conceptualizing them into two overarching frameworks: the Realist approach and the Constructivist approach. This research introduces the novel concept of Positive Securitization, or Desecuritizing Securitization, as a new addition to the theoretical framework of securitization theory, and highlights its application during the Obama administration. Positive securitization refers to the use of securitizing discourse to justify the desecuritization of dialogue and political engagement within a specific context. It does so by claiming that even extreme exceptional measures—military or economic—would prove inadequate in addressing a perceived threat, thereby presenting diplomacy as the only viable solution. The article offers a comprehensive exploration that provides a detailed understanding of U.S. presidential rhetoric and the gradual construction of Iran’s image as a threat.

Abstract While existing research highlights the role of drama in shaping Turkish national identity, the veracity of the narratives conveyed through plays has not been investigated. The present study fills this gap through examination of the portrayal of Iran in the play Awakening: The Great Seljuks. This focus is critical, given that Iran constitutes a contrasting other for Turkey, against which Turkish national identity and political narratives are reinforced. Using a narrative analysis, the study identifies and examines discrepancies in the portrayal of time and location, characters, and concepts. The research aims to analyze whether the drama series’ depiction of Iran aligns with historical accounts or reinterprets them through a contemporary lens to serve political-ideological purposes and to fit the series’ narrative agenda. The findings reveal a disregard for Iranian history and figures, often recast or appropriated to serve Turkish narratives, with Iranian characters reinterpreted and/or historical ideas reframed through a contemporary lens. This representation of Iran and Iranian elements is further underscored by the selective deployment of mythological motifs.

Abstract The Israeli aggression against Iran in June 2025—targeting defense infrastructure, military personnel, civilians including scientists, children, and women, as well as hospitals, schools, and national media—was not merely a military confrontation but a turning point in the collective and psychological victimization of Iranian society. The ensuing fear, urban displacement, partial economic collapse, and existential anxiety fractured Iran’s cultural and moral fabric, creating conditions for new forms of post-war violence. This study examines how collective victimization reproduces violence and breaks norms in the post-war context both at cultural and psychological levels, and explores the relationship between symbolic violence in media, political discourse, and everyday life (routine activity criminology). The central premise posits that aggression —and the enduring fear of its recurrence—erodes social cohesion, normalizes aggression, and embeds violent cultural patterns into civic life, generating a cyclical process of victimization and offending, wherein society itself perpetuates violence. From a cultural criminological perspective, this cycle reflects a normalization of deviance and a redefinition of social power through violence. Breaking it requires a shift in Iran’s criminal policy from a security-based to a cultural and restorative approach at legislative, judicial, and executive levels—prioritizing the symbolic reconstruction of trust, hope, and meaning alongside structural post-war recovery.

The central hypothesis posits that aggression —and the enduring fear of its recurrence—erodes social cohesion, normalizes aggression, and embeds violent cultural patterns into civic life, generating a cyclical process of victimization and offending wherein society itself perpetuates violence. From a cultural criminological perspective, this cycle reflects a normalization of deviance and a redefinition of social power through violence. Breaking it requires a shift in Iran’s criminal policy from a security-based to a cultural and restorative approach at legislative, judicial, and executive levels—prioritizing the symbolic reconstruction of trust, hope, and

Abstract Following the crash of the Iranian Air Force helicopter near the village of Uzi on 19 May 2024, which caused the decease of the Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and seven other politicians and crew members, a vast number of news articles, commentaries, and papers were published worldwide, reflecting various reactions to the incident. This event serves as a boundary-making moment both in the surface structure—narrating an event—and in the deep structure—drawing an in-group/out-group divide with the president as the representative of a conservative discourse. The present study attempts to examine how Ebrahim Raisi’s helicopter crash has been represented in the NOW corpus (approximately 19.2 billion words). Inspired by Baker’s (2004) framework of corpus-assisted analysis, as well as Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory (2001) and Van Dijk’s Ideological Square (2009), the analysis of this event’s representation was conducted using the Keynes parameter and semantic categorization based on a detailed reading of concordance lines. Corpus-based categorization serves as a tool to articulate the semiotic system of the Western worldview toward this incident. The data ultimately reveal a dual representation of the event. On one hand, it narrates reactions from various actors, including the Islamic Republic’s allies and enemies; on the other, at a deeper level, it guides the audience toward an other-making contemplation, producing three types of other-makings based on Raisi’s different positions as a judge, president, and religious figure. This discourse revolves around a nodal point of binary representation—good versus evil—centered on the late president, with categories such as alliance, conspiracy theories, transformation from death to salvation, leadership aspirations, hardline stance, public (il)legitimacy, brutal judge, suppressor president, and unconfirmed cleric, which foreground the negative other more than the positive self.

