International Relations
Abdul Majid Seifi; hossein delavar
Abstract
As the United States expands its attention to the East in an effort to contain China,Beijing deepens its policy of diversifying its relations in order to reduce the negative effects of the United States'focus on East Asia.Part of this diversification has been leaning towards the strategy of occidentalism ...
Read More
As the United States expands its attention to the East in an effort to contain China,Beijing deepens its policy of diversifying its relations in order to reduce the negative effects of the United States'focus on East Asia.Part of this diversification has been leaning towards the strategy of occidentalism or focusing on West Asia.Among the countries of West Asia,the expansion of China's relations with Saudi Arabia is a good example of China's occidentalism strategy due to its important role in the energy market and its influence on a wide range of Islamic and Arab states.In this regard, the main question of this research is what is the position of occidentalism in China's Strategic behavior?How is the position of Saudi Arabia defined in this occidentalism strategy?The findings of the research show that due The state of power distribution in the international system and the creation of new opportunities in the areas of need for energy resources,Countering the expansion of US influence, and initiatives such as the New Silk Road,the position of occidentalism in China's Strategic behavior has been strengthened and Saudi Arabia has a key position in this strategy.The article is done using historical research method with descriptive-analytical approach and explanatory method
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.
Gholamali Cheganizadeh; Hossein Mahmoudi
Abstract
As Bush get into power in 2001 and as the Conservative ruled his administration, the US administration's perception of the structure and nature of the international system and its dynamics was shaped by 9/11. These perceptions were theorized in the form of the Bush Doctrine, an inconsistent approach ...
Read More
As Bush get into power in 2001 and as the Conservative ruled his administration, the US administration's perception of the structure and nature of the international system and its dynamics was shaped by 9/11. These perceptions were theorized in the form of the Bush Doctrine, an inconsistent approach to the nature and structure of the post-Cold War international system, which resulted at first in a military invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, and then a dramatic invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Under these circumstances, many thought that the next goal of the Bush administration is military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has never been achieved. Relying on this inconsistency (intervening variable), this article addresses the issue of why the United States did not invade the Islamic Republic militarily after the Iraq war. This issue is examined in the strategic literature under the theory and strategy of deterrence. Accordingly, the hypothesis is that the increase in Iran's power and influence (independent variable) as the most important consequence of the Iraq war in US-Iranian relations led to the Bush administration preventing a military invasion of Iran (dependent variable). The finding of this study is to achieve a bifocal model of deterrence of Iran against US aggression.
Abstract
Salafi thoughts and the phenomenon of violent extremism are frequent subjects in political and international studies. A comprehensive study in the field of international relations that based on the interaction between structure and agency, can explain the issue. The main objective ...
Read More
Salafi thoughts and the phenomenon of violent extremism are frequent subjects in political and international studies. A comprehensive study in the field of international relations that based on the interaction between structure and agency, can explain the issue. The main objective of this paper is to study the Salafi- Extremist Islam. Salafist- Extremist groups tend to perform violent struggle to gain power and overthrow governments in order to restore the Islamic caliphate. The main question of this article is that: how International System has affected Salafi- Extremist Islam, during the post-cold war era? Theoretical framework of this paper is Constructivism. Research method in qualitative content analysis. In this regard, we tried to analyze this extremist movement and show how the international system affected these groups.
Abstract
The strategic alliance between Iran and Syria is considered as one of the longstanding regional alliances. However a very important point in the strategic relationship between the two countries is the tendency of Iran toward deepening its strategic relationship with Syria from 2003 to 2011; which started ...
