درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The main purpose of this article is to examine how and to what extent Iran-Russia cooperation is effective in ensuring ‘broader’ strategic stability through balancing in the Middle East. Strategic stability and balance of power are interrelated components of the region’s order which have changed following the Arab Spring and the Syrian crisis. The article analyzes Iran and Russia’s impact on these two concepts, with a systemic approach, paying attention to interrelationship of variables at regional and international levels. Although strategic stability has been generally considered an issue at international level of great powers politics, this paper, emphasizing on evolution of international relations, believes in a new, complex and multilayered definition of strategic stability - a ‘broader’ one in the Middle East, which is not necessarily ensured by agreements or balance among great powers. The results indicate that Iran-Russia cooperative balancing in the Syrian crisis against the US and at regional level with emphasis on a broad regional balance system has been effective in providing ‘broader’ strategic stability in the region. Although Russia's policy in this field put some limits on Iran, strategically it serves Iran’s interests.

Geopolitics as a branch of political geography is scientific in nature and, similar to other scientific disciplines, has two aspects: basic (fundamental) and applied. The basic aspect deals with the production of scientific theories, theoretical propositions and the development of geopolitical knowledge. The applied aspect deals with the production of practical theories, patterns and practical geopolitical methods to meet the needs of nations, countries and human societies. Applied knowledge of geopolitics, like applied propositions and theories of other disciplines, can be affected to some extent by worldviews, ideologies, cultures, attitudes, as well as the interests of nations, political users, and governments. Therefore, geopolitical science and knowledge, similar to other scientific disciplines, are inherently worthwhile and useful, and must be developed to meet the needs of nations and humankind. However, geopolitical knowledge must not be abused by governments and political actors on any scale, whether global, national or local. In contrast, it must be at the service to provide the needs of the citizens, human constructs, nations and human societies. Also, governments and political actors should exercise it in the same direction. Accordingly, the author (Dr. M. R. Hafeznia) has established and proposed a new theoretical /practical approach in the application of geopolitical science and knowledge in the political and moral life of humankind and human constructs, especially nations, under the title of "The Humanist Geopolitics". This view was published for the first time in the form of an article under the same title by the author in Geopolitics Quarterly, Volume: 3, No 4, Winter 2008, and later in the Journal of Conflicts in France, Paris in 2015. Since this geopolitical school has attracted the attention of some interested readers and has raised some questions and ambiguities for them, the author decided to formulate its principles and make them available to those interested to clarify the attitude and dimensions of this school of thought, with the hope that a step can be taken in the direction of relieving the suffering of humankind as the chosen ones by the God as creator of the universe and enhancing the living pattern of humankind and human constructs.

This study is reassessing the geopolitical consideration of the British government in the Sixth Days of the Arab-Israeli War,1967. Based on declassified documents from the British’s archive, this paper will analyze the geopolitical factor which shaped London’s reaction towards the conflict. Middle East geopolitical position was very strategic to the British interests in the region. Hence, the focus of this paper is to re-examine the consequence of the war toward Britain’s attitude in preserving her strategic military position and economic calculation in the Middle East between 1960s to early 1970s. These including the paramountcy of the British military bases in the region, arm trade commercial activities and a disruption of the oil flow from the region to the West. From historical perspective and analysis, this paper argued that the threats from the Soviet and Arab nationalist movements during the conflict had significantly influenced the British government’s reaction towards the war. Although London did not involve directly in the conflict like in the 1956’s Suez Crisis, yet British’s response was still crucial since Britain was the prime architect in drafting and tabling the United Nation Resolution 242 after the war. Indeed, this research inclines to believe that the British equilibrium attitude as proclaimed during the conflict was not purely based on a principle of a just and lasting peace but it was very much relying upon geopolitical consideration of safeguarding British major strategic interests in the region.   .