محمدرضا جوفار

As one of the key countries in the Middle East and home to two of the most important cities in the Islamic world, developments in Saudi Arabia inevitably impact the broader Muslim world. However, the nature of political legitimacy, acceptance, and the challenges faced by the government remain uncertain. Moreover, understanding the relationship between the people, religion, and the state in this monarchy is crucial. Approximately 50% of Saudi Arabia's population consists of young people. Managing this segment of society presents a significant political, economic, social, and cultural challenge for the Al Saud regime. If the government fails to control the energy and frustration of these youths, it seems likely that the foundations of the regime could become unstable. This could potentially lead to the rise of social movements in Saudi Arabia. As witnessed during the Arab uprisings of 2011, the possibility of a domino effect in the region exists. Additionally, given the secular behaviors the government is employing to manage this situation, it appears that the relationship between religion and the state in Saudi Arabia is changing. Should this phenomenon continue, the social contract itself may also evolve. Even if social movements emerge in the country, analyzing and predicting their nature from local, national, regional, and even global perspectives is of great importance.

The present research adopts a qualitative methodology with a descriptive-analytical and historical approach. Data collection involved documentary-library research and interviews. The study also utilizes books, academic and research articles, both domestic and international, as well as online resources to answer the research questions. The data analysis strategy is inductive.

The government of Saudi Arabia was established in 1932 based on the ideology of Wahhabism and the Al Saud tribe, and these two pillars have remained the foundation of the state until today. The rise to power of Mohammad bin Salman can be seen as the pinnacle of the liberal movement's ascension against the Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood. With the changes introduced by Mohammad bin Salman in recent years, it appears that Wahhabism and the monarchy may no longer continue. The alteration of this alliance poses a significant threat to the future of the Al Saud regime. Therefore, these changes are being implemented cautiously and gradually. Distancing from religion is a major risk that could lead to challenges for the future of Saudi Arabia. The underlying framework of Saudi Arabia's political and social order is based on Sharia, specifically Wahhabism. This is an inseparable part of the country's character and the foundation of the legitimacy of its political and social order. The Saudi government neither created nor inherited religious institutions. In this country, religious elites and politicians have cooperated for many years to establish and protect the state. This explains the overlap between religious and political discourses and also highlights the reason behind the opposition of religious clerics to certain secular actions taken by the government. The Saudi regime derives its legitimacy from Islam.The king, as the ruler, is responsible for enforcing Islamic laws, and the constitution repeatedly emphasizes the implementation of Islam. Saudi Arabia is known for three things: its unique position in the Middle East, being the world's largest oil exporter, and hosting pilgrims to the Holy Kaaba and the Prophet's Mosque. The religious role remains a high priority for the people. However, with the rise of bin Salman, Wahhabi institutions and movements have become isolated, gradually losing their power, and government policies have leaned towards secularism. Examples of this include the decline of the religious police, changes in the role of women in society, shifts in academic institutions, and the organization of events and festivals where Islamic symbols are absent, such as the Riyadh Season.

Iconography, as a spiritual factor and a force gravitating toward the center, is most prominently represented in Saudi Arabia by religion (Wahhabism), which has solidified the state's current structure. However, the government, through its recent actions, has sought to change its relationship with religion, opting for a different narrative of Wahhabism, which it refers to as "moderate Islam." Given the historical background of the Saudi people and the importance of religion and tradition in this country, this shift will likely lead to centrifugal tendencies among the citizens. Initially, it will create dissatisfaction among the people, and secondly, it will integrate citizens into the global context. This will result in a form of dislocation that has not been experienced in Saudi Arabia until now. With the new policies adopted by the Al Saud regime, religion's ability to serve as a unifying force is weakened, turning it into a centrifugal factor. In reality, the iconographic factor has transformed into circulation. Now, with the new religious policies, the government intends to no longer accept Wahhabism as the source of its legitimacy and instead seeks to adopt moderate Islam as its legitimacy factor. Until now, Saudi Arabia has positioned itself as the standard-bearer of Islam, as evidenced by the first article of the country's constitution. Therefore, neither bin Salman nor any other ruler in this country can govern outside the framework of Islamic laws or norms. Bin Salman is aware that he cannot change the country's constitution, or if such a change were to occur, it would come at a high cost with an uncertain future. Therefore, he is seeking to construct a new narrative of Islam, called moderate Islam, to govern based on the same Islamic laws created by himself and his allies. It seems that if bin Salman fails in this endeavor, the legitimacy of the state will face challenges, particularly in the eyes of various social groups and especially the religious elite.

