نشریه علوم سیاسی
سال بیست و ششم شماره 2 (پیاپی 102، تابستان 1402)

The aim of this research is to analyze the various functions of a moral government from the perspective of Transcendent (mutaʿāliya) political philosophy. By employing a descriptive-analytic method and considering the necessary prerequisites for the establishment of a moral government, this study delves into its functions. It demonstrates that, in Transcendent philosophy, a moral government is built upon practical wisdom, where rational management and selection are of special importance. According to this philosophy, morality governs all aspects of the government, and the moral duty of governments is to create conditions that enable sociThe aim of this research is to analyze the various functions of a moral government from the perspective of Transcendent (mutaʿāliya) political philosophy. By employing a descriptive-analytic method and considering the necessary prerequisites for the establishment of a moral government, this study delves into its functions. It demonstrates that, in Transcendent philosophy, a moral government is built upon practical wisdom, where rational management and selection are of special importance. According to this philosophy, morality governs all aspects of the government, and the moral duty of governments is to create conditions that enable society to achieve justice and fulfill its political and social rights. In a transcendent moral government, morality and politics mutually support each other in an interactive and evolving manner, resulting in a government that serves functions such as promoting societal happiness, safeguarding human dignity, facilitating the political training and refinement of citizens, ensuring political justice, and promoting tolerance and sympathy.ety to achieve justice and fulfill its political and social rights. In a transcendent moral government, morality and politics mutually support each other in an interactive and evolving manner, resulting in a government that serves functions such as promoting societal happiness, safeguarding human dignity, facilitating the political training and refinement of citizens, ensuring political justice, and promoting tolerance and sympathy.

The purpose of this research is to analyze the political strategies employed by the Seminary of Samarra. We will examine the scholastic attributes of the school, such as its principles of jurisprudence, teaching methods, and approach to newly arising issues. Additionally, we will explore the Seminary's role in social and political contexts. Drawing on a descriptive-analytic methodology, our findings reveal that the Seminary of Samarra surpasses other Shiite seminaries in many of these aspects, explaining its prominent presence in contemporary political thought. The political teachings of the Seminary of Samarra played a crucial role in disseminating Islamic social and political ideologies, with teaching and preaching sessions becoming an integral part of seminary activities. The scholarly and educational framework of the Seminary of Samarra, along with its political strategies, served as a guiding model for the seminaries of Najaf and Qom. The prominence of the Seminary of Samarra's political strategies can be attributed to two main factors. Firstly, the strategic utilization of fatwas and careful planning for future political actions played a crucial role in its success. Secondly, the impact of this school of thought extended beyond Samarra and the lifetime of Mirza Shirazi. The graduates of the Seminary continued to propagate and implement Mirza's political ideologies in other seminaries even after his demise.

The right to self-determination is a crucial political right that is acknowledged in numerous international legal documents and the constitutions of many countries. In recent decades, it has also become a topic of discussion among Shia jurists in Islamic jurisprudence. Within Imami Shia jurisprudence, the Quran, Tradition (hadiths), and certain rational arguments are referenced to support the existence of this right. This research takes an analytical and critical approach, employing the principles of jurisprudential inference to evaluate the rational (or speculative) arguments within Islamic jurisprudence regarding the right to self-determination. The main focus of this research is to examine how independent reason or intellect can indicate the political right of self-determination, and to identify any deficiencies or problems that may arise when relying on rational or reason-based arguments. The findings of this study reveal that several rational arguments have been put forth to support human self-determination, including the principle of human autonomy or self-guardianship, the necessity of adhering to social contracts, the argument from hisbah (community morals or maintenance of public order), and the principle of shared ownership of citizens over their country. However, it will be argued that, apart from the self-evident principle of human autonomy or self-guardianship, these arguments have certain shortcomings. The principle of human guardianship over one's own fate (self-determination) is considered valid unless there is an explicit religious text that contradicts it.

The objective of this research is to examine the regional security of the Islamic Republic of Iran, focusing on the changing actions of Saudi Arabian political officials. Using the descriptive-analytical method, the study concludes that between 2010 and 2018, Saudi officials implemented policy changes primarily aimed at containing the Islamic Republic of Iran. These measures sought to prevent Iran from assuming a dominant and decisive role in the turbulent West Asian region. The strategic competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia has the potential to transform the West Asian region into the epicenter of intense regional and geopolitical rivalries, thereby posing security challenges at both national and regional levels. As long as this competition persists, national security remains at risk. Given Miller's theory of war and peace, the turning point in this policy lies in the perceptions of decision-makers. If decision-makers alter their perception of the operational environment, it is possible for them to transition from a hegemonic model to a collaborative model, fostering a convergent and cooperative atmosphere in West Asia.

