نشریه مطالعات راهبردی جهان اسلام
سال پانزدهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 60، زمستان 1393)

After the military invasion of Saudi Arabia to Yemen, there was much speculation about Russia's stance. Controversial news was, also, published in this regard. Based on the age-old relations whom Moscow has with Yemen, there are two key issues in Russian foreign policy with regard to Yemen crisis. Firstly, Russia's confrontation with these developments must include delicate diplomacy and strategic policy and secondly, challenges and concerns arising from these developments can seriously affect Russia's interests. In this regard, the present discussion is intended to answer the main question: "what approach has Russia to Saudi Arabia's military invasion to Yemen? And what is Russian perspective on this issue"? Accordingly, the main concept of this paper explains that "in spite of many differences it has with Saudi Arabia, Russia adopted a conservative approach and hands-off policy in the crisis due to the lack of its vital and primary interests in Yemen, opposition to revolutionary movement and uncertainty of success of one of the parties ".

Problems and challenges of today's turbulent world, from environmental issues to issues of politics, as well as conflict and extremism, have generated tensions in human life. In such circumstances, Western powers and their media tools have always been seeking to expand Islamophobia so that they fight off the current challenges by degrading the image of Islam and Muslims. This is while Islam invited in brotherhood and peace throughout history. Therefore, the letter of Ayatollah Khamanei, Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution of Iran, to western youth has been a turning point in the enlightenment of western man about the nature of Islam. It produced significant effects nationally and internationally. The present paper deals with this key focus by using discourse theory.

Since Iran's Islamic revolution, Israel has tried, on the one hand, to make Iran's regional areas insecure and uncertain with its presence in the environment of Islamic Republic and, on the other, cause damage to Iran's regional connection by intercepting Iranian policies in its environment. In the meantime, Tel Aviv is faced with both opportunities and limitations.During the past three decades, Azerbaijan, due to the Aliyev family's old relations with Israeli leaders and because of its fear of Iran's Islamic revolution influence on the countrie's Shiites, was subjugated to the impact and opposition policies of the Zionist Regime. Yet, there have been various issues, sometimes with a degree of exaggeration, about this relationship and its continuity.Sudan was among the first African countries which experienced the fall of a West- dependent Arab regime and the rise of an Islamic state in 1985. Because of its size, population, economic status and access to the Red Sea, Sudan soon turned into a major threat to Tel Aviv. When Hamas emerged in the occupied Palestinian territories, Khartoum became one of the most important supporters of the movement. Therefore, security and political behavior of Sudanese government has been under Israeli consideration, which led to several unilateral airstrikes of regime's army against areas in Sudan.The present paper seeks to study the degree of influence or effectiveness of the Zionist Regime on political-security process in the two countries, Azerbaijan and Sudan. It, also, analyses things related to Iran's national interests and security in these countries.

The present research sought to study the geopolitical impact of the Golan Heights on foreign policy of the Zionist regime. It reviewed strategic position, the formation of topographical boundaries, hydro politics, demographic structure and settlements, and economic and natural resources in the frame of the geopolitical theories. It was showed in the study that regarding the regime's negative strategic position, psychological and diplomatic superiority and control over water resources as well as the region's access to southern strategic routes to Syria, good opportunity for generating electricity from hydropower and wind, and its position as a buffer zone between Syria and Israel, the Zionist regime tries to continue its occupation and make use of the geopolitical advantages of this geo-strategic region of West Asia to the benefits of its unstable security.

In the conflict of Iran's nuclear case, Russian has always tried to adopt buffer stance to protect its interests at the same time on both sides of the conflict say Tehran and the West. Despite Moscow's claims on the normality of this approach – independent game in a complex environment, excessive dependence of Moscow's game on "SU" variable and assuming that the other end of the equation namely Iran has minor importance, can be regarded as the concrete manifest of the flaws in this policy. In overall estimation and regardless of some tactical variations, the nature of Moscow's role on Iran's nuclear case was not more than a passive action in the frame constructed by US. Due to this consequential performance, Kremlin's theoretical knowledge on the objectives of the pressure on Tehran – which is aimed to accommodate it to Washington's Long-term excesses in the Middle East –has not entered in the context of the "practical" policy of Russia. This behavior is inconsistent with the alleged principles of Moscow in opposing US expansionism and incompatible with its being as a "great independent power".