Peace has always been one of the most important concerns of mankind and was considered a high value throughout history. Any ruler who established peace in a certain territory was known as a powerful ruler. With the formation of the concept of geopolitics in international literature, war was recognized as a tool for gaining the power, and the rulers believed that they could establish peace after the war. From the classical point of view, the concept of geopolitics is associated with competition, conflict, and war, and peace is considered an abnormal phenomenon. But from the point of view of modern geopolitics, peace is considered a phenomenon that does not create a conflict of interests to create the power and security of countries. Geopolitics of peace is a new concept that does not have a comprehensive definition, and this research aims to find a proper definition of this term by examining the ontology and epistemology of the geopolitics of peace.The main research question is that: “What is the geopolitics of peace”. It has been assuming that the geopolitics of peace is a type of positive peace that has geopolitical characteristics that are implemented at different levels of a country and include transnational and international dimensions. This research has been carried out in terms of the integrated nature of the descriptive-analytical method using library data and observing the humanistic geopolitical approach. The research method is of a qualitative type with a descriptive-analytical approach in terms of the fundamental goal. Also, the data analysis strategy is inductive. The method of data collection is library-documentary and reading books, scientific articles and also internet resources.In accordance with the findings of the research, it can be claimed that the Geopolitics of peace means international policies adopted by governments, agencies, actors, organizations and international institutions that are used at local, national, regional and global levels. In accordance with the geopolitical conceptualization of peace study that was carried out in this research, peace refers to the following meanings and phenomena; Existence and preservation of territorial integrity and absence of threats. War and attack from other countries, absence of any kind of structural, organized, governmental, individual and social violence. Preservation of people's lives and the existence of justice and equality among all types of people without discrimination. Survival and continuation of the social system at sub-national, national and transnational levels. Maintaining and improving the vital resources of the country, these resources can include natural or human resources. Absence of foreign threats to the goals, national and vital interests of the country. Absence of any feeling of personal and social threat from any side towards the citizens. Maintaining citizenship rights and dignity of people regardless of occupational, economic, racial differences and the like. Providing the basic needs of the nation. Absence of any kind of racism, the humiliation of ethnicities, and races, and conflict over such issues at the sub-national and national level. Absence of organized corruption at sub-national and national level. Maintaining the human dignity of citizens at the local, international and national levels. Respecting the basic rights of citizens, social, political, economic, and religious freedom of every citizen as long as it does not harm the freedom of others and is within the framework of human ethics and customs and without insulting another person or society. The existence of democracy and the right of free elections of citizens for the fate of their political future. Feeling the need and dependence of the government and the government on the people in all political, economic, social, cultural and similar matters. The existence of free media.

