فصلنامه مطالعات روابط بین الملل
پیاپی 33 (بهار 1395)

Russia's foreign policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of this country has been a lot of ups and downs. The formation of the grand principles of Russian foreign policy based on multi-polar world, conservatism, realism and balance of power has taken shape. The first period of Russian foreign policy in the form of the "common European house" was introduced. During this period (1991-1995) and continues the policy of "new thinking" Gorbachev, the Russian Federation and the use of advanced technology integration of Western capitalist economic system be considered. In the second period, from 1996 to the State Department by Primakov's tenure began, the shift in Russian foreign policy began to look to the East and the West can be considered. In the second stage, a balance between looking to the East and West was maintained, but Putin who is the embodiment of the third period of Russian foreign policy, introduced two special features for Russian foreign policy. First, Russia's foreign policy was to be a great pragmatist and secondly, from 2000 onwards Putin was looking for a strategic partnership with Europe and particularly with the United States. On the other hand, Putin set out to re-establish the glory of Russia by returning to the principles of Soviet Russia foreign policy but not in terms of ideology but rather by relying on Russian nationalism and authoritarianism and his doctrine on the foundations of Russia's foreign policy and national security can be established. The authoritarianism and aspires to return to the power and authority of Soviet Russia is shown in Russian foreign policy during Putin and "Medvedev" periods. In this paper we investigate the claim that despite the creation of the "Putin-Medvedev" and the president and prime minister, continued the cycle of their sovereignty, is there any fundamental difference in principle between performance and overall concept for Putin and Medvedev's foreign policy or Medvedev as Putin continues the way he is, but with some minor changes in the policy?

According to European countries, the Balkans is not a part of Europe but also Euro-Asian area is a barrier placed between two continents and with regard to natural and geo-political characteristics which in recent years has been of interest to European countries; so that some countries in the region have been able to become a member of the Europe Union and others are trying to join the Union. The issue that comes to mind is, what factors led to Europe in the past years in the Balkans towards the EU with the course will focus on this article Bosnia and Herzegovina. This paper attempts to answer this question that what are the viewpoints of European Union to the Balkans, especially Bosnia and Herzegovina and whether Bosnia has a chance to join the European Union despite the internal ethnic divisions in this country. This raised the hypothesis that despite the ethnic divisions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Europe Union is reluctant to the conflict surrounding this field, especially in Bosnia and this underlying desire to join Europe Union countries in the Balkans to Europe.

With the start of the presidency of Barack Obama and his promise to change, America's foreign policy orientation altered from the Middle East to Asia, so that Obama during his presidency has made great efforts to focus United State's attention and resources to Asia-Pacific. What is the reason of America's strategic orientation change under the Obama presidency from the Middle East to Asia-Pacific? Where should be pursued the context of this change? Due to the proximity of the Obama doctrine to political realism principles, the reason of this change must be tracked on the Obama's realistic policies. Therefore, this study tries to show that how Obama's realistic foreign policy changed the strategic orientation of this country by using the analytical - explanatory method. In this regard, after examining the theory of political realism and Obama realistic doctrine, the Pivot to Asia strategy will be explored which represents an important change in the United States foreign policy from the Middle East to Asia-Pacific.

Transition from balancing can be regarded as the advent of neo-Ottomanize strategies. Neo-Ottomanize has found new ties with the realities of Caliphate and rule-oriented groups. Since the Justice and Development Party has close ideological ties with the rule-oriented Society of the Muslim Brothers, it has exerted notable influence on the mechanisms concerning political and security roles it can play in Turkey and the Middle East. The new assessment of the elements of power and the political role played by Turkey goes back to the time when the Justice and Development Party made an attempt to follow a new model of neo-Ottomanize in the structure as well as the regional strategic goals of Turkey. Although Ahmet Davutoğlu brought forward the theory of Strategic Depth: Turkey’s Position in International Relations”, the approach could not pave the grounds for regional balancing in Turkey’s security- policies. The strategic ties of Turkey and Saudi Arabia have affected the balancing process. The present study shows the “balancing strategy” has failed in its function to minimize the contradictions between Turkey and its surrounding including the Arabic Middle East and the East Mediterranean. The key question posed by the article is “Why the strategic balancing in the Justice and Development Party’s foreign policy has undergone a change?” Our hypothesis stresses that regional crises and emergence of new security contradictions in the Middle East has made it inevitable for Turkey to support regional Caliphate in its foreign policy while Turkey’s strategic balancing is inclined towards developing the interaction-cooperation-competition model with regards to the necessities of international policies as well as the strategic necessities of Turkey in its regional and international treaties.

