فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک
سال دوازدهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 43، پاییز 1395)

Kurds are one of the ethnic groups in the Middle East and almost 35 million Kurds inhabit in the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. They are the fourth-largest ethnic group in the Middle East, but they have never obtained a permanent nation state. Kurdish question has involved some countries in the Middle East and their foreign policy, including Turkey, Syria and Iraq and to a lesser extent, Iran. During the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds were displaced and then under Young Turks, the Kurdish people were displaced into small groups in an attempt to eradicate Kurdish identity. After First World War and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the victor countries made provision for a Kurdish state in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres.
In this article by descriptive - analytic method, Kurdish question in region during 1991 to 2013 is studied and its impacts on relations of Iran and Turkey are analyzed. This study also discusses the impact of Iran's Islamic revolution, the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) and the effects of these developments on its relations with Turkey and point out the two countrie's geopolitical rivalries in the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Caspian countries and the Central Asia and analyze Turkish-Iranian relations in this period (1991 and 2013), from a geopolitical and economic point of views. In general, we can say although Kurdish issue has been always an important element between Iran and Turkey considerations and interests, but it seems cannot have decisive effects on the geopolitical and geostrategic policies of two countries.
Findings : Today, Kurds are the largest ethnic minority in Turkey and Kurdish issue in Turkey has remained unresolved. The Kurdish–Turkish conflict is an armed conflict between the Republic of Turkey government and the Kurdish groups, and The Kurds’ issue in Turkey represents the most serious ethnic problem in contemporary Turkey; as in 2015, Turkey has renewed its campaign against Kurdish militants. This issue has had the obvious effects on the both domestic and regional scene and also on neighbor's interests, including Iran-Turkey relations. Since 1990s, geostrategic and geopolitical considerations of Iran and Turkey have been connected to their economic requirements. These make two countries pay more attention to geopolitical realities in domestic and regional levels. Iran and Turkey also have very close trade and economic ties. Turkish-Iranian relations are important to both countries, as bilateral economic relations between Turkey and Iran have grown at a rapid pace during the past decade. Since 2000, trade between Turkey and Iran has increased tenfold, from $1 billion in 2000 to $10 billion in 2008 and both economies now depend heavily on these relations, for example in 2013, the Iran-Turkey bilateral trade volume was $14.6 billion. According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, over the last decade Turkey has been the second country, after China, in terms of increase in natural gas and electricity demand. Between 2002 and 2013, direct investments of the Iranians in Turkey amounted to $101 million”. In 2014, an estimated 174 Turkish companies invested more than $1.3 billion in Iran. As a result, both economies have become deeply dependent on these economic relations.
Although Turkish foreign policy is constrained by the unresolved Kurdish issue, but none of the two countries have threatened authority and also political regime of each other by using Kurdish issue. It is possible that two countries rivalries in Iraqi Kurdistan and their interest to influence in these spaces, occupation of some regions in Syria by Kurdish groups and also ISIS invasion to Ayn al-Arab (Kobani) may take their relations to serious tension. In recent years, with the emergence of Syria crisis, Kurds demands for autonomy and independence are the strategic elements affecting Iran-Turkey Economic Relations. Kurdish issue and Kurdish nationalism especially in Iraqi Kurdistan can make divergence in Iran –Turkey relations. Tensions between Turkey and Islamic Republic have increased in the 1980s and 1990s because Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorist group has used the Turkish-Iran border region to launch attacks into Turkey.
Turkish-Iranian relations have gotten complicated by regional geopolitical competition. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran and Turkey have competed for gaining political and ideological influence in the Muslim Caucasus and Central Asia states (includes Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan). A majority of these Muslim states have shared ideological, cultural, linguistic, and ethnic affinities with the Turks but are geographically neighbored with Iran. In the other words, while Turkey had ethnic ties with a majority of these new countries, Iran had geographical proximity as its advantage and served as the most direct route for these states to transport goods to the Persian Gulf.

