Geopolitics

In accordance with human necessities and deep attention into security, research studies have today became an irrefutable necessity in this area. It is noted that traditional concepts of this important issue have changed, as a result of occurring various events in the past, particularly in the 20th century; so that security is no more limited to protecting human beings against individual and collective dangers. Because geopolitics is the science of studying power relations in the political arena, the main actors in this field are the national constituencies determining the international equilibrium. In this context, competition for power through the strengthening of development indicators among different countries has been taken into consideration, through the geopolitical weight and the bargaining power to increase national security and, of course, security. Therefore, this research pursues two goals in relation to security and geopolitics: First, an analytical approach, on the views of academics, from the 1980s to the 20th century and to achieve motivation for the study of its fundamental concepts and the effect of geopolitics on these issues. Second, geopolitical approaches to security, related to the beginning of the 1990's up until now; and their assumptions, with emphasizing on future and geo-strategy. In this research, it is emphasized that geographically disrupted governments lose their territorial integrity, which results in them not being able to redefine national symbols according to global accelerated developments and floating identities.

After 2014 Russia is seen powerful enough again to influence the Mediterranean region and change the passive defensive policy, practiced after the USSR’s dissolution, for active one. Analysis of attempts to squeeze Russia out of the Black Sea region shows the main strategies elaborated in the early 2000s by the leading US thinktanks. After 2014 Russia is seen powerful enough again to influence the Mediterranean region and change the passive defensive policy, practiced after the USSR’s dissolution, for active one. Analysis of attempts to squeeze Russia out of the Black Sea region shows the main strategies elaborated in the early 2000s by the leading US thinktanks. Authors give the geopolitical landscape of the region: 26 countries are classified into powers (actors) and objects for the realization of national interests of the former. Special attention is paid upon Turkey, Greece, Israel, France, Italy and Spain (with Gibraltar issue). The processes and balances that define Russia’s geopolitical interests in the Mediterranean region are seen in interconnection with the intentions of military and political leaders of the region detached on the basis of the geopolitical methodology. A variant of the “Russian balance” is offered as prospective to realize Russia’s national interests in the region.

Undoubtedly, during the post-Cold War era, the fields of political competition changed and with the change in the political geography of the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus and Central Asia, as the Soviet Union collapsed and new countries emerged, the field of competition for a change in power balance not only expanded but took on a new form. Economic benefits, diversification of fossil fuels and new and large markets have shaped, so trans-regional countries have become aware of this part of the world. Com-petition for filling the geopolitical vacuum in the Caspian Sea and its Piraeus due to po-litical forces trying to balance power in the regions, from the offensive Realism's point of view is the subject of this article. This paper uses a Descriptive-Analytic library ap-proach to answer the following question, what roles do the Caspian and Eurasian areas play in the geopolitical balance of the world today? The expansion of globalization, the free market, and the explosion of information indicate the polarization of this region. Given the presence of important Trans-Regional and regional Players in this area, the important Hypothesis is that, the region will be the geopolitical intersection of the mul-tipolar world in the future.

After the Soviet Union fragmentation, the Caspian basin, containing considerable resources especially oil and gas reserves, has gained more geopolitical importance. Iran enjoys a distinguished position in the Caspian region, while deprived from advantages of this position. US tends to isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran because its anti-dominance struggle prevents Iran from enjoying its geo-strategic and geo-economic privileged op-portunities including its unique transit situation. Iran's energy diplomacy in the Caspian basin has failed because of Iran-US antagonism and US efforts to reduce Iran's geostra-tegic position by exerting pressure on the Caspian states to transport energy from routes other than Iran.In this article, we intend to examine which of these two are more impor-tant and influential. The hypothesis we are going to discuss in this paper is: The discre-pancy of Caspian states’ diplomacy and discourse has been one of the main factors of the failure in Iran’s energy diplomacy. Therefore, the main question is: Why Iran's energy diplomacy has not been successful in Caspian Basin?

