نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار روابط بین‍الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
تعارض و بحران وجود دارد و بر اساس این که نظام بین‍الملل از چه ساختاری برخوردار باشد؛ ماهیت بحران‍ها، پیامدهای آنها، نحوه مدیریت و نیز الگوی رفتاری بازیگران منطقه‍ای و بین‍المللی متفاوت خواهد بود. پرسش اصلی این است که نقش سلبی و ایجابی ساختار دوقطبی چگونه در تشدید بحران سوریه موثر بوده است؟ فرضیه اصلی این است که فقدان محدودیت‍های سیستمیک نظام دوقطبی دوران جنگ سرد که تعارضات هویتی، ایدئولوژیک و ژئوپلیتیک را در منطقه خاورمیانه محدود کرده بود و حلول این ساختار دو قطبی در سطح منطقه‍ای از طریق بازی با حاصل جمع جبری صفر بین دو قطب منطقه‍ای شامل ایران و عربستان همراه با متحدین منطقه‍ای و بازوان نیابتی خود در سوی دیگر از دو منظر سلبی و ایجابی موجب تشدید بحران سوریه شد. در این مقاله چگونگی تعینات ساختاری به صورت سلبی و ایجابی در دو سطح سیستمیک و منطقه‍ای که بحران سوریه را به شدت متأثر نمود، تبیین می‍شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Negative and Positive Role of the Bipolar Structure in the Syrian Crisis (2011–2021) (2021-2011)
نویسندگان [English]
- Seyedreza Mousavinia 1
- Seyed mohammad Aminabadi 2
1 Associate Professor, International Relations, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D Student, International Relations, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
The 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 crisis
This 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.
Conclusion
Syria 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.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- The Syrian Crisis
- Bipolarity
- Stability
- International System
- برچر، مایکل، وینکنفلد، (1382)، بحران، تعارض و بی‍ثباتی، ترجمه علی صبحدل، تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
- --------- (1382)، بحران در سیاست جهان: ظهور و سقوط بحران‍ها، ترجمه میرفردین قریشی، تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
- --------- (1382)، بحران در سیاست جهان: یافته‍ها و مطالعات موردی، ترجمه حیدر علی بلوچی، تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
- بوزان، بری؛ ویور، اُولی، (1388)، مناطق و قدرت‍ها، ترجمه رحمن قهرمان‍پور، تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
- دهشیار، حسین، (1394)، «بحران سوریه: ابهام استراتژیک امریکا و فرصت‍طلبی روس‍ها»، فصلنامه پژوهش‍های روابط بین‍الملل، دوره 1، شماره 17.
- عبدالله خانی، علی، (1383)، نظریه‍های امنیت؛ مقدمه‍ای بر طرح‍ریزی دکترین امنیت ملی، چاپ اول، تهران: موسسه فرهنگی و تحقیقات بین‍المللی ابرار معاصر.
- مرشایمر، جان، (1388)، تراژدی قدرت‍های بزرگ، ترجمه: غلامعلی چگنی زاده، چاپ اول، تهران: دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین‍المللی وزارت امور خارجه.
Reference
- Abdollahkhani, Abdullah, (2004), Theories of Security; An Introduction to Planning the Doctrine of National Security, Tehran: International Studies & Research Institute, First Edition. [In Persian]
- Benaim, Daniel & Wahid Hanna, Michael, (2019), “The Enduring American Presence in the Middle East”, Foreign Affairs, Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs. com/ articles /midd le-east/2019-08-07/enduring-american-presence-middle-east.
- Brecher, Michael; Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, (2003), Crisis, Conflict and Instability, Translation: Ali Sobhdel, Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. [In Persian]
- Brookings, (2018), “The New Geopolitics of the Middle East: America’s Role in a Changing Region”, Available at: https:// www. brookings. edu/ research/ the-new-geopolitics-of-the-middle-east-americas-role-in-a-changing-region.
- Buzan, Barry & Waever, Ole, (2009), Regions and Powers, Translation: Rahman Kahramanpour, Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. [In Persian]
- -------------------------(2003), Crisis in World Politics: Findings and Case Studies, Translation: Haider Ali Balochi, Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. [In Persian]
- -----------------------, (2003), Crisis in world politics: Rise and Fall of Crises, Translation: Mir Fardin Qureshi, Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. [In Persian]
- Cassidy, John, (2015), “America’s Vital Interests in Syria”, Newyorker, Available at: https:// www. newyorker. com/ news/ john- cassidy/ americas-vital-interests-in-syria.
- Dehshiar, Hossein, (2015), “Syrian Crisis: Regional and Grate Powers”, International Relations Research Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 17. [In Persian]
- Drysdale, Alasdair & Hinnebusch, Raymond A, (1992), Syria and the Middle East Peace Process, New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
- Frolovskiy, Dmitriy, (2019), “What Putin Really Wants in Syria”, Foreign Policy, Available at: https:// foreignpolicy. com/ 2019/ 02/01/what-putin-really-wants-in-syria-russia-assad-strategy-kremlin/.