Intrduction: This article has used critical approach in critical geopolitics to describe the concept of terrorism geopolitical discourse. This article has used this method because it will make our attention more focused on perceptions in national governments, ideologies and cultures that exist in power, space and earth. What changes terrorism to a political discourse is different government’s definition of terrorism and their misuse to justify their geopolitical actions. Terrorism geopolitical discourse is something more than metaphorical cocktail of specific political terms which is defined by every government to use for their own purposes and misguide public opinions.This article wants to analyze Bush administration’s treatment of terrorism in the Middle East specifically in Iran and Iraq. This article argue that the US and more specific Bush’s administration tried to polarize the world and give holiness to fight against terrorism by compartmentalize the states into two bad and good states.
Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe discourse theory is used as research method. Articulation has an important role in L&M discourse theory. Various ingredients which looks meaningless after separating will find a new identity when comes together. The research is about to use articulation to analyze Bush's administration terrorism discourse creation. At first, subsidiary reasons will be identified and then their connection with main reason will be drawn.
The research findings show that the Bush's administration takes advantage of terrorism discourse in its geopolitical imagination for the Middle East. Beside of identification, it can justify its intervention in the world especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most important of these dichotomies are: civilization vs. barbarism, good vs. Evil, Law vs. lawlessness, freedom and democracy vs. tyranny, human rights vs. human rights violations, developed vs. underdeveloped.
In Bush's administration imagination of terrorism that mostly consist of Muslims countries in the Middle East, Iran and Iraq are considered as villains, outlaws, wild, and authoritarian and repressive. These categorizing justify emotionally and enthusiastically Bush's administration military actions by exciting peoples fear and prejudices, because terrorism is the worst when it is connected with lawlessness, brutality, tyranny and repression. In the other hand, the U.S has mentioned her allies as benevolent, regulatory, civilized, developed and liberal and democratic countries and did not have any choice except for political intervene because of their historical prophecy.

Intrduction : Spaces and places are fields of competition between political players to influence. Regarding that Iraq and its borders were established after the collapse of Ottoman Empire, it is a mosaic of ethnicities and religions in the Middle East Heartland. That this factor is not only an obstacle for protecting territorial integrity and creating national identity, but also it has paved the way for influence, intervention and rivalry of powers and fundamentalist. So, the aim of this paper is to investigate the role and the effects of geographical spaces (ethnical- religious) on powers rivalry.
Methodology : The research method is analytic- descriptive, and data gathering procedure is based on library findings and filed survey (Questionnaire).
Findings : Geographical space of some countries such as Iraq, includes values and potentials that atract regional and global powers. The absence of state authority in Iraq, in one hand prevents the exploitation of internal potentials of the country and the other hand smooth the way for intervention of the foreign powers. In adition, the condition of the establishment and independence of the country, ethnic and religious heterogeneous composition, the lack of inclusive national identity and the failure of previous governments in the process of nation-building, causing disintegrity in unity of the country. Now foreign powers like the United States, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Salafist organizations, Russia, Israel, the Arab League has influence and intervention in Iraq that each of the mentioned powers has influence on the internal ethnic and religious groups.
The research findings show that interfering powers in the country with an operational component of ethnicity and religion are trying to reach their advantages and political and strategic purposes.

