پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,225 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,685 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 114,997,334 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,671,212 |
مثبت‌اندیشی کشورهای آسیای مرکزی نسبت به جمهوری اسلامی ایران با تکیه بر موضوع هستهای | ||
| مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 11، شماره 2، مهر 1397، صفحه 361-379 اصل مقاله (592.28 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jcep.2019.200767.449630 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| ابراهیم طاهری* 1؛ محمد عابدی اردکانی2 | ||
| 1استادیار علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه یزد | ||
| 2دانشیار علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه یزد | ||
| چکیده | ||
| بحران هستهای به یکی از مهم‌ترین چالش‌های سیاست خارجی ایران تبدیل شده بود. در نتیجۀ این بحران، موضوع هستهای ایران از سازمان بین‌المللی هستهای به شورای امنیت سازمان ملل متحد ارجاع داده شد. نتیجۀ این مسئله، به‌کارگیری تحریم‌های بین‌المللی در قالب فصل هفتم شورای امنیت به‌ویژه در قالب قطعنامۀ 1929 بود. نگاه کشورها و مناطق مختلف به این مسئله متفاوت بود. در حالی که کشورهای حاشیۀ جنوبی خلیج فارس از جمله عربستان سعودی، امارات متحدۀ عربی و بحرین در بحران هستهای میان ایران و غرب به‌شکل ضمنی خواستار حملۀ نظامی به ایران بودند، کشورهای واقع در آن سوی مرزهای شرقی ایران یعنی منطقۀ آسیای مرکزی آشکارا اعلام می‌‌کردند که راه حل مسئلۀ هستهای ایران دیپلماسی است و باید به‌صورت صلح‌آمیز حل شود. ریشۀ نگاه مثبت کشورهای آسیای مرکزی به جمهوری اسلامی ایران چیست؟ در پاسخ می‌‌توان مطرح کرد که دلایل نگاه مثبت کشورهای آسیای مرکزی به جمهوری اسلامی ایران ناشی از مجموعۀ ملاحظات سیاسی ـ امنیتی، اقتصادی و فرهنگی است. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده نشان می‌‌دهد که ترس از واکنش جدی ایران و سرایت بی‌‌ثباتی به درون منطقۀ آسیای مرکزی، جایگاه ژئواکونومیک ایران نزد کشورهای آسیای مرکزی، احساس همبستگی با ایران به‌دلیل اشتراک‌های فرهنگی و نگاه به ایران به‌عنوان موازنه‌بخش در مقابل کشورهایی همچون ترکیه، پاکستان و اسرائیل بر می‌‌گردد. هدف این نوشتار بررسی ریشه‌های نگاه مثبت کشورهای آسیای مرکزی به جمهوری اسلامی ایران با استفاده از روش توصیفی ـ تحلیلی است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| آسیای مرکزی؛ ایران؛ تصمیم‌گیری؛ روابط فرهنگی؛ موازنه‌گر | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Positive Thinking towards the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Central Asian Countries: with an Emphasis on the Nuclear Issue | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ebrahim Taheri1؛ Mohammad Abedi Ardakani2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yazd University | ||
| 2Associate Professor of Political Science, Yazd University | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Positive thinking is the result of a mental conception of the capabilities one country can play for another. So that any action taken by country A can have beneficial results for B. Finding positive aspects in comparison with the negative effects is some of dimensions of positive thinking. In fact, changing the attitude from negativity toward positivity is a long-term process which is, of course is due to a reciprocal and interactive relationship. Therefore, positive thinking, while somewhat rooted in objective facts, comes from the thinking of the person at first and the elite ruling of foreign policy as a device of that country in the second phase. For example, while most of Gulf States have a pessimistic look about Iran's nuclear program and implicitly advocated unilateral action by the United States and Israel against Iran (Saudi Arabia is notable in this case), Central Asian countries have looked more positive and cautious about Iran's nuclear program and rejected any unilateral attack on the country with the aim of destroying its nuclear facilities, and called for a peaceful solution to this issue. For example, Uzbekistan was silent about Iran's nuclear issue, indicating no support from the parties to the conflict; Turkmenistan supports Iran for its borders with Iran and high-level economic relations with the country. Tajikistan had a more positive attitude toward Iran's nuclear program than all of Central Asian countries. Meanwhile, Kyrgyzstan and its president strongly opposed any unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities through the Kyrgyzstan manas base. (Although this site is not currently leased to Americans) and called for a peaceful solution to this issue. Kazakhstan also challenges the international community's stance on Iran's nuclear program. On the other hand, they want Iran to cooperate more in this regard with the international community, For example, in November of 2011, Nursultan Nazarbayev, in a media commentary, announced that current sanctions would suffice because the IAEA conclusions were ambiguous, and the IAEA inspectors should once more go to Iran's nuclear facilities for further investigation. He Asked the United States to enter directly with Iran to resolve the remaining issues. Given the above assumptions, the basic question is posed: What are the reasons for the Central Asian countries to look positively towards the Islamic Republic of Iran? Are