- سال پانزدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 54، تابستان 1398)
- تاریخ انتشار: 1398/06/01
- تعداد عناوین: 7
بحران اوکراین یکی از تقابلات مهم ژئوپلیتیکی میان آمریکا و روسیه محسوب می شود. روسیه بر این باور است که واشنگتن با نقش آفرینی در تحولات اوکراین و نادیده انگاشتن منافع و امنیت ملی کرملین، در راستای توسعه قلمروی نفوذ خود در حوزه ژئوپلیتیکی اش گام بر می دارد. از طرفی واشنگتن به بهانه الحاق کریمه به روسیه و ادامه حمایت مسکو از مخالفان شرق اوکراین، بسته های تحریمی را علیه روسیه به اجرا درآورده است و در تلاش برای خارج کردن اوکراین از مدار نفوذ مسکو برآمده است. سوال اصلی پژوهش این است که: در تقابل نوین آمریکا و روسیه کشور اوکراین چه نقشی را ایفاء می کند؟ مقاله حاضر به دنبال اثبات این فرضیه است که به لحاظ ژئوپلیتیکی در صفحه شطرنج اوراسیایی، اوکراین به عنوان محور ژئوپلیتیک، ابزاری برای روسیه به منظور کسب جایگاه هژمونی جهانی بوده و برای آمریکا اهرمی برای محاصره و تقلیل روسیه به یک امپراطوری آسیایی می باشد. روش پژوهش توصیفی- تحلیلی و بر مبنای نظریه ژئوپلیتیک شکل می گیرد.کلیدواژگان: بحران اوکراین، ترامپ، تسلیحات نظامی، ژئوپلیتیک، منافع ملی
مشکلات روزافزون مناطق ساحلی جهان در نیمه دوم قرن گذشته باعث نگرانی کشورها و مجامع جهانی گردید. به همین خاطر در دهه های آخر قرن بیستم تلاش گردید تا راهکارهای متعددی برای حل مسائل مناطق ساحلی ارائه شود که یکی از این راهکارها، ایجاد مدیریت یکپارچه این مناطق بود. این در حالی است که به رغم گذشت حدود چند دهه از طرح مدیریت یکپارچه مناطق ساحلی در سطح جهانی و وجود تجربیات متعدد در این حوزه، سازوکار مدیریت مناطق ساحلی در ایران به طور عام و در استان هرمزگان به طور خاص نشان می دهد که یکپارچگی در راهبردها و سیاست ها و هماهنگی در فعالیت ها و اقدام ها که اساس مدیریت یکپارچه است، وجود ندارد و در عین حال به رغم علم به وجود چنین مسایلی، دلایل آن، آنچنان که لازم است بررسی و تحلیل نشده اند. بنابراین، مقاله حاضر به دنبال پاسخ به این سوال است که عوامل اصلی تفرق و غیریکپارچه بودن مدیریت در مناطق ساحلی استان هرمزگان به عنوان یکی از استان های ساحلی ایران کدامند؟ برای پاسخ به سوال فوق با استفاده از روش تحقیق کیفی (تحلیل محتوای اسناد و پرسشنامه مشتمل بر سوالات باز و بسته)، نظام مدیریت مناطق ساحلی استان هرمزگان مورد مطالعه قرار گرفته است. نتایج نشان می دهد که عوامل اصلی تفرق و عدم یکپارچگی در مدیریت منطقه ساحلی استان هرمزگان شامل مواردی همچون فقدان رویکرد قانونی جامع و مستقل به موضوع مدیریت یکپارچه مناطق ساحلی، عدم تقسیم کار مشخص بین نهادهای مرتبط با مدیریت منطقه ساحلی، عدم پوشش لازم در تمام ابعاد موضوعی و فضایی مرتبط با مدیریت منطقه ساحلی، و عدم حمایت موثر و عادلانه از کلیه ذی نفعان مرتبط با مدیریت یکپارچه مناطق ساحلی مهمترین عوامل تفرق و غیریکپارچه بودن مدیریت در مناطق ساحلی استان هرمزگان هستند.کلیدواژگان: تفرق، یکپارچگی، مدیریت، مناطق ساحلی، هرمزگان
منابع آبی مشترک می توانند یک عامل هم برای مشارکت و همکاری و هم تنش و درگیری بین کشورهای ساحلی باشند. آب در کنار نفت، در حیات امنیتی و سیاسی منطقه غرب آسیا نقش و اهمیت ژئوپلیتیکی بسزایی داشته و دارد به گونه ای که مناسبات سیاسی و امنیتی بین کشورهای این منطقه را تحت تاثیر جدی خود قرار داده است. حوضه دجله و فرات بعنوان یکی از پرتنش ترین حوضه های آبریز فرامرزی دنیا و بزرگ ترین حوضه آبریز فرامرزی در منطقه غرب آسیا، از درهم تنیدگی های متعدد تاریخی، سیاسی، امنیتی، اقتصادی، اجتماعی و ژئوپلیتیکی با آب برخوردار است. بی اعتمادی سیاسی باقی مانده از گذشته و رقابت منطقه ای بین کشورهای ساحلی رودخانه های دجله و فرات تحت ساختار جنگ سرد، مناقشات آبی را از مسائل فنی به مسائل سیاسی و موردی برای تقابل به جای همکاری در منطقه تبدیل کرده است. هدف از این مقاله، بررسی وضعیت هیدروپلیتیک حوضه آبریز فرامرزی دجله و فرات و بررسی اقدامات کشورهای ساحلی برای تسلط بر منابع مشترک این کشور با تمرکز بر پروژه آناتولی جنوب شرقی (گاپ) ترکیه است. نتایج مطالعات نشان می دهد که ظرفیت سدها و سازه های احداث شده کشورهای ساحلی بر روی رودخانه فرات بیش از سه برابر آورد کل سالیانه این حوضه است. این در حالی ست که ظرفیت این سازه ها بر روی رودخانه دجله حدود پنج برابر است. نتایج بیانگر درهم تنیدگی جدی مسائل آب و محیط زیست با مسائل سیاسی و امنیتی در این حوضه است. علاوه بر این، اثرات جدی تغییرات اقلیمی بر افزایش دما، کاهش بارش، همچنین کاهش میزان رواناب سطحی و کاهش پتانسیل تولید انرژی برقابی؛ در کنار عدم اعتماد و رقابت جدی کشورهای ساحلی برای تسلط هر چه بیشتر بر منابع آبی حوضه، نگرانی های بسیار جدی در خصوص آینده این حوضه ایجاد کرده است که در صورت ادامه رویکردهای گذشته، می تواند آب و اثرات زیست محیطی حاصل از ایجاد سازه های آبی را در این حوضه از فاز فنی- سیاسی وارد فاز نظامی- امنیتی نماید.کلیدواژگان: آب های فرامرزی، هیدروپلیتیک، دجله و فرات، پروژه آناتولی جنوبی (گاپ)
