FOREIGN RELATIONS
Year:2009 | Volume:1 | Issue:2|Papers Count:9

President of the Center for Strategic Research The Middle East is one of the most crisis–ridden regions in the world and a number of studies project that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. This article tries to examine the trajectory of the region's economic, energy, political, security, and social developments given the West's policy orientation toward the Middle East and major challenges facing it. It will then attempt to present recommendations for improving the situation. Israeli–Palestinian dispute, instability in Iraq and Afghanistan, extremism, terrorism, arms race, social problems, energy security and poor governance are among challenges that must be addressed. The author argues that the world's, particularly rising Asian powers', dependence on the energy resources of the region will continue to increase while the prevalent security prism through which the Middle East is treated will not go away, and that is the root cause of manifold problems that not only consumes the region but also affects the nature of its relations with the West. Finally, the author presents some broad policy solutions that include the necessity of change in Western attitudes and policies towards the Middle East, chief among them, replacing an overwhelmingly security outlook with a cooperative and partnership framework which pays due attention to priorities such as just settlement of Israeli-Palestinian dispute, expansion of regional cooperation, institution building and comprehensive development.

The Islamic Revolution in 1979 was, in fact, the expression of national sentiments and continuous efforts of Iranian people pursued since the 19th century for emancipation on from foreign domination. Efforts such as trying to find a third force in the era of Nasser-Aldin Shah, struggling for independence during the Constitutional Revolution, and making attempts for creating a negative equilibrium in the era of oil nationalization movement, all aimed at the emancipation from foreign domination. However, after the Islamic Revolution, Western-oriented policies and the alliance with the U.S. were replaced with the neither East nor West slogan. Iranian people who relied upon their revolutionary zeal set aside every conservative tendency and took on an offensive stance. Meanwhile this policy was combined with supporting other Muslim nations along the line of the necessity of preserving the Islamic unity. Today, after 30 years from the victory of the Islamic Revolution, there is a pressing need for studying the past policies and imaginatively about the future courses of action.

The U.S. strategic and long-term goals which are pursued through physical presence as well as efforts to implement economic, political and security reforms prescribed by the Greater Middle East Plan, have significantly influenced recent developments in the Middle East. These goals envisage an ultimate integration of the Middle East into the international political economy. It does not seem that these goals, due to their strategic nature, will undergo radical changes under the Obama administration which came to power on a platform of change. However rhetorical though, they have serious impact on the I.R. Iran's national and regional interests. The U.S. goals include: 1) Securing the energy flow from the region to the West; 2) Furthering the so-called Middle East peace process; 3) Safeguarding Israel's security. To answer the question how the U.S. strategic (and constant) goals in the Middle East influence the I.R.I's interests in the region, first, we study some threatening crises and structures in the Middle East, which have provided a pretext for the U.S. presence. Second, we take a look at the U.S. policies on democracy and human rights promotion in the Middle East based on double-standards. Third, we examine asymmetric aspects of Middle East developments which are not necessarily along with the U.S. interests. Finally, we explore I.R.I's position and capabilities for dealing with probable threats and enhancing her national interests.

Security is a much contested concept that cannot easily be defined anymore. This problem can be traced back to the development of the concept and the theoretical and practical imperatives resulting from the power competition among major powers and general inter-state rivalry. The prevalent paradigms in security studies have all tended to reduce the concept to the realm of power politics and an emphasis on the protection of the state as the primary object of security. Realism and idealism may no longer be the unrivaled theoretical approaches in IR and security studies, but their once dominant weight has left its mark on the field.  The end of the cold war and collapse of the Soviet Union along with new developments in human condition have changed the contour of the field of security studies and International Relations. Scholars are broadening the concept to include not only issues of war and peace but other aspects of global life that affect the security of the state, human beings and the planet. Securitization of social, economic, political and environmental issues have transformed the discipline and broadened the concept of security substantially. On the other hand, the theoretical and epistemological innovations in the field force us to take the social seriously. Thus, what becomes a security threat should be seen in light of the intersubjectively constructed discourse among actors. A state becomes a threat not because it is in "reality" a threat, rather it is framed by the more powerful side in the relations as a threat.  By appropriating the securitization theory developed by the Copenhagen School, this article examines how the U.S. national security documents and policies have "securitized" the Islamic Republic of Iran thereby legitimating its isolation. Furthermore, we will demonstrate five different kinds of securitization that have been utilized to invoke a sense of existential threat that Iran poses for the international community.

Understanding U.S. behavior in international arena depends on identifying the foundations of American hegemony. According to the theoretical framework of this paper, U.S. hegemony has three bases: "material power", "will and decision to become a hegemonic power" and "an ideology for making global legitimacy for hegemon". They constitute three conditions of U.S. hegemony, which are "necessary", "sufficient" and "sustainability". This paper will show that neo-conservatists have planned and followed a new phase of U.S. hegemony. This new hegemony depends highly on material (military) base of hegemony rather than legitimate global ideology and consensus. This neoconservative version of U.S. hegemony diverted American hegemony to American empire and weekend sustainability condition of US hegemony.

Iraq's occupation by the U.S. in 2003 led to important developments influencing Iraq in particular and the entire Middle East in general. The study of the successes and failures of U.S. operations in Iraq is also of great importance due to the facts on the ground. The progress of these operations and their limitations, practical deadlocks and consequences would shape the form and content of U.S. actions in the Middle East. On the other hand, U.S. strategy in the region has a major impact on the I.R. Iran's security and national interests. Therefore, studying U.S. operations in Iraq and their consequences are of great importance. One should not forget that the failure of U.S. military strategy in Iraq was the result of inadequate knowledge about complex social and political realities of Iraq. In fact, the most important lesson the U.S. learned from this war is that conquering a weak country is possible by superior military power, but its occupation over a long period is impossible. 

The article studies Kurdish ethnic movements in Turkey and their impact on its national security. First, referring to the theoretical framework of the Copenhagen School, the authors highlight important issues such as correlation between the nature of government and the necessity of securitization. The process of securitization creates new potentials through making specific issues an urgent priority for the country. However, keeping these issues for medium term in the national agenda would lead to the erosion of national power for solving the problem on the one hand, and to the spread of this weakness to other areas, on the other, which finally would bring about a high degree of instability. In the final section, the authors analyze the impact of increasing influence of Kurds in Northern Iraq and establishment of the regional government of Kurdistan on the intensification of separatist activities among Kurds in Turkey and Turkish government's reaction to them. As for the Kurds inhabiting the Republic of Turkey, it is a proven fact that the Turkish government will use all of its available means to prevent the creation of an independent Kurdistan. On the other hand, the protraction of Kurdish crisis shows that how ethnic differences can undermine the military and economic capabilities of a country such as Turkey. 

Different theoretical approaches in the field of international relations give different answers to existing ambiguities and questions regarding the reasons for expanding Iran-Russia relations in recent years. While realist approaches try to define Iran- Russia cooperation in the framework of great power relations and their permanent efforts for striking a balance, liberal approaches trace the motivations for improved bilateral relations to their mutual material and economic interests. A major issue which is more or less ignored is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union both Iran and Russia were faced with the pressing need for identity reconstruction. This article argues that while Iran and Russia depend on each other as a source for meeting their security needs or providing their rare material interests (hard currency for Russia and boycotted technology for Iran), they look at each other as a source for meeting their identity needs. This article claims that during the post-Soviet era, Iran has been the most important scene where Russia could play as a great power; on the other hand, Russia's behavior has contributed to the prevention of Iran's full international isolation in recent years.