عنوان مقاله [English]
The main issue of the present study is the clarification and proportionality between Islamic ideological diplomacy and national-diplomacy diplomacy. Some suggest that if ideological diplomacy is pursued, national interests are not fully met, or national interests are at stake; and with inaccuracy in the dimensions, the components and principles of Islamic ideological diplomacy, on the one hand, and some with a lack of understanding, This study first seeks to explain Islamic diplomacy as a discourse in foreign relations, and then, by clarifying the meaning of national interest, seeks to assess the relationship between them. As a result, it can be said that Islamic diplomacy as a discourse pursues the three general or sub-goals of 'maintaining survival and security', 'fair interaction' and 'expanding influence'. How and when to choose each of the three goals is chosen by the religious ruler using the principles of 'ijtihad', 'expediency' and 'important'. Under each of the sub-discourses, tactics for Islamic diplomacy are considered. In contrast, diplomacy based on national interests promotes a component of 'power' and 'national wealth' that, in achieving the above three goals, may be formulated in accordance with Islamic principles or principles such as utilitarianism, breach of covenant, or colonialism, which can ultimately be felt. The contradiction between these two types of diplomacy is promoted by some media outlets through an artificial and mischievous confrontation, and national interests, including ideological foreign policy, are served.