در مفهوم تاریخی و سنتی ژئوپلیتیک به معنای تقابل تاریخی قدرت ها در کنترل و مالکیت سرزمین هاست که در آن نیروهای سیاسی هر طرف در منازعه برای رسیدن به اهداف خود از بازنمایی های گوناگون استفاده می کنند. بنابراین موضوع ژئوپلیتیک تاریخی، مطالعه تاثیر مکان بر سرنوشت تاریخ و تمدن است که گفتمان آن بر اساس روش های نوین پژوهشی همان رویکرد جغرافیای تاریخی بر نظام های سیاسی تاریخی است. در همین راستا این پژوهش سعی دارد، با رویکردی توصیفی- تحلیلی ضمن بررسی موقعیت و جغرافیای تاریخی شهر مارتیروپولیس، کارکردهای ژئوپلیتیکی، سیاسی و نظامی این شهر را ارزیابی و تحلیل نماید. نتایج پژوهش نشان می دهد که شهر مرزی مارتیروپولیس با توجه به اهمیتی ژئوپلیتیکی که برای دولت بیزانس داشته، در آسیای صغیر در مکان شهر تیگرانکرتا پایتخت قبلی ارمنستان به وجود آمده است. امپراتوران بیزانسی با ایجاد این شهر، باعث پیشگیری و یا حداقل مانع پیشرفت سریع ایرانیان در ارمنستان، آسیای صغیر، بین النهرین، سوریه و رسیدن به سرزمین های رومی شدند. در رابطه با اهمیت این شهر بایستی اضافه کرد که از دست رفتن چنین شهرهایی در دوره باستان به تغییر عمده در توازن قدرت منطقه منتهی می شد؛ به همین خاطر درگیری های ممتدی میان بیزانسی ها و ساسانیان به وجود آمد که به مرور تحلیل قدرت دو امپراتوری را به دنبال داشت.کلیدواژگان: بیزانس، ساسانیان، ژئوپلیتیک، آسیای صغیر، مارتیروپولیس
با وجود اینکه روابط پر فراز و نشیب ایران و عربستان به عنوان دو کشور تاثیرگذار خاورمیانه در سالهای پس از انقلاب اسلامی مورد توجه بسیاری از محققین و صاحبنظران بوده و از زوایای مختلف به آن پرداخته شده، اما تاکنون به تاثیر "سرمایه اجتماعی بینالمللی" بر روابط ایران و عربستان پرداخته نشده است. بر این اساس پرسش اصلی مقاله این است که سرمایه اجتماعی بین المللی چه تاثیری بر روابط ایران و عربستان در سالهای پس از انقلاب اسلامی داشته است؟ در پاسخ به پرسش مذکور بر این فرضیه تاکید میشود که میان نوسان در روابط ایران و عربستان در سالهای پس از انقلاب اسلامی و نوسان در میزان سرمایه اجتماعی بینالمللی آنها همبستگی وجود دارد. در واقع هدف نویسندگان مقاله این است که با نقد و بررسی رهیافتها و رویکردهای موجود، از «سرمایه اجتماعی بین المللی» به عنوان چارچوبی متفاوت یاد کرده و مبانی تئوریک، مولفههای مفهومی و نحوه کاربست آن برای تبیین روابط ایران و عربستان را مورد بررسی قرار دهند و در نهایت نیز با استفاده از روش همبستگی، میزان ارتباط متغیرهای مذکور را مشخص کنندکلیدواژگان: روابط خارجی، ایران، عربستان، رویکردهای نظری، سرمایه اجتماعی بین المللی
تحول در ساختار ژئوپلیتیک جهانی و بازدارندگی نیابتی و یک جانبه ایالات متحده (با محوریت عربستان سعودی)صفحات 146-172
پیش از جنگ سرد؛ ساختار امپریالیستی جوامع غربی تلاش گسترده ای برای تسلط سرزمینی داشت که با وقوع جنگ های جهانی اول و دوم و سپس ورود به فضای دوقطبی دستخوش تغییر شد. در خلال جنگ سرد تقسیم بندی های ژئوپلیتیکی میان دو ابرقدرت زمینه را برای شکل گیری نظریه های سد نفوذ، بازدارندگی و دومینوهای جهانی آماده ساخت. در ادامه، فروپاشی شوروی نقطه عطفی بود که تداوم تغییر در ساختار ژئوپلیتیکی را نشان می داد. در فضای جدید، غرب آسیا به عنوان کمربند انتقالی ژئواستراتژیک شرقی به غربی اهمیت دوچندان یافت. گذشته از این؛ تغییر دسته بندی بازیگران نیز، دو کشور قدرتمند منطقه ای ایران و عربستان سعودی را رودرروی یکدیگر قرار داد که درنتیجه، سیاست خارجی این دو به سمت بازدارندگی سوق داده شد. در این میان با ورود ایالات متحده و اعمال بازدارندگی یک جانبه گسترده به حمایت از عربستان، توازن در قدرت و نفوذ منطقه ای در حال تغییر است؛ بنابراین، سوال محوری پژوهش این است که تحول در ساختار ژئوپلیتیک جهانی چگونه مسئله بازدارندگی آمریکا در غرب آسیا و حمایت از عربستان سعودی را به دنبال داشته است؟ یافته های تحقیق موید این است که ایالات متحده با بهره گیری از نظریه بازدارندگی یک جانبه گسترده برای جلوگیری از توسعه نفوذ منطقه ای ایران بازدارندگی نیابتی را علیه جمهوری اسلامی ایران بکار گرفته است. درنتیجه، ضمن افزایش فشار ساختاری بر ایران به تقویت متحد منطقه ای خود عربستان سعودی و پوشش نارسایی های ژئوپلیتیک این کشور و تسلیح نظامی فراگیر و نیز مهم تر از همه، همکاری راهبردی با این کشور روی آورده است. هدف از این پژوهش نشان دادن مسئله بازدارندگی نیابتی آمریکا در غرب آسیا در قالب حمایت از عربستان سعودی است.کلیدواژگان: ساختار ژئوپلیتیک جهانی، بازدارندگی یک جانبه، ایالات متحده، عربستان سعودی، ج، ا، ایران
