درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The AKP’s policy towards Palestine is the main core of this article. The Turkish authorities have tried to play as the mediator in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and have attempted through various political and economic initiatives to support a peace agreement between both sides. However, after the 2008 Gaza war, the AKP government’s foreign policy stance towards Israel began to change, at least officially. This war, alongside to other events such as 2009 Davos, the 2010 Low Chair and the 2010 Mavi Marmara, produced a public political conflict in the Turkish-Israeli relations. This tension extended from the 2008 Gaza war until the normalization deal between the two countries in June 2016. But this political tension did not have very impact on the other current fields of cooperation between Ankara and Tel Aviv. This emphasizes clearly that both countries were pragmatic in maintaining efficient and strategic ties. The major research question can be stated as the following: What has been the Turkish government's policy on the Palestinian issue between 2002-2020? In addition we want to assess the proximity and distance of Turkey's policies from Iranian perspectives and positions.

The Islamic Republic of Iran's Middle East policy and its fundamentals are among the most discussed issues in the MiddleEast's international politics. The present paper seeks to analyze the structure and formation of Iran's foreign policy interests in the region with a view of bureaucratic diplomacy. Based on Graham Allison's framework of organizational trends and bureaucratic politics, this study assesses two recent Iranian presidents' foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia. Bureaucratic diplomacy of Iran, along with military and security apparatus formulate and implement Iranian foreign policy tactics. Ahmadinejad focused on developing a personal relationship with Saudi leaders, which was not aligned with his bureaucratic diplomacy, though. However, Rouhani embarked on making use of JCPOA as a model to negotiate with Saudi Arabia. The region's constantly evolving situation, the hostile approach of Saudi Arabia, and the maximum pressure of the U.S. on Iran prevented Rouhani’s bureaucratic diplomacy from succeeding. 

When it comes to diplomacy, it is generally believed that entry into this field is possible only by experienced diplomats and through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in most countries. But modern international relations, due to the increasing complexity and the variety of different issues, in the process of political dialogue and negotiations, need something more than what has been common before. Professional politicians must know all the tools of national power and use them as leverage to influence other countries to advance their interests. Military power is one of the most important components of national power and plays a vital role in pursuing the policies adopted by states. In fact, it hasbecome an inseparable part of diplomacy because of the many capabilities that military power creates for foreign policy. In this regard, military diplomacy is a way for presenting military power to achieve peaceful ends, avoid violence, and increase deterrence, which has become a tool for achieving foreign policy goals, especially among the great powers. This article aims to study the role of military diplomacy in the foreign policy of states. Studies show that "adopting such an approach increases the ability of countries to pursue foreign policy goals through increasing the scope of action,  providing a positive image, increasing the sphere of influence, shaping the security environment, expanding the operational environment and etc. "In light of the realization of these cases, we will see an increase in their power and roleplaying in international developments." Efforts have also been made to outline the prospects for Iran's military diplomacy.