تبیین الگوی روابط قدرت های منطقه ای در بحران ژئوپلیتیکی سوریه

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

2 استادیار جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشیار جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشکده علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران

چکیده

چکیده
در پژوهش حاضر الگویی برای تبیین روابط ایران با ترکیه، عربستان و اسرائیل در بحران ژئوپلیتیکی سوریه ارائه شده است. در این الگو، مهمترین ابعاد و مؤلفه های جغرافیایی و ژئوپلیتیکی مؤثر در روابط این قدرت های منطقه ای در بحران سوریه و با در نظر گرفتن اهمیت و ارتباط این ابعاد و مؤلفه ها با یکدیگر و در قالب یک مدل ساختاری، مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. این پژوهش با روش ترکیبی انجام شده که در بخش کیفی آن و با روش گراندد تئوری الگویی جامع برای روابط قدرت های منطقه ایی در بحران سوریه طراحی شده و در بخش کمی با روش مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری و نرم افزار Smart PLS، روابط بین عناصر الگوی حاصل در معرض آزمون کمی قرار گرفته است. بر اساس یافته های پژوهش، الگوی روابط قدرت های منطقه ای در بحران ژئوپلیتیکی سوریه از سال 2011 تا 2018میلادی، به ترتیب اهمیت تحت تأثیر عوامل جغرافیایی، عوامل ژئواستراتژیکی، کدهای ژئوپلیتیکی، عوامل ایدئولوژیکی، نظام ژئوپلیتیک جهانی، نظام ژئوپلیتیک منطقه ای و عوامل ژئواکونومیکی می باشد. با توجه به اهمیت این عوامل پایدار جعرافیایی و ژئوپلیتیکی برای این کشورها، روابط این قدرت های منطقه ای براساس الگوی رقابتی مداخله ای در بحران ژئوپلیتیکی سوریه شکل گرفته و منجر به تداوم بحران شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Explaining the Pattern of Relationships of Regional Powers in the Syrian Geopolitical Crisis

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hamid reza Bayat 1
  • abbas ahmadi 2
  • Yashar Zaki 2
  • javad etaat 3
1 Ph.D. student of Political Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran
2 Assistant Professor of Political Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran
3 Associate Professor of Political Geography, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Intrduction
Recent geopolitical revolution in the Middle East called Arab spring; especially the start of Syrian geopolitical crisis in 2011 has led to another conflict and crisis in Levant security subsystem in the Middle East. In addition to being an internal crisis as a result of the special situation of this country and its conflicts between the governance and its opponents as the internal role players, the crisis in Syria has become a geopolitical crisis and a context of geopolitical relations between the regional and trans-regional powers.
The purpose of the present study is to identify the reasons for forming a competitive-intervening relations model of the geopolitical relations between Iran as a supporter of Assad's governance and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel as supporters of the opposition group. For this reason, we intend to find the most important geographical and geopolitical categories in forming the competitive-intervening relations model of regional powers in this crisis based on the significance and relations of these categories with each other. To this end, we proceed with the following hypothesis the formation basis of which will be elaborated in the methodology section.
It seems that the competitive-intervening relations of Iran with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel as the regional powers present in the geopolitical crisis of Syria has been formed under the influence of geographical factors, ideological factors, geopolitical codes, geostrategic factors, geo-economic factors, regional geopolitical system conditions, and world geopolitical system conditions.
Metodology
The present study is a mixed methods approach with an exploratory purpose using a model formation and taxonomy approach. The Grounded theory was used for the qualitative part of the study. As to the quantitative part, the study used Structural Equation Modeling in addition to Smart PLS software in order to strengthen the findings.
Result and Discussion
Geographical factors,As identified in the examined model of the study, geographical factors with a path coefficient of 0.830 has the most impact on the competitive-intervening model between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in the geopolitical crisis in Syria and these factors are ethnical, borderline and regional, emigrational, hydro political, and environmental categories.
Geostrategic factors, Geostrategic factors with a path coefficient of 0.819 in the examined model of the study are the second influential factors in the competitive-intervening geopolitical relations model of regional powers in the geopolitical crisis of Syria. This includes the two categories of geographical situation of Syria and partial situation of this country.
Geopolitical codes, Geopolitical codes with a path coefficient Of 0.812 in the examined model of the study are the third factors to influence the competitive-intervening geopolitical relations model of regional powers in the geopolitical crisis. This factor, in the qualitative model of the study, includes the two categories of internal and foreign policies.
Ideological factors, According to the examined model of the study, the fourth influential variable in competitive-intervening geopolitical relations model in the Syrian crisis is the ideological factors with a path coefficient of 0.794 embracing religious categories, sacred places, and discourse categories.
World geopolitical system, The fifth factor influencing the competitive-intervening geopolitical relations model in the Syrian crisis is the world geopolitical system conditions with a path coefficient of 0.773 including the categories of world powers’ interventions in the crisis, and the wolrd powers’ relations with the regional powers in geopolitical crisis of Syria.
Regional geopolitical system, Regional geopolitical system with a path coefficient 0.743 is the sixth influential factor in the competitive-intervening geopolitical relations model in the Syrian crisis. It includes the two concepts of regional competition of the powers present in the geopolitical crisis of Syria and partial equality of power levels of these countries in this crisis.
Geo economic factors, According to the examined model of the study, geo economic factors with a path coefficient of 0.719 are the last influential factors on the competitive-intervening geopolitical relations model in the Syrian crisis. These factors include energy resource categories and economic interests.
Conclusions
At the level of regional powers, the crisis in Syria is influenced by the relations between Iran as the most important regional ally of Bashar al-Assad's governance, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel as the regional opposition of Assad’s governance.  These relations are in place in a competitive-intervening way and are under the influence of different geographical and geopolitical categories. The study of the impact of each of these categories on the regional power relations in the Syrian geopolitical crisis cannot provide a complete understanding of the relations between these powers in the Syrian geopolitical crisis. Therefore, explanation of the regional powers’ relations in this crisis must be provided concerning the relation of these categories as well as their importance and in the framework of a single structural model.
Influential categories in regional powers relation’s model in the Syrian geopolitical crisis are geographic and geopolitical stable factors that are directly related to national and long-term national interests as well as the national life of these countries. Each of the Syrian crisis regional parties seeks to excel in its geographical and geopolitical factors and to prevent the dominance of their rivals over these factors; therefore, none of the regional parties involved in the current crisis come into terms from their positions regarding the geopolitical crisis in Syria. This situation has led to the formation of a competitive-intervening model in the Syrian geopolitical crisis as to Iran's relations with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel.  This has complicated the situation in Syria and led to the continuation of the crisis thereby making the efforts and negotiations to resolve the crisis and the end of the conflict pointless and unavailing.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "geopolitical crisis"
  • " competitive-intervening relations"
  • "geographical and geopolitical categories"
  • " grounded theory"
  • "structural modeling"
 