در سال های اخیر، تاثیرگذاری حوزه آسیا و پاسیفیک در معادلات ژئوپلیتیکی منطقه ای و جهانی و پییش بینی تغییر موازنه قدرت، باعث تغییر رویکرد امریکا به سمت پاسیفیک و تمرکز استراتژی ها و راهبردهای این کشور در این حوزه شده است. پژوهش حاضر بر این فرض استوار است که جایگاه آسیا- پاسیفیک در آینده نظام جهانی، سبب تغییر راهبرد آمریکا به سمت این منطقه شده است. روش شناسی پژوهش مبتنی بر رویکرد استدلالی و روش تحقیق، توصیفی- تحلیلی بوده و اطلاعات مورد نیاز از روش کتابخانه ای، گرداوری شده است. یافته های پژوهش نشان داد که افزایش قدرت اقتصادی و نظامی چین، تضمین دسترسی آزاد به منافع مشترک، تامین امنیت خطوط تجاری دریایی، مقابله با توسعه موشک های دور برد کره شمالی، تقویت اتحاد امنیتی آمریکا با کشورهای همسو و توسعه لیبرالیسم در منطقه از مهم ترین دلایل تغییر راهبرد ایالات متحده آمریکا به سمت حوزه آسیا- پاسیفیک بوده است.کلیدواژگان: ژئوپلیتیک، راهبرد، آسیا- پاسیفیک، آمریکا، چین
Ukraine became independent in August 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union and has experienced many ups and downs throughout its years of independence. In 2004, with the advent of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, Pro-Western groups in this country became powerful. However, the revolution did not finally succeed. In 2014, Ukraine was again a scene of many conflicts. Many observers point to the root causes of these tensions as domestic issues and ethnicity in this country. Some others see Ukraine as the point of encounter for trans-national powers such as the United States and the European Union with Russia, and even in some cases such tensions are referred to as the "new cold war". However, the role of the United States and Russia in these tensions has been important. The culmination point of the crisis, which in practice gave it an international dimension, was Russia's attempt to integrate the Crimean peninsula into its territory, which was faced with the sharp reaction of Western countries, especially the United States, and resulted in significant sanctions on Russia. Ukraine is important for the United States because it has access to the sea and it is in the close vicinity of the largest Russian navy. From the American perspective, although Russia is not as powerful as the Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia, it has the potential to prevent the realization of American interests in this geopolitical heartland, so trying to isolate Russia at its borders is the best way to hit Moscow. As a result, the West and especially the United States constantly accuse Russia of interfering in eastern Ukraine and, thus, they imposed several rounds of sanctions against Moscow on the pretext of joining the Crimea to Russia after a referendum. The Trump administration along with the US Congress has now also approved a new sanction package against Russia, and this action by Trump caused Russia-US relations to grow cold. The present is conducted based on the geopolitical theoryMethodology
The present study employs a descriptive-analytic method and is considered a basic research. The required data were collected through library techniques from various books, journals, and databases.Findings
Ukraine is economically and geopolitically important for the United States because it is the second largest country in Europe and is geographically adjacent to Russia. Therefore, the US influence in Ukraine, not only economically, can provide a massive market for American goods, but also can act as a move toward the Russian borders. Accordingly, in line with its traditional policy of geopolitical competition with Russia and the expansion of its influence in the independent states of the Soviet Union, the United States considers Ukraine to be an appropriate venue for expanding its presence nest to Russia (Shoaib, 2015: 55-56). The use of Ukraine by the United States and its allies to "put" Russia “into a box. in other words, the siege of Russia, according to the Russians' belief in the geopolitical logic of power, has made inevitable the intensification of political tensions in eastern Ukraine, and the annexation of the strategic Crimean peninsula as the Black Sea Fleet Headquarter to Russia. The sense of insecurity that the Russians suffered as a consequence of the other side of the problem led Vladimir Putin to move in a way that, despite the negative consequences in relations with the West, and in particular the United States, and contrary to the provisions of the Budapest Memoir, to breach Ukraine's sovereignty. According to the provisions of the memo signed by Russia, the United States, and the United States in 1994, these three countries agreed to guarantee Ukraine's "independence and sovereignty" in return for the submission of all nuclear weapons by Ukraine (Dehshiar, 2014: 178-179).