Abstract This study examines Russia’s strategic culture in West Asia and its implications for bilateral relations with Iran from the post-Soviet period (1991) to recent developments in 2025. Employing a qualitative framework rooted in strategic culture analysis, the research demonstrates that Russia’s approach toward Iran is shaped by pragmatic opportunism, historical experience, and a desire to maintain regional influence without overcommitting militarily. Findings reveal that Moscow engages with Tehran episodically, balancing cooperation against shared threats with strategic caution to preserve flexibility in relations with other regional actors, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Brief episodes such as the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, the Syrian crisis, and the ongoing war in Ukraine illustrate how Russia mediates, condemns actions diplomatically, and selectively coordinates with Iran without offering binding security guarantees. The study identifies a persistent divergence in perceptions: Russia often views Iran as a secondary, conditional partner, whereas Tehran expects collaboration on an equal footing. Despite these differences, mutual interests in regional stability, energy cooperation, and strategic depth create occasions for tactical alignment, particularly under external pressures. Overall, the results demonstrate that the Russia–Iran relationship is conditional, adaptive, and strategically ambiguous, with cooperation shaped less by ideological convergence and more by pragmatic calculations. By situating these interactions within the framework of strategic culture, the study provides a nuanced understanding of the limits and possibilities of Russia–Iran engagement in West Asia, highlighting how historical legacies, geopolitical constraints, and contemporary crises collectively define a partnership that is influential yet inherently fragile.

Abstract This research explores how Iranian MBA students view artificial intelligence as a driver of change in global power structures. Using a mixed-methods design, it combines survey results from 394 respondents with thematic analysis of open-ended answers. The quantitative data indicate a widespread belief that AI will hasten the decline of established global powers, widen global disparities, and offer emerging economies chances for geopolitical advantage. Qualitative themes include AI as a soft power tool, concerns over technological dependence, entrepreneurial optimism, and regulatory inadequacy. The analysis situates participants’ views within broader theoretical frameworks articulated by Innis, McLuhan, Castells, and Toffler, emphasizing AI’s capacity to redefine sovereignty, governance, and economic competitiveness. Statistical tests highlight how demographic variables, such as employment sector and academic status, significantly influence attitudes toward AI’s disruptive potential. These results underline both the optimism and anxiety among future business leaders regarding Iran’s capacity to harness AI’s transformative possibilities amidst structural and regulatory challenges.

Abstract This study examines the intersection of artificial intelligence, global governance, and disaster risk management through a qualitative investigation of 92 Iranian experts across disciplines such as geoinformatics, emergency planning, and environmental engineering. While AI offers a significant promise for enhancing early warning systems, damage assessments, and real-time decision-making, its integration into DRM systems remains constrained by fragmented data infrastructures, institutional silos, and geopolitical exclusions. Participants underscored AI’s potential to improve response coordination and risk forecasting, but emphasized the need for robust data governance, algorithmic transparency, and capacity building. The study highlights critical ethical and political concerns—particularly in countries like Iran facing technological marginalization due to sanctions and limited access to global data ecosystems. Drawing on grounded theory and thematic analysis, the research identifies institutional fragmentation, interoperability barriers, and normative governance deficits as primary obstacles to AI-enabled DRM. It argues for a globally coordinated approach grounded in justice, inclusivity, and human-centered design.

