The relationship between ideology and political practice, with Iran as the case study

本研究将以伊朗为例，探讨意识形态与政治实践之间的关系。更具体地说，它将评估伊朗对2005-2015年中东政治和武装冲突的国际政策，包括伊拉克、叙利亚和黎巴嫩。它将调查伊朗在这一时期的政策和行动是对主流国际意识形态的挑战，还是仅仅是一种地缘战略策略。我的目的是强调意识形态层面的相关性，特别是伊朗的外交政策对中东冲突，其中包括伊朗和它支持的运动之间的高度意识形态亲和力。选择的方法来确定伊朗的政策是否可以最有效地解释在利益方面，或者是否意识形态的考虑发挥了作用，是至关重要的这项研究。两种不同的理论模式最初出现适合的任务：一个属于现实主义或新现实主义的学校，与第二个结合英国学校的历史方法，和建构主义的重点意识形态。为了评估意识形态的亲和力，第一步将是追踪伊朗官方政治意识形态在21世纪世纪的轮廓。为此，可以使用官方文件和知识分子的原始材料，以及二手资料。最具挑战性的任务是审查伊朗支持或反对的那些政治运动的意识形态路线。由于本报告所涉时期是最近的时期（2005-2015年），因此并不缺乏第一手资料来源，沿着也有关于这些运动的目标和政策的第一手资料。关于历史和经验材料的范围，我将重点关注伊朗对伊拉克、叙利亚、黎巴嫩（可能还有阿富汗）政治冲突的影响。这一选择是由地理上的邻近性决定的，因此具有战略重要性，也是由这些特定冲突的高度国际性决定的。

This research will examine the relationship between ideology and political practice, with Iran as the case study. More specifically, it will assess Iran's international policy on political and armed conflicts in the Middle East 2005-2015, covering Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. It will investigate whether Iran's policies and actions in this period have been a challenge to the prevailing international ideology, or simply a geostrategic manoeuvre. I will aim to highlight the relevance of an ideological dimension, in particular to Iran's foreign policy on Middle Eastern conflicts, and which includes a high ideological affinity between Iran and the movements it supported.The choice of approaches for establishing whether Iran's policy can be explained most effectively in terms of interests alone , or whether ideological considerations played a role , is crucial for this research. Two different theoretical models initially appear suitable for the task: one belonging to the realist or neorealist school, with the second combining the English school's historical approach, and the constructivist focus on ideology. In order to assess ideological affinity, the first step will be to trace the contours of Iran's official political ideology in the 21st century. For this, both official documents and intellectuals' original material can be used, as well as secondary sources. The most challenging task is to examine the ideological line of those political movements Iran either supported or opposed. Since the period considered here is recent (2005-2015), there is no lack of primary sources available, along with first-hand accounts of the aims and policies of those movements. Concerning the range of historical and empirical material, I would focus on Iran's impact on the political conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and possibly Afghanistan. This choice is dictated by geographical proximity, and thus strategic importance, as well as by the highly international dimension of these particular conflicts.