Strategic Studies Quarterly

Abstract Introduction
This study explores the concept of security within the tradition of Iranian political advice literature, with a particular focus on Saadi’s Bustan. Persian literature played an important role in shaping a form of political thought where writers sought to caution rulers by appealing to ethical principles and the best interests of both rulers and the public. Among these, Saadi’s Bustan stands out as a text that offers a distinctive political perspective, representing a shift within the tradition of Iranian political advice literature. Saadi’s view is grounded in a unique understanding of human nature. He locates the legitimacy and grandeur of political power in the people, urging rulers to prioritize the public good and protect their subjects.
Due to Saadi’s distinctive anthropology and his different view of the basis of political legitimacy, his writings present a different conception of security—one that can be called “human security” or “people-centered security.”
Building on this new perspective on politics and legitimacy, and drawing on Saadi’s unique ideas about human nature, this paper seeks to identify the security guidelines embedded in Bustan.
 
Methodology
This study uses a qualitative approach with thematic analysis. We employ a three-stage coding process—open coding, axial coding, and selective coding—to carefully examine the text of Bustan and identify the security-related themes that are woven throughout.
 
Discussion and Results
Saadi’s understanding of security is deeply rooted in his political anthropology. While he recognizes that political power in Iran was traditionally pastoral, absolute, and despotic, he introduces a significant shift in Iranian political advice literature by grounding political legitimacy in the people rather than in the ruler alone.
For Saadi, a secure society is the natural outcome of just and fair governance. Security depends on rulers exercising power through a framework of values and concepts that prioritize justice. The ruler must understand that his power comes from the people and must use it to create a just and secure society. He must take into account the needs of different social classes, seek counsel from elders and youth alike, respect both warriors and scholars, rely on knowledge and wisdom, employ capable individuals, act wisely against enemies, punish those who threaten public safety, and support foreigners, merchants, and traders to foster a positive image of the country internationally.
From Saadi’s perspective, a secure society is the direct result of such responsible and just governance. Security is the ruler’s responsibility, and the people remain the primary security referent object.
 
Conclusion
In Bustan, security emerges as a complex, multi-dimensional concept fundamentally shaped by the ruler’s approach to governance. If rulers govern based on divine will, immutable natural laws, and the transient nature of human life—while upholding principles like justice, fairness, wisdom, tolerance, and public welfare—they can ensure social security and peace. Saadi insists that security and peace are unattainable without these elements.
Since Saadi lived in an era when monarchs held absolute and unchecked power, he used ideas like fatalism, immutable natural laws, and human mortality to remind rulers that political power is a tool meant to protect and serve the people—not a personal, divine right or an inherited privilege. Political power, in this view, belongs collectively to society and must be used for the common good.
This understanding of political power, where legitimacy depends on the consent of the governed, anticipates key ideas of modern political thought and remains highly relevant today. In a time when states dominate politics and security is mainly defined in national terms, the concept of human security—which can be traced back to classical texts like Bustan—offers a valuable alternative.
By shifting the focus of security to ordinary people—once seen as “subjects” but now acknowledged as citizens—and basing rulers’ legitimacy on their consent and support, this approach puts the safety and well-being of the people at the core of policymaking. This shift in political legitimacy—from divine right to popular approval—places the security and comfort of citizens at the very center of governance.