Undoubtedly, the behavior of each state in the international equations, especially in the geopolitical crisis is directed by special factors that direct usually different and even opposite approaches and behaviors of states. Each geopolitical crisis shows the conflict between at least two states and a tense competition related to the national interests. In this regard, we are witnessing these conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia plus Karabakh Republic. The second group of players engaged in Karabachos crisis are regional players (i.e. Russia, Turkey and Iran) and supra-regional players (i.e. the US and Europe). Because of their nature, geopolitical crises are usually suitable settings for geopolitical rivalries. The interests of regional powers differ from the interests of supra-regional players. Regional players are mainly the states whose interests overlap with geographical territory of the crisis. The main excuse for supra-regional powers to engage in the crisis is their potential to manage the crisis. Beside major players, some international organizations and non-governmental groups (in particular, Diaspora groups) are among players in this crisis. The present research, however, focuses only on the major players. With regards to the complexity of the geopolitical crises and the dynamism of the factors caused competition among players, we are witnessing contradictory behavioral patterns in the Karabakh crisis. In this relation, the research question is “what are the main factors directing the players’ behavior in Karabakh Crisis?”
The research methodology adopted here is descriptive- analytic, and data gathering procedure is based on library findings. The first section is intended to present a theoretical perspective which will be applied on Karabakh Crisis in the second section. As mentioned above, the article will focus on major players.
Findings : Based on the research findings, in any geopolitical crisis, strategic approach is the most important parameter in the players’ behaviors. Strategic approach increases the players’ potential in order to reach their strategic interests. In strategic approach, the states play role in the crisis by knowing the environment of the crisis in regional and global levels, time situation, and the nature of the crisis. The matter is also applicable to the Karabakh crisis. Generally, the strategic approaches of different players based on situation of the crisis, players’ mentality and nature have different roles in the nature of Karabakh crisis.
Also, Geopolitical code is the only substantive reasoning to justify the intervention of the players in a geopolitical crisis. Based on this view, the role-playing of the players would be various based on the nature and number geopolitical codes. If the states’ geopolitical codes are formed in opposition with each other, the potential of war and conflict would be so high. The Research findings show that foreign policies of the states show that their geopolitical codes are formed in opposition with each other and this has complicated the crisis. Based on the research findings, geopolitical interests are among parameters affecting the players’ behaviors. Geopolitical interests mean strategic depth of the states. Geopolitical interests produce geographic identity for the states. On the one hand, the geographic identity creates inherent right for the states because the state is attributed to the identity. This allows the states to act in an international system. In fact, it is a license for states to play their role in the geopolitical crisis background. On the other hand, these crises can be seen as security gaps of geopolitical interests that threaten geographic identity of the states. Based on the research findings, Karabakh crisis which is placed at a geostrategic region, and attracts interests of different players and threatens geopolitical interests of the players, has put South Caucasus at the intersection of geopolitical interests of different players. Based on the geopolitical and national interests, each of the players has different geopolitical concerns, and psychologically the nature of geopolitical and political role- playing of the players is directly or indirectly in connection with the geopolitical concerns that are discussed in this section.
Research findings show that the nature of role-playing of the players in the Karabakh crisis is the effect of some special factors which determine the nature of behavioral patterns. In this research, these parameters are known as the principles directing the states’ behavior. Considering that these parameters are formed differently because of various interests of different players. The consequence would be forming the contradictory behavioral patterns, a phenomenon that is obvious in the Karabakh crisis. Hence, players’ behavior in the region is affected by strategic approach, geopolitical codes, geopolitical interests, geopolitical concerns and national, subjects that were discussed in this paper. In fact, although contradictions and conceptual differences of the players have made them show ambiguous and contradictory behaviors, it is essential to consider spatial and temporal conditions of the region which paved the way in this regard. In sum, save for Europe, all players in the crisis have adopted a unilateral strategic approach, an important obstacle to settle the crisis. Also, the contradictory geopolitical codes of the players directing the states’ foreign policies are among obstacles. Yet, because geopolitical interests show strategic depth of the states and mutually geopolitical crises are security gaps threatening are contradictory, Karabakh crisis not only has taken the attention of different players, but also is the main factor threatening geopolitical interests in this geo-strategic region. Additionally, any player in the crisis considers different geopolitical and national- strategic interests based on their geopolitical concerns, an issue that affects the nature of their political and geopolitical role-playing.