Abstract This study investigates the ways in which Iranian sociologists conceptualize artificial intelligence as both an epistemic infrastructure and a geopolitical force within global knowledge production. Drawing on 32 in-depth interviews and grounded theory methodology, the research identifies a central analytic category: contested epistemic futures. This concept encapsulates the tensions between structural epistemic asymmetries and local efforts to reappropriate AI for culturally specific ends. Participants critiqued AI systems as carriers of Eurocentric epistemologies and instruments of digital colonization, but also highlighted strategic opportunities for local innovation, agency, and resistance. The analysis reveals five key thematic axes: epistemic asymmetry, decontextualization versus cultural specificity, technological determinism versus strategic agency, epistemic justice, and sociotechnical governance. These axes describe AI as neither a neutral tool nor an inevitable threat, but as a socially contingent technology shaped by political choices, institutional infrastructures, and cultural values. The study contributes to critical AI and decolonial epistemology by centering non-Western academic voices and proposing a relational, justice-oriented framework for AI governance.

Abstract Iran valued and positioned France and its culture inside a conceptual image of its own civilization prior to the Islamic Revolution. Even if France lags behind Iran in solid political connections and contacts, its cultural richness, led to the highest degree of presence in Iranian society and among its intellectuals in the cultural sphere. Such a link was susceptible to a social and political upheaval in Iran, following the country's revolution. This study employs unstructured interviews to examine a representative sample of 19 political, cultural, and academic elites, comprising both pre-revolution Francophones and post-revolution executives, focussing on their perspectives and elite experiences within the historicalcultural context of bilateral relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and France. This research focuses on the question of how the Islamic Revolution and the subsequent establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran faced the continuity and persistence of this historical cultural trend and what relationship it established with it through a distinct process. 

Abstract Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, sanctions have consistently been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy against Iran. Beyond their direct impact on bilateral tensions between the two nations, U.S. secondary or extraterritorial sanctions have also significantly influenced Iran's relations with other global actors, particularly the European Union (EU). The conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) generated optimism regarding the end of sanctions against Iran. However, with the advent of the Trump administration and its unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, the United States’ extraterritorial sanctions against Iran were reinstated, dispelling the optimism that had emerged. The US and the EU are major economic and strategic partners. Given this reality, the critical question arises: How has the resurgence of U.S. sanctions, with their extraterritorial dimensions, affected Iran-EU relations? This paper hypothesizes that the resumption and intensification of extraterritorial sanctions have negatively impacted the economic and political aspects of Iran-EU relations. On the one hand, these sanctions have reduced bilateral relations to their lowest possible level; on the other, they have constrained diplomatic channels for resolving issues. To examine this hypothesis, the analysis employs Trump’s Maximum Pressure policy and its theoretical underpinnings as its conceptual framework. The method of research is based on impact analysis. Findings indicate that while sanctions have profoundly impacted Iran-EU
relations, they have failed to achieve their ultimate objective of altering behavior. A key outcome of these sanctions has been the sidelining of Europe in Iran’s foreign policy sphere.

Abstract This study assesses the political challenges that hinder the implementation of a proposed referendum on Palestine, framed within Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST), which underscores the significance of a dominant global power in sustaining international order. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has suggested this referendum as a means to determine Palestine's political system. From an HST perspective, the United States significantly impacts the international arena, including policies regarding Palestine. Its support for Israel complicates the political landscape and undermines alternative peace proposals, including those from Iran. This article seeks to answer the main question: what political obstacles prevent holding a referendum in Palestine, and what methods can be used to overcome those obstacles? The findings of the article indicate several political dynamics and factors that impede the referendum: political divisions within Israel regarding peace with the Palestinians, lack of consensus among Palestinian factions, differing approaches among Arab states, and conflicting positions of both Islamic and non-Arab countries. Additionally, the stances of the permanent members of the UN Security Council exacerbate these challenges. The author finds that Iran’s proposal has overlooked the international framework of a two-state solution.

Abstract The international order is undergoing profound transformations, ushering in a transitional period marked by instability and redefined power structure. This global transition has created a power vacuum in the Middle East, where regional actors, including Iran, Turkey and Israel, are pursuing unilateral strategies to establish dominance. However, these efforts have intensified rivalries and instability, while events such as the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict, escalating tensions in Syria, and the eventual fall of Bashar al-Assad have further exacerbated regional instability. This study explores a pivotal question: What strategy can safeguard Iran’s national interests amidst the dynamic transitions in the international and regional order? The research posits that Iran, as a pivot state, should adopt a paradigm shift to an issue-based foreign policy. This strategic shift enables Iran to move beyond a security-driven, survival-focused paradigm toward becoming a constructive middle power balancer. By prioritizing multilateral cooperation, addressing critical regional issues, and fostering diplomatic engagement, this approach enhances Iran’s ability to manage tensions, strengthen its influence, and promote stability. Ultimately, this redefined role aligns Iran’s national interests with broader regional and global frameworks, ensuring a more resilient and impactful foreign policy stance.

