Chrono Politics of Energy Relations of Iran and Turkey after the Collapse of the Soviet Union

Document Type : مقالات علمی -پژوهشی

Authors

• Leila- Babakhani Leshkan ¹
• Elaheh Koolaee ²
• Ezatollah Ezzati ³

¹ Islamic Azad University, Islamic Studies and Research Branch, Iran

² University of Tehran

³ Islamic Azad University

https://doi.org/10.22067/pg.v2i6.66083

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Chrono Politics (geopolitics of time) is the concept of time management and the use of geopolitical opportunities. Since 1991, Iran and Turkey have been the bridge of the important areas of the world and this homogeneous geopolitical transformation has led to rivalry of the two countries. Because of the hostile policies of the West, Iran’s position in the region has not been based on the real capabilities. On the other hand, Turkish geopolitics was emerged based on the energy pipelines, and today, Turkey is an energy hub in the region. American hostilities, Iran’s failures in diplomacy and the approach of Turkish leaders, position this country in a distinguished position, despite the lack of energy resources.
East-West strategy (Western Europe, Republic of Azerbaijan, Turkey and the United States) is the Policy of everything without Iran. Because of the hostile policies of the United States and the West, the position of Iran in the region is not based on the real capabilities and Turkey has become the regional power.
2. Theoretical Framework
Geopolitical discourse is about space and time. Now, a shift from Political geography (space policy) to Chrono politics (politics of time) can be noticed. Chrono politics investigates the role of time control in national politics. Croon politic is one of the vital elements of political geography, because at first, policy passes through the time channel. Geopolitics and Chrono politics both meet each other in one point where applied dimensions of geopolitics and Chrono politics are emphasized in political decision-makings. Geopolitics is a combination of politics, power, and the earth, while the subject of Chrono politics is the relations between foreign policy and time.
Chrono politics, in fact, is how elites, intellectuals and officials create structures of power through controlling and distributing time and influencing foreign policy. Hence, Chrono politics in political sciences, especially in world scale, has overtaken geopolitics. Chrono politics is understanding the map of time. Time and space are not two separated phenomena, but they are interconnected. Political geography has to be used in time. Chrono politics is time management which means taking advantage of the geopolitical position and opportunity and not losing time. Cyber space is one of the Chrono politics factors. It does not depend on the territory and land. It considers governments are responsible for foreign and international policies and investigates politics in the form of time.
3. Methodology
This research is a fundamental-theoretical research. The research method is descriptive-analytical. Data is collected based on comparative methodology using the Internet and library sources.
4. Findings and Discussion
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, an intense competition between Iran and Turkey took place because both countries had the opportunity to play as the key political and economic actor in the region. The most fundamental divergent component between them is that Turkey is aligned with the West and the United States and is a member of NATO, and establishes the political, economic and military relations with Israel; hence, it is highly supported by the West while Iran opposes the U.S. and NATO’s policies in the region. Iran does not officially recognize Israel’s existence. Turkey benefits from the geopolitics of energy and Chrono politics of energy in various ways. It has strengthened its political influence in addition to economic exploitation through increasing the number of oil and gas pipelines. The new geopolitics of Turkey was defined after the Cold War and is based on the energy corridors. Europe geopolitical weakness is its dependence on turkey energy, which has reinforced Turkey’s geopolitical potential more than before.
Because of the fundamental difference between Iran’s policy and the geopolitics of America, Turkey does not allow Iran to grow in the area of energy transfer. Americans and Europeans have linked political and economic issues to use safer, easier and cheaper routes out of Iran territory. The weakness of Iran’s foreign policy causes it cannot benefit from its geostrategic position to become the main route of energy transmission between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf regions.
5. Conclusion
Iran doesn’t benefit the Chrono politics of energy, although energy of Iran, both in terms of resources and transmissions, has a unique position compared to its rivals, in particular Turkey; it is the world’s first gas supplier and the third largest supplier of oil; it is located between the two major oil and gas depots in the world (the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea); it is immediate neighboring of Caspian Sea countries; it is Standing beside the world high seas and it is able to transfer simultaneously energy to the West and the East (EU-China and India),. Despite the lack of a common border between Turkey and the Caspian region, Turkey has benefited from this position, due to America’s opposition to energy transmission through Iran. Turkey is stronger than Iran to achieve its national interests and economic development through diplomacy in the region and interaction with the world, even as the Turkish authorities have branded their diplomacy as the diplomacy of pressured pipes.
Three solutions are proposed to solve Iran’s problem:
- To transit the energy pipelines of Iran to Turkmenistan and Turkey.
- To identify common points of regional policy.
- To invest on industries jointly with regional unions, especially in the oil and gas industries.
Adopting passive policies in energy diplomacy can weaken national security and cause regional and global tensions against Iran.

Keywords

• Chrono politics
• energy
• diplomacy
• The collapse of Soviet Union
• Iran
• Turkey

References

1. Ahmadipour, Z. et al. (2011). Geopolitical explanation of the formation of regional organization in the Caspian Sea geopolitical zone of Central Asia, Afak Security, Quarterly Journal, No 12. 71-103. [In Persian].

2. Alishahi, A.R. & Salarwand, M. (2016). Comparative Study of Energy Diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia from 2001 to 2016, Cultural and Political Studies Quarterly of the Persian Gulf, No.9, pp. 11-43. [In Persian].