 This work was supported by the Academy of Korean Studies of the Republic of Korea in year 2012-2013 (AKS-2010-CAA-2101) Energy security has assumed newfound geopolitical importance at the outset of XXI century (Moran and Russell, 2008). Diminishing fossil fuel supplies have led to fears of energy shortages, while rapid economic and population growth have fuelled the demand for cheap, clean and secure sources of energy. The provision of reliable and affordable energy, once the domain of domestic policy, has emerged as a key concern of policymakers. To ensure energy security, leaders confront a complex set of economic, political, and environmental issues that transcend national boundaries. Should they fail to meet this challenge, energy is one of the few issues in today€™s international system with a distinct possibility to incite conflict between major powers. At the same time, trade in energy resources has the potential to usurp pre-existing economic or cultural ties €“ and overcome deep-seated distrust €“ to create new geopolitical alignments and alliances.      JEL Classification : Q00

From the end of 2019, the world has faced with instability resulted from Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic (WTO. (1),2020); a fatal and destructive virus which can have many lessons for the vulnerable world. The virus has spread to the entire world and has affected all of the states of the world which have affected by complicated and interwoven economic, social and spatial actions. The twenty-first century world is under threat by one of the smallest microscopic families. One of the hypotheses is that because natural order requirements are neglected, the nature has given the clearest answer and reaction and it will continue, if the destruction continues (Andrawes,2020). It is obvious that COVID-19 is not the first and the last one from pandemic diseases in human live, but it is a part of historical process of pandemic diseases and spreadable to the entire world that some other cases will be emerged in the future. So, based on such experiences, WHO, national and local states, civil organizations and citizens should design appropriate and synergic reactionary patterns to confront with them and execute the designs with previous preparations. The world mutation of the virus is started from a living organism (bat, pangolins or any other creature) in micro space, namely from a local market in Wuhan City (Hui and others,2020:265-266). But, the pattern of virus transmission was in a way that spread to world, rapidly and became a global epidemic and pandemic (Roumina,2020). Local origin, weakness of science, transmission rate, geographic spread pattern, global epidemic, different and doubtful reactions by the states and its destructive and multi-faceted effects can be an experience for the states, citizens and common reactions of the world society to similar threats in the future.    In global scale, the pattern of virus spread is pandemic and has spread to all of the states (WHO,2020). Even the states that have had high level of control power, they have been only able to delay its spread to inside of their territory and have not been made free from economic consequences and global fear from Coronavirus. Today, economic, social and spatial actions in the world are affected by Coronavirus monster. The chain of global production, distribution and consumption is extracted from normal cycle, at least for short term (Nguyen,2020). Because of the decrease in the global production and transportation activities, oil consumption has reached to its lowest rate and its price was negative. Many economic, social, cultural, scientific and administrative activities like business, transportation, trade, education, religious rituals, and tourism etc. activities have been decreased. Decreasing process of global economic growth and falling stock exchange in developed states are emanated from Coronavirus pandemic in the world (The Economic Times,2020). Networked economy and economic interdependence in the world from one hand, and huge effects of this phenomenon on the industrialized developed states are among the issue which will affect the global economy for long time. It seems that heavy shadow of the pattern of global distribution of China’s economic productions is in direct connection with Coronavirus fast spread in the other regions of the world. If this was occurred in any other state in the world, it would not be spread with this speed, geographically/spatially. Spatial and time pattern of Coronavirus spread show China geopolitical power and influence in the other geographic spaces of the world. Although some states closed their political geographic borders to confront with the virus spread, but they were not successful in this domain and the virus spread to the world. Closing or non- systematic hasty controlling of the borders in local and national scales were the first strategy of the states in which only some states earned relative success (Worldometers Website, 2020). It seems that closing or controlling of the international and internal borders with cellular approach toward geographic space and time as human structure habitations to close or reduce spatial transactions to the extent of inevitable necessities is a geographical strategy which can control epidemic diseases and preserve human immunity and guarantee human health and human structures in micro and macro levels. But, unfortunately China as the geographic origin of Coronavirus