Abstract The 1979 Islamic Revolution marked a pivotal moment in the political relations between the U.S. and Iran, resulting in a “soft war” that primarily unfolded in the media, particularly within films. This study aims to analyze how the selected film, Septembers of Shiraz (2015), represents post-revolutionary Iran from a cognitive perspective. The Islamic Revolution is characterized by distinct signifiers, including anti-Zionism, the duality of the oppressed and the oppressors, legality, Islamism, republicanism, and the rejection of the United States. Rival discourses attempt to dislocate each of these signifiers to delegitimize the hegemon discourse of the Islamic Revolution. This analysis employs a combination of three theoretical frameworks and cognitive construal tools at the micro-level: Talmy’s (2000) force-dynamic paradigms, the multimodal conceptual metaphor proposed by Forceville (2006, 2008, 2016), and the metonymy-producing relationships suggested by Radden and Kövecses (1999). A macro-level analysis will utilize Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001) discourse theory to uncover the hegemon discourse’s semiotic system using the micro-level data. The results demonstrate that this film employs the repetitive metaphor of IRAN IS PRISON, the metonymy of MEMBERS FOR A CATEGORY, and the force-dynamic paradigm of the revolutionaries as a strong Antagonist/ the Jewish society as a weak Agonist. Discursively, the Iranian revolutionaries are portrayed as irrational, dogmatic, and narrow-minded individuals who are drawing their other-making border with all those who are not devoted to the Islamic revolution. Rejecting anti-Semitism, the revolutionaries’ irrationality, Jewish sacred suffering, and messianic redemption are some of the signifiers articulated by this film.      

Abstract The Russia-Ukraine war has ignited a complex geopolitical landscape with far-reaching implications. Global trade disruptions, economic strain, and heightened geopolitical tensions are only few of the consequences. This crisis serves as a microcosm of broader power struggles, influenced by historical, regional, and resource-based factors. Iran, although geographically distant from the conflict, is deeply intertwined in this complex web due to overlapping geopolitical interests. Ukraine's strategic position as a grain exporter, coupled with the broader context of NATO expansion and Russia's regional dominance, have placed Iran in a pivotal position. A central question emerges: What type of geopolitical pattern does Iran exhibit in response to the Ukraine crisis? Is it interactive, confrontational, dominance-seeking, influence-oriented, or competitive? To answer this, we will examine Iran's behavior across the various dimensions of geopolitics: geoeconomics, geoculture, geostrategy, and politics. By understanding Iran's approach, we can better assess potential opportunities and risks stemming from this crisis. Grounded theory approach was used for qualitative analysis, focusing on patterns and themes. MaxQDA software was used to analyze data and extract key concepts. Authors conclude that Iran-Ukraine geopolitical relations pattern are confrontational in all three dimensions: geostrategy, geoculture, and geoeconomics.

Abstract Considering that the greatest threat to Iran in the past 400 years has emerged from the geography of Iraq (from the time of the Ottoman rule and onwards), it must be noted that Iraq is one of Iran's most important neighbors. Therefore, continuous examination of the shaping factors in Iran-Iraq relations is crucial. Although the history of Iran-Iraq relations spans over a century, this article seeks to explore, utilizing a historical-comparative method and an analytical approach, the shaping factors of Iran-Iraq relations from 2003 to 2022. The argument presented in this article suggests that while Iran managed to expand its regional influence in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and replaced the pattern of hostility and tension of the Ba'athist era with a pattern of interaction and cooperation, the element of cooperation and interaction in Iran-Iraq relations is gradually fading due to changes and developments at domestic, regional and international levels.

