درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The Middle East region has been a longstanding major source of concern for American leaders due to its eternal religious and cultural relevance, a strategically pivotal location, huge oil reserves, interlocked and intractable conflicts, and the persistence of major security threats such as terrorism and the risk of nuclear proliferation. <br />The Middle East region is undergoing security shifts. Regional security in the Middle East will be changed in Trump era. Security and power in each region has connected, empowered and influenced a new generation of young people, who are questioning political authority with new intensity. <br />The outcomes of the Arab Spring mostly disappointed the world and its policymakers. The region is violent; disfigured by inter and intrastate conflict and by sectarian divisions. Power and security in Middle East countries has been fragmented. The nature of security in Middle East policy is based on Proxy war and Non-state actor’s initiation. Non-state actor who are active in the region, are both a symptom of state weakness and amplify the threats to states. <br /> The Middle East region recognize with economic bedrock of the regional security as exports of hydrocarbons is under threat. Surveying the region shows that, in the throes of historic turmoil and facing massive challenges. The US, UK and other European countries has critical interests in the region, both economic and security. Moreover, what is happening in the Middle East, it will be expanded to other regions and does not stay in the Middle East. In this situation, Trump’s policy and strategy lead to instability, turmoil and power transition. For control and leading this process, world politics to need co-operational security model with other great powers and regional actors like Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. <br />This article, by descriptive-analytical method, seeks to study the "Trump’s Grand strategy in the Middle East". the main hypothesis emphasis that “U.S strategy on Middle East in Donald Trump policy based on offshore balancing, proxy war and increasing chaos’’. <br />  <br /> 

Human life is tied with space through spatial emotions and the sense of place. Although existence of spatial emotions plays a vital role in the creation of space and in some ways reflects the presence, tale, culture, and feeling in the place and space and in this way assists man in there, in some situations this issue can lead to some challenges which are rooted in discriminative approaches that divide humanity into "us" against "others". In the critical human geography and critical geopolitics, scholars mentioned numerous factors which are influential in this dividing. One of the main factors which plays a significant role in this process is "geographical imagination" which obtains semi-logical reasons for a group of individuals and some states and powers to exclude other social, political, and ethical groups from "us". This subject can influence people and encourage them to ascribe wrong facts to individuals who are categorized as "others" and misattribute their spaces and places as dangerous locations. This spatial approach, consequently can result in labeling some spaces as "spaces of fear" and through this generates a wide range of social, economical, political and spatial problems and restrictions for individuals who are considered as "others or them".

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 paper initially attempts to demonstrate that Iranian society has constantly attempted to democratize the authoritarian regime, but it usually fails in the transition stage. I have shown that the democratization process in Iran has often resulted in the creation of a newly shaped authoritarian structure rather than an institutionalized democratic regime.  Meanwhile, I have argued that the democratic process has not been interrupted and some of the minimum criteria of the transition process, such as the politics of periodic elections, have been realized in Iran. In this study the democratic transition has been explained through socioeconomic development. The data for this paper consist of forty-two cases of parliamentary and presidential elections. The hypothesis is evaluated using regression analysis technique. The empirical findings indicate that the proportion of the total variance of democratic transition which is explained by the socioeconomic development is 0.56 percent. This relation is positive and is statistically significant at .05 level. <br />  <br />