Strategic Studies Quarterly

Abstract Introduction
West Asia has long been a hotspot for various forms of violence. The complex and multifaceted security threats in the region—coupled with the inherent fragility of states—demand that security be redefined within a new, regional framework. To break away from traditional security policies, there is increasing emphasis on the growing role of non-state actors, established norms, and cooperative security arrangements. In this context, the concept of governance is offered as a means to describe both the dispersion of power and the emergence of new oversight mechanisms that counterbalance state dominance. As a result, regional security governance is now seen as an important form of collective security. With this in mind, this study focuses on three key regional powers—Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia—to examine the process of security governance and the factors that shape it.
Methodology
The study employs a mixed-methods approach. On the quantitative side, international data were analyzed to review the progress of regional security governance over the past decade. For the qualitative aspect, a focus group session was conducted with 10 experts (9 men and 1 woman), and the discussions were analyzed using MAXQDA software.
Discussion and Results
In terms of persuasive (or soft) policies, Iran’s performance improved steadily, with its score rising from 20 in 2012 to over 24 in 2016. Conversely, Saudi Arabia’s persuasive policy score dropped from 48 in 2011 to about 33 in 2022, and Turkey also followed a downward trend. Regarding coercive (or hard) policies, Saudi Arabia achieved the highest score of 70 in 2015, while Iran recorded the lowest score of 40 in 2013. Additionally, Iran has been more effective in countering ISIS, whereas Saudi Arabia and Turkey escalated tensions with their military operations in Yemen and parts of Iraq and Syria, respectively. While Iran demonstrated that regional security is a top priority in its fight against ISIS, Turkey generally focused on protecting its borders from refugees and terrorist attacks, even seizing opportunities to intervene in Syria. The qualitative analysis identified 9 main categories and 25 sub-categories (with a total frequency of 310 mentions). Data analysis revealed that 84% of the obstacles to regional security governance in West Asia were associated with persuasive (soft) policies, while only 16% were linked to coercive (hard) measures. This finding suggests that before resorting to hard security tools, establishing regional security governance in this region should primarily rely on diplomatic dialogue and softer forms of engagement.
Conclusion
Focusing on Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, this research identifies both positive and negative factors influencing regional security governance in West Asia from 2011 to 2022. The study shows that security in the region cannot be ensured by governments alone. Instead, the active participation of non-state actors, international organizations, and a mix of persuasive (diplomatic and economic) and coercive (military and security) tools are crucial to shaping regional security governance. The analysis also indicates significant differences among the regional powers.Their national objectives tend to be almost diametrically opposed, resulting in a fluctuating form of regional security governance. For instance, the persuasive tools used by Iran in resolving regional disputes averaged a score of 22, compared to averages of 36 and 38 for Saudi Arabia and Turkey, respectively. While Saudi Arabia and Turkey show similar tendencies in their use of persuasive and coercive methods, Iran has taken a notably different approach. Reflecting on Europe's approach to regional security governance, it’s clear that after World War II, European nations were able to adopt a democracy-based framework with support from the United States that led to nearly uniform responses to conflicts.
However, in West Asia, the role of major powers has had the opposite effect—fueling tensions and exacerbating conflicts. Their involvement, most notably their support for the establishment of Israel, has contributed to major issues such as the Arab-Israeli wars, increased securitization, and a drift toward authoritarianism among regional governments. The military presence of extra-regional powers has pressured these countries to prioritize military solutions instead of diplomatic ones. Furthermore, the region’s geopolitical and economic significance continues to fuel competition among thses powers. Rivalries, such as that between China and the United States, have even led to bloc formations in the region, potentially undermining the development of regional security governance. Even the region's failed state- and nation-building process—which is seen as one of the main reasons why this form of governance has not been established in West Asia—has been influenced, to some extent, by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and by Israel.
The qualitative findings further highlight that regional powers’ abilities to protect their societies (by leveraging resources for defense and military intervention), combined with their unique interpretations of security and stability, domestic multi-actor dynamics (involving the role of non-state actors), and external delegations to regional organizations, are among the key factors shaping regional security governance. On the other hand, issues such as the Israel factor, extra-regional interventions, authoritarian tendencies, strategic culture, border disputes, and incomplete or unsynchronized political and economic structures have negatively affected its development.

Abstract This paper is a comparative study of the Police Intelligence Organizations of Iran and Turkey. It is an applied study that utilized a qualitative approach and content analysis method. The library research section considered documents from the last ten years of the police intelligence organizations of both countries. Participants in the field section included deputy heads and heads of departments knowledgeable about the subject in Iran’s Police Intelligence Organization, Iran’s Interpol, Iran’s Anti-Narcotics Police, and Iranian liaison officers in Turkey. The comparison of documents from the two organizations was targeted and based on structure, content, and context using a three-pronged model. The data analysis method was a content analysis of documents and interviews. The results show that the police intelligence organizations of Iran and Turkey share commonalities in their hierarchy of authority, actions, and goals. However, differences can be observed in their formality, specialization, division of work, complexity, concentration, professionalism, technology use, environment, strategy, organizational culture, growth, and maturity. The findings also suggest that by recognizing and addressing its weaknesses - primarily related to a shortage of manpower and technology - and by reinforcing its spirit of belief, Iran's police intelligence organization can achieve significant success.

Abstract Turkey's increasing tendency to pursue strategies independent of Western its allies and its proximity to Eastern powers in securing and defensive goals, as well as its active regional involvement in challenging the security preferences of Western powers, has raised the question of whether Turkey's international orientations are on a pivotal path or just looking to rebuild its foreign policy in a new international and regional environment? This paper, by conceptualizing Turkey's strategic attitudes and providing a framed picture of the new developments in the country's strategic culture and national security doctrine, rethinks the prevailing ideas of a pivotal turn in Turkey's macro-foreign policy orientation. In this regard, the new strategic culture of Turkey, with emphasis on the principle of self-help and national capabilities, increasingly seeks to ensure strategic independence from Western allies in the context of the international system transition. This does not necessarily mean leaving the transatlantic alliance, but rather balancing relations with the West and the East in order to consolidate Turkey's strategic position as an independent international actor.

Abstract  
This article seeks to provide a systematic understanding of tension in US-Turkish relations by creating a link between structural changes in the international system and changes in a declining hegemon relationship with an emerging regional power in the Middle East. The hypothesis of the paper is that the instability in US-Turkish relations is the output of the transition from the post-Cold American order to the post-American disorder in the geopolitics of the Middle East. Indeed, the shift in the balance of international power has changed US leaders' perceptions of America's Middle East role and reduced its strategic commitment to shaping the region's geopolitical order. This has changed Ankara's perception of Turkey's Middle East role and pursuing independent strategies to redefine its status as an order-maker regional power. Therefore, the collision of Middle Eastern roles of the two traditional allies in the context of transition in international system can explain the logic of tension and instability in US-Turkish relations. Role theory is the theoretical framework of this paper upon which changing the role of exterior actor in a region results in a different social structure in the geopolitical order of that region and consequently change in the role of regional powers.