  1. Abdolrahman, Alem (2012). The Foundations of Political science. Tehran: Ney Publications [In Persian].
  2. Ahmad, Soltani Nezhad & Ebrahimi, Nabiolla & Najafi, Mostafa (2016). “Interests and Considerations of Regional Powers in Syria Crisis”. Islamic World Political Studies Quarterly.  Vol 5. Issue 1.  pp 101-130 [In Persian].
  3. Ahmadi,  Sayed Abbas &  Badiee, Marjan &  Heidari Mosello, Tahmores (2017). “The Theoretical Explanation of the Nature of the Geopolitical Regions in Competition of the Powers”. Geopolitics Quarterly.  Vol 13. Issue 47.  PP 55-78  [In Persian].
  4. Al-Rawashdeh, Mohammad Salim (2018). “International and Regional Political Competitions in Syria: Geopolitical dimensions”.  Journal of Political Studies, Vol 25, Issue 1, pp 55-80
  5. Ayoob, Mohammed (2012). “The Arab Spring: Its Geostrategic Significance”.  Middle East Policy, Vol 19, No 3, pp 84-97
  6. Barzegar, Keyhan (2013). Arabic, Iranian and Middle East evolutions, Tehran: Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies Center  [In Persian].
  7. Brecher, Michael & Wilkenfel, Jonathan & Moser, Sheila (1988). Crisis in the Twentieth Century, A Handbook of International Crisis. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  8. Brecher, Michael (1993). Crisis in World Politics, Theory and Reality. Pergamon Press: London.
  9. Brecher, Michael (2003). Crisis In World Politics: Theory and Reahity. Translated by Mirfardin Querashi. Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies [In Persian].
  10. Buzan, Barry & Wæver, Ole (2009). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Translated by Rahman Ghahremanpour. Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies [In Persian].
  11. Cohen, Saul Bernard (2008). Geopolitics of the World System. Translated by Abbas Kardan. Tehran: International Institute for Cultural Studies and Research, Contemporary Abrar [In Persian].
  12. Collins John. M (1998). Military Geography for professionals and the public. Brassey: Washington.
  13. Davutoglu, Ahmet  (2012). Strategic depth: Turkey's  International Position. Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications  [In Persian].
  14. Dougherty, James E & Pfaltzgraff, Robert L (2011). Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. Translated by Vahid Bozorgi and Alireza Tayeb. Tehran: Ghomes Publications [In Persian].
  15. Drysdale, Alasdair & Blake, Gerald. H (1991). The Middle East and North Africa: A Political Geography. Translated by Doreh MirHaydar. Tehran: Publications Office of Political and International Studies [In Persian].
  16. Ghasemi, Farhad (2010). Principles of International Relations. Tehran: Qomes Publications
  17. Ghavam, Seyyed Abdol Ali (2010). Principles of Foreign Policy and International Politics. Tehran: Samt Publications [In Persian].
  18. Hafeznia, Mohammad Reza (2014). Principles and Concepts of Geopolitics. Mashhad: Papoli publications [In Persian].
  19. Hagget, Peter (1983). Geography: A Modern Syntheses. Harpercollins College Div: New York.
  20. Hamidi, Somaye & Ghasemi, Zeynab (2015). “Security strategy, regional powers; Iran, Turkey and Israel against the Syrian crisis (2011-2014)”. Quarterly of Islamic Awakening Studies.  Vol 4, Issue 7, pp 61-78 [In Persian].
  21. Hosseinpour Pouyan, Reza (2013). “Expounding Geographical and Geopolitical Factors of Relations in Geopolitical Regions”. Geopolitics Quarterly. Vol 9, Issue 30, pp 161-203[In Persian].
  22. Huntington. S.P. (1997). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon $ Schuster.
