Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies

Abstract Israel's radical policy in the War on Gaza is dehumanizing and absolutely contrary to international norms and standards. Dehumanization refers to the deprivation of humans and other groups of all their basic rights. This article argues that Zionist discourse has enabled Israel's radical policy through the reproduction of dehumanizing narratives. Such narratives are influenced by Western anthropological perspective, which values Western lives more highly than non-Western ones. Zionist discourse enables such radical policy for Israel by reproducing narratives such as Legitimizing Self and Delegitimizing the Other, Denial of Coevalness, Viewing the Other as an Object, Representation of a Superior Extended "We", and Belonging to a Different Place. This radical policy includes elements such as diplomatic weakness, voluntarism, disproportionality between capabilities and actions, maximalism, and reactive behavior. This policy has deviated from realist elements such as prioritizing diplomacy to secure national interests, avoiding risk-centered approaches, respecting the vital interests of others, and operating within the framework of power. Using discourse analysis methodology and examining texts reproduced by Israeli officials and leaders, this article seeks to explain Israel's dehumanizing narratives and radical policy in the War on Gaza.  

Abstract This article discusses the digital performance of cultural identity by Rishi Sunak, Britain’s first Prime Minister of Indian descent, through thematic analysis of 50 strategically selected X (Twitter) posts spanning his political ascendancy (2020-2025). Employing Hall’s representation theory, the analysis reveals a deliberate curation of Indian identity privileging ceremonial multiculturalism (Diwali commemorations, UK-India diplomatic exchanges) alongside neoliberal meritocratic narratives, while systematically excluding engagement with the history of colonialism or structural inequities. The analysis particularly highlights how UK-India diplomatic exchanges became a strategic site for Mr. Sunak to perform his hybrid identity. The project then advances the framework of “controlled visibility” to elucidate the dual mechanisms of such phenomenon in digital representation: strategic self-presentation by political actors intersecting with platform governance policies. The research contributes to an emerging field at the intersection of digital politics, ethnic studies, and British political discourse by highlighting how ethnic identity can be subtly embedded or strategically leveraged in the digital sphere.

Abstract Israel's foreign policy at times diverges from realist expectations based on rationality, proportionality, and prudence. This article argues that Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon exemplifies such divergence, driven by what Ernst Cassirer terms "mythical thought," or a myth-based discourse that constitutes the mindset of Israeli policymakers. Within this discourse, quantity and quality acquire specific characteristics, resulting in maximalist goals, voluntarism, reactive strategies, and disproportionate actions in foreign policy. Initially, Israel’s stated aim was a limited security operation; however, influenced by myth-based discourse, the mission expanded dramatically, seeking the elimination of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the expulsion of Syrian forces, and the establishment of a pro-Israeli government in Lebanon—goals far exceeding Israel’s strategic capabilities. Ultimately, encountering international structural constraints forced Israel to retreat and recalibrate its objectives temporarily. Employing discourse analysis of statements and texts produced by Israeli decision-makers during this war, the article illustrates how mythical thinking enabled unrealistic and expansionist elements to shape Israel’s foreign policy.

Abstract The chronic problem of police brutality against Black communities prompted the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Rising protests revealed that the killings of African Americans were not isolated events, but symptoms of a system of racial injustice. Literature, in this respect, emerged as an important locus through which marginalized groups voice counter-narratives that oppose hegemonic racial logics and stereotypical representations of Blackness as criminality. While the sociopolitical implications of BLM have been thoroughly analyzed, there has been relatively less scholarly focus on how African-American Young Adult Literature (YAL) engages with, rearticulates, and negotiates these discourses. This article bridges that gap by subjecting Angie Thomas’s The Hate U Give to the hotly debated Critical Race Theory to examine how the novel engages with the ideas of BLM and illuminates the structural dimensions of racism in America. The critique indicates that Thomas constructs a counter-narrative revolving around systemic racism, racial profiling, police brutality, white privilege, implicit bias, and the intersection of race with other forms of marginalization. Situating the novel in literary and activist contexts, this study highlights YAL’s potential to mirror, challenge, and redefine cultural consciousness, thus positioning the genre as an essential site of contemporary social justice activism.

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 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 Intelligence challenges such as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), terrorism, and cyber threats create uncertainty and incomplete information for the decision makers and people. This uncertainty could manage by the president through persuasive communication. This article examines how Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama employed rhetorical strategies to persuade domestic and international audiences in the face of intelligence-related matters. The study draws on a qualitative content analysis of presidential speeches. The study apply a new seven-category persuasion framework consisting of 25 subcategories that expands the traditional Aristotelian modes of ethos, pathos, and logos. This framework offers a more systematic framework for capturing the complexity of presidential persuasion strategy. The analysis revealed clear differences in presidential styles: Bush consistently relied on pathos, using fear appeals, urgency, and moral clarity to justify preemptive actions related to WMD and rally public support, whereas Obama focused on logos and ethos, appealing to reason, institutional trust, and credibility while framing responses as collaborative and strategic in cases involving technological intelligence activities.

