درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The issue of Palestine is one of the important and sensitive topics in the thought of the leaders of the Islamic Republic, particularly Ayatollah Khamenei, and indicates that the liberation of Palestine is not merely a political matter but an inseparable part of the identity and religious principles of the Islamic Ummah. The present study aims to examine the future of Palestine from the perspective of Ayatollah Khamenei. In this article, using a constructivist theoretical framework, Ayatollah Khamenei’s discourse on the future of Palestine is analyzed. Finally, three scenarios for the future of Palestine are presented: the first scenario, resistance and liberation, which involves the collapse of the Zionist regime and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state; the second scenario, continued occupation and crisis, in which conflicts, the blockade of Gaza, and humanitarian problems persist, and despite resistance, a sustainable solution does not emerge; and the third scenario, imposed reconciliation, which may reduce violence but leads to the weakening of Palestinian independent identity and historical justice. The findings of the study indicate that the only path consistent with justice and divine traditions is the continuation of resistance, the strengthening of Islamic Ummah cohesion, and the implementation of a comprehensive referendum.

This article examines the U.S. presidents’ securitization and desecuritization of post-revolutionary Iran. Employing securitization theory as its theoretical framework and qualitative content analysis as its research method, it analyzes 104 paramount instances of U.S. presidential rhetoric including State of the Union addresses, speeches delivered during the United Nations General Assembly's General Debates, and National Security Strategy reports. The analysis shows how successive U.S. presidents have framed Iran as an existential threat across multiple security sectors—military, political, societal, economic, and emerging cybersecurity—to justify their extraordinary policies regarding the country. A key finding of the research is the distinction between U.S. presidents’ securitization of the Iranian state and the Iranian nation, which first emerged during George W. Bush’s first term. Moreover, the study identifies both continuity and change in U.S. securitization and desecuritization of Iran over the past four decades, conceptualizing them into two overarching frameworks: the Realist approach and the Constructivist approach. This research introduces the novel concept of Positive Securitization, or Desecuritizing Securitization, as a new addition to the theoretical framework of securitization theory, and highlights its application during the Obama administration. Positive securitization refers to the use of securitizing discourse to justify the desecuritization of dialogue and political engagement within a specific context. It does so by claiming that even extreme exceptional measures—military or economic—would prove inadequate in addressing a perceived threat, thereby presenting diplomacy as the only viable solution. The article offers a comprehensive exploration that provides a detailed understanding of U.S. presidential rhetoric and the gradual construction of Iran’s image as a threat.