epidemic (Shadi,2020), and then WHO and consequently national states ignored their political/geographic responsibility and also ignored to codify geopolitical strategy to confront with the virus and acted with delay and incompletely and caused spread of the virus in global scale and pandemic. They should accept the consequences of ignoring the mentioned strategy or postpone in taking appropriate measures to control Coronavirus and development of hygienic threats against micro and macro geographic spaces which act as habitations of human structures and human society totality. At least there is a one difference among the states in the domain of spatial/ geographic reactions towards Coronavirus crisis, and that is the fact that Coronavirus was emanated from Wuhan in central region of China, but China prevented the virus spread to the other spaces of China by taking the strategy of geographic isolation and cutting or decreasing in spatial relations and taking strict state policies (Financial Times,2020). But, some European States, the US and Iran had unsystematic, doubtful and postponed geographic reactions, and caused the virus spread from its origin to the other geographic spaces and caused to incontrollable geographic pollution.       This experience showed that it seems that coherent political systems with higher power of control, ignoring their political ideology, are successful in the domain of human health security than plural political systems and also weak systems. This experience can be starting point in ideological and attitude revolution in the citizens towards political thoughts and state paradigms in the world and can change the citizens’ perceptions and expectations toward the states’ structures and the criteria of legitimacy.                       The level of development and extensive relations with China shows that developed states and also the states which are more dependent in the network of China’s economy are more infected by the virus than developing states. These states have the more cases and deaths. It seems that there is a direct relation between the level of economic interdependence with China’s economy and increase in the cases of Coronavirus and its spread (Goldin,2020). This shows high level and multifaceted level of transactions and mutual interdependence between the states and China as the origin of COVID-19 which caused the virus spread to these geographic spaces and located the cycle of virus spread in the patterns of local and regional spatial actions of the other states. This process caused doubled spread of COVID-19 in geographic spaces of the other continents and global epidemic. The spread and epidemic of the virus in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Italy, Iran, the Middle East, France, Britain, Eastern and Western Europe countries, Russia, the US and Canada etc. that are among developed states or are in connection with China’s economy is explainable in the frame of interdependence model.  In international scale, the states which reduced, controlled or managed spatial transactions and relations with the origin state namely China were less damaged and some states such as Iran that ignored the threat and continue its spatial transactions with China were more damaged.  The infected countries are faced with different challenges in national scale, and their economies have gotten Corona arrangement, formally and informally. Allocation of huge financial resources to prevent, confrontation, supply of medical equipment and supply of medical expenses have put the economies under pressure. From the other hand, crisis in small, medium and large scale firms have caused decrease in national production and have challenged economic growth and development. In informal economic domain, dark economic boom in economic systems which have gaps, have shown their inefficiency in such a situation. This issue is more critical in the states which face with wide spread of the virus and have not had appropriate financial resources and reserves. However, the lost costs in developed states are more than in developing states and they have suffered more.    Medically, healthy human with immune and resistant immunity system are less vulnerable in confrontation with the virus (WHO (2),2020), likewise in national scale, flexible and powerful systems have more power to cross from the crisis and weak systems will be faced with big challenges emanating from Coronavirus crisis. The consequences of Coronavirus crisis may last for several decades in these systems.   Regarding the above mentioned debate, Coronavirus crisis is one of the least experienced geopolitical crises of last decades which spread to the world incredibly fast and have made vulnerable geographic, biological, economic and social security of the spaces and have shocked and crippled the world. No matter where or what it is originated from, its consequences is global. It has spread to the world in a little time, and infected millions of people, and decreased global economic growth in developed states and it may collapse or bankrupt the economies of the developing states. This dangerous enemy has no weaponry and no complicated equipment, but it is developed through persons and needs and human spatial, economic and social transactions and it is become the biggest challenges of the world in short time and has minimized bilateral and multilateral spatial transactions in all local, area, regional, national and global scales.     