جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « جنگ نامتقارن » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

In the confrontation between Iran and the US, preventing the development of Iran's military, political and economic power is one of the important challenges of American foreign policy. One of the controversial topics of this confrontation is the deterrence of Iran's missile power against the US; what capabilities does missile power have for Iran's security and national interests in the international arena? Therefore, in the framework of the theory of realism and emphasizing the concept of “soft power” by Joseph Nye and using the qualitative analysis of documents and texts, i.e. documentary method, this article tries to answer the questions why Iran has chosen missile power in order to increase its soft power and make deterrence and does missile power have the ability to strengthen Iran's soft power and create deterrence against the United States of America? The findings of studying the actual examples of the confrontation between Iran and the United States show that despite the superiority of the United States in terms of military, Iran has been able to create an asymmetric balance against it by the expansion of its missile power, which has led to increasing deterrence and international bargaining as two components of soft power.

The aim of this research is to identify and analyze the asymmetric warfare model in the security doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran in response to the potential threats in the Persian Gulf. This research addresses the question of what is the asymmetric warfare model in Iran's security doctrine in the Persian Gulf. Therefore, the research hypothesis is as follows: Due to the asymmetry in military capabilities in terms of quantity and quality between Iran and its adversaries, including the United States, in the Persian Gulf region, Iran has adopted an asymmetric warfare method as a component of its security doctrine, which involves using military tools such as speedboats, mines, and cruise missiles. Through this method, Iran seeks to achieve the necessary deterrence for itself. The findings of this research indicate that Iran has chosen this method of war due to its constraints and necessities, and that this method has resulted in deterrence, self-sufficiency, self-reliance, structural change, and ultimately a change in the enemy's strategy. In this research, the researchers have used the theories of "asymmetric warfare" as a theoretical framework. The study of books, articles, dissertations, and scientific and military documents available has also been utilized. The nature of this research is descriptive and partly explanatory, and the data collection method is documentary library.

Far from the past, Iran has always sought regional hegemony and global acting, and these political goals have been pursued during the Islamic Republic of Iran. The purpose of this paper is by qualitative method and using library and Internet resources, answer this question that whether the military capabilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran have correspond with ideological expectations and military doctrines based on the mentioned political goals? In answer to the main question, the present article examines this hypothesis that Islamic republic of Iran has done well task of the codifications of military doctrine based on political goals; it has learned lessons and found that due to average global military capacity of Iran and less than its ideological expectations, Iran is currently unable to compete against the US military in direct warfare. The best thing that can be expected to achieve political goals is to impose costs on the US actions and the great will beyond the will of this counter to prevent Washington from achieving its goals in a possible war with Iran. The results of the research indicate that Iran has focused on the weaknesses of its enemies in order to shows the cost-benefit calculations of the enemies, undesirable and costly. According to political-military officials and the Iranian people, killing of the American soldiers have serious domestic political consequences for the US president than military fatality for Iran's political leaders, because the Iranian people have grown up in the school of self-sacrifice and martyrdom.

Israel's 33-day war against Hezbollah in 2006 from its earliest days, Not only did it intensify the conflict inside Lebanon between the forces for and against Hezbollah,but also a field for the conflicting interests of different countries. This war has been the focus of global attention due to its internal, regional and international complexities. The main question is: what are the Causes and the factors of Hezbollah victory in the 33-day war?In this article, uses descriptive-analytical method and library information collection method by examining the truth and factorsof Hezbollah victory in the 33-day war in 2006 based on Michael Bercher's crisis management model and using components The quadruple of this model (with emphasis on the third stage) has analyzed the desired data.The results of this article show that Israel,the full assistance of the United States and international nstitutions, pursues material and spiritual goals such as the disarmament of Hezbollah; the dissolution of Hezbollah and its complete domination of Lebanon and establishment of a like-minded government in Lebanon to advance the new US Middle East plan,The most important factor in Hezbollah Lebanon's victory in the 33-day war, according to the third phase of Michael Bercher's model, was the innovation of the asymmetric method of warfare, which prevented Israel from achieving its goals.

