The International Institute of Peace - Revision history

Peysepar: /* General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations */

2025-05-13T09:16:15Z

General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 13 May 2025
Line 68:		Line 68:
	===General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations===		===General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations===
	From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:		From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:
	* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security ~~issues3~~. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal principles<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.		* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security issues<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal principles<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.
	* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral arbiters <ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.		* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral arbiters <ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.

Peysepar: /* Concerns about Hidden Objectives */

2025-05-13T09:15:15Z

Concerns about Hidden Objectives

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 13 May 2025
Line 73:		Line 73:
	===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===		===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===
	Iranian analysts and officials sometimes suggest that behind the stated goals of peace and conflict resolution, such institutes may pursue hidden agendas:		Iranian analysts and officials sometimes suggest that behind the stated goals of peace and conflict resolution, such institutes may pursue hidden agendas:
	* Influence Operations and Narrative Shaping: There is concern that think tanks and peace institutes serve as tools for soft power, aiming to shape regional narratives and public opinion in ways that align with Western or adversarial ~~interests5~~. For example, the influence of think tanks and their analyses in regional media is seen as a way to legitimize certain foreign policies and delegitimize Iran’s positions, particularly regarding resistance movements and regional deterrence strategies<ref>IPIS. (2024, May 5). The most prominent analytical opinions regarding the conflict between Iran and the Zionist regime. https://www.ipis.ir/en/subjectview/746389/the-most-prominent-analytical-opinions-regarding-the-conflict-between-iran-and-the-zionist-regime</ref>.		* Influence Operations and Narrative Shaping: There is concern that think tanks and peace institutes serve as tools for soft power, aiming to shape regional narratives and public opinion in ways that align with Western or adversarial interests<ref>IPIS. (2024, May 5). The most prominent analytical opinions regarding the conflict between Iran and the Zionist regime. https://www.ipis.ir/en/subjectview/746389/the-most-prominent-analytical-opinions-regarding-the-conflict-between-iran-and-the-zionist-regime</ref>. For example, the influence of think tanks and their analyses in regional media is seen as a way to legitimize certain foreign policies and delegitimize Iran’s positions, particularly regarding resistance movements and regional deterrence strategies<ref>IPIS. (2024, May 5). The most prominent analytical opinions regarding the conflict between Iran and the Zionist regime. https://www.ipis.ir/en/subjectview/746389/the-most-prominent-analytical-opinions-regarding-the-conflict-between-iran-and-the-zionist-regime</ref>.
	* Policy Instrumentalization: Institutes may be perceived as supporting the strategic objectives of Western governments, especially in areas like sanctions, nuclear negotiations, and regional security, rather than genuinely advancing impartial peace<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref> <ref>Shams, L., & Rahimi, H. (2018). Assessment of the Effects of Economic Sanctions on Iranians' Right to Health. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(1), 1–12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5953521/</ref>. This is reinforced by the experience of economic sanctions, which, despite humanitarian exemptions, have had severe impacts on the Iranian population, leading to the belief that such measures are part of a broader strategy of coercion rather than peacebuilding<ref>Shams, L., & Rahimi, H. (2018). Assessment of the Effects of Economic Sanctions on Iranians' Right to Health. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(1), 1–12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5953521/</ref>.		* Policy Instrumentalization: Institutes may be perceived as supporting the strategic objectives of Western governments, especially in areas like sanctions, nuclear negotiations, and regional security, rather than genuinely advancing impartial peace<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref> <ref>Shams, L., & Rahimi, H. (2018). Assessment of the Effects of Economic Sanctions on Iranians' Right to Health. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(1), 1–12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5953521/</ref>. This is reinforced by the experience of economic sanctions, which, despite humanitarian exemptions, have had severe impacts on the Iranian population, leading to the belief that such measures are part of a broader strategy of coercion rather than peacebuilding<ref>Shams, L., & Rahimi, H. (2018). Assessment of the Effects of Economic Sanctions on Iranians' Right to Health. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(1), 1–12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5953521/</ref>.

