جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « موازنه از راه دور » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

In contrast to the strategy of preponderance, the grand strategy of offshore balancing can be pursued to achieve the goals of isolation or hegemony. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been changing from preponderance to offshore balancing, which has occasionally (and erroneously) been interpreted as the US isolationist tendency to begin the total withdrawal of its forces from the Middle East, followed by the decline of its influence in the region. The authors investigate why and how George W. Bush (2001-2009), Barack Obama (2009-2017), and Donald Trump (2017-2021) followed a similar strategy of offshore balancing, despite all their differences. The study intends to answer the following research questions: 1. To what extent were the US foreign policy strategies and its actions in the Persian Gulf different during the presidencies of Bush, Obama, and Trump? 2. Why did the three presidents follow the same grand strategy, despite the apparent differences, particularly in their worldview, leadership style and personality traits? In the research hypothesis, it is postulated that even though the U.S. pursued the strategy of offshore balancing during the presidencies of Bush, Obama, and Trump, differences in personality, policy-making style, and security threat assessments of these presidents have had an impact on the transformation of the U.S. foreign policy in the region. With a qualitative approach, the method of events and historical data analysis is used to test the hypothesis. The U.S. policies and reactions to the recent events such as the rivalries between Iran and the southern Persian Gulf countries, the political instability of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, the great powers competition in the region are examined.International relations scholars have different ideas regarding what the strategy of offshore balancing represents, and whether a given U.S. president is an offshore balancer or not. The present study views these differences as an indication of the variations of this strategy. First, one needs to present an inclusive definition of offshore balancing, and for such a definition, one needs to identify the common elements of the various definitions given by different scholars. Different policy goals and means of implementation of offshore balancing have been discussed, but most scholars agree on two points: First, offshore balancing emphasizes the use of naval and air forces, while ground forces should be used only in very special circumstances and on a temporary basis. Second, offshore balancing assigns roles to regional actors, whether allies or competitors which must contribute to the cost of collective defense in the region on the basis of a burden and responsibility sharing formula. Variation in offshore balancing occurs at different levels; for instance, between defensive versus offensive realism, between pursuing a more offshore presence versus a more favorable balance of power.In conclusion, the authors argue that offshore balancing has been the U.S. grand strategy in the Persian Gulf since 2006, but its goals have changed in response to the need to react to different circumstances. In the last two years of Bush presidency, he was under pressure to find a balance of power arrangement that would end the war in Iraq, while achieving the hegemonic goal of democratization. The cost of upholding the current liberal global order and providing American security guarantees for US allies have adversely affected the prosperity of American people, who expect their politicians to give priority to the economic national interest. Because of the slowdown in the U.S. economy as a consequence of the 2008 financial crisis and military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama followed the strategy of offshore balancing with the goal of reducing the costs of the U.S. foreign policy adventures, and finally ended up being more in favor of an ‘offshore than balanced’ strategy. During the Trump era, offshore balancing was more influenced by the idea of “make America great again,” with its touch of realism. Bush had to deal with the security implications of the September 11 attacks, and acted on the basis of offensive realism and the logic of hegemonism. Obama sought isolationism based on defensive realism, while Trump returned to offensive realism.

 Since 2001, the relationship between India and the United States has been witnessing a fundamental shift from both sides. Many analysts see the rise of China as one of the main reasons for the positive shifts in the foreign policy of the United States and India towards each other. Given this point, this study seeks to answer the question of why the rise of China has led to a rapprochement between India and the United States. The results of this study show that as China increasingly seeks to undermine India's national interests, balancing strategy has become a requirement for India's foreign policy toward China. On the other hand, the choice of off-shore balancing by the United States to prevent the emergence of a regional hegemon in East and South Asia has led to a rapprochement between the United States and India. Under such circumstances, the United States could reduce its costs of dealing with the emerging power of China by burden sharing with its partners

There has been much criticism about Obama’s Middle East strategy and some believe that it lacked strategic prospect. An examination of the Middle East strategy of the United States under Obama administration from the viewpoint of neo-classic realism not only does not approve this view but also indicates that Obama has adopted a coherent strategy from the beginning of his presidency towards the Middle East and on this basis he has made significant efforts to promote the United States national security. So it is interesting to answer this question as to what strategy Obama adopted vis-à-vis the Middle East and what policies was pursued to achieve those goals? The present article by a descriptive-analytical method wants to show that the Middle East strategy of the United States under Obama administration started with assigning responsibility to its allies within the framework of balancing from remote distance and by the passage of time moved to accept limited responsibility. Taking into consideration the closeness of Obama’s administration foreign policy to realism theory, the authors of the article believe that this theory can better explain the foreign policy of the United States under Barack Obama presidency.