  23. Jafari Valdany, Asghar (2009), Challenges and Conflicts in the Middle East. Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies [In Persian].
  24. Kamrava, Mehran (2018). “ Multipolarity and Instability in the Middle East”. Orbis.  Vol 62, Issue 4. pp 598-616.[In Persian].
  25. Kaplan, Robert (2001). The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War. New York: Vintage.
  26. Kay Wong, Ken Kwong (2013). “Partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS”. Marketing Bulletin, Vol 24, Technical Note 1, pp 1- 32.
  27. Kazemi, Ali Asghar (2003). Modernization crisis and contemporary Iranian political culture. Tehran: Qomes Publications
  28. Kemp, Geoffrey & Harkavy, Robert (2004). Strategic Geography and Changing Middle East. Translated by Seyed Mahdi Hosseiny Matin. Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies [In Persian].
  29. Khaki, Gholamreza (2013). Research methodology with a grounded theory in thesis writing. Tehran:.Fozhan Publications [In Persian].
  30. Kissinger, Henry (2014). World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History. New York: Penguin Group.
  31. Luttwak, Edward N (1990). “From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics: Logic of Conflict, Grammar of Commerce”. The National Interest. Vol 6, No 20. pp 17-23.
  32. Mojtahedzadeh, Pirouz (2002). Political Geography and Geopolitics. Tehran: Samt Publications [In Persian].
  33. Nasri, Ghadir (2014). The Vital regions of Middle East. Tehran: Emam Sadegh University Publications [In Persian].
  34. Niakooyi, Seyed Amir & Setoodeh, Ali Asghar (2016). “The pattern of opposition between regional and transnational actors in the internal conflicts of Syria and Iraq”. Strategic Quarterly. Vol 25. Issue 80.  PP 117-151[In Persian].
  35. Prescott, John Robert (1972). Political Geography.  London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  36. Rashnoo, Nabi Allah (2013).” Geopolitical Approaches and Interests in the Middle East and North Africa Evolutions”. Geopolitics Quarterly.  Vol 9  . Issue 29.  PP 127-165 [In Persian].
  37. Sadeghi, Seyed Shamseddin & Akhavan & Kazemi,  Masoud & Lotfi, Kamran (2015). “Syria’s Crisis and Regional Powers of Geopolitical Conflict”. Islamic World Political Studies Quarterly. Vol 4. Issue 4. PP 107-128 [In Persian].
  38. Shahvary, Ahmad (1996). Diplomacy of Crisis. Tehran: Publications Office of Political and International Studies [In Persian].
  39. Snyder, Gelenn H. & Diesing, Paul. (1978). Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Newjersy: Prinction University Press.
  40. Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.  Newbury Park: Sage Publications..
  41. Vaezi, Mahmoud (2010). “New International System and International Crisis Management”. Strategic Quarterly. Vol 19. Issue 56.  PP 7-42  [In Persian].
  42. Vaezi, Mahmoud (2013). Political Crises and Social Movements in The Middel East. Tehran: Publications Office of Political and International Studies [In Persian].
  43. Valigholizdeh, Ali (2015). Geopolitical Crisis Recognition Pattern. Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies [In Persian].
  44. Valigholizdeh, Ali (2016), “Geopolitical Explanation of the Factors Determining the States’ Behavior in Karabakh Crisis”. Geopolitics quarterly.  Vol 12 . Issue 43 .  PP 85-120   [In Persian].
  45. Zakheim, Dov S (2015). “The Middle East in Conflict: the Empires strike back”.  Turkish Policy Quarterly. Vol 14, Issue 1, pp47-60.