Despite the influential crisis in the regional, Tehran and Masqat relations during some decades witness's constancy and relative stability. Sultanate of Oman in spite of its membership in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) doesn’t follow its procedureIn front of Iran. In addition, Masqat with moderate diplomacy adoption has acted as mediator in Iran’s important international and regional political cases including nuclear deal. Iran and Oman try to promote political and economic relations in near future. This research tries to answer the reasons of stability in the two countries’ relationship in recent years.
Methodology : The research is analytic- descriptive, and data gathering procedure is based on library findings and formal political documents. The goals are finding identity commons in two countries base on Constructivism Theory.
Results and Discussion : 1-Oman Foreign Policy: Oman foreign policy has experienced four paces:
First: Unity (Oman foreign policy like other modern governments formed based on collective steps in front of internal and external events without subjective profit from one problem for another problem evolutional). Second: transition (as a result of South riots-Dhofar- and leader's thoughts and perceptions, Oman lived in isolation era and did not pay attention to foreign affairs, entering into a transition era took five years (1970-75). Third: foreign Affairs Expansion: (Oman, immediately after finishing South riots-Dhofar and determining borderlines, broke the isolationand chose expansion of foreign affairs agenda with neighboring and other counties. Characteristics of this stage was seriousness and readiness for joining international system and transition necessities in regional and international relations rules). Fourth: maturity, evaluation and modernization (King Qaboos paid attention to establish security, political and social infrastructure and by his perception formed the capacity to legislate the sovereignty road map. He organized his foreign policy based on realties and possibilities and impartial and partnership about regional and international relations).
2-King Qaboos foreign policy principles:
King Qaboos with inspiration history, culture, religion of Oman and in general Omani identity defined his foreign policy based on these principles:1- rely on advanced planning rules, 2-commitment to religious and civilization dimensions, 3- connection to Arabs, 4-acceptance of geostrategic reality, 5- learn from history, 6-personality factor and policy making in Oman, 7-dialog and discourse, 8- emphasis on domestic output in international politics structures, 9-the principle of profit in international politics, 10- emphasis on collective mechanism, 11- positive impartial.
Iran and Oman have many common identities including religion (Ibadhi in Oman and Shiite in Oman) and common geography (Strait of Hormuz and its management). Ibadhi like Shiite believe in inference of religious commandments unlike Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia which search jurisprudence. Ibadhi unlike Wahhabism is temperance and moderate religion and moderation is real characteristic of King Qaboos diplomacy. In addition, Shiite in Iran and Ibadhi in Oman are minorities in front of Sunni. Iran and Oman behavior cautiously considering Saudi Arabia policies, and nowadays by inspiring common principles they are witnessed close relation.
Tehran and Masqat with enjoying common identity and far from crisis in region form their relationship and create joint interests. Oman as an Arab country has close relation with Islamic Republic of Iran. This country is Iran partner in Strait of Hormuz management, and acted as a mediator in Iran nuclear deal, direct dialog between Iran and USA and Yemen crisis and in in addition to economic cooperation, Iran plans mega projects like natural gas export to Oman.