On September 1, 2016, the US Treasury Department's Foreign Assets Control Agency updated the list of individuals and sanctions against various sectors involved in the conflict in Ukraine. The new sanctions list the names of 37 natural entities, 11 Crimean officials, several companies affiliated with the giant Russian gas industry, Gazprom, and 18 active companies in Crimea, including a number of defense equipment manufacturing and shipbuilding companies. In December 2016, the US government added 15 Russian nationals and companies to the blacklist of sanctions for their commercial activities in the Crimea and Ukraine (Morelli, 2017: 34). The sanctions, which have been accompanied by a sharp drop in oil prices, have imposed significant costs on Russia. The Trump Administration has stated that Moscow sanctions remain as long as Russia is present in eastern Ukraine (Blinken, 2017: 3). On December 22, 2017, Tramp allowed the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine, which had been suspended a long time ago. The US-Ukrainian arms deal, first published by the Washington Post on December 20, 2017, is worth about $ 41.5 million and seems to include M107A1 sniper systems, ammunition, and related parts and equipment. This marks the largest commercial deal for US defense weapons with Ukraine since 2014. In the same year, the US Congress approved the sale through the adoption of the Law of “Protection of Ukrainian Freedom” (Haltiwanger, 2017: 4). With the rise of a pro-Western government in Kyiv in 2014, new Ukrainian authorities have called for integration into Western institutions, especially NATO and the European Union (Yusufi-Saraph, 1396: 2). In the meantime, it should be noted that if Ukraine joins the European Union and NATO, the borders of its Western Front will coincide with Russia's geographic borders, a threat considered by Russia's defense strategy which is based on its strategic depth. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly stated that Russia will do its best to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, making it a red line. During the Ukrainian crisis over Ukraine's Free Trade Agreement with the European Union, Russia warned its grave and catastrophic consequences and, from the outset, declined imports from Ukraine and threatened to cut off gas exports, and showed this red line by the annexation of Crimea to its territory (Oguz, 2015: 3). The widespread conflict between Russia and the US over Russia's actions in Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula did not take place in a vacuum, as there was an environment conducive for such developments. The belief that "Russia-US relations remain on the automatic key of the Cold War era" is indicative of the fact that the two countries still have an offensive approach towards each other, the most striking feature of which has emerged in the Ukrainian crisis (Dehshiar, 2014: 110-112) so that their presence and involvements in the developments in Ukraine have added to the complexity of the situation in the country. Finally, despite Washington's insistence on supporting the pro-Western government in Keef, Moscow insists that the United States cannot use Ukraine to ransom Russia. Russia's reiteration of the possibility of negotiating with the United States over Ukraine has been expressed following the recent comments by Donald Trump. In late 2017, Donald Trump announced that the prerequisite for the lifting of sanctions against Russia is to change its stance against the Ukrainian crisis. From the point of view of the US authorities, sanctions against Russia should be maintained until Moscow observes the provisions of the Minsk-2 agreement to resolve the eastern Ukrainian crisis.Conclusion
Due to its unique cultural, identity, and economic characteristics, Ukraine has been prone to tension and the internal crisis between the east and west of the country. The Ukrainian crisis has been already exacerbated at regional and international levels, which can be explained by the internal factors as well as by the rivalry and the intervention of foreign powers such as Russia and the US-led West. The crisis in 2014 provided the ground for Russia and Ukraine divergence, and on the other hand, Ukraine's convergence with the West. With the rise of a pro-Western government in Kyiv in 2014, new Ukrainian authorities have called for integration into Western institutions, especially NATO and the European Union, but this process has faced a clear opposition from Moscow, especially in the military sphere. Russia, as the most important neighbor of Ukraine, is the largest opposition to Ukraine's membership in NATO. The Russians regard NATO's deployment in neighboring countries, in particular, the near-border countries, especially Ukraine, as crossing the Moscow red line and endangering Russia's national security. On the other hand, the main demand of the pro-western government of Ukraine is to expand its relations with the US as the leader of the Western bloc. Although the US-Ukraine relationship was developing during the presidency of Barack Obama, with the arrival of Donald Trump and his apparent willingness to improve US-Russian relations (given Moscow's alleged support for him during the American election campaigns), the Western-oriented Kyiv government was more cautious with the new US administration. Nonetheless, the recent developments, in particular, the adoption of a new sanctions package against Russia in the US Congress, and then transforming it into a law by having it signed by Tramp, boosted Kyle's optimism and affected the Washington-Moscow relationship. Finally, Tramp's administration in a dispute between Russia and Ukraine has provided widespread support for pro-Western authorities in Kiev and has increased its military aid to Kyiv. The main purpose of Washington is to weaken the Russian wing in the outside region near Russia by removing Ukraine from Moscow’s influence realm.Keywords: Ukraine's crisis, Trump, Military weapons, Geopolitics, National Interest
Having a short glance on the management of Iran beaches generally, and in specific in Hormozgan shows that there is not any integration of strategies, policies or activity coordination which are the basis of integrated management. Since the organizations, responsible for governing the coastal zone, mainly are going to achieve and implement their own plans and programs, therefore the main common principles, from the integrated management, cannot be considered as the basis of planning and policy making at the moment in the coastal area of province. There are many beneficiaries and operators at the coastal zone of the province such as, Cultural Heritage Organization, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization, town halls, military institutes, the private sector operators, Ports and Maritime Organization, Fisheries Organization and other organizations who control or work on the coastal zone direct or indirect. Accordingly, there will not a common principle, the principle that has been emphasis by the integrated management. Therefore, the present study is going to find out what are the main factors of inconsistency and non-integration of management at the coastal zone of Hormozgan province.Theoretical framework
The integrated management of coastal zone is almost a new issue and has its roots in 1990's. Due to the novelty of the issue, the relevant management approach has not been known completely. However the integrated management of coastal zone has been discussed as a new approach, the relevant concepts and factors should still be found at the macro level of patterns and governing methods. Many concepts and aspects of the integrity have been discussed the point that the main factor of the integrated management includes fragmentation and inconsistency among the policies and rules about the usage of coastal area, inconsistency among the management institutes and organizations, inconsistency among the local programs, inconsistency between the local institutions and regional institutions, also between regional institutions and national institutions, and the lack of participation of the people and the private sectors in management and planning of coastal area. In general, the integrity in management of the land space, including coastal zone, can be concluded at three levels: -The functional integrated level which means an integrated management and coordinated economic, framework, social and environmental functions. Also, an integrity in policies, programs and the relevant procedures to the existing resources in the coastal area (including the land and water); -The integrity of management layers which is about the coordination in policy making, planning and their implications; and -The territorial (special) integrity level which mentions the integrated management of the territory space; the level of integrity is a link between the functional integrity level and management integrity levels, and the integrity can be seen clearly at this level.Methodology
