News

 Statistics

Number of Journals34
Number of Issues1,306
Number of Articles9,428
Article View9,191,889
PDF Download5,622,558
mottaghi, E., amini, H. (2018). The Semiotics of Influence on Iranian Foreign Policy (with Emphasis on the 1990s). Electronic and Cyber Defense, 10(35), 93-120.
ebrahim mottaghi; hassan amini. "The Semiotics of Influence on Iranian Foreign Policy (with Emphasis on the 1990s)". Electronic and Cyber Defense, 10, 35, 2018, 93-120.
mottaghi, E., amini, H. (2018). 'The Semiotics of Influence on Iranian Foreign Policy (with Emphasis on the 1990s)', Electronic and Cyber Defense, 10(35), pp. 93-120.
mottaghi, E., amini, H. The Semiotics of Influence on Iranian Foreign Policy (with Emphasis on the 1990s). Electronic and Cyber Defense, 2018; 10(35): 93-120.

The Semiotics of Influence on Iranian Foreign Policy (with Emphasis on the 1990s)

فصلنامه آفاق امنیت
Article 4, Volume 10, Issue 35, May 2017, Pages 93-120    PDF (440.63 K)
Authors
ebrahim mottaghi* 1; hassan amini2
1Professor, University of Tehran
2PhD student of Higher National Defense University
Receive Date: 09 May 2018,  Revise Date: 13 January 2019,  Accept Date: 19 September 2018 
Abstract
The notion of influence in Iranian political and strategic literature is related to conditions that show signs of a creeping upturn in the behavioral patterns of executives and political officials. The nineties of the "project of influence" were at the heart of the great powers' action to influence Iranian political and foreign policy trends. In the process of influencing the notion of influence in foreign policy, bureaucratic and compromise-based approaches replace the revolutionary ones. It is natural that processes such as bureaucratic brokers and pragmatic policies also replace revolutionary brokers. In general, infiltration in the era of "social networks" and "cyberspace" is shaped by normative signs, and any kind of normalization can have its own implications and consequences in foreign security policy. Signs of influence are a process that forces the centrifugal forces to act in two directions: the first group must consider the entities that are affected by the external environment to create normative contradictions in Iran's political structure; The necessities of bureaucratic action emphasize the concept of political and international compromise. In this article, any force or agency that underlies the termidor is regarded as a symbol of influence. The question in the paper is that "What are the signs, agents, and processes of influence to change the national role of Iran's foreign policy?" It is a symbol of influence in Iranian foreign policy. ”The article is based on Steven Lux's methodology of“ third dimension of power ”in the sense of seduction and deception.
Keywords
Semiotics of Influence; Iranian Foreign Policy; Thermidor; Revolutionary Norms; Bureaucratic Norms
References
Adler, Emmanuel (1997). “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics”, European Journal of International Relations, v.3, No.3.
Alavi, Nasrin (2005). “We Are Iran: The Persian Blogs”, Brooklyn, Soft Skull Press.
Amirarjomand, Said (2002). “The Reform Movement and the Debate on Modernity and tradition in Contemporary Iran”, International Journal of the Middle East, 34.
Ansari, Ali (2006). “Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Conflict in the Middle East”, New York, Basic Books.
Arquilla, John and David Ronfeldt (1999). “The Emergence of Noopolitik: Towards an American Information Strategy”, Santa Monica CA, RAND.
Baheli, Muhammad Nima (2005). The Iranian Case: Possible Developments on Nuclear Issue, Journal of Middle Eastern Geopolitics, v.I. No.1, Jul / Sep.
Barzegar, Kayhan (summer 2005). “The Middle East and the New Terrorism”, Journal of Science and World Affairs, v.1.
Biden, Joseph (2010). “The Path to Nuclear Security: Implementing the President's Prague Agenda”, Washington, National Defense University.
Blum, William (2002). “The Paradon of American Power: Why the World’s Superpower Can’t Go It Alone”, New York, Oxford University Press.
Brower, Jennifer and Peter Chalk (2003). “The Global Threat of New and Re-emerging Informatious Diseases”, Santa Monica CA, RAND.
Burgat, F. (2002). “Face to Face with Political Islam”, London, I. B. Taurus.
Buzan, Barry (2004). “The Roots of Muslim Age”, Atlantic Monthly, v.22, No.1.
Clark, David (2002). “Diplomacy in a Digital World: Foreign Policy and the Internet”, MacGill, Queens University Press.
Djerejian, Edward (2007). “War and Peace: the Problems and Prospects of American Diplomacy in the East”, Los Angeles World Affairs Council, 20 December.
Ehteshami, Anoushiravan (2002). “The Foreign Policy of Iran”, London, Lynne Rienner.
Gheissari, Ali and Vali Nasr (2006). “Democracy in Iran: history and the Quest for Liberty”, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Takeyh, Ray (2010). “The Downside of Sanctions on Iran”, International Herald Tribune, June 25.
Wiarda, Howard, (1985). “Ethnocentrism, in Foreign Policy: Can We Understand the Third World?”, Washington, American Enterprise institute press.

Statistics
Article View: 526
PDF Download: 622