After the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, in 2014, war broke out again between Israel and Palestinian groups. 2018 is considered to be the last Arab-Israeli war; However, it has had a number of implications, including a violation of Israel's complete deterrence. This war, which has been unequally waged between the two sides, is one of the asymmetric wars. The main question related to the subject of this study is whether Israel was able to achieve complete deterrence against asymmetric attacks by Palestinian groups in the 2014 war, despite the relative achievement of its goals? In answer to this question, the hypothesis is that Israel in the 2014 war, despite its relative achievement of its goals, was not very successful in creating a complete deterrent to attacks by Palestinian groups. Due to the nature of war, we chose the theory of asymmetric warfare as the theoretical framework of the article. The study will be conducted in the Israel-Gaza area and for a period of 51 days (July 8-August 26, 2014). Also, the first part of the article is descriptive-explanatory and the second part is analytical and the sources are collected based on the library-internet method.

the entry of non-governmental Emtities is one of the important indicators of contemporary wars that causes unbalanced structure of conflicts. In recent decades, rapid advances in weapons technology increased the gap between the warring parties in terms of military capabilities, the upsetting of the balance of power and divided them into strong and weak. As a result we have witnessed the innovation of Asymmetric, Non-structured war methods based on Unconventional using ofArmed tools and tactics, such as resorting to terrorist acts. The emergence of these methods has expanded the scope of military conflict to civil society and reduced the complience of the parties to basic principles of international humanitarian law as the only legal means to protect the lives of civilians and propert against military attacks. in the nature of today's wars and the shift to non-governmental conflicts with ethnic, religious and identity goals has led to the development of the battlefield and the entry of civilians as fighters, which has greatly blurred the line between military and civilian. Finally, the lack of international consensus on the definition of terrorism and its examples, the political approach of countries and sometimes,Hiring of terrorist groups, the monopoly of the application of humanitarian law principles on war situations while some terrorist acts take place outside the battlefield. .. are some of the factors that have intensified this challenge.

With the emergence of modern emerging threats in the military field (takfiri groups, use of new weapons, arms race of regional rivals, nuclear threats) the most important step in the field of human resource management of military organizations is to improve the knowledge, skills and insights of employees, especially military leaders. Training the required leadership skills in military organizations in the current situation has become one of the main concerns of the country's defense managers because the quality of equipping commanders with these capabilities will have a significant impact on success on the battlefield. Improving leadership capabilities in military organizations will be achieved using indigenous models derived from in-depth combined studies; Therefore, considering the current environmental conditions and the need to address the strategic issue of asymmetric warfare as an important part of emerging threats in the field of defense, researchers are constantly designing and evaluating the development model and leadership training in military organizations in line with emerging threats. And they have focused on asymmetric wars. This research is applied in terms of type of use and simultaneously mixed in terms of method and cross-sectional in terms of time horizon. In the first phase, a conceptual model was developed by reviewing the research literature and interviewing 15 AJA experts (by purposive sampling and content analysis) and validated by Smart PLS software. In the second phase, the methods of training and development of capabilities were extracted based on the research literature and prioritized by referring to the opinions of 12 experts (focus group). Finally, while ranking the dimensions and components of the model in the first phase, the development methods of each of the dimensions of the model are expressed in order of priority, followed by practical suggestions.

Islamic Republic of Iran has a high strategic and critical status in Middle East. The mission of I.R. Iran armed forces is to protect its independence, territorial integrity, and political system. Fulfilling such a mission will require combat readiness against counteract threats, and therefore, assessing factors and sub-factors of combat superiority, and their methods of application is an important task. Accordingly, this paper aims to assess these sub-factors with an asymmetric  threats approach. Factors and sub-factors are gathered from existing literature via document reviews, and interviews. Gathered data has been standardized and categorized by screening based on their importance. Results show that I.R. Iran armed force is in a good condition according to superiority sub-factors. Hence, by reinforcing sub-factors, it is possible to reach a higher combat readiness.

