فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک

فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک

Appraising the Comprehensive Strategic Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
Mosayeb GharehBeygi 1
Seyyed Mohammad Isanedjad 2
1 PhD in Geopolitics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 PhD in Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/igq.2025.508143.2015
چکیده
The objective of this study is to critically examine the Comprehensive Strategic Agreement signed between Iran and Russia on December 17, 2024. The research employs a dual-methodological approach, integrating the framework of critical geopolitics with Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis (CDA). The CDA methodology is applied in detail at three analytical levels: structures, forces, and context. At the structural level, the agreement’s text is dissected to identify Russia as a security-guaranteeing object, with the guarantee of Iran’s geopolitical security serving as a floating signifier. This security is positioned in opposition to the counter-securitization discourses advanced by the United States and Israel, which are constructed as threatening geopolitical objects. These actors are shown to employ complex strategies to consolidate pressure on Iran. The analysis of forces focuses on Russia’s strategic partnership with Iran, which is pursued through two main actions: first, by placing Iran on a non-securitized agenda, and second, by creating distance and imposing its own geopolitical perspective. At the contextual level, the study examines how the U.S. seeks to minimize Iran’s benefits from the agreement by linking it to the nuclear dossier, thereby influencing the broader geopolitical context. The findings reveal that, despite the agreement’s intentions, Russia is unable to persuade other geopolitical actors to establish robust, hardware-based relations with Iran. As a result, Russia cannot logically guarantee Iran’s geopolitical security, highlighting the limitations of the agreement within the current geopolitical landscape.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Critical Geopolitics
Comprehensive Strategic Agreement
Iran and Russia
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Appraising the Comprehensive Strategic Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation

نویسندگان English

Mosayeb GharehBeygi 1
Seyyed Mohammad Isanedjad 2
1 PhD in Geopolitics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 PhD in Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

