Mohammad Reza Mofatteh; Abdolreza Faraji Rad; Ribaz Ghorbaninejad; Azam Yousefi
Abstract
Diplomacy is the most important aspects and the most objective forms of a country's foreign policy. This research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive, analytical and exploratory in terms of research method. This study uses ARC GIS software to implement the leveling of national power in the ...
Read More
Diplomacy is the most important aspects and the most objective forms of a country's foreign policy. This research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive, analytical and exploratory in terms of research method. This study uses ARC GIS software to implement the leveling of national power in the target countries (in the GIS environment). It also uses the AHP model to weight the sub-components of public diplomacy. Also, in this study Moran's test has been used to spatially analyze the pattern of distribution of national power indicators, and also the Meta-SWOT method has been used to provide a stable spatial pattern, and 36 sub-components (indices) has been used for the spatial analysis and stratification of Southwest Asian countries based on the public diplomacy component. The findings shows the fact that the countries of Syria and Armenia have played a significant role in increasing the geopolitical weight of Iran and are very important, as well as the countries of Iraq and Georgia are in a position of high importance, and the countries of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Qatar are in a position of medium importance. The UAE, Kuwait, Jordan and Cyprus are in a low-important position. According to the analysis, the results show the fact that the component of public diplomacy follows a cluster pattern. The similar political behavior of the Persian Gulf countries in relation to Iran is one of the geopolitical reasons for this cluster distribution. By strengthening this axis (public diplomacy) the countries of Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Turkey and Qatar can also be added to the list of very important countries and by forming a very strong cluster consisting of the mentioned countries can help to increase the role of the political power of Iran in the region. According to conducted research, the application of economic sanctions has been identified as the biggest challenges and obstacles to the application of regional policies of Iran. Placement in the security environment of Southwest Asia region and the sanctions on Iran's monetary and banking system are considered as the biggest environmental, economic and legal obstacles that require attention due to the size and the degree of influence of each.
Mahmood Mobarakshahi; Mohammad reza Hafeznia; Rebaz Ghorbaninejad; Ebrahim Rumina
Abstract
The Explanaition of the Ontology Iraqi kurdestan Regional Government.AbstractMahmood Mobarakshahi. political Geography phD. Azad Islamic University Science and Research Branch. Tehran.Iran. m.mobarakshahi@gmail.comMohamad Reza Hafeznia. porfessor of political geography.Tarbiat Modares University. Tehran.Iran.hafezn_m@modares.ac.irRebaz ...
Read More
The Explanaition of the Ontology Iraqi kurdestan Regional Government.AbstractMahmood Mobarakshahi. political Geography phD. Azad Islamic University Science and Research Branch. Tehran.Iran. m.mobarakshahi@gmail.comMohamad Reza Hafeznia. porfessor of political geography.Tarbiat Modares University. Tehran.Iran.hafezn_m@modares.ac.irRebaz ghorbainejad.Assistant professor the Azad Islamic University.Science and Research Branch.Tehran.Iran.rebazghorbani@gmail.comEbrahim Romina. Assistant professor of the Tarbiat Modares University. Tehran .Iraneroomina@yahoo.comIt has been 29 years since the formation of the first regional government in part of the Kurdish regions of Iraq. The K.R.G have been studied from different angles; But so far from the ontological point of view, this politico-spatial structure has been studied. This research seeks to study and understand the ontology of this regional government in terms of "nature and essence" and "why and necessity".The research in this research is fundamental in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in nature. the method of data collection is library, and a qualitative method has been used in data analysis. The results of this study show that the effective factors in explaining the ontology of the government of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq are several factors. The most important factor influencing the formation of the Kurdistan Regional Government has been the issue of regional identity. Identity-seeking was a precondition for the formation of the idea of ethnic nationalism and, consequently, the demand for the right to self-determination according to geographical and cultural differences between Kurdistan and other parts of Iraq.Keywords: ontology, regional governments, identity-seeking, ethnic nationalism, federalism, autonomy،Iraqi kurdistan
Mahmood Mobarakshahi; mohammad reza hafeznia; Ribaz Ghorbani Nejad; Ebrahim Roomina
Abstract
Abstract The study of ethnic and claims of ethnicity is one of the topics of interest in the field of humanities studies. Meantime, political geography, as one of the dynamic disciplines in this field and because of its philosophical nature studies and surveys the political dimension of the space with ...
