International Relations
Seyedreza Mousavinia; Seyed mohammad Aminabadi
Abstract
IntroductionThe distribution of power in the international system and the relationship between the two are important indicators for the analysis of international crises. There is a direct relationship between the structure of the international system and stability, conflict, and crisis; therefore, the ...
Read More
IntroductionThe distribution of power in the international system and the relationship between the two are important indicators for the analysis of international crises. There is a direct relationship between the structure of the international system and stability, conflict, and crisis; therefore, the nature, consequences, and management of international crises as well as behavioral patterns of international actors all vary according to the structure of the international system. The present research seeks to explain the relationship between the two by focusing on the negative and positive impact of the bipolar structure on the escalation of the Syrian crisis. It is assumed that the behavior of states is influenced by the structure of the international system, be it unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, or transitional.The study tries to answer the key question as to how the positive and negative role of the bipolar structure contributed to the escalation of the Syrian crisis. The research is based on the main hypothesis that the lack of systemic limitations particular to the bipolar structure of the Cold War restricted identity, ideological, and geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East region during the Syrian crisis, and that the crisis escalated—from both negative and positive perspectives—due to the emergence of the putative bipolar structure at the regional level through the zero-sum game between the two regional poles, namely Iran and Saudi Arabia, along with their regional allies and proxy arms. Despite the extensive literature both about the Syrian crisis and about the impact of the structure of the international system on international crises, no independent research seems to have been conducted on the negative and positive impact of the bipolar structure on the Syrian crisis, so the present research has novelty in this respect.The structure of the international system and the Syrian crisisThis research argues that the distribution of power in the international system, also known as structure, undeniably affects the political and security dynamism at the level of the regional (sub)systems. During the Cold War, the two superpowers could not be indifferent to the instability in the strategic regions of the world because any instability and crisis therein would lead to an ideological vacuum and the possibility that the vacuum would be filled with rival ideologies—hence changes in the status of the satellite countries. However, the collapse of the bipolar system and the end of the Cold War resulted in a period of instability in the international system. According to Waltz and Mearsheimer, the systems that are not bipolar are unstable, and the instability undeniably affects the escalation of international crises and conflicts, such as the Syrian crisis.The Syrian crisis was characterized by the lack of bipolarity, a transitional period in the international system, and the absence of a new system and establishment of new rules. As a result, the US, uncertain about its strategy for stepping in the crisis, transferred its responsibility for maintaining the stability of the system to its regional allies; consequently, the intervention of regional actors, as one of the main factors, contributed to the escalation of the Syrian crisis. Meanwhile, the lack of the stabilizing structure prepared the ground for the formation of a regional bipolar structure centered on Iran and Saudi Arabia and their proxy arms, which would escalate the instability. By defining their interests in the Syrian crisis within the zero-sum game (i.e., maintaining Assad/overthrowing Assad), the regional bipolarity played a big role in escalating the Syrian crisis, and Syria became the main field for the new regional cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.ConclusionSyria was considered as one of the Soviet satellites during the Cold War, so if the Syrian crisis had occurred during the Cold War, Russia would have stepped in the crisis, the US would have withdrawn from it, and regional actors (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey) would not have been allowed to use their proxy forces (e.g., Hezbollah, the Free Army, and Salafi groups) in order to play an independent role in the crisis in line with their interests. The reason is that the bipolar system would not essentially allow the regional actor to play an independent role in the system. However, the Syrian crisis escalated as a result of the end of the bipolar system, the transitional situation in which the rules of the new system had not been established yet, the US strategic uncertainty about how to step in the crisis, its fear of military intervention and experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, its transfer of responsibility to its weak regional allies, the regional bipolarity centered on Iran and Saudi Arabia and their ensuing strong presence with their proxy forces—in line with their predetermined interests—and finally the historical opportunism of Russia to restore its dignity and historical status in the Middle East and support its historic ally.
seyedreza mousavinia
Abstract
The main issue in this article is the introduction, critique and pathology of the extent present model in future research. Future studies are generally limited to studying trends and events identified in the past and present, as well as the development of today's imagination for the future, but it is ...
Read More
The main issue in this article is the introduction, critique and pathology of the extent present model in future research. Future studies are generally limited to studying trends and events identified in the past and present, as well as the development of today's imagination for the future, but it is considered as an unfinished project. Future studies do not entail familiar future, unthoughtful future and genus forecasting in the future cycle. At the same time, competition, complexity, contradiction, turmoil, increasing developments, the growing role of science, and uncertainty are among the main drivers of the future, and limiting future research to the study of current trends, events, and perceptions poses a serious risk. Nonetheless, futures studies provide for the states to make desirable future, and therefore is more advanced than explanatory studies. Our main question is: What is the common pattern in the future study of states behavior in foreign policy and what are the restrictions on it? In response to this hypothesis, the pattern in the future studies of states behavior in foreign policy is extent present, and in this model, the role of familiar future, genius forecasting and unthoughtful future in scenarios making are not clear. The pattern of the extent present will be shown in the future with an example of US sanctions against Iran until 2020. The research method is scenario writing based on the extent present pattern.
seyedreza mousavinia
Abstract
The decision making trend in foreign policy answers how and why a decision is made. Drawing this trend requires the use of an appropriate research method to explain available information and interpret the roles. Despite the limited access to some information on the achievement (Comprehensive Joint Plan ...
Read More
The decision making trend in foreign policy answers how and why a decision is made. Drawing this trend requires the use of an appropriate research method to explain available information and interpret the roles. Despite the limited access to some information on the achievement (Comprehensive Joint Plan of action between Iran with Six World Power), how can we draw the trend of Iran's foreign policy decision-making in this historical event? (Research question and question) This paper aims to introduce the method for the initial drawing of Iran's foreign policy decision making trend by introducing the position of quantitative and qualitative combination of methodology and showing its function and its research merits (research method). The structure of eclectic method in the first phase explains the factors affecting admittance and, in the second stage, provides an understanding of the perception of senior foreign policy decision makers. (The research hypothesis) The author believes that the process of identifying the factors influencing decision making and the way in which those factors are interpreted in the cognitive system of foreign policy decision makers, is the most appropriate method for initiating research on Iran's foreign policy decision making trend. (Results)
seyedreza mousavinia
Abstract
Theorizing History of Iranian foreign relations can help researchers to understand the weaknesses of Iranian foreign policy during last five centuries. This Article is an attempt to explain the attitudes and common patterns of Iranian foreign relations from Safavieh up to Pahlavi's fall in a new theoretical ...
Read More
Theorizing History of Iranian foreign relations can help researchers to understand the weaknesses of Iranian foreign policy during last five centuries. This Article is an attempt to explain the attitudes and common patterns of Iranian foreign relations from Safavieh up to Pahlavi's fall in a new theoretical framework which is called Iranian Realism. In fact, this theory is constructed according to the Iranian foreign relations during last five centuries and it offers pathological perspective to study Iranian foreign relations. Although Iranian Realism borrows some elements from Realism and Neo-Realism, it significantly differs from them. Deterministic influence of an anarchical international system, individualistic, non-institutional decision making process, structural authoritarianism, positive and negative balance making trend, permanent security threats and no convergence of interests between Iran and great powers are some of the key elements of Iranian Realism. In fact, Iranian Realism as its name implies, is an Iranian context-based theory and applicable to Iranian foreign relations during the last five centuries.
