Document Type : مقالات
Authors
Abstract
When the Tunisian Revolution triggered the domino of the collapse Arab leaders, it was not anticipated to reach to Syria creating a deep conflict with local, regional and trans-regional dimensions. However, when the protests speared to Syria, various players try to exploit it to their own advantage, and an all-out conflict began. Due to Syria's geopolitical location, regional powers such as Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and trans-regional powers like the US and Russia became involved in the crisis, competing with each other. Considering the nature of the relationship and interdependency between the security of the Islamic Republic of Iran and that of Syria, the question arises as to what are the interests of regional and trans-regional powers in Syria and what will be the impact of their rivalry on Iran’s security? As an answer to the first question, it is argued that behavioural patterns formed by the anarchic structure of the international system has been the cause of the Syrian conflict, as attempts at pursuit of survival and power have led to the conflict of interests and a change in the balance of power. In order to evaluate the consequences of the fall of Assad, Barry Buzan’s concept of existential thereats has been used, as it is argued that such an event would have negative impacts on Iran’s strategic depth, and counts as an existential thereat to it. Using Patrick M. Morgan’s levels of analysis, Kenneth Waltz’s logic of limited number of powers, and the realist theory’s statism, the behaviors of four powerful players in the conflict (the US and Saudi Arabia as the opponents of the status quo and Russia and Iran as its advocates) are analysed.
Keywords
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/. (accessed on 2013,
December 22).
Buzan, B., & LWeaver, O. (2003). Regions and power; the structure of
international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B.; LWeaver, O., & Wilde, J. (1998). Security; a new framework for
analysis. London: Lynne Rienner.
Horen, B., & Sydney, A. (2005). Oxford advanced dictionary. London: Oxford
University Press.
Ilman, C. (2007). Realism. in Griffiths, M. (Editor), International relations theory
for the Twenty-First century. London and New York: Routledge.
Iqbal, K. (2012, February 2014). Notions of strategic depth. Available at:
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=132042. (accessed on 2012, January
28).
Kojm, C. (2013). Global trends 2030: alternative worlds, a publication of the
national intelligence council. Available at: http ://www.dni.gov /index.php /
about/organization/national-intelligence-council-global-trends. (accessed on
2012, January 23).
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power. New York: WW.Norton.
Membe, S. (2012). Strategic depth. Available at: http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-
compulsory-subjects/current-affairs/55474-strategic-depth.html. (accessed on
2014, February 2).
Poul, T. V. (2004). Introduction; the enduring axioms of balance of power theory
and their contemporary relevance. in Poul, T. V., Wirtz , J., & Fortmann, M.
Balance of power; theory and practice in the 21 st century. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Singer, D. (1961). The level of analysis problem in international relations. in:
Rosenau, J. (Editor). International politics and forein policy. N.Y: Free Press
Walt, S. (1994). Alliance formation and balance of world power. in: Mechel E. B.
(editor). The perils of anarchy; contemporary realism and international
security. London: MIT Press.
Walt, S. (2005). Taming American power; the global response to US primacy. New
York: W. W Norton.
Waltz, k. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: Random House.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/. (accessed on 2013,
December 5).
Obama, B. (2010). U. S. National security strategy. Available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_stra
tegy.pdf. (accessed on 2013, December 6).
)
Send comment about this article