Read More
Abstract The study of ethnic and claims of ethnicity is one of the topics of interest in the field of humanities studies. Meantime, political geography, as one of the dynamic disciplines in this field and because of its philosophical nature studies and surveys the political dimension of the space with a systematic approach, examines the issue of spatial minorities and the distribution of ethnic areas. This article examines the ontology of the regional governments in terms of nature and necessity of forming such structures attempts to answer this fundamental question that what factors justify the nature and necessity of the formation of regional governments? In the field of political geography, "Hartshorne" and "Gottman", by discussing the reason of state's existence, have emphasized the role of divergent and convergent forces in formation and sustaining the state. In this article, discussing and criticizing these theories, we will attempt to survey the effective factors in the ontology or present a theoretical model of the necessity and argument of regional governments that nowadays have emerged in some countries under the federal and autonomous models. The ontology of regional governments is capable to be clarified and survey within the framework of national and independent governments. The nature of such spatial structures would not be possible and lose its status without the existence of a state and an independent national government. This article is fundamental in terms of purpose and it is conducted in the descriptive-analytical method. Due to the nature of the subject, library and documentary methods have been used for data collecting. The results show that factors such as the right to self-determination and regional autonomy, the division of power in different spatial dimensions, identity and spatial perception, the flourishing of regional capabilities, regional identity-seeking, regional and local crisis relief of national territory and space management, establishing understanding and trust among heterogeneous structures, and establishing regional equilibrium, justifies the necessity and the nature of regional state formation.
Rebaz Ghorbaninejad
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Terms and concepts of tension, challenge, dispute, conflict and crisis are commonly used in the literature of political geography and geopolitics and international relations. And they are often used to express types of hostile relations between two countries or rival ...
Read More
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Terms and concepts of tension, challenge, dispute, conflict and crisis are commonly used in the literature of political geography and geopolitics and international relations. And they are often used to express types of hostile relations between two countries or rival powers. Geography and geopolitics of every region play a major role in the establishment of peaceful and friendly relations among nations, or tension and conflict over that region. In other words, the root of many conflicts and tensions in countries relations is in the geographical and geopolitical features. At present, there is no single general theory about tension and conflict accepted by scientists or experts in other fields of political sciences or experts from whom political scientists have inspired. There is no way to determine the source of conflict or war, because not only they are numerous, but also they have been gradually increased.
The research hypothesis is that most of the theories presented by professionals and scholars relating to the sources of tension and conflict between countries have uni-factor or multifactor essence and none of them have succeeded in providing a comprehensive theoretical model. Accordingly, this paper by using descriptive-analytic approaches and using library resources attempts to assess and evaluate theories related to the origins of conflict and tension between countries and by the means of criticism and analysis of theories provides a new theory in the field of factors causing conflict in countries relations.
Review of Literature
The term tension refers to a set of attitudes and tendencies such as distrust and suspicion which people and policy makers have toward others. Tension does not cause conflict by itself, but it enables different parties to show behavior based on conflict if each of them tries to achieve incompatible objectives (Holsti,1991). Conflict is different from tension. Tension usually refers to a hidden hostility, fear, suspicion, and perhaps refers to a desire of dominance or revenge. However, tension does not exceed the level of attitudes and perceptions and does not include mutual deterrent efforts. Although tension often precedes conflict and it is always involved in it, it is not always synonymous with conflict and it is not always consistent with cooperation. However, causes of tension are likely to be related to the causes of conflict. Furthermore, if tension is sufficiently intensified, depending on the extent of its influence on the decision making process, it may be converted independently to contributing factors or outbreak of conflict.
Many of the underlying causes of tension and conflict between countries are considered in the realm of geographical and geopolitical factors and values. In other words, although occurring conflicts between countries may be affected by political or ideological factors, the vast majority of tensions and conflicts between countries have geographical origin and geographical values are the roots in the perceived national interests of the parties. Even if ideological and political factors are well analyzed, it becomes clear that such factors are also directly or indirectly have geopolitical nature.
Method
This article is based on descriptive-analytic technique and the data collection procedure is generally based on library research. In library research, the emphasis has been put on the examination of documents, reference to the relevant domestic and foreign books, periodicals and newspapers, articles, magazines and internet websites. After data collection and classification, the data analysis has been mainly carried out using descriptions based on logic and reasoning.