The qualitative research method has been used at the present study. To recognize the management system of coastal area of Hormozgan province, which has been influenced by the province management system, also the rules and policies of management and operation of coastal area, the following methods have been used: 1. The content analysis of documents: One of the main goals of the present study is the recognition and analysis of the rules and policies of management, also the operation style of coastal area, and the duties and options of the different organizations and institutions at the national, province and local levels. 2. Questionnaire: To have a better cognition of the existing official-political structure and the province organizations, especially the workgroup and councils, the beneficiary people and non-governmental organizations (including private and public) in management at the macro level, there is a need to find out about the viewpoint of the relevant institutions and responsible people. Therefore, the statistical society is included the logistic workgroup members, environment and sustainable development of the province. Results The content analyses of documents, relevant to the coastal area, and the data from the questionnaire show that the problems and issues of coastal area institutional and organizations of Hormozgan province can be divided into four main groups: 1.First, considering the focused system of administration in the country, the problems and inadequacies at the national level, which have been prevalent in the country in governing the problems, especially at the territorial management, it has been extended to Hormozgan,too. 2.Second, the institutional-organizational problems and inadequacies due to the rules and regulations of coastal area, especially the rules and regulations about the duties and responsibilities of coastal areas' institutions and organizations. These kinds of institutional-organizational problems led by weakness and insufficiency of legal aspects of management and operation of coastal area can be studied, especially about the insufficiency of duties and responsibilities of the relevant institutions and the unclear duties and responsibilities and the interference of duties. 3.Third, the problems and weakness led by the lack of clear definition of specific position for the private sector and the non-governmental and public institutions, and the local society in administration in general, and operation and management of Hormozgan province coastal area in particular. 4.The fourth group of organizational-institutional problems relevant to coastal areas, which have been more objective in comparison with the other problems and can be seen in more real form at the area, is the aspects led by political dividing at Hormozgan coastal areas which can be seen in the form of growing down of the country division.Discussion and Conclusion
Hence, the results from the management of Hormozgan province coastal areas system show that there is not any integrity in strategies and policies and activity coordination and the procedures which are supposed to be the basis of the integrated management. Considering the point that every responsible organization, relevant to coastal area administration, is going to implicate and achieve its own goals and plans, the common aims and fundamentals of the integrated management of coastal area would not be considered as the basis of planning and policy making in the coastal areas' planning. The objective samples of not considering these principles in official programs and regulations in coastal area can be seen in the existence of a significant number of development documents such as, the logistics pattern of Hormozgan province, the logistic pattern of Hormozgan's shoreline, the south regional framework and some other similar patterns and plans which have been planned without any connection and coordination together, and some of them are going to be implemented by the administrative. In addition, the wide range of beneficiaries and operators in coastal regions of the province illustrates the regional beaches have been controlled and operated without a comprehensive program and coordination by some military institutions, Cultural Heritage Organization, Handicraft and Tourism Organization, coastal area municipalities, the private sector operators, Port and Marine Organization, Fisheries Organization and some other organizations, direct or indirect. As a result, the background factor of scattering and non-integrity in the coastal areas of Hormozgan can be concluded in 1) the lack of an independent and comprehensive legal approach to an integrated management of coastal areas, 2) the lack of a particular and independent approach about the management of coastal regions, 3) the lack of division of labor among the relevant organizations and institutions in integrated management of coastal areas, 4) the lack of covering of the whole subjective and spatial aspects of integrated management of coastal areas and 5) the lack of effective and fair support for the whole elements and beneficiaries relevant to integrated management of coastal areas.Keywords: Management, planning system, fragmentation, Integrity, Coastal zone, Hormozgan
Shared water resources can be a source of both cooperation and conflict among riparian countries (Mianabadi, Sheikhmohammady, Mostert, & Van de Giesen, 2014). Water, along with oil, plays a major geopolitical role in the security and political life of the West Asia region, and has had a serious impact on the political and security relations among the countries of the region. Among 286 transboundary river basins, the Euphrates and Tigris River Basins (ETRB), as one of the most challenging transboundary river basin in the world and the largest transboundary basin area in the West Asia, have diverse historical, political, security, economic, social, and geopolitical complexity with water. Building national security is a dominant phenomenon in the West Asia that has been under a dynamic interaction with water issues due to multiple controversies and relations of riparian countries of international rivers in this region. Accordingly, management and utilization of transboundary river absins, especially in this region, is more sensitive and complex than national and local basins (Mianabadi, Mostert, & Van de Giesen, 2015). After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the beginning of 20th century, three new countries including Turkey, Syria, and Iraq formed which were riparian states neighboring the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. With the collapse of this Empire, hydro-political activities of riparian countries for even more but limited domination over shared water resources in this basin have resulted in different political and security challenges in this critical area. Large scaled irrigation and hydropower projects that started in 1960s by riparian states of the ETRB, regarded as a threat to national security of the other neighboring countries and these countries made efforts to stop such attempts through various measures. For example, the tension between Iraq and Syria in 1975 over construction and operation of Tabqa dam in Syria and reduction in flow of the Euphrates River went on to the brink of a full-fledged war, as such that Iraq threatened Syria by bombing Tabqa dam. This conflict was the reason for these two to deploy their forces in boundaries of the other state, but ultimately, it ended through mediation of Saudi Arabia and USSR (Korkutan, 2001; Sadeghi, 1997). Some research reveal that at least 40% of the Euphrates flow to downstrearm riparians has been lost due to over-exploitation since 1972 and the overall flow of the river is expected to reduce further and faster in the coming decade, exacerbated by climate change (Shamout & Lahn, 2015).Methodology
The purpose of this study is to investigate hydro-political status of ETRB and to examine measures of riparian states to dominate the shared water resources of the region, especially the Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) by Turkey. Therefore, at first, we will introduce climate, geographical, and hydrological status of the region through an analytical-descriptive approach and by studying books and articles and collecting various data from valid scientific websites as well as analyzing different documents and information provided by international organizations including UNDP and UNEP. Then we will scrutinize Euphrates and Tigris river basin water utilization projects of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey, particularly GAP project. In addition, we briefly deliberate possible impacts of climate change on the region in a overview.Result and discussion