- Gause, Gregory F, (2014), “Beyond Sectarianism:e New Middle East Cold War”, Brookings, Available at: https:// www. brookings. edu/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2016/06/ English-PDF-1.pdf.
- Hanauer, Larry, (2016), “Israel's Interests and Options in Syria”, Rand, Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE185.html.
- Idan, Avinoam, (2015), “Russia in Syria and Putin's Geopolitical Strategy”, Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, Available at: https:// www. cacianalyst. org/ publications/ analytical- articles/ item/ 13294-russia-in-syria-and-putins-geopolitical-strategy.html.
- Kenner, David, (2013), “Saudi Arabia’s Shadow War”, Foreign Policy, Available at: https: //foreignpolicy.com/2013/11/06/saudi-arabias-shadow-war.
- Lesch, David, ( 2015), “Russia Is Repeating Cold War Mistakes in Syria”, Foreign Policy, Available at: https:// foreignpolicy. com/2015/ 10/06/ russia-repeating-cold-war-mistakes-syria-crisis-1957-nasser-2.
- Manning, Robert A, (2015), “What Does Putin Want?”, Foreign Policy, Available at: https:// foreignpolicy. com/2015/12/18/what-does-putin-want.
- Mersheimer, John, (2009), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Translation: Gholamali Cheganizade, Institute for Political and International Studies, First Edition. [In Persian]
- Mitton, John, (2016), “The Problem with Everybody’s Favourite Solution in Syria”, International Journal, Vol. 71, Issue 2.
- Mohseni, Payam & Ahmadian, Hassan, (2018), “What Iran Really Wants in Syria”, Foreign Policy, Available at: https:// foreignpolicy. com/ 2018/05/10/what-iran-really-wants-in-syria.
- Ostovar, Afshon (2016), “It’s Time to Negotiate With Iran Over Syria”, Foreign policy, Available at: https:// Foreignpolicy. com/ 2016/ 10/ 12/its- time- to- negotiate- with- iran- over- syria- war- russia-rouhani-united-states.
- Perra, Antonio, (2016), “From the Arab Spring to the Damascus Winter: The United States, Russia and the New Cold War”, Contemporary Review of the Middle East, 3(4),1-24.
- Ricks, Thomas E, (2015), “Ryan Crocker on Iraq, and on whether we are seeing the Arab State System Fragment”, Foreign Policy, Available at: https:// foreignpolicy. com/2015/05/26/ryan-crocker-on-iraq-and-on-whether-we-are-seeing-the-arab-state-system-fragment.
- Russia Today, (2018), “US established up to 20 military bases in Syria's Kurdistan - Russian Security Council”, Available at: https:// www. RT. com/news/420092-syria-kurdistan-military-base/.
- Saab, Bilal Y, (2009), “On a New Footing: U.S.-Syria Relations”, Available at: https://www .brookings.edu/articles/on-a-new-footing-u-s-syria-relations.
- Schanzer, Jonathan, (2016), “The Sunni-Shi’ite Proxy War Heats Up”, American Foreign Policy Council, Available at: https:// www. fdd. org/analysis/2016/04/19/the-sunni-shiite-proxy-war-heats-up.
- Shafaq News, (2019), “McGurk: Turkey Refused to Close its Borders to ISIS”, Available at: https:// www. shafaaq. com/ en/ world/ mcgurk-turkey- refused-to-close-its-borders-to-isis/.
- The Telegraph, (2015), “US-trained Division 30 Rebels 'betray US and hand weapons over to Al-Qaeda's Affiliate in Syria”, Available at: https://www.telegraph. co.uk/ news /worldnews/ middleeast/ syria/ 11882195/ US- trained- Division- 30 -rebels -betrayed -US -and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html.
- Wagner, Daniel, (2011), “Turkey’s High Stakes Foreign Policy Gamble”, Foreign Policy Journal, available at: http:// www. foreignpolicyjournal . com /2011/ 09/ 12/ turkeys-highstakes-foreign-policy-gamble/.
- Waltz, Kenneth N, (1967), “International Structure, National Force, and the Balance of World Power”, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 2.
- -------------------- (1979), Theory of International Politics, New York: Random House.
- --------------------- (2000), “Structural Realism after the Cold War”, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 5– 41.
- Walt, Stephen, (2013), “Syria Matters Less Than Everyone Thinks”, Foreign Policy, Available at: https:// foreignpolicy. com/ 2013/09/09/ syria- matters- less-than-everyone-thinks.
- ------------------ (2018), “Good Riddance to America’s Syria Policy”, Foreign Policy, Available at: https:// foreignpolicy. com/ 2018/12/21/ good- riddance- to- americas-syria-policy.
- Zaarour, Bernard, (2018), “Turkish Foreign Policy Toward Syria After 2011: A New Regional Order and the Role of Political Islam”, Harvard Liberary, Available at: https:// dash. harvard. edu/ bitstream/ handle/1/37945085/ZAAROUR-DOCUMENT-2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
)