So, confront with Coronavirus crisis, COVID-19, and newfound and pandemic diseases requires new applied paradigm in human minds which regardless of enemy-making policies originating from power relations, makes cooperation among the states necessary in interdependent and interconnected world in regional and global scales. It is fact that none of the states, even if it is the most powerful state in the world such as the US, cannot confront with the Coronavirus crisis or similar crises per se. As Coronavirus crisis is global, the exit path also requires global thought based on geopolitical strategy.      The experience of this global crisis shows that the virus threat is not limited to one or several states, but its threat and spread in a state means the threat and spread to the all of states and human being and living on planet earth (WTO (3),2020). Also, control and confront with this threat goes beyond from a state power or regional political system such as the EU. For this reason, there is not an alternative than dependence on multilateral cooperation and participation of all of the states. This crisis can form a geopolitical cooperation pattern base on peace for newfound crises. Dimensions of geopolitical strategy to confront and control of the pandemic epidemics similar to Coronavirus in the world are as under:  1.preliminary and immediate responsiveness of Security Council and General Assembly of the UN as an institution of political management of global space in considering pandemic epidemics as threats to international security and then mobilization of the states and governments to control and confront with it by central role of WHO; 2.inherent responsiveness of WHO to manage operational project of controlling and confronting with epidemics at their preliminary stages and not to find moral suggestions and consultants sufficient; 3.creation of common perception and approach towards epidemics among all of the UN member states as a threat to national security for all of the nations and states; 4.take initiatives to international cooperation and creation of powerful mechanism to form rapid and effective inter-state cooperation to confront with epidemics in regional and global scales by WHO; 5.organizing of operational teams to international technical and consulting helps and supports to the state or states infected by epidemics; 6.duties division and obligations related to public responsiveness of the states to confront with epidemics and mobilization of international and non-infected states facilities to support infected states by WHO; 7.establish united spatial political management among international, regional, national, sub-national, local and residential levels in coordination with WHO and local states to organized, effective and targeted confront with the epidemics; 8.having perception of national security threat towards epidemics spread to internal space of the territory of the states and nation’s habitations by national states; 9.having cellulous approach towards spaces and places of human living in micro scale (family scale of resident, proffered); 10.establish technical, institutional and specialized systems to national monitor and alarm in relation with newfound epidemeis, even usual epidemics in the state; 11.rapid and effective responsiveness of national states to control and confront with microbial threats and preserve bio security of citizens and habitations against epidemics; 12.rapid activation of controlling function and possibly closing the borders and land, air and sea border gates and decrease or stop spatial/ geographic transactions in social, economic and cultural facets with abroad in particular with the infected states and geographic spaces;  13.structural and functional organizing and to give the power and authority to the national and local operating systems to confront with epidemics; 14.emergency isolation and strict control and decrease in geographic (spatial / place) transactions in interstate scales which are suspected to be infected; 15.exertion of hygienic controls to infected persons and isolation of their place from other citizens;  16.justifying citizens and civil institutions in relation with legal and moral responsiveness against other citizen's health and invitation to cooperate with the states and plans of control and confront with epidemics; 17.establish or organizing of sustainable bio-army institution against future biological threats to the state due to supply and guarantee hygienic, food, physical and psychological security of citizens and inner geographic places and spaces of the state; 18.establish united multi-level and multi-faceted management system with accrue duty division between national, province, local and residential levels in a situation of epidemics and pandemics in the state; 19.taking policies and compensatory actions by the central and local states to supply public social welfare services, biological immunity, hygienic and medical services, losing jobs, economic and financial supports etc. in pandemic period to the vulnerable and damaged citizens and paying the costs from national and public resources; 20.permanent monitoring of epidemic situation and simultaneously with starting process of spatial/ social contraction in the state, execution of gradual process of decrease in geographic/ social limitations in national and local levels by the central state and normalization of living situation of the citizens in the country and reaching at final stage of the crisis.