The issue of citizenship is a contentious topic in political thought and a complex matter in contemporary Iran's political landscape due to conflicting viewpoints. This divergence stems from fundamental disagreements on core principles, making it even more challenging to resolve. Despite some general consensus on certain principles in the modern world, the problem of citizenship remains a subject of controversy. The clash between liberal and republican perspectives on citizenship can be seen as an aspect of this difficulty. In an attempt to address this problem, Habermas has introduced the concept of discursive citizenry theory as a potential solution. The primary question at hand is how we can navigate the issue of citizenship in light of Habermas's viewpoint on communicative citizenry, considering the conflicting approaches prevalent in contemporary Iran. This article employs the descriptive-analytical method to argue that the concept of discursive citizenry can draw upo n various elements, such as tradition, modernity, religion, and nationalism, to address the issue of citizenship in contemporary Iran. The problem of citizenship in Iran has emerged due to conflicting conservative and modernist approaches, and the article proposes a reformative citizenship approach as a potential solution. Additionally, it draws inspiration from Habermas's perspective to explore an alternative classification of the issue of citizenship in contemporary Iran and the role of law in bridging the gap between contradictory approaches.

The present research aims to study the security of immigrant workers as a criterion for good governance, with a specific focus on the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This research employs the descriptive-analytic method and suggests that governments can achieve this goal by joining conventions of the International Labour Organization, reforming inefficient and insufficient laws, formulating comprehensive immigration laws, establishing bilateral and multilateral agreements among immigrant-sending and immigrant-receiving countries, providing education to immigrant workers before their immigration, informing them of working conditions and advantages, and combating organizations involved in immigrant worker trafficking. By doing so, a balance can be achieved between a country's interests and the observation of its governance rights, while also protecting the acquired rights of legal workers and fundamental rights of illegal workers. This approach will help secure the civil, political, economic, and social rights of legal immigrant workers and their family members, similar to the native workers of the target country. Considering international regulations and conventions regarding refugees, immigrants, and foreign residents, as well as the laws governing foreign residents in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran is in a better condition compared to many West Asian countries. Not only has the Islamic Republic of Iran accepted and implemented numerous international criteria related to refugees, but it has also prioritized the issues of human dignity, security, and education for refugees who have not yet obtained residency cards.

The present research aims to analyze the course of relations between Persian Gulf Arab countries and Israel, specifically focusing on their transition from divergence to convergence. Drawing upon the system theory, this study explains the development of their relations from divergence to convergence. The findings underscore the significant impact of interaction and interdependence arising from shared challenges and opportunities, leading to convergence in political, economic, and scientific domains. However, it is important to acknowledge that the support and establishment of peaceful relations between these nations have also been influenced by the economic and political interests of major international powers in the West Asian region. If the normalization policy between Persian Gulf countries and Israel is solely driven by external pressures from Western, Hebrew, and Arab statesmen, the prospects for their relations appear bleak. Instead, such a policy could potentially serve as an indicator of potential tensions in future conflicts involving Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon. The growing cooperation between Iran and Persian Gulf Arab countries, in comparison to their cooperation with Israel, has the potential to not only balance the convergence but also establish a balance in terms of threats. In other words, for Iran's convergence with Persian Gulf countries in security, politics, and economics to have a significant impact on the international environment (both regionally and globally) and influence the mindset of Arab officials, it must surpass the dependence of Arab countries on Israel and redefine their behavioral boundaries.

The comparative policies of US presidents are significant because they can be analyzed in relation to different regional domains. While each president has their own foreign policy notions, they share common goals when it comes to regional security and international politics. Trump and Biden pursued different Middle Eastern policies to exert control over the region, utilizing distinct mechanisms to achieve their objectives. Trump employed the preferential balance of power strategy, while Biden opted for cooperative balance against threats and maximizing interests through offshore balancing. Biden's national security documents, released in 2021 and 2022, suggest that the US's security policy has undergone revisions. The crisis in Ukraine has had implications for regional security and has influenced Biden's approach to Iran. Although Biden and Trump have distinct tactical and strategic perspectives, each US president formulates their regional policies based on the strategic imperatives of international politics. The primary question at hand is to examine the tactical and strategic actions taken by the US in its regional security policy under the administrations of Trump and Biden. To analyze these patterns, we utilize the neo-neo theory, which combines neo-liberalist and neo-realist approaches to regional action. The research is based on the hypothesis that Donald Trump's regional security policy relied on a preference for the balance of power, resulting in preemptive actions to establish this balance. On the other hand, Biden employed offshore balancing mechanisms, aiming to assume the role of a regional balancer in the Middle East.