economic, political-security-strategic considerations effective in creating such a view? In response to the above question, it can be argued that a set of political, economic, security and strategic considerations serves as a reason for the positive perception of Central Asian countries compared with the countries of the southern Gulf of Persian Gulf to the Islamic Republic of Iran. For example, while Tajikistan and Turkmenistan have good commercial and economic ties with Iran, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have political and strategic motives, worrying about the spread of political instability in the region and its spread within their borders and the activation of Islamist groups in their country. Kazakhstan, as an influential country in Central Asia, is concerned about the prevalence of instability and the possibility of Iran reacting to a military strike against them. The method used in this research is descriptive-analytic after event occurrence. In this regard, at first, the dependent variable, the positive look of Central Asian countries, was investigated in the form of an examination of the approach of the elites of these countries to Iran. For example, statements by presidents of some of countries regions, including NourSultan Nazarbayev, have been advocating remarks, indicating their support for the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Authors studied geo-economic, geo-strategic and geo-cultural indicators to clarify their independent variables. In other words, in order to prove the research hypothesis, using existing information and statistics and library, the authors tried to prove a meaningful relationship between two variables, namely, the positive thinking of Central Asian countries relative to Iran, due to geo-economic, geo-strategic, and geo-cultural considerations. Therefore, the reasons for the Central Asian countries to look positively towards Iran, especially in the nuclear issue derive from geo-politics, geo-cultural and geo-economic dimensions. For example, all Central Asian countries have a degree of economic relations with Iran and Iran could be considered a key factor in the future for the access of these countries to free water. For example, nearly 70% of cotton exports are currently exported to the outside world through the Islamic Republic as the second largest export commodity in Uzbekistan. In terms of security-strategy, Central Asian countries are also concerned about weakening Iran and the powering of countries such as Turkey, Israel and Pakistan, That is the reason why a country like Kazakhstan explicitly declares that the West's approach to Iran's nuclear program is not transparent and they want to clarify the true nature nuclear programs of Israel and Pakistan because they don’t regard Israel as having nuclear weapons, and put the Islamic Republic at the forefront. The third reason why Central Asian countries have a positive outlook for Iran is that they are worried about the spread of insecurity and instability resulting from the attack and rehabilitation of Iran's rigid response. Finally, the cultural and soft powers of Iran in the region and the influence of Iran among the peoples of the countries of the region will make the decision making system of Central Asian countries, even in countries like Uzbekistan, to look at the Islamic Republic of Iran as an influential country in the Central Asian region. Therefore, the positive attitude of Central Asian countries towards the Islamic Republic of Iran is due to their beliefs about the functioning of Iran in the regional sub-system. As a result, the main motivations of Central Asian countries to support Iran's nuclear program are rooted in various political, security, economic and geostrategic considerations which could increase Iran's regional weight among these countries. Whether this pattern can be repeated in relation to the Persian Gulf countries that have a negative view of Iran, needs to be explored separately. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Balancing, Central Asia, Cultural Relations, Decision making, Iran | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
A) English 1. Cooley, Alexander (2013), “New Policy Memo: The Changing Logic of Russian Strategy in Central Asia: from Privileged Spher to Divide and Rule?”, Available at: http://www.ponarseurasia.org/article/new-policy-memo-changing-logic-russian-strategy-central-asia-privileged-sphere-divide-and, (Accessed on: 12/4/2015). 2. EIA (2008), “Country Analysis Briefs: Turkmenistan”, Available at: http://www.eia.gov/EMEU/cabs/Turkmenistan/pdf, (Accessed on: 12/3/2015). 3. Eurasianet (2008), “Turkmenistan: Iran Admits Defeat in Gas Pricing Dispute”, Available at: http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav042208. shtml, (Accessed on: 7/12/2015). 4. Hunter, Shirin (2003), “Iran’s Pragmatic Regional Policy”, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 133-147. 5. IEA (2014), “Islamic Repubic of Iran”, Available at: http://www.iea.org/ statistics/statisticssearch/report/?country=Iran%20&product=oil&year=2012, (Accessed on: 15/4/2015). 