Saeedeh Kouzehgari; Soheil Goodarzi
Abstract
“Looking to the East” as an approach in Iran’s foreign policy has been proposed during the last two decades. In parallel with the tightening of international sanctions on Iran and escalation of economic and political restrictions on Iran's international interactions, this approach received ...
Read More
“Looking to the East” as an approach in Iran’s foreign policy has been proposed during the last two decades. In parallel with the tightening of international sanctions on Iran and escalation of economic and political restrictions on Iran's international interactions, this approach received more attention in the theoretical and political sphere. The refusal of Europe and America to cooperate in the political, economic and security levels in one hand and expanding Iran's cooperation with countries such as China, Russia and India during recent years in other hand and also the emergence of the East in international economic and strategic affairs are the most important reasons for adopting this approach by Iran. Due to the failure of this policy in achieving its expected goals during the past years and regarding its position in Iran's foreign policy, it is obvious that along with the system factors and variables, features derived from ideology, discourse and strategic culture have played a role in the desirability of this approach. Based on this assumption, this article tries to evaluate the policy using the layered causal analysis approach at the four levels of objectivity, system, discourse and worldview, and finally Iranian political and identity myths and metaphors in order to understand the foundations of the Looking to the East policy. Surveys show the distance between the ideal point of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pursue the look to the east policy and the current situation. From the strategic foresight viewpoint this is rooted in the lowest levels, the "worldviews and metaphors and myths layers. In this sense, the existence of resources for differentiation and non-sharing these layers, along with the lack of common understanding about issues, challenges and opportunities, and especially the weakness in establishing a common cultural and identity context, has defined the policy as a react to systemic pressures and also trying to advance specific agendas in the field of foreign relations not an independent strategy.