Results and Discussion
Model presented by Hypothetica from Peter Hagget is an attempt to study geographical factors causing tension in relations between countries. This model involves a hypothetical country called The Hypothetica which has a set of specific conditions causing disputes with its neighbors. The hypothetical country is landlocked and has potential twelve points causing tension in relations with its neighbors (Hogget, 1983, 2001). Hagget presented this model for the first time in 1972 in the first edition of his book Geography: A Modern Synthesis. This model has been mentioned without any change in subsequent editions of the book in 1975, 1995 and 1983. Also, in a new book by Hagget called Geography: A Global Synthesis which was published in 2001, this issue has been mentioned (Hogget, 1972, 1975, 1983, 1995, 2001). In his model, Hagget has mentioned geographical and geopolitical factors causing tension between countries, and compared to other theories, has put more emphasis on spatial and regional variables. However, Hagget’s model lacks the variables related to environmental, ecological and geo-economic resources that cause tension. Hence, we cannot consider it as a comprehensive model.
Since geopolitics is the study of the mutual relationships of geography, power, and politics and accounts for consequences resulting from their interaction (Hafeznia, 2006), a model that can explain all sources of tension between counties should include all variables related to three parameters of geography, power and politics. The main drawback of all models is that they consider only one aspect of geopolitics and they have failed to account for all dimensions. According to this view and authors of this article, a model that can explain geopolitical causes of tension and conflict in relations must simultaneously include cultural and geo-cultural, geo-strategic, political, territorial and boundary disputes, geo-economic, hydro-political, environmental and cyberspace related variables.
Each of these groups has several objective and subjective variables which dependently or independently pave the way for tension and conflict between countries. In this classification we have tried to include all geopolitical factors that cause tension and conflict in relations between countries and every factor causing tension and conflict is listed. Thus, we can conclude that this model, to some extent, has the capability to account for all geopolitical sources of tension and conflict in relations between countries.
Conclusion
By looking at theories proposed by experts in the fields of geography, geopolitics, political sciences and international relations in relation to factors that cause tension and conflict in relations between countries, we come to the conclusion that none of these theories have been able to account for all of geopolitical sources which cause tension and have only explained part of these factors. In other words, they have a uni-factor or multi-factor perspective towards the problem and, therefore, they cannot be considered as a comprehensive theory and model in this context. Meanwhile, Peter Hogget (1972) and John Collins (1998) have tried to take a comprehensive and multi-dimensional look at the issues of tension and conflict between countries, and in their theories, they have pointed out different variables such as strategic, cultural, economic, environmental and hydro-political factors. However, they have also failed to provide a model that account for all geopolitical sources that cause tension in relation between countries. According to this view, a model that can explain the causes of tension and conflict in relations between countries should simultaneously take into account cultural, geo-cultural, geo-strategic, and territorial and boundary disputes, geo-economic, hydro-political, environmental variables and factors related to the functioning of cyberspace. Each of these groups has several objective and subjective variables which dependently or independently pave the way for tension and conflict between countries.
Masoud Abdi; Abdolreza Faraji Rad; Rebaz Ghorbani Nejad
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The “cooperation” element in Tehran-Moscow relations in a number of cases such as the fight against terrorism, arms deal, and participation in implementing nuclear facilities has risen to a high level of “importance”; meanwhile, analysts have used notions ...
Read More
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The “cooperation” element in Tehran-Moscow relations in a number of cases such as the fight against terrorism, arms deal, and participation in implementing nuclear facilities has risen to a high level of “importance”; meanwhile, analysts have used notions such as “strategic unity” and “strategic partnership” to describe and analyze the relations between the two nations. Nevertheless, given the occurrence of the “tension” element in these relations due to factors such as Russia’s agreement with the approval of the Security Council’s Resolutions against Iran and refraining from the delivery of S-300 missile system to the Islamic Republic, a number of analysts have opposed the “hypothesized strategic” relations between Iran and Russia. By conducting a comparison between the concept of “strategic relations” and the relation between the two countries, the present study seeks to provide answers to the aforementioned ambiguities. Subsequently, the purpose of this study is to examine the requirements and components for the formation of strategic relations and offer a notion to analyze Iran-Russia relations.