Abstract Introduction
Judicial security is a fundamental right of every citizen and a key foundation for the sustainable development of societies. It involves protecting individuals from any form of rights violations, ensuring laws are applied fairly and correctly, and building public trust in the judicial system. Achieving judicial security depends on mechanisms like judicial independence, transparency in legal processes, easy access to justice, and the enforcement of fair and effective laws. While the role of civil institutions and public opinion in promoting judicial security is undeniable, these organizations face significant challenges in cooperating with judicial bodies, which limits their full potential. Currently, civil institutions’ capabilities are underused. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the main obstacles they encounter and outline what is needed to overcome them. This study not only explores key concepts but also analyzes the role of various civil institutions—namely NGOs, the legal profession, and the jury system —in advancing judicial security. It then discusses the challenges these institutions face and proposes necessary measures to address them.
Methodology
This study uses an analytical-descriptive approach based on library research. Relevant legal sources including laws, academic articles, and specialized books were reviewed to gather information and analyze both theoretical foundations and practical challenges of the interaction between civil institutions and the judiciary. Additionally, a comparative study of other legal systems, particularly regarding juries, was used to deepen understanding.
Discussion and Results
This study examines the role and impact of civil institutions on enhancing judicial security within Iran’s legal system. The three main civil institutions reviewed are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the legal profession, and the jury system.
NGOs can act as an extension of civil society by improving access to justice for vulnerable groups, supporting them throughout legal proceedings, and fostering confidence in the fairness of the judicial process. This helps smooth the path to justice and builds public trust. However, NGOs face significant challenges. Firstly, their legal role in judicial proceedings is limited, often confined to filing complaints and attending hearings. Secondly, Article 66 of the Criminal Procedure Code restricts participation by limiting it to NGOs with specific charters, excluding many other civil groups. Thirdly, there is ambiguity about whether NGOs act as plaintiffs or simply as complainants in court, which leaves room for subjective interpretation. As a result, these challenges have limited NGO involvement, reducing their impact on justice delivery and public trust, and preventing the judiciary from fully utilizing their potential.
The legal profession also plays a crucial role in safeguarding the right to defense, ensuring access to justice, and ultimately upholding judicial security. This study highlights the importance of having independent and skilled lawyers at every stage of legal proceedings. Nonetheless, lawyers face several challenges, both internal and related to the broader legal governance system. The main challenge is public reluctance to seek legal representation, due to distrust in lawyers’ effectiveness, high costs relative to the services provided, and a lack of transparency regarding lawyers’ qualifications, experience, and fees. Another challenge lies in the relations between lawyers and the judiciary. The quality of this relationship affects public perception of justice and is hindered by practical obstacles, such as limited immediate access to case files and inadequate legal protections to ensure lawyers’ safety—especially in sensitive political or economic cases. These barriers undermine lawyers’ ability to provide an effective defense.
Finally, the jury system is examined, particularly in political and press-related cases, where it aims to involve representatives of public opinion in judicial decision-making and enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of court verdicts. The jury system aims to protect fundamental freedoms and prevent arbitrary decisions. However, challenges such as selecting jurors who genuinely and impartially represent public opinion, jurors’ level of legal expertise, and the influence of their opinions on judges’ final decisions impact the effectiveness of this institution.
Conclusion
Overall, this study finds that although the three civil institutions discussed have significant potential to strengthen judicial security in Iran’s legal system, they face operational, structural, and legal challenges that need careful attention and reform. The recommendations are as follows:

For NGOs: Clarify their legal status and broaden their authority to submit evidence, participate in preliminary investigations, and support defendants and their families throughout the judicial process.
For the legal profession: Establish a transparent ranking system for lawyers that reflects their records, expertise, and client satisfaction, and strengthen laws that protect lawyers’ job and personal security, especially in sensitive cases.
For the jury system: Reform the juror selection process, for example by using random selection from diverse social groups. Remove restrictive conditions such as marital status and minimum age limits, and make jury verdicts binding on courts—or at least significantly increase their influence on final decisions—to improve the system’s effectiveness.

Implementing these recommendations is expected to pave the way for more effective involvement of civil institutions in developing and strengthening judicial security.

Abstract Introduction
Today, social media platforms have become a primary source of news and information for many, rivaling traditional television and satellite channels. In this landscape, coordinated rumors, fake news, deepfakes, and AI-generated content have emerged as powerful tools for undermining the legitimacy of individuals, institutions, and entire political systems. These developments point toward a growing phenomenon known as “computational propaganda”.
Computational propaganda refers to the use of algorithms, automation, and human oversight to manage social media ecosystems or to deliberately spread misleading content across these platforms.
In this context, the rise of computational propaganda presents serious challenges to the soft power of the Islamic Republic of Iran. While some government-affiliated groups have used these tools to defend and promote their image, misuse of such tactics has undermined the credibility of the political system. Meanwhile, domestic and foreign actors alike have increasingly exploited these techniques to weaken Iran’s influence by targeting its internal digital vulnerabilities.
Given the complexity and evolving nature of computational propaganda, it is essential to reassess how Iran can effectively protect its soft power in a competitive and often hostile information environment.
 
Methodology
This study adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining thematic analysis (qualitative) and social network analysis (quantitative).
The research begins by analyzing tweets related to the "Operation True Promise 2", using social network analysis to identify posts influenced or supported by Israeli propaganda. A selection of these tweets is then subjected to thematic analysis to determine which propaganda strategies, as outlined in the theoretical framework, were most commonly used against Iran.
First, tweets containing the hashtags or keywords "Iran", "Israel", "True Promise", and "missile" were collected using data-mining tools. A retweet network graph for the relevant tweets was then created and analyzed using the Force Atlas 2 algorithm. The Gephi software was also used for visualizing and analyzing the graph.
For the thematic analysis, axial coding was applied, based on five key computational propaganda strategies. Each strategy was operationally defined in relation to the Iranian context:
1- Supportive Content: Posts showing support for Israel, advocating war against Iran, or promoting Reza Pahlavi as a viable opposition figure aligned with Israeli interests.
2- Attacks and Exposés: Criticism of the Iranian leadership, the "Operation True Promise 2," and Iran's regional policies, as well as mockery of Iran’s missile capabilities and accusations about intentionally keeping airspace open.
3- Distraction: Attempts to divert public attention away from the "Operation True Promise 2".
4- Polarization and Division: Content aimed at creating rifts between the government and the people of Iran.
5- Harassment and Suppression: Personal attacks or online harassment targeting supporters of Palestine or the "Operation True Promise 2", often through ridicule or mockery.
 