Abstract For over three decades, sanctions have been a consistent feature of United States policy towards Iran. Following the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, in 2018 the United States withdrew from the agreement through Executive Order 13846, reinstating previous sanctions. Consequently, Iran decided to bring its case against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The present article analyzes the ICJ's substantive jurisdiction (Merits) over this case, as well as the political and legal implications of the United States' unilateral sanctions against Iran. The research employs an analytical methodology, utilizing library research and note-taking to collect data. The research findings indicate that the ICJ's opinion is based on the illegality of comprehensive economic sanctions imposed on national security grounds, and that the Court has substantive jurisdiction over this case. Furthermore, the findings reveal that the United States' unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions not only violate Iran's sovereignty, but also infringe upon the human rights of the Iranian people. The United States' sanctions policy aligns with liberal and realist theories of international relations.

Abstract Following the Islamic revolution, Iran has consistently faced threats from neighboring countries and major global powers. In response to Iran's revolutionary stance and its challenging position in the international arena, the United States has imposed significant arms and military sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's influence in the region. However, drawing from historical lessons, Iran has adopted a deterrence strategy to counter external pressures. To compensate for its relative conventional military weaknesses and maintain deterrence against adversaries, Iran has prioritized the development and production of missile capabilities. This study delves into the development of Iran's missile capabilities and their correlation with U.S. arms embargoes. It seeks to answer whether these sanctions have effectively contained Iran's regional influence. Employing a Trend Impact analysis methodology that utilizes library resources, we will explore the trajectory of Iran's missile industry development under sanctions. Furthermore, we assess the efficacy of these sanctions on Iran's defense capabilities and military structure. The research findings indicate that U.S. military sanctions have failed to achieve their intended objectives and safeguard the interests of the U.S. and its regional allies. Contrary to assertions, the sanctions have strengthened Iran's missile capabilities and regional influence, solidifying the country's position as a regional power in the international system.

Abstract Muslim–Christian Polemics in Safavid Iran by Alberto Tiburcio presents a fascinating and detailed account of the life and work of ʿAli Quli Jadid al-Islam, a Portuguese Augustinian priest who converted to Islam in Safavid Iran. The author meticulously reconstructs the context of Christian missions in Safavid Iran, highlighting the complex and often contradictory relationship between the state, the ulama, and various religious minorities. This contextualization provides a valuable backdrop for understanding the motivations and contemplative realm that led to Jadid al-Islam’s conversion.

Abstract This article covers the emergence of resistance economy in the Islamic Republic of Iran within the context of international sanctions, arguing that this policy ought to be understood beyond the historical context in which it emerged. The article captures the historical, political, and economic context in which the first comprehensive economic discourse of the post-revolutionary establishment emerges, and seeks to account for its scope, concerns, and objectives. Rather than another word for protectionism, import-substitution industrialisation, economic diversification of a rentier state or a mere response to sanctions, resistance economy as espoused by Ayatollah Khamenei, is a comprehensive economic policy discourse affecting all levels of state and society in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Rather than mitigating the impact of sanctions, resistance economy is an economic discourse that seeks to realise the revolutionary objective of economic independence, whilst transforming the economy of the Islamic Republic from a source of weakness to a source of strength in its pursuit of a new, more equitable international order.

Abstract While Iran was never formally colonized by Western powers, it’s governing regimes before the Islamic revolution were loyal to both the East and the West;  the country was therefore more or less a de facto colony of Russia, Great Britain, and the United States. One of the most pernicious consequences of such presences can be described as the "colonization of the mind," which has subtle and lasting manifestations. Using Edward Said's four major characteristics of Orientalism (i.e., binary opposition, over-generalization, fear and control, and depicting the Orient as stuck in past primitiveness), the present paper attempts to analyze the self-perception of the Iranians toward themselves to see whether the way they perceive themselves is similar to the Western discourse of the "Orient." In the first step, a number of interviews with a representative sampling of the population under investigation were conducted to develop a questionnaire. The questionnaires were then distributed and 650 responses were collected. The survey was meant to assess the four components of Orientalism as proposed by Said, among the respondents. It also contained questions about the respondents' lifestyle, their perceptions toward nationalism, and media consumption. The results reveal evidence of Orientalist self-perception among the Iranians when they compare themselves with the West.