Strategic Studies Quarterly

Abstract The 2015 migration crisis is considered a turning point in European Union policymaking, marking a period during which migration gradually shifted from a purely humanitarian issue to a matter with significant security implications. Within this context, the migration of Afghan citizens, intensified by the continued instability and collapse of political order in Afghanistan, stood at the center of these discursive transformations. Adopting a critical analytical approach and drawing on the securitization theory of the Copenhagen School alongside Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of discourse analysis, this study examines the representation of Afghan migration in the political and media discourse of the European Union between 2015 and 2025. The main research question addresses how Afghan migration has been represented in EU political and media discourse and what role these representations have played in shaping the Union’s migration policies. The findings indicate that the dominant narrative has primarily framed Afghan migration through terms such as “threat,” “border pressure,” and “irregular crossing,” with institutions such as Frontex and certain mainstream media outlets playing a significant role in reinforcing this discursive framework. In contrast, liberal media and civil society organizations have sought to advance narratives emphasizing humanitarian and legal dimensions; however, these narratives have largely remained marginalized within the dominant discourse. This study demonstrates how the linkage between language and power in the European Union’s security-oriented discourse has contributed to the formation of migration policies and to the institutional and media-level consolidation of particular understandings of Afghan migration.

Abstract Introduction
Understanding and addressing social and security issues today requires a deep and fundamental theoretical analysis based on dominant paradigms. This paper focuses on the ideas of Émile Durkheim and Jacques Derrida to compare how social and security issues are viewed from modern and postmodern paradigms. The main goal is to explore how social problems turn into security crises and to examine how these issues are understood, explained, and addressed within the frameworks of these two distinguished thinkers. This study also aims to offer a combined model that can be useful for current security policymaking.
Methodology
The study employs a qualitative method with a comparative and discourse analysis approach. Key concepts such as order, threat, cohesion, exclusion, and insecurity are explored through the works of Durkheim and Derrida. The analysis is structured around three steps—identifying, explaining, and addressing —to better understand the connection between social and security issues in both modern and postmodern paradigms. The main data comes from classic texts in sociology and political philosophy, analyzed conceptually.
Discussion and Results
According to Durkheim, social problems become security crises when social institutions fail to perform their roles and social cohesion weakens. Therefore, security depends on institutional order and social solidarity. His solutions focus on gradually reforming economic structures and strengthening intermediate institutions. On the other hand, Derrida sees security as a fluid, language-based, and discursive construct that is constantly reshaped through interaction with the Other and opposing categories like safe/risky. He warns that excessive securitization can lead to excluding others, structural violence, and creating more insecurity. Derrida’s method of deconstruction helps reveal contradictions within dominant discourses and exposes how exclusion and power operate in security processes. In short, Durkheim emphasizes objectivity and institution, while Derrida rethinks security in terms of meaning, difference, and accepting the Other.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that combining Durkheim’s and Derrida’s perspectives provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing security and shaping policies. Durkheim focuses on the function of social institutions and economic reform, while Derrida highlights the need to rethink closed security discourses and be open to differences and otherness. Together, their views offer policymakers a flexible, justice-oriented strategy for dealing with social and security challenges. Finally, the study stresses the importance of avoiding unnecessary securitization, accepting ontological insecurity, and building resilient social institutions to ensure sustainable security.

Abstract Securitization is depended to the context of the “Security Problem”. Transition of the environment from a normal issue to the political and security ones has made Nordic's security model as a new model. The research hypothesis is that the environmental threats in the Nordic have first transitioned from the public Sphere (the normal) into the political and security Sphere and then, through the four processes of security policy-making, security strategy, political capital, and actors' consensus become a part of the social life of citizens.
 

Abstract  
The purpose of the article is to examine King Salman of Saudi Arabia's approach towards Iran and the strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran against Saudi actions. This paper hypothesizes that Saudi Arabia under King Salman has more than ever attempted to securitization of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the role of "functional actor". The main finding of this article is that support for securitization of Iran's regional role in the Middle East has been a key focus of Malik Salman's Saudi policy toward Iran. The new Saudi leaders have emphasized on what they called "Iran's destructive regional role" and tried to highlight Iran's policies and actions in the Middle East as the main threat to regional stability and security to mobilize various capacities against Iran. Although these measures have exacerbated security pressures against the Islamic Republic of Iran, however, trying to securitization of Iran has faced significant restrictions and challenges.
 