One of the issues discussed in geopolitics is the role of international straits (canals); as such, it is of great importance to investigate their geopolitical and strategic role. It is because the straits are the places of distribution of power, where the competition of governments is very evident in using the potential of geographic space to achieve greater benefits and ultimately to gain power in international relations. Even in some cases, countries not located around the straits enter many ways in order not to lag behind other countries. That is to say, there is a kind of conflict and competition between countries over the use of straits, especially the countries bordering the strait. Therefore, the strategic straits play a decisive role in the power of nations and their fate and also in the foreign policy of the coastal states along with the balance of regional and global power, as a result, their study is essential for political geographers and geopoliticians. One of the most important straits in the world is the Malacca Strait whose investigation strategically and geographically provides important points. Using descriptive-analytical method and also based on statistics and figures for plotting diagrams in this paper, it has been tried to study the role, geopolitical features, and importance of Malacca Strait for coastal states and conditions as well as factors causing challenges and crises for the strategic role of the strait. According to the results, as one of the major international straits, the Malacca Strait has strategic potentials in the regional and global arena and coastal governments need to rely on targeted and strategic plans to combat the challenging processes in this strait<strong>.</strong>

Although the goal of all regional organizations is to strengthen cooperation between member states, in some cases there are apparent or hidden rivalries in minor or major levels, which sometimes leads to stagnation and inefficiency of the regional organization and hinders effective cooperation. The need for cooperation in South West Asia to benefit all developing countries in the region became the main driver for the foundation of the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) in 1985. This study aimed to identify the areas of rivalries among the member states of this organization resulting lack of cooperation and success, from a political geography and geopolitics point of view. Contexts of rivalries classified into four political, economic, cultural, and geopolitical factors containing eighteen sub-variables. The results showed geopolitical, political, cultural factors, and economic factors respectively have a positive and significant effect on rivalries in ECO

Currently, the global community is on the threshold of a transition from fossil fuels as a result of transformations such as climate change, entailing the strict implementation of carbon setoff policies and quick progress in green technologies. A transition to clean, low-carbon energies will not only disrupt the global energy system, it will also impact the global economy and political dynamism within and without all states. Based on these transformations, the present article asks the question of how the energy transition will impact the geopolitical future of the global oil economy. The authors hypothesize the following in answer to this question: Given the superior, more advanced position of economic powers such as China and the US in clean energy technologies, we are likely to witness the weakening of traditional oil powers in a post-carbon world, such as the Middle East and North African countries (MENA) and Russia; in contrast, the balance of power will tilt heavily towards current energy consumers. Technology-savvy countries have the knowledge to reproduce and stabilize their power in the global economy. The traditional countries of the energy sector, however, face shortfalls in their infrastructure and modern technologies and will lose their geopolitical position to a large extent.

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.   .