Peysepar: /* Concerns about Hidden Objectives */

2025-05-13T09:09:28Z

Concerns about Hidden Objectives

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:39, 13 May 2025
Line 73:		Line 73:
	===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===		===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===
	Iranian analysts and officials sometimes suggest that behind the stated goals of peace and conflict resolution, such institutes may pursue hidden agendas:		Iranian analysts and officials sometimes suggest that behind the stated goals of peace and conflict resolution, such institutes may pursue hidden agendas:
	* Influence Operations and Narrative Shaping: There is concern that think tanks and peace institutes serve as tools for soft power, aiming to shape regional narratives and public opinion in ways that align with Western or adversarial interests5. For example, the influence of think tanks and their analyses in regional media is seen as a way to legitimize certain foreign policies and delegitimize Iran’s positions, particularly regarding resistance movements and regional deterrence ~~strategies5~~.		* Influence Operations and Narrative Shaping: There is concern that think tanks and peace institutes serve as tools for soft power, aiming to shape regional narratives and public opinion in ways that align with Western or adversarial interests5. For example, the influence of think tanks and their analyses in regional media is seen as a way to legitimize certain foreign policies and delegitimize Iran’s positions, particularly regarding resistance movements and regional deterrence strategies<ref>IPIS. (2024, May 5). The most prominent analytical opinions regarding the conflict between Iran and the Zionist regime. https://www.ipis.ir/en/subjectview/746389/the-most-prominent-analytical-opinions-regarding-the-conflict-between-iran-and-the-zionist-regime</ref>.
	* Policy Instrumentalization: Institutes may be perceived as supporting the strategic objectives of Western governments, especially in areas like sanctions, nuclear negotiations, and regional security, rather than genuinely advancing impartial peace<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>4. This is reinforced by the experience of economic sanctions, which, despite humanitarian exemptions, have had severe impacts on the Iranian population, leading to the belief that such measures are part of a broader strategy of coercion rather than ~~peacebuilding4~~.		* Policy Instrumentalization: Institutes may be perceived as supporting the strategic objectives of Western governments, especially in areas like sanctions, nuclear negotiations, and regional security, rather than genuinely advancing impartial peace<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref> <ref>Shams, L., & Rahimi, H. (2018). Assessment of the Effects of Economic Sanctions on Iranians' Right to Health. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(1), 1–12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5953521/</ref>. This is reinforced by the experience of economic sanctions, which, despite humanitarian exemptions, have had severe impacts on the Iranian population, leading to the belief that such measures are part of a broader strategy of coercion rather than peacebuilding<ref>Shams, L., & Rahimi, H. (2018). Assessment of the Effects of Economic Sanctions on Iranians' Right to Health. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(1), 1–12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5953521/</ref>.

	===Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives===		===Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives===

Peysepar: /* General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations */

2025-05-13T08:17:04Z

General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, 13 May 2025
Line 68:		Line 68:
	===General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations===		===General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations===
	From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:		From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:
	* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security issues3. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal principles<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html<ref>.		* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security issues3. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal principles<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.
	* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral arbiters <ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html<ref>.		* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral arbiters <ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.

	===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===		===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===

Peysepar: /* General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations */

2025-05-13T08:15:42Z

General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 13 May 2025
Line 69:		Line 69:
	From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:		From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:
	* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security issues3. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal principles<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html<ref>.		* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security issues3. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal principles<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html<ref>.
	* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral arbiters <ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.		* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral arbiters <ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html<ref>.

	===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===		===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===

Peysepar: /* General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations */

2025-05-13T08:13:57Z

General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:43, 13 May 2025
Line 69:		Line 69:
	From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:		From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:
	* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security issues3. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal principles<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html<ref>.		* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security issues3. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal principles<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html<ref>.
	* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral arbiters<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.		* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral arbiters <ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.

	===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===		===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===

Peysepar: /* Critique of the International Institute of Peace: Iran’s Perspective */

2025-05-13T08:09:31Z

Critique of the International Institute of Peace: Iran’s Perspective

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 13 May 2025
Line 68:		Line 68:
	===General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations===		===General Critique and Distrust of International Organizations===
	From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:		From the perspective of Iranian policymakers and scholars, international organizations-including peace institutes-are often viewed with skepticism due to perceived Western dominance and double standards. This mistrust stems from several historical and political experiences:
	* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security issues3. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal ~~principles3~~.		* Perceived Bias and Double Standards: Iranian elites frequently argue that international organizations, established and influenced by Western powers, have demonstrated partiality-especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program, human rights, and regional security issues3. The belief is that these organizations have failed to treat Iran fairly, applying standards inconsistently and serving the interests of dominant global powers rather than upholding universal principles<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html<ref>.
	* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral ~~arbiters3~~.		* Historical Grievances: Iran’s experience with the United Nations during the Iran-Iraq War, where the Security Council was seen as failing to remain impartial, has deepened this mistrust. Such historical episodes reinforce the perception that international organizations act more as instruments of Western policy than as neutral arbiters<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>.