Discussion and Results
The data indicate a clear level of coordination among monarchist users and pro-Israel accounts. This is evidenced by analyzing retweet patterns. On average, there was 1 retweet per 11.55 likes across all users. However, among regular users—who tend to be apolitical—this ratio was 1 retweet per 51.31 likes, suggesting little to no coordination. In contrast, among monarchist users, the ratio was 1 retweet per 9.31 likes, implying higher levels of coordination and deliberate message amplification.
Among the tweets analyzed, humorous content received the most likes. This was followed by posts criticizing the Iranian political system, Supreme Leader, the "Operation True Promise 2", and Iran’s regional policies—especially those mocking the country's missile capabilities. Tweets in support of the government, the resistance axis, or opposing war received the next highest levels of engagement.
 
Conclusion
The findings clearly show that Israeli information operations have been actively used to damage Iran’s credibility and redirect public opinion toward alternative figures. Among the five identified strategies, “attacks and exposés” were the most prevalent. Simultaneously, efforts were made to frame Israel as a hero and Reza Pahlavi as a political alternative.
This study highlights how emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and social media have opened new avenues for political systems to influence rivals and boost their own power. Computational propaganda, in particular, has become a powerful tool that can directly threaten the political integrity of other nations—and one that even weaker states can deploy against more powerful ones.
Addressing this challenge requires new strategies and a fundamentally different approach to governance, including changes in media, social, cultural, and political policies. Such strategies should aim to enhance the credibility of domestic media, build public trust in political leadership, and reduce societal and political tensions.

Abstract Introduction
Resilience refers to an individual's or community's ability to withstand pressures and recover after a crisis. It's a concept widely studied across various fields, including psychology, sociology, and politics. On a personal level, resilience involves coping with stress, adapting to change, and maintaining mental well-being. At the societal level, it means communities can respond effectively to economic, social, or political challenges.
Democracy, as a form of governance, is built on the principle of popular sovereignty. In democratic systems, citizens actively participate in political processes—such as voting and public debate—to influence government decisions. Core elements of democracy include human rights, freedom of expression, transparency, and the rule of law. Democracy allows individuals and groups to engage equally and freely in public affairs and play a meaningful role in shaping societal policies.
Through open and transparent mechanisms, democracy fosters dialogue among different segments of society. This inclusive process helps communities find collective, participatory solutions in times of crisis. For example, during an economic downturn, democratic societies can establish consultative bodies and incorporate public input into policymaking—ensuring broader representation and promoting economic resilience.
 
Methodology
The relationship between political order and social structure has long been a key concern in politics and sociology. In fact, this intersection has led to the emergence of “political sociology” as a distinct field. Within political sociology, three main approaches are common: a behavioral approach focused on individual actions; a group-based approach focused on social classes and group behavior; and a structural approach, which focuses on the role of state institutions.
By adopting the third approach—the structural and state-centered perspective within political sociology—we step into the realm of political theory, where the political order/system plays a decisive role in shaping social structures. Drawing on this framework, the study explores how democratic political systems can enhance social resilience by promoting what is referred to as “subject-based security”.
 
Discussion and Results
In democratic societies, social participation is a key principle. When people are actively involved in decision-making and governance, they develop a sense of responsibility and belonging that contributes to greater social resilience. In short, the more engaged people are in political and social life, the more resilient both individuals and communities become in the face of crises.
Democracy and resilience are mutually reinforcing. Democratic institutions can foster resilience, and in turn, a resilient society helps protect and sustain democratic systems. Democracies are often better equipped to turn crises into opportunities for social and political cohesion, using transparent and inclusive processes. Conversely, social resilience supports democracy by safeguarding it against both internal and external threats.
Therefore, a democratic political system, through its commitment to subject-based security can contribute significantly to social resilience. In contrast, non-democratic systems often rely on structure-based security, where power and control are concentrated at the top. In representative democracies, the "security pyramid" is built from the bottom up, grounded in society itself. In authoritarian regimes, the pyramid is structured from the top down, with security and control resting heavily in the hands of the ruling elite. In general, this study illustrates how democratic mechanisms support subject-based security, which in turn strengthens social resilience.
 