Defense diplomacy constitutes part of the state’s policies that plays a part in achieving the armed forces’ goals as an important means, that is aimed at providing optimal political, national, and international conditions to preserve and expand the country’s vital national values in the face of potential and actual enemies. One of the characteristics of defense diplomacy under the present circumstances is the fact that it is considered as a means of giving identity and legitimacy in countries' defence and strategic policies. After the victory of the Revolution in 1978, the Islamic Republic of Iran underwent a series of tensions with the international system, after which problems like military sanctions, war with Iraq and ... broke out. However, the Islamic Republic of Iran tried to resolve such problems by a few special defense diplomacy tactics in differing times. The main question in the present research is: Where does missile technology stand and function in IRI’s defense diplomacy, considering the ongoing military sanctions and threats in the region? Defense diplomacy serves as an influential means in advancing IRI’s objectives and policies as part of the process of building trust, easing tensions, building security, and generating power that has turned to indigenization and deterrence approach on the basis of missile technology as well as asymmetric warfare only to meet the regional threats and remove them. This article is of analytical-descriptive type and the contents in it have been collected with library method relying on the news and reports that have been gathered from news sites."

Military doctrine play a crucial role at various levels (strategic, operational, and tactical) to describe and explain military approach of states such as how to mobilize and support involved forces, describe and illustrate the campaign, explain the best approaches to drive forces. Military doctrine with an agent centrality and approach is considered as the main core of forming practices of military operations on asymmetric warfare.
In this research, tried to have an antological approaching to agent-centered military doctrines phenomen and the functions of idealogy and social cultural context in it, on asymmetric warfare.
In this case two main questions are defined to initiate the research: a- What is the function of ideology factor in agen centered warfare?
b- What is the function of social cultural context factor in agent centered warfare?
According to phenomenology science and using mix method (qualitively & quantitively) employed professional’s opinion in final agreement.
Finally researcher introduce agent centered military doctrine as a phenomen, its main factors and transition journey strategies from ordinary paradigms, context, intrupter factors, to achieve desire outcome or to neutralizing it.

Essentially, the international system is divided into different groups, specially linear and non-linear systems. In modern times, the complex international system as a modern order framework has different dynamics. Power dynamics is one of the most important of these dynamics which- in a few settings, may lead into war. The evolvement of international system, and consequently, its power dynamics changes the models of war. So, the analysis of the relations between this dynamics and models of war inform the main interests in this article. On this basis, the fundamental question is " What are the models that power dynamics of complex and chaotic systems of war form in international relations?" To answer this question, the main hypothesis is that power dynamics as the most important dynamics in the complex and chaotic system is focused on stability and system stabilization. A state of strategic stability between units is formed due to the function of power dynamics where the units are unable in the process of imposing their will upon others. As a result, it is concluded that war between these units seems impossible. So, war infiltrates into other regions and system areas as a result of the characteristics of the system and the severe losses incurred upon the units in employing the models of direct war. Proxy, indirect and internal warfare is formed in order to balance, limit and even destroy the rivals. Here, the war distribution model in geopolitical regions has greater density. This research uses theoretical modeling on the basis of deductive reasoning, and then after that, it uses time-series method in order to consolidate the findings of the research.

During the recent decade, the strategists due to some new developments have reconsidered the idea of asymmetric warfare. The gap between level and type of capability of the actors in the international system is a main cause of the promotion of the related literature. In the meantime, after the collapse of the former USSR and in the aftermath of the 9/11, the US offensive and unilateral policies have led some actors to take advantage of asymmetric means of warfare to challenge and defy the US domination. In this paper, the author has considered the concept of asymmetric warfare as a challenge to the USA, and then he explains the US and its rival's views on this issue.

The September 11th attacks demonstrated to the US administration that world strategic setting has undergone deep changes and that new threats have emerged in the international scene. Other actors have entered the scene which lack the characteristics of nation-states and in order to counter the threats, previous strategies are not very efficient in this area. In order to encounter the new threats and to secure its national objective and interests, the United Sates has to change its defense strategy. This change was made in various realms and aspects. Security environment and its actors were considered, the instruments and methods of countering were reappraised, new missions were designed for military forces, the country’s military expenditures increased significantly and its focal point was shifted from great powers toward the middle regional actors and transnational organizations. While emphasizing the creation of military bases and desirable alliances around the world geographically, the United States shifted its attention from Europe and East Asia to the Middle East. These transformations occurred both in strategic goals and interests and in defense instruments and methods as well as geographical areas. The new threat required new defense strategy as well. On this basis, this article deals with the degree of change and continuity in US defense strategy after the September 11th. The new military-security environment, national goals and US vital interests determine the basis for such change and continuity.