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran in the past years had turned cold with military attack on Yemen and Saudi Arabia accuse Iran of military and political support for the movement Ansar Allah, their opposition was procedural. Therefore, this essay is to explain the strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia is responsible for the crisis in Yemen. In this regard, the author using descriptive - analytical and comparative approach, to answer the fundamental question that the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen have adopted a strategy for the crisis? In response to the question of Saudi Arabia has tried to form a coalition and military intervention in Yemen, Ansar Allah movement from the political power and in line with the current arrangements in the power structure of Iran's influence in the new government of Yemen to prevent it. Iran's spiritual and political support for the movement Ansar Allah and the revolutionaries in Yemen has been trying to alter the balance of regional power to their advantage. The results of this suggest that competition and conflict of interests between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the crisis in Yemen, has created a zero-sum game.

By the triumph of moderates in the eleventh presidential election in Iran, the Iranian foreign policy in general and more specifically its nuclear diplomacy has changed dramatically so that the compromise strategy has overcome the confrontation orientation. The present paper is to explain the factors behinds this dramatic change by applying the decision making theory of James Rosenau. The findings of the paper illustrate that respectively the international system; individual and social factors are more determinant factors and have crucial roles in the Iran’s nuclear diplomacy since 2013.

The second Persian Gulf war can be called the first great international crisis after the cold war, which occurred in a sensitive and strategic area between a huge number of international celebrities and Iraq that was invading Kuwait's land. The borderline disagreements between Persian Gulf countries comes from countrie's fights over the borders and it is considered as strategic developmental and significant goals for Iraq, Kuwait and Khouzestan in Iran. After failure at Khouzestan's experience and its union to Iraq, it was natural for Iraq to go forward to conquer its second goal which was Kuwait. After Iran-Iraq war's cease-fire big concerns surrendered Kuwait and other Persian Gulf countries about developmental politics. Iraq's military powers and having the world's fourth powerful army, financial problems with Arabic countries and Saddam's threats, were the problems which had made the Persian gulf area insecure in that era. On the other hand, the world that had known the Persian Gulf’s area as the heart of world's energy after the cold war, was seeking to determine the destiny of the world's power in this war. The US, after the loss of an equivalent competitor like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was trying to prove its new role as new world order in a world that claims to form around only one superpower. The second Persian Gulf war was an ideal chance for America to not only improve its position toward its economic competitors like European Union and Japan, but also to harness the international changes, and as the guardian of Arabic countries that produce oil, from then be able to control the heart beats of world's power and economy and at the end can rise as the world's superpower with no competitor after the second Persian Gulf war.

Due to existence of huge oil and gas resources and specific ecological conditions of the region and exploitation of these resources and environment by the adjacent countries, the Persian Gulf is exposed to continuous pollution risks. The strategic sensitivity of the region and political and military tensions and economic issues overshadows the important issues such as marine environment in this region and converted the Persian Gulf into one of the most polluted marine areas. The specific conditions of the region has caused that in the last decade of the 20th century, the major legal institutions attempted to affect changes for widespread support for environmental protection of this vital waterway. Taking into consideration that in principle, implementation of environmental protection management on a single base by each country is impossible and no use, therefore, the Persian Gulf countries decided to act in the framework of collective cooperation by concluding Kuwait convention on regional cooperation for environmental protection. In this article we try to check the terms and structures in the state responsibility, management and proper removal of pollutants in the region and internationally to identify strengths and weaknesses and the needs to be addressed and in that context to find solutions to achieve out of this crisis.