The ETRB is a shared basin among seven countries consisting of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. In most studies about the ETRB, three countries including Turkey, Iraq, and Syria- were investigated and Iran and Saudi Arabia are less examined and it has been confined to only taking them into account as being geographically present in this basin. Table 1. The Euphrates and Tigris River Basin (N. A. Al-Ansari, 2013; N. Al-Ansari & Knutsson, 2011; ESCWA & BGR, 2013) Country Tigris River Euphrates River Catchment Area (km2) Total Catchment Area (%) Catchment Area (km2) Total Catchment Area (%) Turkey 54145 24.5 125000 28.2 Syria 884 0.4 76000 17.1 Iraq 123981 56.1 177000 39.9 Iran 41990 19 - - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan - - 66000 14.9 Total 221000 100 444000 100 Table 2. Potential of Flow Generation and Length of the River in the ETRB Country Tigris River Euphrates River Length of the river (Kliot, 1994) Water potential of the river and total catchment area (%) (Ibrahim & Sonmez, 2002; Kucukmehmetoglu, 2009; Lupu, 2002; TMFA (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), 1996) Length of the river (Kliot, 1994) Water potential of the river and total catchment area (%) (Kaya, 1998; Kucukmehmetoglu, 2009; Lupu, 2002; Zawahri, 2006) Turkey 400 km (32 %) 25240 (52 %) 1230 km (41 %) 31580 (89 %) Syria 32 km (1%) 0 710 km (23 %) 4000 (11 %) Iraq 1418 (77 %) 23430 (48 %) 1060 (36 %) 0 Total 1850 km (100 %) 48670 (100 %) 3000 (100 %) 35580 (100 %) The contribution of Iran and Iraq is respectively 10% and 38% (Kaya, 1998). Summary of development projects in the ETRB Table 3 indicates the capacity of constructed and under construction infrastructures of riparian states including -Turkey, Iraq, and Syria in the Euphrates and Tigris basin. Table 3. Capacity of constructed and under construction infrastructures of the riparian states in the ETRB River Turkey Syria Iraq Total % of total flow of basin Storage Capacity (BCM) % of total Catchment Storage Capacity % of total Catchment Storage Capacity (BCM) % of total Catchment The Tigris River Basin 17.6 35 % 1.5 3 % 130 260 % 149 Thrice The Euphrates River Basin 98 325 % 17.7 59 % 37.6 125 % 153 Quintuple Total 115.6 145 % 19.2 25 % 167.6 210 % 302 Three eighths As shown in this table, the capacity of constructed and under construction infrastructures of the riparian states on the Euphrates River basin contain more than three times of total annual runoff of the basin while this rate for the Tigris River is about five times. Despite this fact that about 89% of the Euphrates originates from Turkey, according to table 2, the country is able to store more than triple the annual average flow of the Euphrates basin. Furthermore, the storage capacity of Turkey’s structures and dams on the Tigris is 17.6 BCM that exceeds the natural annual average flow volume of the the Tigris at Cizre near borders of Turkey and Syria (approximately 16.8 BCM). It shows that Turkey is able to store the total water flowing in its territory in this basin. In addition, the total capacity of the dams and structures constructed in Turkey on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is more than 1.5 times the total, which is more than twice as large for Iraq. Moreover, total capacity of constructed structures and dams of Turkey on Euphrates and Tigris is more than 1.5 times as high as the total natural flow of the basin, these numbers, however, is more than two times for Iraq. Table 6 also indicates that capacity of the constructed structures on the Tigris and Euphrates is more than 300 BCM, which is four times higher than the total available water resources in the basin. Among these, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq have allocated more than 40 percent, more than 6 percent, and near 54 percent of this capacity, respectively.Conclusion
Results of this study indicate that there is a serious complexity between environmental issues and political and security problems in the region. Studies show that by mere focusing on a country and only concentrating on the GAP project including the Illisu dam on the Tigris, we cannot understand and analyze the complexity of hydro-political issues and challenges in this basin. In addition, the influential impacts of climate change include warming temperatures, decreases in precipitation, increases in the frequency or intensity of some extreme weather events, and runoff as well as the hydroelectric power generation decline, along with distrust and serious competition of the riparian states have led to serious concerns about the future of the basin.This can militarize and securitize water and environmental impacts of constructed hydro-structures rather than being a technical-political issue. Generally, some main overarching challenges concern riparians in this basin including climate change, the weak institutional capacity of the riparian states to cooperate over shared utilization of benefits of the basin, and last but not the least, historical background and mistrust among riparian countries. They could turn water and environmental impacts caused by construction of hydro-structures from the technical-political phase to the military-security once. To tackle these challenges, a comprehensive hydro-political approach that simultaneously considers legal, political, economic, technical and security aspects is essential to managing conflict in this basin. For this purpose, comprehensive studies along with holistic approach in the legal, political, economic, security and environmental fields are necessary.Keywords: Transboundary Waters, hydropolitic, Euphrates, Tigris, Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP)
Geopolitics (a special method) that uncovers and analyzes critical phenomena and defines aggressive or defensive strategies for a territorial boundary in terms of human and natural geography. (Loro and Toval 1961:34) thus it can be said that geopolitics, as government and political groups (knowledge of competition and the expansion of the sphere of influence) to seek and seize power, tools, levers and geographic opportunities which gives them power and the ability to overcome the rival. they compete to capture opportunities and geographic opportunities in location and spaces and try to further expand they influence in geographic area and add then to their activities .on the other hand drive out rivals from disputed spaces. (Hafez nia,1965:17)in this historical and traditional sense geopolitics in traditional and historical conceptions is the power opposition to become landowner and control the territory in which the political force of each confliction side use different representation to achieve their goals. Therefore the issue of historical geopolitics is the study of the place affection on history and civilization fate whose is its discourse is on the new research method in the geographic approach (historical geography) on historical political system. (Bay, 1968:11) in this regard this research tries to process the geopolitical, political, and military functions of this city, it wants to analyze the historical and geography position of Martyropolis city.Result and Discussion
Martyropolis is a city on the borders of Iran and Byzantine which according to the most historians and researcher was established in the city of Tigrankerta the former Armenia capital founded by Tigran in the 1st century BC (markoat, 1944: 63; shipman, 1964: 68: Diakonf, 1964: 231; Dernarsian, 2537:21; Avdoyan, 2006: 97). When Armenia was divided between Iran and Rome in 387 AD it was the capital of sufen. It was in the midst of great Armenia which Farat and Degle headwater was in the west and east of it (Jones, 2012: 481-507) the ancient regimes built cities in the geopolitical region such as the major point of the border. The construction of this cities brought political and military function.Conclusion