The objective of this study is to critically examine the Comprehensive Strategic Agreement signed between Iran and Russia on December 17, 2024. The research employs a dual-methodological approach, integrating the framework of critical geopolitics with Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis (CDA). The CDA methodology is applied in detail at three analytical levels: structures, forces, and context. At the structural level, the agreement’s text is dissected to identify Russia as a security-guaranteeing object, with the guarantee of Iran’s geopolitical security serving as a floating signifier. This security is positioned in opposition to the counter-securitization discourses advanced by the United States and Israel, which are constructed as threatening geopolitical objects. These actors are shown to employ complex strategies to consolidate pressure on Iran. The analysis of forces focuses on Russia’s strategic partnership with Iran, which is pursued through two main actions: first, by placing Iran on a non-securitized agenda, and second, by creating distance and imposing its own geopolitical perspective. At the contextual level, the study examines how the U.S. seeks to minimize Iran’s benefits from the agreement by linking it to the nuclear dossier, thereby influencing the broader geopolitical context. The findings reveal that, despite the agreement’s intentions, Russia is unable to persuade other geopolitical actors to establish robust, hardware-based relations with Iran. As a result, Russia cannot logically guarantee Iran’s geopolitical security, highlighting the limitations of the agreement within the current geopolitical landscape.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Critical Geopolitics
Comprehensive Strategic Agreement
Iran and Russia
1.       Agnew, J. (2010). Emerging China and Critical Geopolitics: Between World Politics and Chinese Particularity. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 51(5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.51.5.569.
2.       Alma (2025). Summary of Iran-Israel war on the Israeli front – Operation Rising Lion. Retrieved June 30 2025, from https://israel-alma.org/summary-of-iran-israel-war-on-the-israeli-front-operation-rising-lion-june-2025/.
3.       Bastani, N; Brandimarte, I. (2024). Stories of world Politics: Between History and Fiction. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 37(4), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2024.2368418.
4.       Berkovich, I; Benoliel, P. (2018). Marketing teacher quality: critical discourse analysis of OECD documents on effective teaching and TALIS. Critical Studies in Education, 61(4), 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508 487.2018.1521338.
5.       CNN. (2025). Iran-Israel conflict: After the war, enter the diplomats. Retrieved June 30 2025, from https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/30/politics/iran-israel-military-success-path-diplomacy-analysis.
6.       CSA (2025). Full text of the Comprehensive Strategic Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Official Website, Retrieved 14 Apr. 2025, from https://mfa.gov.ir/portal/newsview/759897. [In Persian]
7.       Dalby, S. (2008). Imperialism, Domination, Culture: The Continued Relevance of Critical Geopolitics. Geopolitics, 13(3), 413–436. https://doi. org/10.1080/14650040802203679.
8.       Dini, S. (2025). The Role of Local Staff in the International Organization for Migration (IOM) ‘S State-Building Work in Djibouti: A Postcolonial Perspective. Geopolitics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2024 .2433505.
9.       Dittmer, J; Dodds, K. (2008). Popular Geopolitics Past and Future: Fandom, Identities and Audiences. Geopolitics, 13(3), 437–457. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14650040802203687.
10.   Fan, H. (2022). China–Iran Relations from the Perspective of Tehran’s Look East Approach. Asian Affairs, 53(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03068374.2022.2029053.
11.   Fletcher, A.J. (2016). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364 5579.2016. 1144401.
12.   Grajewski, N. (2022). An Illusory Entente: The Myth of a Russia-China-Iran “Axis.” Asian Affairs, 53(1), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374. 2022.2029076.
13.   Hoddy, E.T. (2018). Critical realism in empirical research: employing techniques from grounded theory methodology. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13645579.2018.1503400.
14.   International Crisis Group. (2025). Syria’s shifting alliances: Russia’s pragmatic approach. Retrieved 13 March 2025, from https://www. crisisgroup.org.
15.   Klinger, J.M. (2020). Critical Geopolitics of Outer Space. Geopolitics, 26(3), 661–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2020.1803285.
16.   Kluczewska, K; Silvan, K. (2024). Post-Soviet Dependence with Benefits? Critical Geopolitics of Belarus’s and Tajikistan’s Strategic Alignment with Russia. Geopolitics, 30(2), 641–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045 .2024.2368621.
17.   Krickel-Choi, N.C. (2022). State personhood and ontological security as a framework of existence: moving beyond identity, discovering sovereignty. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 37(1), 3–21. https://doi.org /10.1080/09557571.2022.2108761.
18.   Lynch, M. (2025). Russia’s recalibrated role in Syria and implications for Iran. Middle East Policy, 32(2), 45-61. https://www.mei.edu/ publications/ russias-military-presence-post-assad-syria-growing-security-liability-underm -ining.
19.   Mottaghi, A; Ghareh Beygi, M. (2013). Analysis of Geopolitical Discourses of the Islamic Revolution of Iran from the Perspective of Constructivism, Journal of Matin, 64(4), 131-151. [In Persian]
20.   Newman, J. (2020). Critical realism, critical discourse analysis, and the morphogenetic approach. Journal of Critical Realism, 19(5), 433–455. https: //doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2020.1758986.
21.   Oakes, T. (2024). Toward a critical geopolitics of smart tourism. Tourism Geographies, 26(5), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688. 2024. 2360 633.
22.   Orosco, O; Ybarra, M. (2025). The Datafication of Environmental Injustice. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2024. 2448671.
23.   Price, L; Martin, L. (2018). Introduction to the special issue: applied critical realism in the social sciences. Journal of Critical Realism, 17(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2018.1468148.
24.   Ramazankhani, M. (2018). Formalizing the Sense Relation of Hyponymy from Logical Point of View, a Study of Mathematical Linguistics in Farsi, Language Science, 8(13), 37-57. https://doi.org/10.22054/ls.2018.25601 .1094. [In Persian]
25.   Russell, D.G; Radil, S.M. (2023). The New Anglo-Saxons: Race, Space, and the Production of a Geopolitical Discourse. GeoHumanities, 10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2373566X.2023.2261514.
26.   Saffari, S. (2024). Political Islam and emancipatory politics: snapshots of Islamic liberation theology. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 25(1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2024.2310280.
27.   Saleh, A; Yazdanshenas, Z. (2023). China-Iran strategic partnership and the future of US hegemony in the Persian Gulf Region. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 51(2), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2023. 2215188.
28.   Sembiring, M. (2025). Critical Geopolitics of Global Environmental Norms: Exploring Indonesia’s Response to Climate Mitigation Agenda. Geopolitics, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2024.2446435.
29.   Shah, Q.A; Khattak, B.N. (2025). The role of ontological (in) security in conflict: a case study of Swat, Pakistan. Conflict, Security & Development, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2024.2444961.
30.   Stutchbury, K. (2021). Critical realism: an explanatory framework for small-scale qualitative studies or an ‘unhelpful edifice’? International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1743727X.2021.1966623.
31.   Times of London. (2025). Israel’s 12-day war with Iran was a test of technological dominance. Retrieved July 1 2025, from https://www. timesofisrael.com/israels-12-day-war-with-iran-was-a-test-of-technological-dominance/.
32.   Toal, G. (2003). Condensing Critical Geopolitics: Reflections on Joanne Sharp’s Condensing the Cold War. Geopolitics, 8(2), 159–165. https://doi. org/10.1080/714001034.
33.   Türkeş-Kılıç, S. (2024). A neighbor no more: evolution of Ukraine in the EU geopolitical discourse from the 1990s to the post-Russian invasion. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 24(3), 451–468. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14683857.2024.2354547.
34.   Understanding War (2025). Iran update. Retrieved June 25, 2025, from https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-june-25-2025.
35.   Wegge, N; Keil, K. (2018). Between classical and critical geopolitics in a changing Arctic. Polar Geography, 41(2), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1088937X.2018.1455755.
36.   Welsh, J. (2023). Civitas sine suffragio: a new (old) concept for critical geopolitics. Space and Polity, 27(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562576.2023.2235581.
37.   Zhang, T. (2022). Critical Realism: A Critical Evaluation. Social Epistemology, 37(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728. 2022. 2080127.
فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک
دوره 22، شماره 2
تابستان 1405
صفحه 130-156

  • تاریخ دریافت 05 اسفند 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 15 تیر 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 29 تیر 1404