	===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===		===Concerns about Hidden Objectives===
	Iranian analysts and officials sometimes suggest that behind the stated goals of peace and conflict resolution, such institutes may pursue hidden agendas:		Iranian analysts and officials sometimes suggest that behind the stated goals of peace and conflict resolution, such institutes may pursue hidden agendas:
	* Influence Operations and Narrative Shaping: There is concern that think tanks and peace institutes serve as tools for soft power, aiming to shape regional narratives and public opinion in ways that align with Western or adversarial interests5. For example, the influence of think tanks and their analyses in regional media is seen as a way to legitimize certain foreign policies and delegitimize Iran’s positions, particularly regarding resistance movements and regional deterrence strategies5.		* Influence Operations and Narrative Shaping: There is concern that think tanks and peace institutes serve as tools for soft power, aiming to shape regional narratives and public opinion in ways that align with Western or adversarial interests5. For example, the influence of think tanks and their analyses in regional media is seen as a way to legitimize certain foreign policies and delegitimize Iran’s positions, particularly regarding resistance movements and regional deterrence strategies5.
	* Policy Instrumentalization: Institutes may be perceived as supporting the strategic objectives of Western governments, especially in areas like sanctions, nuclear negotiations, and regional security, rather than genuinely advancing impartial ~~peace34~~. This is reinforced by the experience of economic sanctions, which, despite humanitarian exemptions, have had severe impacts on the Iranian population, leading to the belief that such measures are part of a broader strategy of coercion rather than peacebuilding4.		* Policy Instrumentalization: Institutes may be perceived as supporting the strategic objectives of Western governments, especially in areas like sanctions, nuclear negotiations, and regional security, rather than genuinely advancing impartial peace<ref>Eslami, M. (2007). Iran's Foreign Policy Approaches toward International Organizations. World Studies Quarterly, 65218. https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_65218.html</ref>4. This is reinforced by the experience of economic sanctions, which, despite humanitarian exemptions, have had severe impacts on the Iranian population, leading to the belief that such measures are part of a broader strategy of coercion rather than peacebuilding4.

	===Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives===		===Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives===

Peysepar: /* Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives */

2025-05-13T08:07:23Z

Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:37, 13 May 2025
Line 77:		Line 77:

	===Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives===		===Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives===
	Recent research has highlighted Iranian efforts to engage in “shadow diplomacy” by placing experts in Western think tanks to influence policy and counter hostile narratives<ref>Khoshnood, A., & Khoshnood, A. (2023). Iran's Shadow Diplomacy: The Unveiling of the Iran Experts Initiative. Cyrus the Great Institute, CGI Perspectives. https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/irans-shadow-diplomacy-the-unveiling-of-the-iran-experts-initiati 2</ref>. This underscores the perception that the field of international peace and policy research is a contested space, with both sides seeking to advance their own strategic interests through ostensibly neutral institutions.		Recent research has highlighted Iranian efforts to engage in “shadow diplomacy” by placing experts in Western think tanks to influence policy and counter hostile narratives<ref>Khoshnood, A., & Khoshnood, A. (2023). Iran's Shadow Diplomacy: The Unveiling of the Iran Experts Initiative. Cyrus the Great Institute, CGI Perspectives. https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/irans-shadow-diplomacy-the-unveiling-of-the-iran-experts-initiati</ref>. This underscores the perception that the field of international peace and policy research is a contested space, with both sides seeking to advance their own strategic interests through ostensibly neutral institutions.

	==References==		==References==

Peysepar: /* Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives */

2025-05-13T08:05:21Z

Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 13 May 2025
Line 77:		Line 77:

	===Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives===		===Concerns about Infiltration and Counter-Narratives===
	Recent research has highlighted Iranian efforts to engage in “shadow diplomacy” by placing experts in Western think tanks to influence policy and counter hostile ~~narratives2~~. This underscores the perception that the field of international peace and policy research is a contested space, with both sides seeking to advance their own strategic interests through ostensibly neutral institutions.		Recent research has highlighted Iranian efforts to engage in “shadow diplomacy” by placing experts in Western think tanks to influence policy and counter hostile narratives<ref>Khoshnood, A., & Khoshnood, A. (2023). Iran's Shadow Diplomacy: The Unveiling of the Iran Experts Initiative. Cyrus the Great Institute, CGI Perspectives. https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/irans-shadow-diplomacy-the-unveiling-of-the-iran-experts-initiati 2</ref>. This underscores the perception that the field of international peace and policy research is a contested space, with both sides seeking to advance their own strategic interests through ostensibly neutral institutions.

	==References==		==References==

Peysepar at 07:52, 13 May 2025

2025-05-13T07:52:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, 13 May 2025
Line 79:		Line 79:
	Recent research has highlighted Iranian efforts to engage in “shadow diplomacy” by placing experts in Western think tanks to influence policy and counter hostile narratives2. This underscores the perception that the field of international peace and policy research is a contested space, with both sides seeking to advance their own strategic interests through ostensibly neutral institutions.		Recent research has highlighted Iranian efforts to engage in “shadow diplomacy” by placing experts in Western think tanks to influence policy and counter hostile narratives2. This underscores the perception that the field of international peace and policy research is a contested space, with both sides seeking to advance their own strategic interests through ostensibly neutral institutions.

			==References==

	~~==References==~~		[[Category:English Wikivahdat]]
			[[category:Think tanks]]