Islamic fundamentalism is a thought school in the Islamic World which is manifested in the formation of Islamic fundamentalist groups and different violent actions. The Horn of Africa is a region for Islamic fundamentalist movements. From past to present, the most active fundamentalist Islamic groups in the region are AIAI, ICU and Al-Shabab group. The most important issue in this relation is the relation between Islamic fundamentalism and geopolitics. This research is theoretical from viewpoint of the nature and method and also is descriptive-analytic in terms of its approach. The research data gathering procedure is based on library findings. The research analyzed the relation between Islamic fundamentalism and geopolitics with the investigation of Islamic fundamentalist groups in the Horn of Africa. The research main question is that what is the relation between geopolitics and the formation of Islamic fundamentalism in the Horn of Africa? The research findings showed that Islamic fundamentalism is in geopolitical thought and the leaders of Islamic fundamentalist groups not only follow geopolitical thought in their goals and utopias, but also the causes and roots of the formation of Islamic fundamentalist groups have geopolitical burden, and six geopolitical roots can be characterized for the formation of Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The article analyzes the contemporary factors that contributed to US-Poland relations under President Trump. Both the United States and Poland had their fair share of troubles with the EU. For Poland, issues range with compliance over the rule of law, adherence to common EU values and the refugee resettlement and migration policy. For the US, issues with the EU under the Trump presidency formed a larger part of the changing US policy towards the transatlantic alliance. The article argues that while both the United States and Poland find common interests in defense, energy security and their estranged relationship with Germany, Poland’s economic engagement with the EU, in particular with Germany, forces Warsaw at best to find a balance between its main economic partner the EU and its security ally the United States. For the US, its relationship with Poland under the Trump presidency, falls in line with its policy of prioritizing bi-lateral relationships in the EU, thereby undermining the EU-NATO multilateral dynamics. .

The significance of neighborhood relations in geopolitics cannot be over-emphasized. As a space for neighborhood relations, sport is one of the most effective issues in power, competition, and convergence on national and transnational scales. International competitive sports are useful for remembering people to compare themselves with the other nation’s achievements and capabilities. Meanwhile, the Persian Gulf is the most significant region in the world due to its energy resources and strategic position. Tensions between the regional states have increased, especially between Iran and some Arab states. Most of these tensions have appeared in sport and athletic competitions. Therefore, the emergence of political-geographical rivalry in sports contests can be studied as the geopolitics of sport. This descriptive-analytic paper explained the power aspects in sport and politics from the point of the geopolitics of sport in the Persian Gulf region and studied geopolitical competitions in the region and its interaction in the sporting arena. The results of the research indicate that sports contests can bring sphere of convergence and cooperation and in some cases can provide the increasing and strengthen of tension and competition.

The depth and extension of Iran’s controversial connections with its proxies have caught eyes and thoughts. While much ink has been spilled to Iran's regional policy, the majority of these analyses, either intuitively or deliberately, build their explanation on the so-called ‘Persian-Shia offensive intentions’. Conversely, the present paper seeks the roots of Iran's regional policy in its specific geography and history. From this perspective, Iran’s regional policy is inseparable from its geopolitical strategies. To shed light on these strategies, the paper begins with the rise of the Persian Achaemenes until the establishment of the Islamic Republic, focusing on major driving forces behind Iran’s regional policy and strategies. The paper elaborates on a foundational concept of ‘strategic loneliness’, as Iran’s permanent feature, by highlighting the country’s curse of geography and its long-standing historical insecurity. In following, it shows the consequential impact of Iran’s strategic loneliness for the country’s non-state foreign policymaking strategic connections with military non-state actors—in the containment of its regional enemies. The paper ultimately argues that while this policy has kept Iran’s national integrity and security while entrapped the country in a durable ‘geopolitical predicament’ and deepened regional crisis in the Middle East.

A conflict can involve anything from a personal disagreement between two people to the emergence of a world war. When a conflict arises, a combination of the main components of geopolitics (geography, politics and power) plays a role in its formation. Thus, the roots of the conflict can be explained in the frame of the principles of geopolitics. Most of the conflicts in Africa occur in 0-15 degrees north. The current study is a work of “basic research”. In terms of nature and method, it is “descriptive” and in terms of attitude, it falls in the category of “descriptive-analytic” research. Data gathering was done by a documentary method and through consulting library resources. The data analysis method was qualitative. The research set out to find an answer to the following question: “From a geopolitical point of view, which factors affect interstate and intrastate conflicts in circle 0 to 15th parallel north of Africa?” The current study has explained the roots of the conflicts from a geopolitical perspective through studying the conflicts in circle 0 to 15th parallel north of Africa. This study led to the presentation and introduction of 26 geopolitical root causes for conflicts.