6. Kerali, Henry (2011), “Transport and Trade Linkages, Central Asia and Eastern Europe”, The World Bank, Washington D.C, Available at: https://slideplayer.com/slide/4390550/, (Accessed on: 29/10/2018). 7. Kurecic, Peter (2010), “The New Great Game: Rivalry of Geostrategies and Geoeconomies in Central Asia”, Hrvatski Geografski Glasnik, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 21-48, Available at: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/53555362/ new-great-game-rivalry-geostrategies-geoeconomies-central-asia, (Accessed on: 10/11/2018). 8. Laumulin, Murat, Vefo Niyat-bekov and Guli Yuldasheva (2012), “Debating the Impact of the Iranian Nuclear Crisis in Central Asia”, CAP, the George Washington University, the Elliott School of International Affairs, Available at: http://centralasiaprogram.org/archives/7643, (Accessed on: 29/10/2018). 9. Masica, Colin P. (1991), The Indo-Aryan Language, Cambridge University Press. 10. Mogilevsky, Robert (2012) “Trends and Patterns of Foreign Trade in Central Asia”, Institute of Public Administration and Policy, University of Central Asia, Available at:http://www.ucentralasia.org/downloads/UCA-Trends& PatternsForeignTradeCA-Rus.pdf, (Accessed on: 12/5/2015). 11. Norberg, Johan (2012), “An Attack on the Iranian Nuclear Programme Some Possible Russian Considerations”, FOI, RUFS Briefing No. 13, Project No. A18001, Available at: www.foi.se/russia, (Accessed on: 12/12/2014). 12. Perez Martin, Miguel A. (2009), “Geo-Economics in Central Asia and the ‘Great Game’ of Natural Resources: Water, Oil, Gas, Uranium and Transportation Corridors (WP)”, Available at: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/115237/WP59-2009_Geo-economics_Central_Asia_Natural_Resources.pdf, (Accessed on: 10/11/2018). 13. Peyrouse, Sebastien (2012), “The Iranian Nuclear Crisis as Seen from Central Asia, on Wider Europe: Foreign Policy and Civil Society Program”, The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Available at: http://www.centralasiaprogram.org/images/GMFUS-Iran_seen_from_CA.pdf, (Accessed on: 11/10/2015). 14. Railwaygazette (2014) (a), “Connecting China and Europe”, Available at: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/connecting-china-and-europe.html, (Accessed on: 12/4/2015). 15. Railwaygazette (2014) (b), “Caspian Corridor Agreement”, Available at: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/caspian-corridor-agreement.html, (Accessed on: 20/5/2015). 16. Rould, Avilash (2008), “The Elusive yet Abundant Hydropower in the Kyrgyz Republic”, Available at: www.ecoworld.com/features/2009/01/15/hydropower-in-kyrgyzstan/, (Accessed on: 12/5/2015). 17. Yermukanov, Marat (2006), “Kazakhstan Seeks Iran’s Reconciliation with the West”, Eurasia Daily Monitor, Available at: https://jamestown.org/program/ kazakhstan-seeks-irans-reconciliation-with-the-west/, (Accessed on: 12/10/2014).
B) Persian 1. Alavian, Morteza and Vali Koozegar Kaleji (2009), “Foreign Policy of Iran in Central Asia”, Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 46, pp. 63-92. 2. Alison, Geraham T. (1985), Methods of Policy Making in Foreign Policy, Translated by Manouchehr Shojaee, Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publications. 3. Dougherty, James E. and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff (1995(, Contending Theories of International Relations: a Comprehensive Survey, Vol. 2, Translated by Alireza Tayeb and Vahid Bozorgi, Tehran: Qomes. 4. Eslami Nodooshan, Mohamad Ali (2010), Unseen Boundaries, Tehran: Sherkate Sahami-e Enteshar. 5. Koolaee, Elaheh (2001), “Cultural Complementary School in Amu Darya”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, Vol. 9, No. 10, pp. 77-90. 6. Koolaee, Elaheh (2003), “The Relationship of the New American Maneuver with Israel’s Threat to Attack on Iran”, Omid-e Javan,No. 339, p. 3. 7. Koolaee, Elaheh (2006), New Great Game in Central Asia: Fields and Prospects, Tehran: Bureau of Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 8. Koolaee, Elaheh and Mohammad Moadab (2009), “The Role and Importance of Iran in the Energy Market of the ECO Region”, International Journal of Foreign Relations, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 33-54. 9. Madah, Mohammad (2012), “The Strategic Importance of the North and South Corridor”, Available at: http://www.opex.ir/Components/News/View/ NewsPDF.aspx?id=1587, (Accessed on: 1/5/2017). 10. Malekian, Mohsen (2012), “Cultural Relations between Iran and Tajikistan”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 5, No. 11, pp. 95-114. 11. Seifzadeh, Hossein (1997), Theorizing in International Relations: Fundamentals and Forms of Thought, Tehran: Samt [in Persian]. 12. Yeganeh Mahalati, Seyamak, Heydar Zare and Aghil Mohammadi (2012), “Review the Status, Strategies and Steps for Upgrading the Port of Chabahar to a Third Generation Port, Available at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ search?q=cache:xfJWJktd0JwJ:old.roshd.ir/padafand/makran/1076.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ir, (Accessed on: 10/11/2018). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 565 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 373 |
||