3. Atai, F. (2012). Iran and the South Caucasus Countries, Central Eurasia Studies, 5(10).119-136.

4. EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) (2017). Country Analysis Brief: Turkey, Available at: https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis. cfm?iso= TUR, Accessed on: 2017/06/12

5. Faraji Rad, A. & Shabani, M. (2013). Russian Politics in Central Asia and the Caucasus and its Challenges after the Cold War, Geographical Quarterly of the Territory, 10(39). 1-18. [In Persian].

6. Fuller, G. (2008). The new Turkish Republic: Turkey as a Pivotal State in the Muslim World, United States Institute of Peace Publication. 67-115. https://www.ecosia.org.

7. Ghaebi, M.R. (2016). Political Economy of Relations between Iran and Turkey during the period of the AKP Government, Foreign Policy Quarterly of the CM, No. 2. 113-85. [In Persian].

8. Hadizadeh, M. & Ezzati, A. (2014). The role of geo-economics in the strategic goals of Iran in the twenty-first century of the world, Geographic Quarterly of the Territory, 11(44). 1-12. [In Persian].

9. Herzik, E. (1995). Yerevan and the Southern Soviet Union, translated by Kamaia Ehtashami Akbari, Tehran: Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication. [In Persian].

10. Islam, M. N. (2015). Economic Growth, Repression, and State Expenditure in Non-Democratic Regimes, European Journal of Political Economy, 37. 68-85.

11. Khoury, A. (2013). Arab Cold War Revisted: The Regional Impact. Middle East Policy, 20(2). 73-87.

12. Kirchner, E. & Roberto D. (2013). Regional Organizations and Security Management, (Abbasi, M., Trans.). Publications of the Institute of Cultural Studies and Research of International Contemporary Abrar Contemporary Tehran. [In Persian].

13. Kirisci, K. & Neslihan K. (2011). The Politics of Trade and Turkish Foreign Policy, Middle Eastern Studies, 47(5). 705-724.

14. Kolaee, E. & Goodarzi, M. (2013). Caspian Sea, Challenges and Prospects, Tehran: publication of the Mizan. [In Persian].

15. Kolaee, E. & Goodarzi, M. (2014). The Effect of the Developments in the Relations between Armenia and Turkey on the Relations between Armenia and Iran, Geopolitical Quarterly, 11(1). 70-83. [In Persian].

16. Kolaee, E. et al. (2016). Kurdish issue in the relations between Iran and Turkey, Geopolitical Quarterly, 12(3). [In Persian], 1-27.

17. Marketos Thrassy, N. (2009). Turkey in the Eurasan Energy Security Melting pot China and Eurasia forum Quarterly, 7(4(.95-113.

18. Mirahmadi, F. & zaki, Y. (2016). The scope of post-modern geopolitical studies, political geography research, 1(3). 95-128. [In Persian].

19. Morse, E. & Bremmer, I. (2003). The disappearing Caspian, Eurasianet, Available at: http:// www. Eurasianet. Org/ departments/ business/ articles/ eav011003. Shtml, (Accessed on: 17/ 12/2016)...

20. Mousavi, H., Barzegar, K. & colleagues (2015). The Impact of the Arab World Developments on the Regional Politics of Iran and Turkey, Geopolitical Quarterly, 12(1). 186-166. [In Persian].

21. Ó Tuathail, G. (1996 b). At The End of Geopolitics? Reflections on A Plural Problematic Century End, www.toal.net/publication.

22. Ó Tuathail, G. (1998). Postmodern geopolitics? The modern geopolitical imagination and beyond. In S. Dalby & G. O. Tuathail (Eds.). Rethinking geopolitics: Towards a critical (pp. 16-38). London and New York: Routledge

23. Ozdem, E. (2010). Turkey Middle East Policy in the Post Cold War Era, History Studies, 9(1). 272-27.

24. Rosencrens, R. (2000). Globalization and Transformation of the Concept of the Country, Translation: Ahmad Sadeghi, Foreign Policy Quarterly, 14(2). 1-9. [In Persian].

25. Rumer, E. & Sokolsky, R. & Stronski, P. (2017). U.S. Policy Toward the South Caucasus: Take Three, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. . http://carnegieendowment.org .2017/613.

26. Serkan Kuni Assist. Iğdır University (2016). Turkey and Iran: an Analysis Based on Mutual Trade and Defense Spending, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences.

27. Slater, D. (2006). Geopolitical themes and postmodern thought. In J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, & G. Toal (Eds.). A companion to political geography (pp. 75-92, 3rd ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing

28. Strimbovschi, S. (2016). Azerbaijan’s Balanced Foreign Policy Trapped in a Volatile Geopolitical Context, Euro Polity, 10(1).121-134.

29. W.Parker, J. (2015). Understanding Putin Through a Middle Eastern Looking Glass, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University.

30. www.invest .gov.tr

31. Zain al-Abedin, Y. (2017). Geopolitics, Idea, Application, Vol. I, Islamic Azad University Press, Rasht Unit, Second Edition. [In Persian].

32. Ziba khalam, S. & Ghodarzi, M. (2012). Foreign Policy of Iran and Turkey in Central Asia (feasibility of strategic relations between the two countries based on a comparative model). International Relations Journal, No. 21. 165-195. [In Persian].