پژوهشنامه علوم سیاسی
سال پنجم شماره 3 (پیاپی 19، تابستان 1389)

Probably the most important impact of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, as the symbol of ending the bipolar world order, on major international subjects could be realized in the security domain; in a way that this event caused many countries to understand the new security requirements and conditions (a new structure with a different logic from the old structure) and define their survival and existence by designing different new strategies. The aim of this article is to explain the nature of new European security strategies in the post cold war era. To do this, we use the theoretical framework proposed by Waltz as the theory of Structural Realism and modified by Hansen. We will use the following criteria i.e., international institutions, macro policies, macro policies in action and major international issues, in order to understand the European security strategies, while examining the European interactions with the unipolar power. Regarding this issue, our main argument is that although Europe has made some efforts, in practice, for its independent role in the unipolar order, failure in managing internal security issues as well as ideological closeness to the unipolar power, made its security strategy more in accordance with the unipolar power than independent from it.

The geopolitics of the strait of Hormoz is one of the effective and constant factors in Iran-Oman relations. Iran and Oman are located respectively in the northern and southern parts of the strait of Hormoz. Despite all regional and global developments, this makes the two countries to have good relations with each other. Iran and Oman have vital interests in the strait of Hormozl. The two countries have several strategic islands in this strait. There are military bases constructed in some of these islands by Iran, Oman and the United States. The greatest Iranian port, Bandarabbas, is located at the entrance of Hormoz. Bandarabbas is a geostrategic entrance pathway to Iranian plateau. The strategic peninsula of Mosandem is also protruded to the North in the entrance of the strait. The strait of Hormoz is the only rout for the export of Iranian oil and the only communication means of Oman with the Persian Gulf countries. There are several oil and gas fields held in common by Iran and Oman. Moreover, the strait of Hormoz is the most important strategic strait compared to other straits around the world due to its function as a rout for the export of the Persian Gulf oil to the world. On this basis, Iran and Oman believe in a close correlation between the security of the strait of Hormoz and their own security. This issue intensifies the motives of both countries in having close and friendly relations. Iran and Oman both recognize this fact that no matter what changes, the geographic factor will never change. Geographic proximity of Iran and Oman in the strait of Hormoz, geographic isolation of Oman from the Arab world, and geopolitical importance and the geo-strategy of the strait of Hormoz, has made Iran and Oman to have good relationships with each other. On this basis and despite this matter that Oman has always had a close relationship with the US and has recently developed its relationship with Israel, this issue had no impact on the friendly relationship between Iran and that country. This article studies the historic, economic, strategic and security role of the strait of Hormoz in the Iran-Oman relationship. Historically, the strait of Hormoz was part of Iranian territory. Regarding vital and strategic interests of Iran and Oman in this strait, Iran undertook a significant security role in the strait of Hormoz and Indian Ocean, due to its military dominance (and military weakness of Oman). Iran is currently playing a significant role in the establishment of security in the strait of Hormoz. The geographic adjacency of the two countries in Hormoz caused Oman to take moderate positions in developments in the Persian Gulf including the conflict between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over the Iranian islands of Tonb & Abumousa as well as the Iran-Iraq war. Economically, the matter of using the common gas and oil fields in Hormoz, has contributed to the establishment of a closer relationship between the two countries.

It is more than seven years that Iranian nuclear activities are subject to most severe and robust verification system and its obligation according to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). This verification system based on Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement focuses on verification of declared activities by countries. The main pillar of the system is surveillance and inspection of nuclear material. Complicated mechanisms of verification of nuclear accounting, establishment of record system for nuclear material, precise reporting system of country members about the amount of import and export of nuclear material, presenting design information and authenticating the presented information by the Agency, based on inspections and visits, are in effect. The efficiency of any of these mechanisms depends on optimal use of its specific techniques, tools and equipments. This article examines the direct and indirect impacts of the new technological development on techniques, tools and equipments used in the process of verification of Iranian nuclear material and activities and the author reaches to this conclusion that the new technological developments have both directly and indirectly caused the evolution in verification system mechanisms and providing the new grounds and tools has caused the evolution of effective implementation of Safeguards Agreement, in a way that this country is put in a situation that accepted more severe surveillance and inspection activities, beyond its initial legal obligations.