Abstract Following the victory of the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis, a new entity, that is the United States as an enemy, became one of the most revealing and consolidating aspects of the political identity of the Islamic Republic of Iran's establishment. With a focus on the role of political identity, this article seeks to answer the question why the Islamic Republic of Iran still insists on not having relations with the United States and refuses to make compromises with it despite all the US-led structural pressure now that four decades have passed since the victory of the revolution. The views of political realists have been used to answer this question. Political realists maintain that the friend-enemy distinction is the essence and core tenet of politics. They also argue that the strong and innate need of groups and entities to maintain a political identity rather than a structure or a desire for power underlies this distinction and emphasize the need to keep a distance from the enemy in order to survive and pursue own objectives.

Abstract This article explores the underlying factors behind the convergence and divergence of views of the United States and Europe on the Islamic Republic of Iran. In addition to investigating past trends and experiences, the authors have put forward the theory that the extent of divergence and convergence of the US and Europe on Iran depends on the level of Washington's success in presenting the Islamic Republic as a security threat to Europe. The more success the US has achieved in this regard, the closer their views have been on the Islamic Republic. Similarities in strategies and policies adopted by Europe and the US, the alliance between their leaders, the extent to which they approve of each other's policies under different administrations and the Islamic Republic of Iran's foreign policy are factors which determine whether Europe would align itself with the US that could eventually lead to either a transatlantic divergence or convergence on Iran. 

Abstract Although the Israeli government has a secular nature, Zionism is increasingly prevailing its internal and external affairs. Using the theory of securitization, the paper addresses religious Zionism orientation, as belief of minority but with strong voice, of the Israeli government with increasing status which in turn is a result of identity crisis and security vulnerabilities; so it has been the dominant and comprehensive discourse of the country and has been successfully radicalized its foreign policy. In this way, Netanyahu's administration has been opposing establishing a Palestinian government and increased pace settlements with no restrain from use of violence against the defenseless people of Palestine. Implementing this policy, Israel is not taking peace lover position anymore and has adopted an intrusive approach against its peripheral environment.  Although this policy may lead to more convergence in short term in Israel, however, in midterm, it can result in more isolation and vulnerability of Israel.  

Abstract Containing I.R. Iran’s missile capabilities is an immediate goal in U.S.A missile defense approach in Obama administration. Iran’s access to missile and satellite technology (manufacturing and launching) is deemed as a threat for U.S.A and southern neighbors of Persian Gulf, so the mission of missile defense shield is to contain and counter Iran’s capabilities in missile and satellite fields. This article  based on offensive and defensive realism , analyses security challenges emerging from extension of missile defense shield for I.R. Iran  and regarding emergency of this threats for Iran, proposes to intensify interactions and defense diplomacy with southern neighbors based on self-restraint and moderation to strengthen Iran’s national security.  

Abstract Abstract: the main problem of this article is to analyze findings and difficulties of Barry Buza's researches in security studies. The question of article is: what is the role of Buzan in development of security studies and what are his theories paradoxes and ambiguities? Author assumes some ambiguities and paradoxes in Buzan thoughts and  his hypothesis is that, Buzan has developed security studies by proposing the need to pass from strategic studies to security studies, emphasizing on social/political aspects of security, and specially discussing mysterious nature of security in international system. Meanwhile Buzan's arguments and conclusions about societal security, source of security, regional level of analysis, and securitization/de-securitization weakens validity and generalizations of his findings.  Methodology of this research is "text based hermeneutics. According to this method, we first explain the theory and then criticize it.

Abstract Abstract:  this article uses the concept of "risky geopolitics" to explain security threats and their consequences, emanating from foreign environment of Islamic republic of Iran. Author argues that securitization of Iran's peripheral environment after Islamic revolution, is effect of geopolitical changes. According to the argument, factors like peak oil production, emergence of Shiite geopolitics, terrorism in Middle East, continuation of arab-israeli conflict and nuclear Middle East, are causes of securitization and geopolitical threat against Iranian national security. Authors claim that these factors have close relations and are interconnected in Iran environment. Impacts of this situation are Isolation, sanction and threat of resorting to military action from great powers, especially United States.

Abstract     Theory of securitization was produced by Copenhagen school for analyzing the security problems. According the Speech Act conception, this theory by focus on linguistic analysis of security argues that it would be just appeared when expressed. The theory by designing actor, context and audience does discuss about the security problems. As matter of fact, the theory enjoys from constructive and realistic epistemology. Here the purpose of this paper is discussing and examining this theory by making some questions such as what's security, who's the securitizing actor, in which condition the problem may be concept as a security problem and what the proper time of securitizing the phenomena is. And also, this article from critique stand bring up six objects related to the theory such as exclusivities and anxiety, the strategic speech act, what kind of action, which type of threat, succession, and security: self – objectification. After all the theory the more is a managing theory than the analytical or appraisal one, because of it focus on how could be managing better the security sphere.