Although in Western studies, the role and concept of the border are becoming an abstract concept, the way of foreign governance still brings potential and actual tensions in many regions of the world in the countries on both sides of the border. This research provides a better picture of the main question of this article which is Iran's geostrategic understanding of Iraq. we do that by examining identity, cultural, religious, economic, etc. components. To answer the question raised in the research, a descriptive-analytical method has been used. In this research, the variables of language and ethnicity, religion, political-economic-military organization, territorial advantage, ethnic symbols, and the reason for existence and territorial cohesion have been analyzed and evaluated. In examining the situation of making political decisions based on Iran's geostrategy towards Iraq, three factors have a neutral or converging situation for Iran, while the situation is divergent in only one component, on the other hand, Iraq is divergent in three and neutral in one component, under these conditions, paying attention to the only divergent factor in two countries, which is language, ethnicity, and religion, should be a serious concern of both countries, a factor that is not so worrying for Iran in a normal situation, but If the independence of these minorities happened in Iraq, it can also limit Iran's national security.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the field of competition in Central Asia and the Far East became available for Iran and Turkey. The ideological vacuum caused by the collapse of Syria led to the fact that Turkey, with the support of the West, could use the theory of strategic depth to seek ways of influence and alliance with the countries of the region. This country shares historical, cultural and linguistic commonality with the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus. In this regard, Turkey was able to promote its ideology by establishing effective institutions in promoting Pan-Turkist ideas. The arena of competition between Iran and Türkiye in the region has become complicated and it seems that the two countries have clashed geopolitical interests in the region. Turkey's ideology is based on secular thinking and Iran's is based on nation-centered thinking. Therefore, the intersection of ideological ideas has also occurred in different fields. In recent years, new campaigns and processes of power are emerging in Central Asia and the Caucasus, which may have created a new structure of power play between regional and extra-regional countries. Regardless of the geopolitical value of this region, it is considered a geopolitical arena for Iran in competition with its other regional competitors, so the loss of strategic depth in this region will have a negative effect on Iran's ability to maneuver in competition with other regional competitors. Therefore, the research seeks to answer the question, "What are the components of the conflict between the geopolitical interests of Iran and Turkey in Central Asia and the Caucasus".

The current research aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the clash of geopolitical interests of Iran and Türkiye and extract the geopolitical components of this issue. The current research method is qualitative and the data analysis strategy is inductive. Therefore, by using the descriptive-analytical approach and collecting data in a documentary-library form and by studying books, articles and also online resources, inferences have been made from the discussion.

Türkiye's foreign policy based on the theory of strategic depth is looking for a way to penetrate Central Asia using the Caucasus route. This is the most important gate for this country in order to develop economic relations and trade relations with the mentioned regions. Linguistic, racial and ethnic similarity, the framework of secular governments, the revival of Turkish nationalism using the concept of pan-Turkism and historical-cultural commonalities are the factors that lead to the use of the geopolitical approach of influence in the countries of the region and the clash of interests with the Islamic Republic of Iran. What was inferred in the research studies is the conflict of interests including political-ideological, political-nationalist, economic and Karabakh war components. The political and ideological problem has been created from the political systems, different attitudes and structures and the specific ideology of the ruler in the two countries. Türkiye has a secular attitude and Iran is nation-oriented. In the political and nationalistic issue, Turkey's emphasis is on ethnicity and pan-Turkism. The roots of this difference can be considered the thoughts of Turkish nationalism. In the economic field, due to sanctions and lack of attention to regional countries, Turkey's financial transactions with these countries are much more than with Iran. Finally, the Karabakh war, which had geopolitical reasons, increased the differences and the field of conflict was clearly defined.

The different and competitive roles of Turkey and Iran cause a clash of geopolitical interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Finally, the pattern of behavior of the two countries has been led to conflict, competition and confrontation. Iran's advantage over Turkey in these areas is Iran's common border with other countries, as opposed to Turkey's border of a few kilometers in Nakhchivan with Azerbaijan, so it can be claimed that Turkey practically does not have a border with this country. Also, Iran's traditional ties with the Transcaucasia peoples are that unlike the Armenian-Turkish relations, there is no feeling of dissatisfaction and insult to the past. As long as the two countries are in a similar situation in terms of the extent of power, they will consider any relations, behavior and developments with the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus as vital, and we will witness serious differences between the two countries. This challenge will become more serious with the increasing power of Türkiye and Iran. Because the two countries seek to increase their geopolitical influence in the region by increasing their power. This role will cause the two countries' strategies to overlap, and as a result, the pattern of competition, conflict and confrontation between Turkey and the Islamic Republic of Iran will increase.