دانشگاه اصفهان پژوهش های راهبردی مسائل اجتماعی 3041-8623 15 3 2026 09 23 Israel, Iran, and Peace in the Middle East: An Analysis of Identity Formation, Enemy Construction, and the Logic of Expansionism اسرائیل، ایران و صلح در خاورمیانه، تحلیلی از شکل‌گیری هویت، دشمن‌سازی و منطق توسعه‌طلبی 29 60 30089 10.22108/srspi.2025.146689.2154 FA علی بابک رفیع پور گروه جامعه‌شناسی تحول، دانشکدۀ علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه توبینگن، آلمان Journal Article 2025 09 16 <strong>Introduction</strong> This article offers a comprehensive analysis of the evolving antagonism between Israel and Iran, integrating political-sociological, historical, and geopolitical perspectives. While the immediate catalyst for this inquiry is Israel's military strike on Iranian territory on 13 June 2025, the study contends that this event is not an isolated episode. Instead, it is a manifestation of deeper structural, discursive, and historical processes that have for centuries shaped collective identities, territorial imaginaries, and strategic conduct. By employing Critical Discourse Analysis alongside historical inquiry and geopolitical theory, the article elucidates how enduring narratives and ideological formations persistently inform contemporary regional dynamics.   <strong> </strong> <strong>Materials & Methods</strong> A core contribution of this study is its historical analysis of the evolution of Jewish identity with specific attention to how the religious and genealogical figure of Jacob—renamed Israel—served as the symbolic and conceptual basis for the territorial construct of the “Land of Israel”. The analysis traces the transformation of this religious concept into a political-territorial claim across successive historical periods. It reconstructs how the nomenclature and administrative classification of the territory evolved under various imperial rulers: from the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah through its redesignation as “Palestina” under Roman rule to subsequent Ottoman administrative divisions and finally to the terminological frameworks imposed during the British Mandate. These semantic and bureaucratic shifts demonstrate how imperial naming practices and territorial categorizations have shaped enduring geographical perceptions, nationalist claims, and contested historical narratives that continue to influence contemporary political discourse. Furthermore, the article engages with a central historiographical debate: why Jewish immigrant communities in the early 20th century were able to rapidly establish functional political institutions, economic infrastructures and robust organizational capacity, while Palestinian society under comparable historical circumstances did not achieve parallel state-building momentum. The analysis explicitly rejects cultural or essentialist explanations for this divergence. Instead, it foregrounds material and structural determinants. Pre-existing Jewish communities possessed considerable organizational capital through transnational networks, substantial international political and financial backing, administrative expertise derived from European contexts, and highly coordinated settlement policies. In contrast, Palestinian society operated under conditions of colonial domination, experienced profound political fragmentation and leadership divisions, faced systematic restrictions on political mobilization, and lacked access to equivalent levels of material and institutional resources. This disparity in foundational conditions created fundamentally uneven capacities for state formation, which critically predetermined the trajectory of subsequent political developments.   <strong>Discussion of Results & Conclusion</strong> A further central component of this analysis is its exploration of Israel's contemporary political landscape, with specific attention to the ideological and discursive stances concerning the concept of a "Greater Israel". The article delineates the major parties and political blocs, illustrating that while explicit advocacy for territorial expansion is concentrated among far-right factions, expansionist narratives and biblical-historical claims to the land permeate broader segments of the political culture. These narratives not only inform settlement policies and border discourses, but also sustain the construction of Iran as a civilizational adversary whose regional influence is portrayed as a fundamental threat to Israel's long-term territorial and ideological ambitions. The study contends that these narratives constitute a symbolic framework that legitimizes preemptive military actions, diplomatic offensives, and security doctrines predicated on strategic dominance rather than coexistence. Subsequently, the analysis shifts to Iran's regional posture, arguing that its foreign policy conduct is shaped by decades of geopolitical pressure, external interventions, international sanctions, and perceived security threats. In contrast to common Western and Israeli portrayals of Iran as an inherently expansionist power, the study demonstrates that Iran's strategy is predominantly defensive, anchored in concerns over national sovereignty, deterrence, and the preservation of a multipolar regional order. Iran's alliances, military posturing, and diplomatic initiatives are interpreted as reactive measures to structural insecurity rather than as manifestations of ideological expansionism. Placing Iran's role within a longer historical continuum reveals a foreign policy characterized by strategic continuity, caution, and acute sensitivity to regional power asymmetries. By integrating historical reconstruction, discourse analysis, and geopolitical interpretation, the study concludes that the Israel–Iran antagonism is sustained by deeply entrenched ideological infrastructures, not merely transient political disputes. Consequently, achieving sustainable peace in West Asia necessitates a transformation of the symbolic and discursive foundations of enmity, a critical reevaluation of territorial mythologies, and a shift from dominance-based security doctrines toward cooperative regional frameworks. Only by addressing these structural dimensions can policymakers envision a durable and equitable security architecture capable of stabilizing bilateral relations and breaking the persistent cycle of fear, mistrust, and conflict that currently defines the region.   مقالۀ حاضر اقدامات اسرائیل را در بازنمایی ایران به‌عنوان «تهدیدی وجودی» بررسی می‌کند و نشان می‌دهد که دشمن‌سازی بخشی از راهبرد ژئوپولیتیکی و ایدئولوژیک بلندمدت اسرائیل است. چارچوب نظری پژوهش بر تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی فِرکلاف و نظریۀ میدان و سرمایۀ نمادین بوردیو استوار است. روش‌شناسی تحقیق کیفی و مبتنی بر تحلیل اسناد رسمی، متون سیاسی، گزارش‌های راهبردی (مانند یینون و بروکینگز)، و سخنرانی‌های مقامات دو کشور است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که اسرائیل ازطریق روش‌هایی چون تبدیل ایران (به قول بوردیو) به دیگریِ تهدیدکننده یعنی خطری برای امنیت و مذهب خود و در پی آن به دنبال مشروعیت‌زدایی بین‌المللی ایران است؛ درحالی‌که رفتار ایران عمدتاً واکنشی به تهدیدات واقعی است. مطالعۀ حاضر نتیجه می‌گیرد که بدون تغییر این ساختارهای گفتمانی و ایدئولوژیک، دستیابی به صلح پایدار در غرب آسیا امکان‌پذیر نخواهد بود. https://ssoss.ui.ac.ir/article_30089_101f5b5ae7c2892145174e210f7f332b.pdf