Javad Hamidi Ravari; Farhad Hamze; Ali Bijani
Abstract
nowadays , efforts to improve national security are among the concerns of governments and basic bases of their foreign policy .in this context , the actors in the region are trying to expand their geopolitical realm in recent years this approach has been based on aggressive realist theory and support ...
Read More
nowadays , efforts to improve national security are among the concerns of governments and basic bases of their foreign policy .in this context , the actors in the region are trying to expand their geopolitical realm in recent years this approach has been based on aggressive realist theory and support of militias and people groups in different countries in recent years .in the meantime , the countries of turkey , saudi arabia , qatar and iran have used special tactics and different groups in order to increase penetration and power in these equations . ~~~ in this context , in recent years , lebanon 's hezbollah , which is one of the allies of islamic republic of iran , has been able to achieve victory and its balance can expand its geopolitical position .in this regard , the present study has been conducted with descriptive - analytical and applied approach to the power of ای region in improving the geopolitics of iran .the population of the study consists of all military and geopolitical experts , whose sample size was estimated to be 40 .in order to analyze the data , test - retest , pearson correlation and pearson " s correlation were used .the main question of this research is : what is the relationship between the power of the islamic republic of allah and the promotion of geopolitics of iran ?the results showed that there is a direct relationship between the power of the حزب and the withdrawal of american troops from the middle east and the decline of the influence of the saudi , israeli , uae and qatar intrusions and the increase in the power of the hezbollah party in the syrian crisis and the political equations in the middle east region .
javad hamidiravari; Farhad Hamze; Ali Bijani
Abstract
Throughout history, political geographers have paid special attention to the effects of the Middle East region on global powers and the effects of Middle East crises on the balance of power at the regional levels. In recent years, the crisis of the Syrian civil war has been one of the developments that ...
Read More
Throughout history, political geographers have paid special attention to the effects of the Middle East region on global powers and the effects of Middle East crises on the balance of power at the regional levels. In recent years, the crisis of the Syrian civil war has been one of the developments that have turned this country into a new camp on the line of strategic competition. The destabilization project of Syria was raised as a factor in the direction of weakening the resistance front and regional containment of Iran. Therefore, the Syrian crisis provided an arena for the presence of regional and trans-regional actors in the Middle East region. Lebanon's Hezbollah that is one of the allies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Resistance Front played a prominent role in the victory of the Resistance Front against the opposition forces of the Syrian regime. Hezbollah has focused on the Syrian civil war, according the regional goals of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The main question of the current research is that what were the most important achievements of the Hezbollah in the Syria and which role did the Hezbollah play in Iran's regional policies? The results showed that the military and strategic achievements were the most important ones of Hezbollah in the Syrian civil war. In this regard, Hezbollah was able to play an effective role in Iran's regional policies.
Younes Forouzan; Abdolreza Alishahi
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction
In principle, the nature of foreign policy of the United States, especially among Republicans, is based on issues such as strong support for Israel, emphasis on fighting with enemies, unwillingness to compromise with political and military rivals, and the ...
Read More
Extended Abstract
Introduction
In principle, the nature of foreign policy of the United States, especially among Republicans, is based on issues such as strong support for Israel, emphasis on fighting with enemies, unwillingness to compromise with political and military rivals, and the maximum interest of the United States in the shadow of intimidation and threats. This has posed a serious challenge in the West Asian region, especially with the growing strength of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the post-ISIS era and the formation of a powerful Shiite coalition. In this article, the authors attempt to provide an answer to this question: What was the cause of the assassination of Major General Ghassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps by Trump? And then what are the possible implications for the future of the region's security? The paper's hypothesis, based on Haug Miall's cyclic model theory, implies that the historical backdrop of the crisis goes back to the time of concluding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in addition to the historical hostilities after the Islamic Revolution. The stage of this crisis is related to the growing formation of the Shiite resistance front during the rise of ISIS and Post- ISIS and the imposition of heavy US economic sanctions on the IRGC in the region. In the confrontation phase, the direct and indirect military challenges and threats of the two countries against each other such as placing the Revolutionary Guards on the list of international terrorist groups can be mentioned. And finally, in the mediation phase, we can mention Japan's mediation activities.
The paper's findings also indicate that the failure of Trump's policies at all stages, his impeachment of Democrats within the US political system, and ultimately the need for a major breakthrough to succeed in the upcoming election make him eventually to assassinat Major General Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Review of Literature
The "Conflict Cycle Model" was proposed by Miall Haug, in which several steps are considered for a crisis. This step is as follows:
Crisis potential stage;
Crisis Development Stage;
Mediation and mediation of international and regional organizations and powers;
Stage of collision and confrontation.
Method
The research method of this article is historical sociology.
Findings and Discussion
In the crisis potential stage: Trump believes that the jcpoa agreement has brought down the hegemony of the United States and has increased the power of Iran and the Revolutionary Guards. So he canceled the deal at this point;
In Crisis Development Stage: Trump stressed the expansion of the Shiite sphere of influence in the Middle East and the threat of Shiites to Israel (which is a strategic ally of the United States in the Middle East) to create a crisis with the Revolutionary Guards;
In Mediation and mediation of international and regional organizations and powers: In this Stage, Trump sent Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Tehran to mediate between him and Islamic Republic officials So that he can create the conditions for a new agreement.
In Stage of collision and confrontation: At this stage, Trump first placed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under terrorist groups. Then, He imposed economic sanctions on this group and eventually, he threatened war and direct confrontation (sending warships to the Persian Gulf). Trump's failure to persuade the Islamic Republic to sign a new treaty and the need for a major breakthrough to succeed in the upcoming election, He eventually assassinated Major General Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Conclusion
The Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly challenged US hegemony in the Middle East and has sought to limit US influence. In fact, Iran has always defined the US presence in the region as a security challenge, not as a precursor to a regional security system. After the rise of ISIS, the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, supported its strategic allies, Syria and Iraq. The support that continued to lay the groundwork for a deep Shiite coalition led to the relative decline of ISIS. This should be considered a great achievement for Iran, along with the formation of the Popular Mobilization Forces military in Iraq and Hezbollah in Syria, because the nature of these military groups is the same as the opposition to US policies. For this reason, the United States, after the fall of ISIS, considered Iraq and Syria as a kind of loser, and its main analysis was based on the extensive influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in these countries and some other Middle Eastern countries such as Yemen and Afghanistan. As a result, Trump, while placing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under international terrorist groups, eventually assassinated Major General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes so that he would not see his interests lost in these countries any more. Trump's terrorist act could pose a major security, economic and military challenge to the United States and its allies in the Middle East. An action that will face strong Shiites reactions in the not-too-distant future.
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.