Read More
The strategic alliance between Iran and Syria is considered as one of the longstanding regional alliances. However a very important point in the strategic relationship between the two countries is the tendency of Iran toward deepening its strategic relationship with Syria from 2003 to 2011; which started from U.S. invasion of Iraq until the outbreak of uprising in Syria in March 2011. This paper tries to answer this question: By comparison to 1979- 2003 period, why Iran was more determined to deepen its strategic ties to Syria from 2003 to 2011? Findings show that, systemic pressures including U.S unilateralism in the international system, occupation of Iraq by the U.S. in 2003 and Iran's nuclear issue have been essential variables in pushing Iran toward expansion of strategic ties with Syria from 2003 to 2011. However, these pressures and threats are interpreted through unit-level variables, especially the perceptions of elites from the international system in this period. The research methodology is descriptive-analytic based on qualitative method.
Hossein Salimi; Hamidreza Akbari
Abstract
Political Islam is one of the most influential discourses in the Middle East and the Islamic world and has a significant role at the global level. In the last century, when social and political demands in the Middle East and the Islamic world reached to critically boundaries, these discourses played ...
Read More
Political Islam is one of the most influential discourses in the Middle East and the Islamic world and has a significant role at the global level. In the last century, when social and political demands in the Middle East and the Islamic world reached to critically boundaries, these discourses played a powerful alternative role in social, political and security sphere. Of course, in the secular and Western approach this role has been accompanied with violence and conflict due to the contrast with the global order and the structure of the international system. Thus, many experts have described this discourse as a negative and disruptive factor in the regional and global order.
In this study, we tried to formulate this discourse in the international system and the Middle East; it includes the following three major components: "The historical, identical and epistemological factors”. It is tried to answer this question that: what are the bases for political Islam’s actions in terms of epistemic assumption in the political system and international arena?
Abstract
The Palestinian issue is a controversial issue in Egyptian foreign policy and its significance depends on the different internal and external factors. The importance of this issue, on one hand stems from the dynamics of the international system, especially the role of the United States and Israel, and ...
Read More
The Palestinian issue is a controversial issue in Egyptian foreign policy and its significance depends on the different internal and external factors. The importance of this issue, on one hand stems from the dynamics of the international system, especially the role of the United States and Israel, and on the other hand from internal factors such as leadership and their conception of national role and active domestic groups such as Islamists. This article applying descriptive - analytical method seeks to answer this question that what is the most important factor for shaping Egypt's foreign policy toward the Palestinians after the Camp David Treaty? This article argues that after the Camp David Treaty, systematic factors such as United States and Israel, have been the most important factors that shapes Egypt’s foreign policy toward the Palestine. The role of systematic factors can be analyzed Egypt's strategic importance and its role in securing Israel and economic - military dependence on the United States.
Ali Adami; Majid Dashtgerd
Volume 1, Issue 3 , December 2013, , Pages 1-28
Abstract
John Mearsheimer believes that great powers used two mains strategies in offensive realism to Contain and control the enemies and rivals. 1) Balance 2) controlling rivals through Buck-Passing. The author attemptsto show examples of United States’ efforts to curb adversaries through the second strategy. ...
Read More
John Mearsheimer believes that great powers used two mains strategies in offensive realism to Contain and control the enemies and rivals. 1) Balance 2) controlling rivals through Buck-Passing. The author attemptsto show examples of United States’ efforts to curb adversaries through the second strategy. There are rivals and dangerous toward Iran and Iran and China are two adversaries which the United Sates wants to contain them through the third party. America tries to control those powers by controlling china through India and controlling Iran through Saudi Arabia
Ali Ashraf Nazari; Aboozar Behzadi
Volume 2, Issue 5 , June 2013, , Pages 75-99
Abstract
Asymmetric conflicts can be described as changes in the passage of timewhich are way different with traditional wars. this paper reviews the natureand extent of asymmetric conflicts such as political violence. The keyquestion is:to what extent political violence can be seen in the context ofasymmetric ...
Read More
Asymmetric conflicts can be described as changes in the passage of timewhich are way different with traditional wars. this paper reviews the natureand extent of asymmetric conflicts such as political violence. The keyquestion is:to what extent political violence can be seen in the context ofasymmetric conflicts, and what mechanisms are needed to address theseconflicts? Far from a reductionist attitude,a set of solutions proposed inorder to reduce these conflicts
