جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "منزلت طلبی" در نشریات گروه "علوم سیاسی"

In one hand, this research accepts the inevitable developments in international environment due to globalization and on the other hand, recognizing the state as the most important international actor, tries to explain one of the most influential state’s acts in the globalized space. The purpose of this research is to explain the impact of globalization on dynamics of status seeking of Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia. This research is done with descriptive-analytical method. Findings of this research show that in lack of collective security system in the Middle East, the strategy of social competition is an attractive option for Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The competitive relations among states in the Middle East have been an obstacle toward creating inclusive institutions and common concept of security. Consequently, the strategy of social mobility has not been a functional one in the region. Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia in order to utilize the strategy of social creativity should demonstrate more compliance with global values and norms.

The status-seeking of actors in the international arena is not necessarily based on a specific driver. What variables actors in foreign policy are most influenced by will play a decisive role in orienting it towards prestige is a disputed issue in international politics. Some other analysts point out that the status-seeking of world powers in the international system should be divided into large and small countries. In fact, according to researchers, the status-seeking of large powers is quite different from that of small powers. Russia as a big power in the Middle East could be regarded as status-seeking power in today's international system. Although the role of personal concerns can be traced to the direction of the country's foreign policy, other factors still dominate the country's foreign policy. Russia's foreign policy drives seem to be significantly similar to its domestic policy drives. Consolidating Russia's economy to maintain domestic economic growth, gain and maintain international prestige and prestige to define and pursue future interests, and maintain its security are among the most important drivers of its foreign policy. Russia's foreign policy is a relatively secure government foreign policy with serious security concerns, and it is also influenced by government foreign policy, which often uses the military option to achieve its goals, rather than relying on soft options. Russian foreign policy scholars place particular emphasis on the extension of Russia's domestic foreign policy. In other words, the role of domestic variables in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation is so significant and influential that without considering and examining these internal elements, a proper understanding of the foreign policy of this country cannot be done. According to some experts, the foreign policy of the Russian Federation does not reflect the ordinary interests of a state, but its most important feature is the influence of currents, groups, and competition between networks of power within the country. In addition, the role of cultural ideas in seeking prestige in Russian foreign policy cannot be ignored. The component of national culture has a significant role in shaping Russia's foreign policy so that its traces can be seen in all foreign policy actions of this country. By studying the strategic culture of this country, one can better see the relationship between the goals, motives, and international actions of this great actor and evaluate its behavioral patterns in managing international crises such as Ukraine and Syria. Some Domestic Foreign Policy Observers What was most evident in Putin's foreign policy during this period was the dominance of an identity-oriented approach in Russian foreign policy. From Putin's point of view, power and influence are strongly dependent on the question of national identity and the extent to which the citizens of a country consider themselves a nation and relate to their history, values, and traditions. Therefore, during this period, he made great efforts to restore Soviet power in the international arena; In other words, the focal point of Putin's foreign policy behavior during this period was based on the strengthening of national identity and nationalist ideas.In this sense, for the Russians, the concept of great power is psychological and emotional. The Russians believe that Russia has the right to be considered a great power, given its vast geography, vast resources, and history. Russia has always been a leader in history. The leader of international communism, the conductor of European concerts in the nineteenth century, and one of the two world superpowers in the twentieth century has always made Russia an identity of great power in the eyes of its people and politicians. It must be acknowledged, however, that Russia's ambition has relied heavily on Putin's particular foreign policy personality and approach.Status seeking as an analytical framework in foreign policy shows how Russia plays different roles in geopolitical crises. Influenced by Russia's geopolitical vision and historical identity, Russia's status-seeking has made it an influential actor in the Middle East's geopolitical crises. In this regard, the main issue of research is to understand the relationship between status-seeking in Russian foreign policy and its different performance in the Middle East geopolitical crises. The main question of this article is what the equation between Russian status-seeking is and Moscow's different performance in There have been two geopolitical crises in Syria and Yemen. In answer to this question, the research hypothesis is that the geopolitical crises in the Middle East affect Russia's status quo behavior to the extent that they affect both the components of Russia's historical identity and its geopolitical and geo-economic scope. The findings show that the Yemeni crisis, unlike Syria, lacked the necessary geopolitical potential for Russia to play the role of world power. In the face of the Syrian crisis, due to the interplay of regional and global geopolitical variables, as well as its historical connection to Russian identity and the Soviet empire, it was a good opportunity to advance Russia's strategy of prestige. The equation of Russian status-seeking and geopolitical crises in the Middle East has made Moscow reluctant to enter into patterns of friendship-hostility in the Middle East. In other words, in the Russian equation, strengthening or weakening the axis of resistance or compromise is not the main issue.

In order to think more carefully about the roots of foreign policy formation in Iranian political culture, it is inevitable to have a theoretical foundation. To seek honor (action), the dignified foreign policy of the Safavid era (Shah Ismail Safavid) as the first historical example of honor in contemporary Iranian foreign policy. Dear readers of this article, by analyzing the issues raised in it, you can very well trace the connection between the theoretical level and the practical level in the history of contemporary Iranian foreign policy and achieve useful results.Therefore, the present article, using the analytical concept of "dignity" and with a historical approach and descriptive-analytical approach, seeks to prove the hypothesis that other concepts besides gaining power and security such as "dignity" are able to explain Iran's foreign policy during the Safavid period. Therefore, the main question of the present study is whether concepts other than the acquisition of "power" and "security" such as "dignity" with the three components of "voluntary limitation in conflict", "identity priority" and "dignity seeking" are possible. Explains Iran's foreign policy during the Safavid period?

Most of the theories used in analyzing foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran are based on “Appetite " or "Reason" anthropology. While the logic of Iran's foreign policy in certain issues, such as the nuclear conflict with the West, cannot be analyzed solely on the basis of Appetite and Reason drives such as security and power. In this regard, “A cultural theory of international relations” can provide a framework for analysis of the Ideational aspects of Iran’s foreign policy as it seeks the basis of the international politics in the spirit drive. The question is that, what is the basis of some courageous behaviors of Iran’s foreign policy, in particular it’s nuclear dispute with the West, which has affected the impulses of gaining power and security? By applying of the philosophical anthropology of “A cultural theory of international relations”, we can state this hypothesis that Iran’s foreign policy particularly its nuclear diplomacy is spirit-based. On this basis, the logic and basis for nuclear diplomacy can be analyzed on the basis of two instruments of, aimed at Self-esteem.

Some believe that in the years after the Islamic Revolution, their preservation and self-respect in foreign policy have been superior to national interests, and national interests have often been neglected. But it should be said that this amount of attention and dignity can be derived from the "decent dignitaries" of Iranians. In fact, this is not necessarily after the Islamic Revolution, but for centuries, has been implicated in Iran's engagement with the outside world, which can be called the Safavits era as one of the first manifestations of the experience of a strategic culture of domination in contemporary Iran's foreign policy. Therefore, the present article, using the analytical concept of "dignity" and with a historical and descriptive analytical approach, seeks to prove that other concepts, other than the acquisition of power and security, such as "dignity," have the ability to explain Iranian foreign policy during the Safavits period And, in the end, the main question of the current research is whether other concepts, other than the acquisition of "power" and "security", such as "pride", along with the three components of "self-imposed restriction in conflict", the "priority of identity" and "dignity" have the capability for the explanation of Iran's foreign policy during the Safavits era?