Abstract Recently, the India-Pakistan conflict has escalated after the Pahalgam terrorist attack. The Indo-Pakistani conflict has been one of the longest running issues in International Politics since World War II. The two countries' nuclear weapon tests in
May 1998, as a turning point, have had a profound effect on the conflict. Since then, two views have emerged on the impact of these weapons on the conflict. On the onehand, the followers of the optimistic view have emphasized the stabilizing nature of nuclear weapons, and on the other hand, those who are known for their pessimistic approach have spoken of the possibility of an escalation of the Indo-Pakistani conflict. The purpose of this article is to investigate the consequences, whether positive or negative, of possessing nuclear weapons on India and Pakistan’s bilateral conflict; more precisely, the article focuses on answering the following question: What role have nuclear weapons played in de-escalating the India-Pakistan conflict? An investigation of the events of the last 27 years in India-Pakistan relations,
especially its critical points, reveals that nuclear weapons have had an impact on the New Delhi-Islamabad conflict by deterrence and compellence. Adopting a moderate approach (between optimists and pessimists), an attempt has been made to examine the de-escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan over the past 27 years in the shadow of nuclear weapons.

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 investigates the evolving crisis of national sovereignty in the context of artificial intelligence and the expanding power of transnational technology corporations. Drawing from over thirty peer-reviewed academic and policy sources published between 2018 and 2025, this paper critically examines how traditional concepts of sovereignty—particularly data, digital, technological, and normative sovereignty—are being redefined by global AI infrastructures and the algorithmic authority of private firms. Employing a qualitative, interdisciplinary methodology grounded in law, political theory, and ethics, the research reveals growing asymmetries between state authority and corporate influence over digital infrastructures, data governance, and regulatory norms. Our findings highlight divergent policy responses, including efforts to reassert sovereign control through data localization, the pursuit of strategic autonomy, and emerging international cooperation frameworks. The study also evaluates normative debates surrounding legitimacy, democratic oversight, and algorithmic accountability. The study concludes that sovereignty in the AI era must be reconceptualized beyond territorial jurisdiction to include infrastructural and ethical dimensions, necessitating hybrid governance models that integrate states, civil society, and corporations, while prioritizing democratic legitimacy and public interest.

Abstract This study investigates the way in which public discourse on social media reflects and shapes global power dynamics surrounding AI. Leveraging a corpus of approximately 21,000 English-language posts from Platform X (2021–2025), this study utilizes a computational linguistics framework—incorporating topic modeling, sentiment analysis, emotion classification, and named entity recognition—to analyze the construction of AI, interrogating its thematic narratives and affective investments across geopolitical contexts. Findings reveal a discourse shaped by U.S.–China technological rivalry, AI militarization, and infrastructural sovereignty, with strong currents of fear, anger, and skepticism. While Western powers and corporate actors dominate the narrative space, alternative discourses from the Global South emphasize digital dependency, exclusion, and justice. The emotional intensity and thematic complexity of the discourse suggest that publics are not simply reacting to geopolitical developments, but actively construct contested imaginaries of AI’s role in world order. This research contributes to a growing body of literature that recognizes public discourse as a critical site of informal geopolitics and underscores the need for more inclusive, responsive, and ethically grounded AI governance frameworks.

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 The importance of energy transmission pipelines, particularly for natural gas, is widely recognized due to the global dependence on energy. For landlocked Central Asian countries, natural gas pipelines play a crucial role in sustaining their energy-driven economies. Given its geographical constraints, Turkmenistan places significant emphasis on projects like the Trans-Caspian Pipeline. This pipeline, if implemented, would enable Turkmenistan to export natural gas to Azerbaijan, potentially bringing substantial changes to the region’s energy landscape. This article adopts a qualitative research method and employs the theoretical framework of the Copenhagen School. The central research question is: What are the key drivers and obstacles to the implementation of the Trans-Caspian Pipeline in the coming years? The research hypothesis suggests that factors such as the finalization of the convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea, Turkmenistan’s energy security concerns, the resolution of disputed energy fields between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war serve as major driving forces. Conversely, environmental concerns, Turkmenistan’s economic and political situation, and opposition from Iran, Russia, and China are among the key obstacles hindering the project's realization.

Abstract Over the past century, the United Kingdom has transitioned through various international roles, from a global superpower during its imperial era to a key partner within the European Union. Brexit, however, has triggered what many scholars describe as a foreign policy ‘identity crisis’. This paper challenges this conventional narrative by applying an ontological security framework to investigate how EU membership and the European integration process themselves represented an identity crisis for many Britons. The analysis explores the emotional motives behind Brexit by examining how Euroscepticism, combined with a desire to reclaim Britain’s ‘islandness’ identity, contributed to the decision to leave the European Union. Employing a thematic narrative analysis, the research examines the interaction between identity-based motivations and broader political and historical contexts to reveal new understandings of the multifaceted factors driving Brexit and its enduring effects. By investigating ontological security concepts such as existential threat, continuity disruption, and the restoration of narrative identity, the paper argues that EU integration itself, rather than Brexit, was perceived by many as the principal threat to Britain’s biographical narrative and national identity. These insights contribute to understanding how identity-based anxieties influence major political decisions and carry implications for policymaking and EU–UK relations moving forward.