JOURNAL OF DEFENSE POLICY
Year:2015 | Volume:23 | Issue:1 (89)|Papers Count:7

Due to the specific conditions, Islamic Republic of Iran is facing a series of threats, which are evaluated at three levels. At the first level lie the threats inside the society that are posed against the security of the country as it is suffering from scarcities. Secondly, there are threats against Iran's borders posed by a variety of opposition forces. Predominantly deployed in the neighboring countries’ territory or supported by them, these forces are taking dangerous steps against the national security of our country. Our national security is facing the third type threats that come from the trans-regional forces in the world. However, the author has the second type threats in mind as they are specifically focused on Pakistan, provoking the third type threats. The research question is: “Is Pakistan considered a threat against Iran, considering the fact that the former has nuclear weapons, a population two times that of Iran, and self-sufficiency in various industries?” The research method used is analytical-descriptive, and the data have been gathered via library means. The findings show that the lack of precision in assessing the threats originating from the present condition in Pakistan has extended them, bringing it to a critical point that can account for the crises in the region to include Syria and Iraq.

While studying the interactions shaped between Iran and the United States during the three past decades, this article seeks to answer this question: Where does the use of coercive diplomacy, and its objectives and nature stand in the process of America’s foreign policy against Iran throughout the three past decades. The hypothesis in this research is that the threat to use military force on the part of the United States constitutes one of the most viable means on the international scene to exert its influence. However, the IRI’s efforts to neutralize this means has played a decisive role in corroding the U.S. hegemony, and challenging its effort to exert its power unilaterally in the international regime. T follows that the United States mobilizes all its means to make Iran’s resistance costly, and prevent it from becoming a model for other actors in the international system. Also, this article argues that Iran’s continuous success in this international struggle relies on the people’s continuing presence and preparedness as well as their spiritto resist, proper leadership and management to pursue and sustain intelligent actions, and the Armed Forces’ increased preparedness and their ability to maintain the deterrent capability. The method in this research is analytical-descriptive.

What is given priority in addressing the recent developments in the Middle East is the strong competition between the two major alliances, namely the Moderate Axis and the Axis of Resistance. Syria enjoys a decisively role in the competition between these two conflicting forces. As the West-Arab axis deems the developments in the region part of the efforts to underline its own interests, It follows that it plans to shift the game in its favor by dismantling the governing regime in Syria, and severe the bridge between the two principal actor- namely Iran and Hezbollah- while trying to weaken the axis of resistance. It follows that, although the axis of resistance emphasizes finding a political solution, the moderate movement has taken the use of all the options into account. Through the theory of constructivism which is a recognized framework used for analyzing the developments in the Middle East, this article addresses two conflicting identities- namely resistance and moderation- in the region, explaining the crisis in Syria in terms of the competition among these two movements. Also, this article seeks to answer this question: “What impacts will Iran’s policy of continuing and/or discontinuing its support for Syria, put it differently Asad’s collapse and/or survival, have on the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” As a hypothesis, the temporary answer to the question above is that any effort to support and sustain the present government in Syria as it is now, will be one that will serve the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran and strengthen the axis of resistance in the region. The method used in this article is descriptive-analytical.

The issue of Nato expansion dates back to the regional power balance. The expansion of Nato to the East after the collapse of the Soviet was included in Nato summit’s agenda, which transformed into an objective plan, and finally into an an operational one during the Bill Clinton presidency. Nato managed to preserve its raison d' etre by shifting from collective defense to collective security. This writing tries to address how Nato can continue to exist, based on neorealist approaches in analyzing the international relations. It further tries to address the reasons for Nato’s presence inCentral Asia and Caucasus, tries on to assess its effect on the national security of Iran. Finally it concludes that Nato’s presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus has led to the adoption of a non-conflict security approach with the West, and to Iran’scooperation with the regional countries.

Turkey’s Middle East strategies have undergone intensive changes in the wake of the developments called Islamic Awakening in 2011. Adopting a Look to the East policy, leaders of Justice and Development Party who are trying to take the "leadership of the Muslim world" position, have taken an offensive stance in dealing the developments in the Islamic world. Ahmet Davutoğlu’s Zero–Problems with Neighbours policy has transformed into Zero - Friendship with Neighbors policy by his providing Islamic radical groups with military and financial supports in the region, especially in Iraq and Syria. Subsequently, the emergence of Takfiri movements in the region has generated a strong wave of extensive threats and instability that challenge the national security of the regional countries including the national interests of the Islamic Revolution of Iran. To present a theoretical analysis and an explanation of Turkey’s new approach towards the Middle East developments, and the supports given to Takfiri movements, the present article studies Justice and Development Party’s strategic approaches and objectives in supporting the Islamic radical groups in Iraq and Syria, and its security repercussions. The findings of the research show that establishing security and stability in Iraq and Syria means providing its regional security and interests, given the geopolitical and geo-economic importance of Syria and Iraq for the Islamic Republic of Iran. It then follows that preventing Turkey from taking supportive approaches towards the radical movements and countering the growth of Takfiri Salafism in the Middle East constitutes a security and geopolitical imperative for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

According to the national interests they have envisioned for themselves, as well as the assessments they have of their rival powers, the countries in the world try to adopt suitable policies that are consistent with their national defense strategy by employing the location and other factors effective on national power. Following the recent developments in the Middle East, and Turkey's "zero problems with neighbors" policy, the latter tries to get involved in the subversion campaign against Syria alongside with Western countries especially the United States, the Zionist Regime and a few Arabic countries that are aligned with the West’s interests. So, this article tries to explain Turkey’s geopolitical dilemmas and its effect on the crisis in Syria by using a descriptive-analytical method. The studies made in this research led into results including: The efforts to break the resistance and underline Iran’s (Turkey’s regional rival) strategic depth are aligned with Turkey’s multiple efforts to build up its influence and bargaining power regionally and globally, to garner the European Union's favor and that of the West for admitting Turkey into the European Union, to shift the ongoing political mindset in the governing body (Justice and Development Party) towards Neu-Ottomanist (expansionist) policies, to pursue and utilize historical-ethnic considerations especially border issues in its own favor, to replace Syria’s Alawite government with a Sunni one in line with Turkey's interests and those of the West, all alignedwith Turkey’s economic interests, most of which will improve Turkey’s position from a political and geopolitical viewpoint on its path towards achieving the interests aforesaid.

Producing security has long constituted a most important function, and perhaps the raison d' etre for the establishing of state which itself constituted the exclusive actor in the security domain. Today, however, the private military-security companies have transformed into the major actors in the security domain by engaging in conflicts, and playing various security roles alongside the state. As the demand for the activity of these companies has increased, not only they are increasing in number, but also the scope of their activities has expanded by adopting new roles and functions, so that today one might speak of a defense and security marketplace which includes two parts, namely those who supply and those who demand. Using a descriptive explanatory research method, the present research plans to address this question: “Why has the role and position of the private military-security companies been increased in security? ” The findings of the research indicate that globalization in political, economic and military dimensions contributes to the growth and deepening of insecurity in differing dimensions, the emergence of modern threats, and finally the redefinition of states, which have enabled the private military-security companies to play a wide and active role in security.