GEOPOLITICS QUARTERLY
Year:2011 | Volume:7 | Issue:2 (22)|Papers Count:8

Over the years the nuclear program of Iran and evolution of events related to it has been the focus of international attention which in turn, transformed it into the most important challenge in the foreign policy activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as providing the grounds for an effective role for The European Union and other powers such as the United States and the Russian Federation. The crisis caused as a result of these international policies has been in did a challenge to the East-West relations in the entire decade of 2000. The role that Russia plaid in this crisis has been of particular interest to the onlookers. To some of these onlookers, Russia had from the start adopted a role in this crisis which has basically concentrated on enhancing its own perceived self interest, while coordinating efforts with the West pretended that it supported Iran’s position. This enabled Russia to maximize its interests in relations with the IRI. But when it came to it, Russia’s support for Iran evaporated and replaced sometimes even by cautioning Iran in the way that satisfied Western friends. All along Russia displayed a position of advocacy for Iran and her rights to Nuclear energy as well as opposing military action against her. This situation resulted in adaption of a vague and unclear position vis-a-vis Washington’s decisive and clearly policies of confrontation against Iran’s nuclear energy program. The result of this vague and unclear standpoint in Russia’s position has been prolongation of the crisis itself. This research will is designed to answer the question that whether Russia’s adaption of vague policy stance and use of delay tactic has been a factor that prolonged the Iranian nuclear energy crisis? The results from this research prove this. The method used for this research is use of library and document centres, benefiting from opinion polls and statistics as well as expertise broadcast in the media and information network. The research hypothesis: this research has followed the hypothesis that based on the information processed herein Russia’s delay tactic and prolongation of Iranian nuclear energy crisis is in keeping with that power’s overall geopolitical competition both with the West globally and with Iran at a regional level.

Entering upon the 21st century, oil as a vital source and strategic energy is still playing important role in the life of oil-rich countries. Acquisition of this valuable energy led to a profound change and transition in the socio-political structure of these nations. It was these transformations that led theorists such as Mahdavi, Beblavi and Lavisyani to present their views about rentier states. Based on these theories, the countries where income from underground resources (preferably oil) forms 42% of their total revenues are called rentier states. Iran, too, is one of the principal petroleum producing and exporting countries that according to available figures and data has accounted over 42% of its entire income from oil until the last few years. Some of the Iranian researchers believe that the oil revenues to the state treasury have largely caused centralization and the emergence of modern government particularly absolutism. Studying oil revenues as an independent variable, the current piece of research aims to highlight and deliberate their impacts on the centralization of political powers. Consequently, with historical-descriptive research methodology, it tries to find answers to the queries such as: Whether the present Iranian state can be considered a rentier one? Whether or not spatial distribution of political powers in Iran has been affected by oil revenues over the last hundred years?The paper concludes that although oil incomes especially during the second Pehlavi era have been key factor in strengthening political powers. But in the first Pehlavi era or presently, despite the fact that the state is not dependent on oil revenues, even then we are witness to the process of centralization of political powers. Therefore, it can be said that oil incomes though laterally have been effective in the absence of spatial political power but that cannot be the actual reason.

This research paper attempts to answer this question that “where Iran stands in the American_ Chinese relations in the post-cold war era?” In response to this question, the research, analyzes the American strategic thinking, the sources to threat to international security and how to manage them as perceived by American security elites and how it relates to Iran. Then Chinese perspective on global security is examined. Within these two conceptual frameworks, the "Iranian-American-Chinese" triangle is scrutinized. The paper argues that Chinese- Iranian relations are influenced by Chinese-American strategic partnerships and economic interdependency is such that china limits its interactions with Iran to economic and energy sphere and regardless and its declaratory position on unjust international order, is in relation coordination with U.S in global security arrangements against Iran.

Globalization as the key element of international economic integrations has changed spatial structure of urban system in national and international levels and created new spatial organization and articulation in urban system. In this article we are going to analyze the presses of formation of that new articulation. So, traditional and new models of urban system formations have compared with together, than recognized the characteristics of globalized urban network formation. Next, we have mentioned the rank and ratio of cities which sited in core, semi-periphery or periphery countries in globalization era. As a result, Paris has enhanced its global roles during 1981 to 2000 and has sited next to the Friedman’s world cities (London, New York, Tokyo). Methodology of this article absolutely is analytical and based on literature review.

