جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « خاورمیانه جدید » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

Undoubtedly, the Arab unrest in 2010, which started in Tunisia and spread to other Arab states in a short time, is considered a turning point in the political history of Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa. These measures, which started with the overthrow of some Arab countries such as Tunisia and Egypt, gradually led to civil wars, proxy battles of powerful countries, and even the withdrawal of troops from neighboring countries by some governments, with the extensive and diverse interference of other regional and extra-regional countries. The process of these changes and the resulting results have always been more important for the countries of the southern border of the Persian Gulf, or in more appropriate terms, the governments of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council, which include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman. Because the commonalities and similarities in various political, economic, and cultural fields among the member states of the Council and the fear of unrest spreading within their political borders have caused the above countries to take measures to prevent such a thing. In the meantime, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, due to various reasons such as size, population, foreign exchange earnings, inherent characteristics of leaders, and regional competition, seek their desired changes in the context of regional trends more than others. These two countries, in addition to the deep commonalities and sense of brotherhood they have among themselves, are always involved in competition with each other for various reasons, such as maintaining the balance of power, especially on the part of the UAE, the authoritarian leadership of both countries, and territorial disputes left over from the colonial era. includes It is from this point of view that the convergence and divergence between these two countries is important in the shadow of the new developments in the Middle East region.Methodology is always considered a function of the theory used in scientific and research works, on this basis and with the theory used in this work, an attempt will be made to explain the methodology of the present writing to the reader. The category of security is one of the fields of study that, despite a long history for mankind, a significant period has not passed since its systematization as an academic discipline. In this work, according to the use of Stephen Walt's threat balance theory and the need-to-know concepts such as power, size, population, economic capabilities, as well as geography, offensive capabilities and hostile intentions, the methodology of this article is a combination of methods Quantitative and qualitative crosswise. In other words, some areas such as the economy area can be analyzed through quantitative methods of contract analysis and based on this, the security and competitive status of actors can be analyzed. While in some other areas such as social security, and freedom of expression, intentions and behavioral characteristics of leaders cannot be investigated simply and based on quantitative methods; In this case, using the qualitative method and paying attention to the intentions of the actors is more prominent. Considering the political characteristics of the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the simultaneous use of quantitative and qualitative methods leads the readers of the present work to a correct understanding of the relations between these two actors.According to the studies conducted on the intergovernmental relations between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the existence of internal differences between the above countries regarding various regional issues clearly shows that these governments, despite all the political, economic, and cultural commonalities, at the same time in dealing with the issues and The problems that arise in the field of foreign policy have national and sometimes personal implications, which is why they sometimes try to take parallel and even opposing actions. It is worth noting that these measures appear and appear more from the side of the smaller country, the United Arab Emirates, in front of the Saudi government, because Saudi Arabia always considers itself the leader of the Arab countries and expects support from other members of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council. ; It was for this reason that he reacted militarily to the changes in Bahrain and economically to Qatar to prove to everyone that he is not indifferent to the developments in the Arab countries around him, especially the governments of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council, and that his interference in He considers their affairs as a natural matter and a reserved right for himself. In the meantime, according to the approach they have drawn for themselves in the field of foreign politics, the Emirati rulers are always trying to maintain their independence and balance of power against this larger government while accompanying the Saudi government in various regional issues, in addition to protecting themselves from The flames of anger of the Al Saud rulers also promote their national and family interests, which is evident in the UAE's behavior in Yemen and diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria.The new order of West Asia, which is the result of the great changes caused by the Arab events of 2010, showed more than ever the continuity and intertwining of the Arab states of the region, especially the states of the Persian Gulf. These governments, which have come together in the framework of a regional organization such as the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council, led by Saudi Arabia and with the support of the other pillar of the council, the United Arab Emirates, are sensitive to the spread of waves of Arab unrest to the territories under their rule and any movement in this direction They have suffocated sperm. This cooperation, which has been established over the years and especially between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, is more than anything due to the sharing of their broad interests in regional dimensions. Regardless of the inherent characteristics of their ambitious leaders, both the Saudi and UAE governments have converged on various issues such as the unrest in Bahrain, the war in Syria, and the battle in Yemen due to the sense of competitiveness with each other and the need to balance power against Iran. However, during this period, they have diverged and split, especially concerning the manner of diplomatic relations with Iran and Bashar Assad's government in Syria, as well as how to manage the war in Yemen. Of course, it should be noted that the role of the United Arab Emirates in the emergence of divergence with the Saudi government is more colorful because maintaining the balance between the two powerful countries of Iran and Arabia on both sides of the Persian Gulf, as well as maintaining independence and achieving special political-economic interests in the pursuit of regional issues It is of special importance for the Bin Zaid family in the UAE.