Review of Literature
The theoretical framework of the study involves the conceptualization of the expression, “strategic relations” as well as offering its components and indices. The subject of strategic relations oversees certain relationships among nations with strategic dimensions. Relations between governments refer to the entire interactions that can be defined within the spectrum of cooperation to competition and tension (good or bad). As a result, it can be inferred that the word “relations” in the expression, “strategic relations”, is a neutral word; therefore, this concept cannot be exclusively used to be referred to as overseeing cooperation or in other words, “good relations”. The notion of strategic relations incorporate any interactions within the spectrum of good to bad relations based upon competition or cooperation, provided that it occurs in security areas; or whether it follows vital objectives and advantages or whether there are actors involved who are capable of influencing the system. Strategic relations involve different forms such as “unity”, “partnership”, “coalition”, and “competition”. Originally, by defining different forms of strategic relations, countries or governments primarily seek to increase their powers and influence over the international system or mitigate threats. By establishing a form of collaborative strategic relations, they seek to provide deterrence against the threats they are facing.
The expression, “strategic relations” is not a form of relations; it deals with how relations are managed. There is a direct connection between strategic relations and the concepts of national interests and prioritization of actors accordingly. These relations are formed around national interests. It means that primarily, and until there are mutual security concerns, the purpose of strategic relations includes seeking cooperation in a variety of forms, i.e. the positive aspect. However, in case priorities are changed, then the competition between the actors would shape the strategic relations among them: their vital national interest would be affected by the competitions as well. Consequently, strategic relations can be defined as:
A spectrum of bi- or multilateral relations formed over time, the nature of which is based upon cooperation and competition in different fields of politics, military, security, economy, society, and the environment, provided that it incorporates “strategic actions”, “activism of strategic actors”, “strategic consequences”, and “occurrence within strategic areas”.
Method
The present inquiry is a descriptive-analytical study with the purpose of examining the legality that governs relations along with the variable of the study. Data collection was carried out using library studies, document and content examinations, and field works such as questionnaires, interviews, and observations.
Findings and Discussion
4.1. Comparing the requirements of the formation of Iran-Russia strategic relations:
The presence of strategic interests and purposes in overlapping domains: There are numerous mutual, overlapping, and opposing purposes and interests in Iran and Russia’s regional and international strategies; yet, each involves exclusive discretions that prevent higher degrees of cooperation between the two nations;
The presence of an urgent enemy or threat, or a mutual competitor: One of the mutual purposes of the two nations includes confronting the presence and influence of the US and the West across the surrounding regions of Iran and Russia; however, the extent and severity of threats are not perceived equally by both Tehran and Moscow;
Mutual understandings with respect to the international system and its regulations: Despite both Russia and Iran being revisionist nations, Russia seeks improvement within the present system framework while Iran pursues the transformation of the system and establishing a new order;
The presence of political will in leaders: Though such a will is present in the Islamic Republic, it does not appear that the Kremlin possesses the same will to improve relations with Iran at the level of collaborative cooperation in strategic relations such as unity or partnership;
The uniqueness of relations between two parties: Indices to assess this component include continuous meetings between the leaders, extensive economic, political, and military-security cooperation, the presence of a friendly atmosphere in bilateral relations, and the long-lasting interactions between the two nations. These indices were not observed in the case of Iran-Russia relations;
Institutionalization and regularity of relations: The tangible indices of this component includes following a particular pattern in relations as well as establishing higher institutions to advance relationships. Examinations into Iran-Russia relations during the past few years did not indicate any regularities or following a specific pattern; moreover, it appears that Tehran-Moscow relations may be significantly affected by certain events and it is possible that the attempts of one party to focus on competitive purposes could result in extensive challenges with the other.
Conclusion
Interaction between Iran and Russia in the area of foreign policy is a function of both nations’ perception of their position in the international power structure as well as their own geopolitical requirements. The two nations have numerous mutual, competitive, and opposing geopolitical purposes and interests and there are strong barriers and discretions against any type of cooperation; meanwhile, adapting the interests and purposes and reaching agreements on how to follow them can bring about countless benefits for both countries. Therefore, regarding the relations as solely being strategic or a type of unity would not affect their nature and the type of actions. According to the above examinations, the relations between Iran and Russia is currently a “watchful partnership” or a type of “forced cooperation”; it refers to selective cooperation in cases and subjects against which both countries perceive themselves as being obligated to take mutual actions. The realization of strategic relations between the two parties by Iran requires a clear definition and a consensus over national interest priorities, threats, and objectives. If Russia seeks to reinforce its position at the region and in the world, i.e. remaining as an independent nation and not a member of the Western Bloc, then Russians should reach an agreement to rely on I.R. Iran as a dependable, powerful ally that is capable of asserting influence in line with mutual interests.