The border towns and conflict Iran and Byzantine over their domination include the bulk of the relation between these two powers during the Sassanid era, as the center of the confluence of these two powers in the cities of Minor Asia, Syria, Caucasus and Mesopotamia. Ancient regimes started to build cities in the geopolitical regions such as the border point. The construction has brought them political and military functions. Among these cities one can mention is Martyropolis which has been created in Minor Asia, due to the geopolitical significance for the Byzantine state. the Minor Asia peninsula has always been like the bridge between Asia and Europe and has been considered as the east and west confliction ground from the beginning of history .Regarding the geographic location of the Martyropolis city current sylvan in southeastern turkey it should be said that this city stated in the Degleh river headwater in the north (Diyarbakir) and in the southeast of Van lake in the way which connected Armenia to Mesopotamia. As the most historian and researchers said Martyropolis has been built in the place of Tigrankerta (the former capital of Armenia) that was founded by Tigran in the first century BC. There are many different view about constructor of Martyropolis, for instance individuals like Maya, Farigin, Marosa, Helena, Constantine, Khosro Anoshirvan, Khosro Parviz and some of these sources go further and claimed that Miafarghin is one of the tree cities which made after Noah storm .Byzantine empire created city to prevent or at least hindered the progress of Iranians in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Minor Asia, Syria and then the Roman territories. Therefore it should be said that Miafarghin by its geopolitical position played an important role in Byzantine defense system. As its fortress were strengthened at different time and during the region of roman emperors, such as Arkadios, Second Teodosios, Mastazius and Jostinin to defense Iranian attacks. Regarding the importance of this city it should be acknowledged that the loss of such cities in the ancient time led to a major change in the power balanced in the region; for this reason the Byzantine not willing to lose this cities, and this caused continuing conflicts between them and the Sassanians emperors which little by little reduced the power of both empires.Keywords: Minor Asia, Historical geography-Geopolitical, Martyropolis
The widespread fluctuations in Iran-Saudi relations as two influential countries of the Middle East have led many scholars and experts to explain their relationship, which has led to the development of various views and opinions in this regard. By critically examining these views and theories, it can be seen that although each of them has the ability to explain the stages or periods of relations between the two countries, they have not been able to explain the whole fluctuation in their relations. This situation has led to study of the issue as main problem of the article and the critique of the existing views and ideas aimed to introduce "international social capital" as a new approach, and analyzing the fluctuations of relations between the two countries in the years after the Islamic Revolution based on the approach.Methodology
This research at the theoretical and practical levels requires using of its own methods. At the theoretical level, using the documents and library resources, describes and criticizes existing approaches. In the next stage, is explained the conceptual and theoretical basis of international social capital as a new framework. Accordingly, at the practical level, after determining the dimensions, components and indicators of international social capital, quantitative measurements placed on the agenda in order to finally analyze the relationship between the fluctuation in the international social capital of Iran and Saudi Arabia and the fluctuation in relations between the two countries, based on the available statistical data.Findings
The findings of this study are discussed under the following themes:1. Critique of the existing views and approaches on Iran and Saudi Arabia Relations
The existing views and approaches on Iran and Saudi Arabia relations have some deficiency in the ontological, epistemological and methodological levels, which discussed in details in theoretical part of the article.
2. Benefits of international social capital as a framework for explaining Iran and Saudi Arabia relations
International social capital as a new theoretical approach has some advantages for explaining relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia in compare to the existing approaches discussed in the article.
3. Measurement of international social capital of Iran and Saudi Arabia during the years under review
Attempts have been made to measure the amount of international social capital of Iran and Saudi Arabia annually based on accurate and comprehensive quantitative indicators.
4. Measure the fluctuation in relations of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the years under review
Attempts have been made to measure the fluctuation of Iran-Saudi Arabia relations in the period under review, based on quantitative indicators.
5. Influence of Iran and Saudi Arabia's international social capital on their relations
Data analysis clearly shows that the fluctuation in relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the years after the Islamic Revolution was influenced by the fluctuation in their international social capital.
The average of total international social capital of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the first period of relations between the two countries was 30 and 55, respectively. The 25 percent difference between their international social capital shows that there is tension in their relationship with a score of 28, which is obtained for the level of relations between the two countries.
The average of total international social capital of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the second period was 38 and 58 respectively. The upward trend of the international social capital of the two countries compared to the previous period is consistent with the increase in the level of relations between the two countries to 61 score.
The average of total international social capital of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the third period of relations between the two countries was 34 and 53 respectively, indicating a decreasing trend, and this situation matches with the decrease of the average rating of the relations between the two countries to 30.
The average of total international social capital of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the fourth period of relations between the two countries was 35 and 53 respectively, which is slightly different from the previous period. This situation is also consistent with a slight increase in the level of the relationship between the two countries.Conclusion
Research findings indicate that whenever international social capital of the two countries started to grow at the same time, their relations went out of tension and rivalry, and led them to friendly relations and cooperation. In contrast, when the international social capital of the two countries collapsed simultaneously, often the relations between the two countries have been out of competition and they have been on the path to tension and hostility. Also, if the international social capital of a country has increased and the international social capital of the other country has fallen, the relations between the two countries have led to tension and hostility.Keywords: Foreign Relations, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Theoretical Approaches, International Social Capital
The evolution of the global geopolitical structure and the unilateral deterrence of the United States (centered on Saudi Arabia)Pages 146-172Introduction
The global geopolitical structure has been affected by various changes, the process of this change, especially after World War II, has undergone various stages that have been persistent. One of the most important dimensions of the transformation of the geopolitical structure of the world has been its influence on regions and poles, especially in West Asia, where, in particular, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the domination of the United States, regional power distribution also changed, and two regional poles Iran and Saudi Arabia confronted each other with two actors on the agenda due to the fear of widespread war and its consequences. Meanwhile, the United States, as an actor in line with Saudi Arabia, tried to compensate Saudi Arabia for deterrence against Iran, thus pursuing unilateral deterrence.Methodology
This research is based on the collection of library and documentary data and is attempting, based on the multivariate correlation research method, to link the variables "change in global geopolitical structure", "change in regional levels" and "deterrence from the United States" in the form Analytical and based on the conceptual framework of geopolitical relationship and deterrence.Findings
The research findings can be summarized as follows:1. Geopolitical interaction and deterrence
The transformation of the global geopolitical structure has made the regions once more recognized as the focal points of the crisis. Accordingly, West Asia has also been seen as an area of interest to transnational actors, especially the United States.