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.

Following an agreement reached in 2015 on Iran's nuclear program and the regulation of the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA), it was decided that all Security Council sanctions against Iran would be lifted with the adoption of a resolution by this body. However, in August 2020, the United States of America, which had previously terminated its membership in the JCPOA by formally withdrawing from it, claimed that Iran had violated its JCPOA commitments and called for the activation of the Snapback and reimposition of International sanctions. This US action, sparked debates about its legal legitimacy. Accordingly, the present study was written in order to answer the question of how legitimate is the US action in activating the snapback from the perspective of the principles and rules of international law? The results of the authors' descriptive-analytical studies, based on library sources and the analysis of relevant documents, confirm that JCPOA is a political agreement independent of Resolution 2231, and that the United States is no longer a "participating State of JCPOA" after withdrawing from this document and as a result, it lacks the legal authority to activate the snapback mechanism. In addition, the continuation of unbridled unilateralism in this country offers no other perspectives to the international community, other than weakening of the United Nations and the creation of international anarchy.

Since its independence, Iraq has, for a variety of reasons, remained one of the major concerns of Iran’s foreign policy, as the Iraqi developments affect Iran’s security easily and rapidly. This research seeks to demonstrate that U.S. occupation of Iraq in 2003 has made Iran’s foreign policy towards Iraq subject to and a function of Iranian foreign policy towards the United States. On this basis, Iran adopted a cautious policy towards the Iraqi developments, which aimed at restoring order and stability in the country while mobilizing the Iraqi Shia in order to obtain a fair share of political power in the county. The author argues that due to U.S. political mistakes, increasing Iraqi resistance to the occupation as well as close ties with the Shia political organizations, Iran has succeeded in attaining its objectives to a large extent. Therefore, the major outcome of the occupation of Iraq has been weakening U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and more importantly significant expansion of Iran’s influence in the region.

Middle-east region has been at the center of attention since a long time ago due to its special geopolitical situation as well as its bountiful energy resources. Domination system's attention to this region is because they try to secure their future energy and guarantee Israel's security against Islamic countries subsequent to Islamic awakening. Therefore natural resources in this region can be a powerful tool at the disposal of transformed Islamic countries in the middle-east which they can apply to implement their objectives for the future and not be defeated and passive in the interaction with domination system. They should try to change the same natural resources which were threats for them into opportunities for progress. This article tries to review supreme leader's statements about preservation of natural resources by Islamic countries and western conspiracies to re-dominate the region after new Islamic governments are in place. It also emphasizes the importance of natural resources to put more pressure on domination system and west and proposes some solutions.

Russia and the Middle East have had along-standing historical relations. This relationship has continued over the centuries and in every period has had its peculiarities. So that Russia's relations with the Middle East can be divided into different periods. The Arab Spring has created a completely new situation and new imbalances in the Middle East. It has caused great powers to fear that they will see their regional influence decline, which will affect global stability. Russia is no exception in this regard. After the popular uprisings in the Arab, the Russian leadership sought to formulate a policy to deal with the new situation. The present article seeks to investigate the strategies and challenges of Russia in the new Middle East.

Although Zionist agents were active in Arabic countries, especially Iraq, through such organizations; as Jewish Agency even before establishment of Israel in 1948, and despite the fact that; Zionist theoretician, Theodor Herzl, had designated the whole Ottoman Empire (of which Iraq; was a small part) as the promised land for the Israeli government and some delegations had; met with the Ottoman king, Israel was never officially present in Iraq either before or after its; establishment. Only Zionist intelligence agencies were present there under different covers; and pursued their goals. This became more pronounced after the birth of Israel and opposition; to it by Arabic and Islamic governments, especially after establishment of a unified Arab front; led by Gamal Abdel Nasser. Most governments of Iraq were inspired by anti-Zionist Arabic; nationalism to show their animosity toward Israel in every possible manner.; Therefore, after the war in Iraq, one of the most important developments discussed at international; and regional levels was the role of Israel in that war and its subsequent presence in; Iraq.; The strategic void after downfall of Saddam prompted countries which had interests in; Iraq to enhance their clout in that country in order to influence future developments to their; own benefit and to the detriment of rival states.; Iran and Israel are two most important countries which have vested interests in Iraq.