European Union (EU) is one of the most important and coherent state-based unions in both political and economic dimensions, that has taken great strides in developing convergence and coordination and also in expanding its sphere of influence after the World War II; Although it has brought a new concept of collaboration and convergence in the literature of international relations, more attention is needed to understand its position in the global system. In this paper two main objectives will be followed. First, what are the impacts of disagreements among members of the EU on its current position in the world system? And what would be the impacts of continuation of disagreements among the members of EU on its position, and also on its strategic future?
The research methodology is descriptive-analytic, and data gathering procedure is based on library findings. Data analysis is also based on qualitative method.
Research Findings : This paper initially discusses the convergence between member states of EU in the context of functionalism and neo-functionalism theories, and subsequently, the impacts of continuation of disagreements among the members of EU on intraregional and international matters, and also on its strategic future. The first intra-union matter is the disagreements between different wings in the union about common foreign and security policy (CFSP) in response to the question that how much the member states would put aside their independent foreign policy and adopt the united foreign policy. The other important subject here is the rate of effectiveness between great powers and weak-newcomer members in decision making. The second considerable matter is the eastern enlargement and joining new members such as Turkey that has increased the disagreements between member states. Structural dilemma, which has been with the EU since its foundation, is the next issue that has made difficulties. Recent Financial crisis is the other controversial factor that has made some disagreements between member states notably economic powers. Refugee crisis is the other controversial factor that has damaged the convergence of EU member states. Lastly, by a brief review of controversial issues of international matters, the impacts of these disagreements and opposing views on EU’s strategic position would be addressed and accordingly the EU in the domain of international politics should move on the base of “common” foreign policy not on a ”united” one.
Eventually, its considered that disagreements and opposing views among the members of European Union in different international and internal issues such as disagreements in common foreign and security policy, eastern enlargement and joining new members, recent financial crisis, structural dilemma, and lastly the refugee crisis, has faced EU do not have a functional identity, and so, its strategic role and position in the future world is in doubt and it will just remain as an economic power.

Originating from the north east of Afghanistan, the Hirmand river, being withdrawn by the country then flows to Iran. Other than Hydrological causes, there have been seen many evidences showing that a vast spectrums of mechanisms include regional, developmental and international one's influence water capturing of Hirmand river in Afghanistan. As a result, one of the most important mechanisms makes for tendering Afghanistan tendency of water withdrawal from the river is the role of foreign countries other than Hirmand transboundary river riparian states such as Britannia, United States and former Soviet Union. In that piece, nominating this kind of mechanisms as third parties role by a modern transboundary river management literatures, the paper aims at analysing Afghanistan water withdrawal from the river in the light of third parties concept.

With a descriptive-analytical approach the paper aims at highlighting the role of third parties in increasing Afghanistan tendency to water capturing rather than water withdrawal. Then through a given simulation model and future studies based on a scenario planning approach the paper deals with quantifying the role of international events, in particular, state building project conducted with united states, on the phenomena, mapping water flows to Iran until 2050 under each kind of state building attitude.
Findings : The paper indicated that one of the most stated reasons for the third party interference in Afghanistan development (or other countries of geopolitical interest) is the need for state building as the concept of “state-building” has a root in the interveners attempts to tackle perceptions of “state failure/fragility”. In consequence, the results, based on both of the descriptive-analytical and modelling approaches could be set out asbelow:• Successful state building in Afghanistan: If Afghanistan’s security situation can be stabilized then we will probably witness an increase in water capturing upstream and a reduction in the downstream availability.
• Failure of state building in Afghanistan: Arising from a stabilization of the security situation in Afghanistan, Reduction in agricultural activities in the above-mentioned conditions and declining agricultural development would naturally result in this situation. If accelerating rate of water withdrawals from upstream sources is to be decreased, rate of water capturing in Afghanistan will be eroded
• Suspended state building in Afghanistan: This scenario is built according to the known objective realities and history of the area. Under this scenario, the state-building process stagnates, or is suspended (neither strengthened nor weakened), there will be a slowing down of the total water capturing in upstream and also a reduction in downstream resources, but less so than the second scenario.
Analysis : The findings suggest a new concept in transboundary water management literatures entitled negotiable water. In accordance, negotiable water is the part of total generated water in an upstream riparian state taken away by it for making balance in asymmetrical hydropolitics among other riparian states rather than for coming over its needs. By this way, although, in first glance the failure of state building in Afghanistan, the first scenario, makes for generating morenegotiable water than other scenarios, but successful state building in Afghanistan increases possibility of successful negotiation between countries, setting up a trustable central government in the country.

To be less vulnerable to water deficit coming from water capturing in Afghanistan, Iran must plan for making polices based on the resilience approaches, decreasing its dependency to Hirmand river flows, otherwise it will settle for bargaining on future negotiable waterwhich state building attitudes in Afghanistan are in charge of that.