درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

In foreign policy, imperatives refer to the factors and conditions that compel a country to act in specific ways or make particular decisions in the international arena. One significant category of imperatives in foreign policy, particularly for Islamic societies, is jurisprudential imperatives—the fundamental principles, rules, and values derived from Islamic law to guide international relations. According to the Holy Quran and Islamic narrations, Islam provides the sole path for humanity to attain true happiness, both worldly and eternal, on individual and societal levels. To achieve this ideal goal within an Islamic society, the foreign policy actions of an Islamic state must align with imperatives rooted in Islamic law. These imperatives are informed by core Islamic objectives such as the pursuit of justice, peace, preservation of human dignity, and the promotion of the public interest. This research, using a descriptive-analytical method and utilizing reliable jurisprudential sources, considering the issues affecting Islamic countries , identifies and explains the most important jurisprudential imperatives of foreign policy that have a special impact on the numerous and important foreign policy choices of countries in facing contemporary challenges. Within this framework, the study identifies key jurisprudential imperatives for foreign policy, including adherence to principles such as the fulfilment of the obligation, reciprocity, peaceful coexistence, caution in dealing with adversaries, rejection of domination, invitation , and the rules of capability and expediency. The findings underscore that Islamic jurisprudence offers vital solutions to contemporary challenges in international relations, strengthening the effectiveness of Islamic systems on the global stage.

Despite Iran's unique geostrategic and geoeconomic position and its location on various transit routes, including the North-South Corridor, sufficient attention has not been paid to this extraordinary capacity. Iran's transit capacity is set to expand, bolstering its economic diplomacy with countries around the world. This expansion is expected to lead to increased dependence on economic cooperation with Iran, thereby reducing the nation's vulnerability to sanctions. However, in recent years, the country has experienced a decline in transit volume. While this downturn can be attributed to sanctions and the COVID-19 pandemic, it is also closely linked to external actions and sabotage activities, including terrorist attacks on Iranian soil. This research aims to address the question of the objectives pursued by terrorist groups and other rival actors engaged in competition with Iran along the North-South Corridor. The hypothesis posits that the series of terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Jaish al-Adl group in the southeast of Iran suggests that rival countries are covertly supporting small terrorist organizations to destabilize Iran's transport routes in pursuit of their own interests. These interests include marginalizing Iran in the sphere of commercial corridor competition and strengthening their own positions. These actors pursue their agenda by instigating insecurity within Iran's corridors, ultimately discouraging foreign investors from engaging in projects such as those at the Chabahar port in southeastern Iran. Their operations range from targeted and indiscriminate attacks—affecting civilians and military installations alike—to planting mines, explosive traps, and roadside bombs on critical transportation routes. Such actions serve to portray the southeastern regions of Iran, particularly around Chabahar port, as unsafe, thereby significantly undermining and potentially neutralizing the Islamic Republic of Iran's role in global transit. Consequently, as Iran's competitors enhance their influence by developing robust transport fleets and strengthening their presence in key commercial corridors, it is crucial for policymakers and officials to address the security challenges affecting borders, transport fleets, and foreign trade. If these issues remain unresolved, Iran risks being sidelined in the global arena, as the world will not hesitate to seek alternative transit routes.

Along with geopolitical reasons lurking beneath the surface of Tehran-Beijing connections, such an odd partnership between an Islamist government and a communist one brings religious-ideological elements to the fore. Iran’s relationship with China is compatible with its dominant ideological-religious doctrine. The paper introduces a new understanding of the Sino-Persian Connections from a religious-ideological prism. ‘How and under what mechanisms has Iran made its Chinese policy compatible with its religious-ideological codes? This is the pivotal question that guides the analytical narrative of the paper. The paper argues that Shia Jurisprudence has specific religious foundations that justify Iran’s policy towards China. It highlights both ‘Principlism’ and ‘Jurisprudence Pragmatism’ through which Iran expands its relations with China. Principlism asserts that the expansion of ties with China does not conflict with the religious principle of rejecting domination by non-Muslim foreigners. That is why Iranian elites do not perceive the expansion of China's influence as a form of new imperialist expansionism that could lead to the domination of a non-Muslim country over a Muslim one. Jurisprudence Pragmatism posits that the rule of expediency in Shia jurisprudence mitigates the conflict between China's policies towards its Muslim population and Iran's proclaimed support for Muslims worldwide. This pragmatism provides a religious justification for maintaining relations with Beijing.

This article investigates the evolving trajectory of Iran’s regional diplomacy in the aftermath of the Abraham Accords (2020), which marked a major shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics by initiating normalization between Israel and several Arab states. The central inquiry of this study is whether the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to uphold its long-standing doctrine of "strategic patience" or is transitioning toward a new, more adaptive diplomatic doctrine in response to emerging regional alignments. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of official policy statements, regional diplomatic developments, and doctrinal texts in Persian and Arabic, this study examines Iran’s evolving strategy through the dual lenses of geopolitical realism and Islamic theological frameworks—especially the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). The article argues that Iran’s foreign policy posture reflects a hybrid model: while ideological commitments to anti-Zionism and Islamic solidarity remain strong, there are growing signs of pragmatic engagement, particularly in Iran’s overtures toward Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iraq. This pragmatic turn is framed within Shiite concepts such as maslahat (public interest) and hikmah (strategic wisdom), allowing Tehran to recalibrate without abandoning core ideological principles. The findings reveal a nuanced shift toward a dual-track strategy that combines deterrence with diplomacy, resistance with regional dialogue. This approach enables Iran to navigate its theological commitments while responding to shifting regional dynamics. The article contributes to the broader discourse on the intersection of religion and foreign policy in the Middle East and offers insights into how revolutionary states adapt in a transforming international environment.