محمدرضا مجیدی

This research seeks to address whether the European Union (EU) has successfully maintained its strategic autonomy in managing key global issues and crises, a critical element in its decision-making process and a fundamental aspect of the institution itself. The study's conceptual framework centers on the notion of the EU's strategic autonomy, which is analyzed through three case studies: Iran's nuclear issue, the war in Ukraine, and the Gaza crisis. The hypothesis posits that the EU's responses to Iran's nuclear program and the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza reveal a deficiency in its strategic autonomy. Iran's nuclear issue, after two decades of extensive negotiations and agreements that ultimately failed, represents a key instance where the EU's inability to assert strategic autonomy is most evident. Moreover, the EU's handling of the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, marked by inconsistencies in its application of soft power and moral-value-based leadership, has further cast doubt on the Union's strategic autonomy. The research findings, derived from these case studies, suggest that without political coherence and a unified diplomatic and political strategy—critical elements of strategic autonomy—the EU will continue to be perceived as a dependent and subordinate actor. This condition is commonly referred to in the academic literature as a "strategic autonomy deficit" or a "political and military sovereignty deficit." The methodology of this research is descriptive and analytical, utilizing data collected from a range of sources, including books, peer-reviewed journal articles, online databases, and authoritative expert opinions.

The Strategic Plan for the Management of Social Transformations (MOST) is a mid-term framework introduced by UNESCO in 2016, aiming to guide member countries in addressing social development issues aligned with the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. This article employs a qualitative content analysis to identify the social issues highlighted in the MOST program, extract the proposed solutions, and critically evaluate the program. The central research question explores what social issues and solutions are presented in the MOST strategic plan and what criticisms arise from these proposals. The hypothesis suggests that the program adopts a positivist approach, treating the world as an object to be shaped by predetermined goals through strategic planning, which generates societal problems. The influence of globalization, cultural hegemony, and a drive for global unification through education and culture to facilitate world management and coordination is evident. The study analyzes the policymaking cycle within the program, including agenda-setting, operational mechanisms, policy support, and capacity building for implementation and evaluation. Key social issues covered in the program include women's and girls' rights, poverty eradication, governance, peace, urbanization, environmental challenges, migration, gender equality, digital technologies, and growing inequalities. The conclusion reinforces that the MOST program reflects a positivist stance, aiming for societal transformation based on globalized ideals of control and coordination, reinforcing the hegemonic role of education and culture.

In the wake of US withdrawal of Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA, and re-imposition of sanctions, Iranian policymakers came down gradually in favor of cooperation with the East, chief among them China, culminating in the signing of 25-year Iran-China and the adoption of Iran’s Look East Strategy in 2021. Considering the changing flux in Iran’s diplomacy toward the regional cooperation and ever-increasing Sino-Iranian rapprochement, the main question of this contribution is about the effect of Sino-Iranian rapprochement on India, one of Iran’s biggest Asian trading partners. The main hypothesis states that Sino-Iranian rapprochement has led India to expand the scope of its connectivity projects through Iran, throwing spoke in the wheel of China’s Belt and Road Initiative in South and Central Asia. Constructivist Institutionalism (CI) developed by Hay was adopted as the theoretical framework. The methodology used for this research is based upon qualitative methodology and discourse analysis to focus on Iran and India relations in the context of Iran’s Look East strategy. Our findings indicate that Indian policy makers are following the Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam principle in their engagement with Iran, seeking to increase Iran-India ties in the face of Chinese competition with long-term strategic and security deal. As part of India’s civilizational role in the Central Asia and a response to growing Chinese footprints in the region, India has undertaken certain concrete measures such as institutionalization of India-Central Asia summit on a multi-lateral framework and inclusion of Iran’s Chabahar port in the International North-South Corridor. The research findings reveal that the corporate remains the weak link in the chain of the state-temple-corporate complex of the Hindu nationalist BJP in relation to Iran. India is also set to lock in cooperation with Iran through long-term strategic deal, institutionalizing security cooperation, and strengthening the private sector participation in Chabahar project.

The European countries have adopted a particular policy and manner to conflict with Muslims in their countries. These policies are classified into three behavioral patterns of British, German, and French. The British model is cultural pluralism, the German is Muslims’ integration in German society, and the French are melting melt pot. In their belief, Muslims must be dissolved in French culture and eliminated their religious identity. Other European countries follow one of these three models. The present study aimed to answer the following questions: ‘What effect have these strategies and patterns had on the living conditions of Muslims and the whole society of that country?’ ‘Were the approaches a plan or practical?’ ‘Which policies have been more successful quickly or strictly in confronting Islamic extremism (Takfiri terrorism) and Secular extremism (European terrorism)?’ ‘What was the practical result of these approaches in the Western European countries' social and security conditions?’