Strategic Studies Quarterly

Abstract Balance of power theory, once regarded as the “iron law” of international politics, encountered serious explanatory challenges in the post–Cold War era. However, China’s rapid rise over the past two decades has once again brought the logic of balancing to the center of academic debate. Nevertheless, the principal balance of power in the contemporary international system—between the United States and a rising China—has moved beyond traditional patterns of balancing toward an active strategy that can be described as the “disruption of the balancing process.” Accordingly, this study distinguishes between “balancing as an automatic structural outcome” and “balance-making as an intentional, agent-driven process” in order to address the following question: how can a dominant power delay this outcome and render its position of superiority more durable? Drawing on neoclassical realist insights and integrating the concepts of “underbalancing” and “resource mobilization,” the study argues that the United States has disrupted the natural process of international balancing through a model of “hybrid and networked balance-making.” This interventionist strategy, grounded in the securitization of trade and technology, seeks to prevent the emergence of rival poles in the global order by moving beyond traditional alliances toward new forms of multilateral linkages. It should be noted that this research adopts a fundamental–developmental orientation and employs a case study (U.S. balancing disruption vis-à-vis China) alongside process tracing. To achieve its objectives, the study utilizes a mixed-methods approach within a scientific-empirical paradigm, enabling both systematic data usage and analytical interpretation.

Abstract Opposition is commonly conceptualized in political science as an endogenous actor rooted in civil society and performing a corrective or constraining role in relation to state power. This article re-examines that assumption in the context of the Global South, where domestic political conflict is often intertwined with sanctions, external pressure, and geopolitical intervention. Drawing on Southern Theory and a Gramscian understanding of hegemony, the study distinguishes analytically between “endogenous opposition” and “opposition aligned with hegemonic powers.” Using a qualitative, interpretive, and comparative case-study design, it examines the political currents surrounding Reza Pahlavi in Iran and María Corina Machado in Venezuela. The analysis is based on documentary sources and focuses on three indicators: institutional and financial linkages with foreign powers, legitimization of economic sanctions, and acceptance or normalization of external military pressure. The findings show that, in the periods and cases examined, both currents display recurring patterns of alignment with external pressure strategies. However, this classification does not imply that they were entirely created abroad, lack domestic grievances or supporters, or operate under direct foreign command. Nor does the study measure their precise social support or predict their political future. The article argues that some opposition currents in the Global South may, intentionally or unintentionally, contribute to the reproduction of global domination when sustained external linkages are combined with the legitimization of sanctions and the normalization of military pressure.

Abstract Elite migration constitutes a structural challenge for developing nations, and Iran is no exception, entailing profound implications for economic performance, social cohesion, and national security. This study sets out to structurally analyze the determinants shaping elite migration and to outline prospective scenarios for its future trajectory. Employing Parag Khanna's connectography as its theoretical foundation, the research adopts a foresight-oriented methodology. The inquiry is driven by the following question: which structural variables most critically influence Iran's elite migration outlook, and how might the resulting scenarios be managed to reinforce national security? A mixed-methods approach was adopted, comprising three phases: an extensive literature review to extract relevant factors, a cross-impact analysis conducted via MICMAC software, and scenario construction based on the GBN (Global Business Network) framework. The structural diagnostics pinpoint "governance and institutional capacity" and "global flows" as the primary driving forces. The interplay of these two variables yields four distinct plausible scenarios for the future of elite migration: active talent circulation, connected brain drain, endogenous and sustainable development, and talent stagnation and isolation. The findings further contend that a viable strategy for navigating this issue hinges on deep-seated reforms in governance, fostering substantive linkages with global scientific and technological networks, and advancing toward a knowledge-driven economy. In doing so, the paper emphasizes the necessity of supplanting reductionist, single-factor perspectives with a systemic and networked framework for policymaking in this arena.

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.