Conclusion
Representative democracy is both an institutional and a societal framework—it provides the foundation for various other dimensions of collective life. As outlined earlier, its security pyramid is rooted in the base of society, whereas non-democratic regimes rely on centralized, top-down power. Representative democracy fosters what can be called "securitization of subjectivity capacity" which contributes to system-wide resilience.
That said, democratic systems also face significant challenges when it comes to building and sustaining resilience. Three key issues include:

Crisis management inefficiencies – In some democracies, decision-making can be slow or overly complex, limiting effective responses to urgent crises.
Social and economic inequality – Even in democratic systems, inequality can lead to unrest and undermine social cohesion.
Rising political violence – In some cases, political competition can escalate into violence, threatening public security and weakening resilience.

 

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 Introduction
A country's economic development is shaped by various factors, including geography, natural resources, access to technology, human and social capital, governance quality, and institutional effectiveness. Development scholars, depending on their theoretical perspectives, have emphasized the importance of different factors. This article focuses on one often overlooked but critical element: the role of security forces in economic development.
The central question here is: How do security forces impact economic development? The answer largely depends on how these forces interact with the institutions that shape development. Their impact can be positive or negative, based on whether they act within the boundaries of their professional mandate. When security forces align with national interests and objectives, they can significantly contribute to development. However, when they exceed these limits, the results can be harmful.
In this context, “security forces” refers to all individuals and institutions professionally involved in maintaining national security—primarily the military, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and the judiciary. These actors are essential in maintaining internal stability and protecting nations from external threats, both of which are crucial for economic development.
 
Methodology
This is a theoretically driven study aimed at explaining the mechanisms through which security forces affect economic development. It draws on institutional economics as a conceptual framework and relies on a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, both historical and contemporary, sourced from diverse materials.
 
Discussion and Results
The impact of security forces on development depends heavily on how they engage with the institutions that support economic growth. Sustainable development requires a cohesive framework where both formal and informal institutions support long-term, effective reforms. These institutions must protect property rights, enforce contracts, reduce transaction costs, promote competition and innovation, and build trust through transparency.
Security forces influence these institutional mechanisms in multiple ways. Their involvement in shaping, supporting, and enforcing the rules that underpin economic activity is not only common—it is often necessary. As state actors, they play a key role in ensuring the effective implementation of laws and policies.
One key benefit of security forces is the provision of public security, which reduces production, trade, and development costs by ensuring stability. They also contribute to resource redistribution, which is vital for social development. Economic growth isn’t only about GDP or income—it’s also about improving quality of life, which requires fair and efficient systems of redistribution. In these efforts, security institutions often play a pivotal role.
However, despite their potential benefits, security forces can also obstruct economic development in significant ways. The first major concern relates to mission drift—when these forces prioritize regime protection or elite interests over safeguarding economic freedoms such as property rights or free enterprise.
Another issue is oversizing: when the scale of security institutions exceeds actual national security needs, they can absorb disproportionate public resources. According to the principle of diminishing returns, security spending becomes unproductive when the additional costs no longer generate comparable gains in development. A notable example is the Soviet Union, where excessive military spending was a key factor in economic decline and collapse. By the late 1980s, security forces had become powerful enough to resist economic reforms altogether.
In many developing countries, weak laws and lack of oversight enable rent-seeking within security institutions. The appeal of unearned income often outweighs the rewards of productive economic activity. In extreme cases, this dynamic has even led to military coups, driven by access to state resources. Such interventions typically lead to instability, lawlessness, and uncertainty—all of which undermine development.
 
Conclusion
Security forces influence economic development in three primary ways, each with distinct consequences, as demonstrated by experiences in various countries:

Facilitating Development Mechanisms: When institutions that support development—such as property rights, labor rights, trade freedoms, and protections against poverty and discrimination—are in place or evolving, strong, accountable security forces are not just helpful but essential. Without them, contract enforcement and protection of property are impossible.
Rent-Seeking and Institutional Distortion: Here, security forces deviate from their intended role. With the power of coercion at their disposal, they are prone to rent-seeking and corruption. In such cases, they may prioritize maximizing their own budgets and benefits over national development goals.
Controlling Institutions Through Political Power: At this level, security forces – especially military forces - dominate the development process by taking direct control of the government. The historical record shows that military regimes often have poor economic track records and, in some cases, have led to major setbacks in development.