The Country's divisions is the process of country's space break to smaller units in order to easier governing, better security, and improving social and economical conditions. In fact, it is one of the most important implementations that governments use in order to managing the country'political environment. In Iran, the country’s divisions has a long history. It came back to the first kingdom of Iran (Achaemenid Empire) and continues unit now. Governments use this to better governing of the country’s region. We can see that in this long history (about 2500 years) many factors such as Country’s geographical extent, region’s natural traits. Dispersal and diversity of races, descents and religions, military issues, urban centers and etc. Have had influenced country’s divisions. In resent period factors such as ecological minorities, strategic environment, country’s peripheral regions etc. Also have influence in this field. It is clear that these factors do not have equal influences on creation of smaller political and ministerial units in different periods. Therefore, in this paper we divided these factors in two periods : first, ancient period that starts from first kingdom and continues until the first Country’s divisions law in 1285. The second one is modern that starts from the first Country’s divisions law and formation of intensive and comprehensive government and continues until now. In each of these two periods many contrary and varied factors affected country’s divisions, but the most important factor in ancient period was country's geographical extent, and in modern period is intensive form of government.

Being a homogeneous ethnical community considered as strength points and promoting geopolitical value in etch country, but it such a state cannot be achieved, country and society won't be devastated, but the interaction type of ruling construct about minority group (whether in terms of quantitative or in outlook of their participation in political power) would be determining, which construct interaction in this manner would lead to improve geopolitical value But in the hand, in different cases de-identification policy and assimilation from minority have not any result but geopolitical crisis, which ethnic conflicts–political divergence are obvious symbols of such a situation.By the above approach, this study are sought to answer the question of what are the affective geopolitical factors and the crisis of Turkey's Kurdistan. Considering analytical and explaining method, and experience of heterogeneous countries in dealing with forming minorities of country's geography, lauding to that which racial and linguistic discrimination, it's managed properly, not only results to political divergence, But also strengthen the country's political unity. Thus type of interaction and policy of ruling construct to Kurdish minority in Turkey will determine Kurdish behavior construct.So that the positive interaction of Ottoman Empire leads to political divergence and strengthen imperial authority, But non–making extrovert–interaction for centralization of power and establishment, of nation–state in Turkey, which have a lot of minorities, towards Kurdish People have been cursed to ethnic conflicts, political regional–orientation, and ultimately to political divergence.

Sudan enjoys significant geopolitical position in the Dark Continent as the largest country in Africa. The vast outspread of this country bearing natural sources such as oil, gold and a variety of mine sources has given high diversity to this country. Also, Sudan bears a prominent status in the region and the Islamic world in political and cultural aspects. Therefore, it has constantly been a prey for the colonizers and one of the most important spots for great international disputes. A review of the transformations in the region level and this country shows that several of the crises, added to the internal and regional disputes, particularly disputes of the district countries with Sudan, has been based on the benefits and desires of colonizing and beyond district countries. On the other hand the opposition of certain country parts with the central government and the enforcement of one-sided policies by the central government, in addition to the crises in the south of the country, has gradually led to crises in identity, resource distribution and ultimately civil war between the central government and the inhabitants of the western part of the country. The Darfur crises arises from the intervention of a few interlinked factors, it has roots in social unfairness between the center and north of Sudan with other regions which has furthermore intensified with factors such as famine, growth population growth and appearance of desserts, whereas political expediencies and regional policies has turned it to a crises beyond a territorial crises. The United States, the United Kingdom and western countries, in addition to the United Nations, made an attempt to induct the Darfur crises as ethnical and racial struggles, and suggested that it was a war between the Arabs and Africans which was interpreted as the violation of human rights by the Sudan government, misusing this device for putting pressure on the Sudan government. Still, it seems that the causes of the crises and it roots go beyond a simple ethnical, racial and tribal struggle for meadows, greeneries and the destruction of the lands of the local Africans by the Arabs during migration. In this respect these issues have intervened and should therefore be considered in causing the crises, geopolitical factors which have roots in geographical and political isolation, change in the climate, problems related to lack of spreading the central government to other regions which pursues a central- peripheral pattern, along with the high outspread of the country, vast scope, lack of unity between the Muslims of north and the peripheral areas, the bad performance of the elite in the crises control, the opposition of the Sudan government with the governing policies regarding the international system and the attempt of the external powers for making a change in the behavior and even the government in Sudan, the role of South Peace Talks in the acceleration of the crises, in addition to the role of the neighborhood countries. The Darfur dispute can be analyzed and interpreted in the control and Resource distribution crises, identity crises and external interferences which can lead to the crises of legitimacy and ultimately decrease the central power and authority. The major question of the present article is, what are the impacts of geographical and political factors in the formation and persistence of Darfur's crises? This research is based on a hypothesis, the most significant factor in the formation of this crises (initial factors) are political and a result of a gap between different country regions, especially south and west with the north and center, while its persistence has led to ethnical and identity crises, resource distribution ( establishment of center and marginal parts in the country) and ultimately the legitimacy crises, whereas geographical factors (particularly changes in climate) and regional and international interventions has resulted in its persistence and solidity. In this article the status of Darfur as a land, the formation of political groups and their demands, the foundation of center-periphery, the effects of climate change and political and geopolitical transformations related to the Darfur crises are surveyed in a descriptive-analysis and statistical method.