Strategic Studies Quarterly

Abstract Introduction
The word “security” has a broad meaning and encompasses everything from the innermost individual feelings to the widest international relations. It can include concepts such as freedom from doubt and anxiety on one side, and peace, trust, and well-being on the other. Barry Buzan considers “security” to be the intersection of foreign, economic, and military policies of countries. Arnold Wolfers believes a nation has security when it can protect its basic values ​​without risk, avoid war, and maintain its values ​​when challenged.
The issue of “security” is one of the topics that have always been the focus of Iranian intellectual elders such as Hakim Abulqasem Ferdowsi, Imam Muhammad Ghazali, Khawaja Nasir Toosi, Molana, and Saadi. Among them, Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh is undoubtedly the pioneer of the concept of “security.” He displays this concept, especially “national security” in different ways in the speech, behavior, and actions of the Shahnameh’s heroes. In this vein, the present paper tries to analyze this concept from various aspects in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh - as one of the prominent epic texts of Iran - using Charles Sanders Peirce’s framework of semiotic theory. The goal is to develop a security model based on the Iranian national epic, drawing from Iran's rich history and civilization. Through an analysis of the symbolic, iconographic, and profile signs of the “concept of security” in the Shahnameh, the primary questions are: Who are the referent objects of security? What defines security? And which dimensions and types of security are reflected in the Shahnameh?
 
Methodology
As one of the founders of semiotics, Peirce believes that man can only think through signs. In his model, a sign includes 'representation, interpretation, object': 'representation' is the form that the sign takes; 'interpretation' is the perception created by the sign; and 'object' is what the sign refers to. Peirce believes the relationship between the sign and the signified may be symbolic, iconic, or indexical. The meaning of the 'symbolic aspect' is that the signifier does not resemble the signified but is linked to it based on an arbitrary or conventional association. In the symbolic aspect, the relationship between the signifier and the signified is not direct (i.e., not based on physical or causal similarity), but rather it is determined by social or cultural conventions.
 
Discussion and Results
In the Shahnameh, many words imply the concept of security based on the contractual relationship between the object and the representation. Some of the most important examples that indicate the issue of “security” include signifiers/words such as “safe”, “wisdom”, “calm”, “assured”, “peace/reconciliation”, “developed”, “ verdurous”, “fame” and so on. Another type of linguistic sign in the Shahnameh that conveys the concept of “security” through a cause-and-effect relationship is the “profile” sign. This means that the words/examples such as “terror”, “faith”, “covenant”, “unity and integration”, and “military power” are based on the causal relationship between “social, religious, psychological, political and national security”. The cause of the emergence of individual, social and national insecurity is mentioned in the form of index signs such as immorality, unwiseness, violence, lack of strong political power, worldliness, lack of religious faith, magic, and war. In the symbolic sign, the relationship between the representation and the object is based on similarity. Thus, based on this type of sign, the sample has characteristics that evoke the concept of security based on the similarity. In the Shahnameh, various elements symbolize security, including kings and heroes, celestial realms, seasons like spring, and the juxtaposition of opposites such as sheep and wolves.
 
Conclusion
The semiotic analysis of the concept of “security” in the Shahnameh reveals that, although the term “security” and its modern classifications are not explicitly mentioned in the text; the word “safe” which has the same root as the word security and symbolic signs such as “wisdom”, “peace”, “goodness”, “calm” and “comfort” and “fame” have been used in the concept of security.
Based on the semantic implications and the relationships between these signs, it can be inferred that the symbolic sign of “peace” represents political and national security; while signs like “improvement, prosperity, and comfort” represent economic security. Additionally, the sign “name” reflects mental and personal security. The sign of “wisdom” has a wide range of meanings and includes all aspects of security, including individual, psychological, social, economic, political, and national. In the ancient Iranian thought system and the Shahnameh, to ensure security in its broad sense, it depends on factors such as “faith”, “giving”, “treaty”, “union”, and “army”, which can be used as index signs. Also, from the perspective of the Shahnameh, threats to security include “unruliness,” “ingratitude,” “war and grudges,” and the “absence of a central government.” In semiotic terms, these can be considered as anti-security index signs.
In the Shahnameh, there are two important security referent objects, “Kings” and “Warriors.” Because their actions and behaviors are an embodiment of security, they can be referred to as symbolic signs of security. Similarly, the negative actions of “dragon”, “demon” and “devil” introduce them as symbolic signs of anti-security. On the security referent object in the Shahnameh, the ancient Iranians believed that the king has “Farrah Yazidi” and that he relies on wisdom, forgiveness, and military power to expand comprehensive security over the country. Adherence to the “covenant” which includes the social and moral obligations of the members of the society towards each other, is considered to be the basis and factor for maintaining social and national security. But the signs that cause the emergence of insecurity include immorality, unwiseness, violence, lack of strong political power, worldliness, lack of Yazadi religion, magic, war, etc. These are index signs that disrupt individual, social, and national security.

Abstract Research Vice-President of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies   The notion that the state is in the center of national security equations, though has been occasionally criticized, still enjoys prominent validity; thus a large number of analysts and decision-makers in the field of security issues have consensus over the unique place of the state in the definition and identification of the secure situation. However, the acceptance of the important place of the state in the process of security building cannot be taken as evidence for the centrality of this institution in the formation of the meaning of security.   In the light of this aspect of the issue, this article proposes the question of the secure situation in the following way: “Are the states able to create the same meaning of the secure situation envisaged by them as the desirable norm in the minds of their audiences – i.e. people? The author’s semiotic analysis derived from the analyses found in the linguistic field indicates that the state is identified with four features in the area: expression, decision, conduct and feedback. In other words, the meaning of security is not merely inferred from the state expression; so one can expect that in many cases the implication of security affected by other signs – such as decision, conduct and most importantly feedback – finds an implication entirely different from one envisaged by the state. The author attracts the attention of the power holders to the important point that the implication of security is largely influenced by the states’ decisions and the feedback thereof.