The trend of the events of previous decades and current demands of the international society reveals that the manner of development, comprehensiveness and universality of the global declaration of human rights and the UN human right conventions are in the same direction as the interests of all nations and country members of the United Nations. The thinking of the international society over a series of human rights rules such as the prohibition of torture, slavery, right to live, freedom of speech, etc., which are called fundamental rules of human rights, Noyau dur, are also inviolable. These two assumptions have impacts on institutionalization of human right norms and supporting human rights anywhere in the world including Iran. So what strategy would be applied by Iran against the process of universality of human rights? This is important since many scholars of International Relations and International Law believe that the universality of human rights is a bridge to security and development of countries. Putting this claim aside, we pose this key question that what is the optimal strategy of Iran against the process of universality of human rights? Our main hypothesis is that: since native/local culture as well as long-standing cultural, religious and national beliefs of every country about the subject of human rights, are relatively comprehensive and universal, the optimal strategy for Iran is to insist on cross cultural characteristics of the fundamental rules of human rights. To survey this issue and test this hypothesis, we will focus on the state of formation of human right conventions and Iran’s positions, cultural distinctions of Iran and various universalities, rights of reservation and special interpretations of human rights, theoretical and academic discussions over the universality of human rights, and finally cultural relativity and the impact of cross cultural strategy of fundamental rules of human rights on the conciliation between relativity and universality of human rights.

Until the end of the cold war era, the literature on anti-Americanism, mainly in the framework of journalistic debates, focused on periodic reactions and behaviors of some governments, intellectual and popular groups protesting against the foreign policy of the US government. Following the developments in the 1990s, particularly the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, many efforts were made to theorize anti-Americanism by the US foreign policy specialists. These were accelerated by 2003 when Iraq was invaded by the US military forces. In fact, the period of Bush administration and his neo-conservative team with their policy of unilateralism and increasing reliance on security-military tools, became a prelude for empowering the anti-Americanism waves, a trend whose ontological debates were drawn to academic and research circles. Reviewing the theoretical origin of this issue (anti-Americanism) which refers to the analytical framework of "hegemonism", this paper seeks to give an analysis of the process of theoretical evolution of anti-Americanism during the cold war and post cold war eras. In this regard, the paper will particularly focus on the opinions of the European theorists and politicians about encountering the behavior and role playing pattern of the United States, especially during the period of Bush administration, within the “European Anti-Americanism” framework.

Among the concerns of major actors in the field of energy is planning an "energy strategy" in a way based on which the foreign policy apparatus may secure needs of the energy sector according to the course of national development and meanwhile the capacities of the field of energy may also contribute to the fulfillment of national interests and foreign policy goals. This article suggests that the mission for any "energy strategy" is to create this organic link between the energy sector and foreign policy. In our view, the energy security is considered as the core of this link. Therefore, the "energy strategy" has a very broad nature which may be explained and understood by using the approach of “International Political Economy” and from the point of view of the requirements of a developmentalist foreign policy. To survey the above hypothesis, this article resorts to this reasoning that the first step for the establishment of an incremental interaction between the fields of energy and foreign policy is to clarify the existential philosophy of having an "energy strategy" as well as its conceptual definition.

What is usually argued with respect to Iran’s goal in the pursuit of the nuclear program is either Iran seeks nuclear capability only for scientific, medical and energy purposes or Iran intends to achieve nuclear weapons. The former argument is made by Iran while the latter is done by the Western countries. This article proposes to explain two other goals i.e., nuclear “lawful capability” and “full capability” as well. Our main question is that “What factors necessitate that the Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to achieve nuclear “lawful capability”? The main hypothesis is posed in this paper is that the national security, mid-term foreign policy goals and the objectives of the Iranian nuclear program, require the achievement of nuclear “lawful capability”. “Preserving the status quo”, is considered among Iran’s foreign policy objectives. Deterrence, enhancement of regional and foreign dignity and altitude, improvement of the level of development, role play in the form of an active regional and international actor and reaching a proper status and increase in the power of the Islamic world, are considered as objectives of Iranian nuclear program. This paper will also answer this question that “which strategy will provide these objectives?” and it will be argued that the strategy of “comprehensive engagement” is the option taken by Iran against the West. In such strategy, all important bilateral and comprehensive issues are on the table for negotiation.