2. Evolution in global geopolitical structure and polarization
The expansion of the global scale to regional levels has led to new polarization and opposition between the Islamic Republic and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, the United States has worked as the most important transnational player to maintain its regional interests through Saudi Arabia.
3. Security link between Saudi Arabia and the United States
With the coming of the Islamic Republic in the region, a new dimension of strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia was formed, which included supporting the Saudi government to provide regional security. Accordingly, the new threat against Saudi Arabia and the inappropriate relations of Iran with the United States led to a US desire to deter Iran.
4. Saudi failures to confront Iran and US support
The two major milestones, including the US invasion of Iraq and the 2011 developments, led to a regional equilibrium shift to Iran's advantage, so that Saudi Arabia alone could not be opposed to Iran. Therefore, the United States sought to compensate Saudi Arabia for its shortcomings. Different ways. The United States has increased the pressure on Iran to compensate for Saudi Arabia's geopolitical deficiencies, the creation of structural constraints against Iran, the protection and enhancement of Saudi Arabia's arsenal and military action, and the new strategic partnership and linkage, thereby preventing a regional equilibrium shift to Iran's benefit.Analysis
The path of transformation in the global geopolitical structure has been a vertical path that initially affected the macro level of power, then regional levels, and ultimately the relations between the Islamic Republic and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the fear of a rival war and the inability to win the Iran-Saudi war has led to deterrence. With the United States entering this relationship and supporting Saudi Arabia, the atmosphere of regional power has fluctuated. In this regard, although the time periods after 2011 were regional conditions for the benefit of Iran, but with the arrival of the Trump government, the balance was shifting to Saudi gain.
The takeover of the new US administration has led Saudi Arabia to repair its relations with the country. The withdrawal of the Trump government from the nuclear deal with Iran has also changed the context for rebalancing Saudi Arabia's profits to the detriment of Iran, especially since the Trump government has tried to force other global actors to exert pressure on Iran, Unlike Obama, the Trump term is that the regional balance of power is changing for Saudi Arabia.Keywords: Global geopolitical structure, unilateral deterrence, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Islamic Republic of Iran
The impact of the Asia-Pacific region on regional and international security equations, especially the emergence of emerging powers in the region, has increased its importance in the security equations and strategic strategies of other actors, especially the United States. This policy of focusing the United States on East and West Asia is more than a military and economic leverage. Developing economies and acquiring markets, and especially long-term economic benefits, is the first word in US policy and its rivals in the region. Therefore, the present study is based on the assumption that the position of the Asia-Pacific region in the future of the global system and the interests of the United States has changed its strategy towards the Pacific.Methodology
This research is an applied research, which is done using the descriptive-analytical research method. According to the nature of the subject, the method of collecting information is in the library and Internet. In this way, the required information for books and articles is extracted and classified and then analyzed in a qualitative way.Findings
By analyzing and analyzing the developments in the Pacific, the most important reasons for changing the US approach towards Asia-Pacific can be summarized as follows:(1). Increasing China's economic and military strength:Americans believe China is looking for excellence in Asia, and that excellence can endanger the interests of the United States and its allies. Therefore, if the United States wants to maintain its supremacy in Asia-Pacific, it should seek to prevent China's hegemony in Asia. While the US will compete with China, it will reject the opposition. Concern is that in the end, China will try to expel the US forces from the region and dominate the East Asian political and economic situation.
(2). Confronting the development of long-range missiles in North Korea: The geopolitical roots of the crisis in North Korea are largely attributable to the behavioral patterns of geostrategic actors in the Asia-Pacific region, although the kind of political system ruling this country, its lack of legitimacy, economic poverty, ruling ideology, and the lack of natural resources, are exacerbating the crisis. North Korea's nuclear disarmament will be the two main issues exchanged in the new Washington-Pyongyang diplomacy to provide security guarantees that the North Korean Communist government will accept the legitimacy of the United States and the international community.
(3). Ensuring Free Access to Maritime Lines: About 90% of global shipping is transported through sea transport. Since US interests have always been through the transfer of energy supplies through the sea, the country has always been struggling to protect the freedom of the seas.
(4). Enhancing US Security Alliance with Equal Forces:The United States is deepening its defense ties with partners in the Pacific, such as Australia, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam. These engagements, treaties and partnerships also focus on strengthening the capacity of its partners to monitor growing regional challenges in areas such as missile defense, cybersecurity, space, maritime security, and disaster prevention.
(5). Development of American Liberalism in the Pacific:Another logic that shapes US foreign policy is liberalism. America's main doctrines of the logic of free trade or the market-based economy, the spread of democracy in the world, the protection of human rights and the achievement of nations have set the fate of their foreign policy instruments after World War II and pursued their policies in the world. Although liberal democracy has become more instrumental in American politics and liberal democracy doctrines have been pursued in countries that have failed to comply with US interests.
(6). The interests of US industrial complexes:The military economy in America is now three times larger than other sectors. This situation has created the perception in the United States that the military industrial complex is a stimulus to the US economy. Threat of China were among the inventions that were created to increase the huge Pentagon budget.Analysis
The new US policy, clearly outlined in its defense strategies, is based on the growing influence of the East Asian region and its efforts to transfer its naval and air forces to the region in recent years. Enhancing China's economic and military strength, ensuring free access to common interests, securing maritime shipping lines, tackling the development of North Korea's long-range missiles, strengthening US security alliance with neighboring countries, and developing liberalism in the region are among the most important reasons for changing US strategy to On the Asian-Pacific side.Conclusion
The Asia Pacific region has become one of the most important geopolitical centers in the world, with its important and growing role in global equations and competitions. Based on it’s economic, political and security characteristics, the region has been the site of a great deal of power politics, such as the United States and China. Therefore, the strategy of returning to Asia and the Pacific has been raised from the standpoint of China's economic and military growth, and from a macro perspective a multidimensional policy that emanates from the economic, political and strategic implications of the United States in the region. The main purpose of the United States to balance and balance in East and Southeast Asia is to strengthen and renew its security, economic, and diplomatic relations with its allies to undermine China's growing power.Keywords: Geopolitics, strategy, Asia-Pacific, America, China