نظریۀ ایرانی توازن‌ قدرت برخاسته از جنگ ‌سرد جدید: آینده‌ پژوهی تحولات نظام‌ بین‌الملل

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری روابط بین‌الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

10.22054/jrgr.2025.84838.1111

چکیده

مجموعه‌ای از یافته‌ها‌ در حوزه رویکرد سنجی مقالات علمی-پژوهشی روابط بین‌الملل ایرانی در نهایت منجر به تقویت این گزاره شد که روابط بین‌الملل ایرانی یک نگاه منحصر به فرد نسبت به وضعیت کنونی نظام‌بین‌الملل دارد که اگر برآیند برخاسته از خرد جمعی ایرانی در قالب یک فرمول بیان شود یک نظریه بومی در دانش روابط بین‌الملل ایجاد خواهد شد که تفسیر، تحلیل و آینده‌پژوهی وقایع بین‌الملل پسا پسا جنگ سرد را میسر خواهد کرد. پرسش اصلی این است که آیا همگرایی در نگرش پژوهشگران روابط بین‌الملل ایرانی به نظام‌بین‌الملل کنونی، آنچنان که امکان فرمول‌بندی در قالب یک نظریه واحد تعمیم‌پذیر را داشته باشد، قابل‌رؤیت است؟ بر این مبنا 1500 مقاله علمی از میان مقالات منتشرشده در یک دهه گذشته در فرآیندی تصادفی انتخاب و به روش «تحلیل محتوای مقوله‌ای مبتنی بر کلیدواژه‌های نظری» و با تکیه بر روش پژوهش‌ «نظریه ‌داده‌ بنیاد ساخت گرایانه» موفق به کشف برآیند این مقالات و «نظریه توازن قدرت برخاسته از جنگ سرد جدید» شدیم. بر اساس خرد جمعی روابط بین‌الملل ایرانی یک بلوک قدرت متحد حافظ وضعیت کنونی و مجموعه‌ای از بازیگران ناراضی به دنبال تغییر جزئی یا تحول بنیادین نظام‌بین‌الملل، در قالب سیستمی از توازن قدرت در چارچوب قواعد نوعی از جنگ سرد جدید تشخیص داده شد و مفاهیمی مانند سطح بازیگران، بازدارندگی، آنارشی، توزیع قدرت، ریشه بحران‌ها، سازمان‌های بین‌المللی و ... از منظر این نظریه  مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. بر این اساس مفروضات این نظریه بومی تشریح و پایه‌ای نهاده شد که بتوان در آینده  آن را به بوتۀ آزمایش نهاد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Iranian Perspectives on the Balance of Power in a Neo-Cold War Era

نویسنده [English]

  • Sajjad Sadeghi
PhD in International Relations at Allameh Tabataba'i University
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Analytical approaches and development-oriented research in International Relations (IR), particularly when a logical alignment and convergence emerge from prevailing attitudes toward the surrounding world, can help identify indicators that clarify scientific outcomes. The author’s studies have revealed patterns in Iranian IR that suggest a reliable alignment. If expressed systematically, this alignment could serve as a conceptual lens for understanding today’s international system.
The central research question of this study is:
Is convergence and alignment visible in the attitudes of the Iranian IR toward the current international system, such that it can be formulated as a single, generalizable theory?
Literature Review
In recent years, several politicians and analysts have raised the possibility of a Neo-Cold War. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Kremlin repeatedly found itself on the verge of such a conflict, especially in situations where Moscow was perceived as being at a disadvantage compared to allied rivals. Notably, discussions of a Neo-Cold War are not limited to Russia’s territorial ambitions; similar debates have emerged regarding U.S.–China relations. A survey of the academic literature on Iranian IR concerning the Neo-Cold War reveals a limited number of works. Most analyses focus on Russian foreign policy or regional tensions in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Syria. None has proposed a hypothesis aimed at constructing a comprehensive theory of the Neo-Cold War. Similarly, English-language studies largely integrate events surrounding Russia and China, yet fail to present novel theoretical frameworks. Instead, researchers often treat contemporary tensions as analogous to the Cold War of the 20th century, suggesting the potential for a Neo-Cold War in the international system.
Methodology
This study employs Constructive Grounded Theory as its primary research method, deemed appropriate for generating a context-sensitive theoretical framework grounded in empirical evidence. The research corpus consisted of 1,500 Persian-language articles relevant to Iranian perspectives on international relations.
Articles were analyzed using Categorical Content Analysis, guided by predefined theoretical keywords. The analysis was conducted in two stages:
Human expert coding – initial qualitative assessment by subject-matter experts.
Computer-assisted coding – verification and enhancement of coding accuracy using specialized software.
The coding process followed the three-stage grounded theory approach:
Open coding – identifying key concepts and categories emerging from the data.
Axial coding – examining relationships between categories and subcategories.
Selective coding – integrating categories to construct a coherent theoretical model.
This method allowed the systematic extraction of recurring assumptions, patterns, and principles underlying Iranian IR thought.
Research Findings
The analysis of the reviewed corpus revealed that Iranian perspectives on the current international system (IS) are characterized by the following core assumptions:
Primacy of the state: States are considered the principal actors in the current IS.
Acknowledgment of anarchy: Recognition of the anarchic nature of the international environment.
Application of a realism paradigm, interpreted with a native understanding of IR concepts, including:
Self-help: Achieved through economic interdependence and, when necessary, resorting to unconventional weapons.
Deterrence: Exercised via soft power threats targeting vital interests and/or through hard power measures.
Security dilemma: Any increase in the power or capabilities of an actor or bloc, even without aggressive intent, provokes reactions from others.
Great powers tend to secure national interests and maintain the status quo, often exerting negative influence on international events. Hegemony: Skepticism toward the sustainability of hegemony, with emphasis on the decline of dominant powers. International organizations: Viewed as minimally effective, primarily supporting the maintenance of the status quo. International law: Considered selectively enforced and largely ineffective, serving the interests of status quo actors. These findings highlight a coherent alignment in Iranian IR thought, emphasizing realist principles while incorporating a culturally and contextually informed understanding of international relations.
Results
The synthesis of the research findings leads to the formulation of an “Iranian theory on the balance of power arising from the Neo-Cold War.” According to this theory, the dynamics of the current international system (IS) can be analyzed through a balance-of-power framework in the post-Cold War era. This framework is shaped by competition between two primary groups of actors:
 
Status quo actors – a united bloc benefiting from the existing system, referred to as protectors and supporters of the status quo. Revisionist actors – those dissatisfied with the current system, seeking either partial or fundamental transformation of the status quo. In practice, the balance-of-power mechanism functions as follows: Revisionist actors take individual or coordinated steps to create disorder, challenging the existing arrangements. Status quo actors respond by attempting to contain or mitigate disorder, aiming to preserve systemic stability. These interactions often lead to temporary concessions from the status quo, after which conditions return to equilibrium. Because the international system is characterized by an anarchic structure, revisionist actors typically form temporary coalitions and strategic alliances with one another, guided by pragmatic, realism-informed strategies. If revisionist actors overcome the limitations of temporary alliances and achieve long-term unity, the IS may transition into a new bipolar structure, resembling a Neo-Cold War order. Such a transformation would mark the definitive end of the post-Cold War era. Regarding Iran’s position in this framework, the country’s pragmatic “look to the East” policy and ongoing efforts to join strategic alliances such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization place it among the actors dissatisfied with the status quo. These actions reflect a deliberate attempt to reform or partially transform the international system, positioning Iran as a revisionist actor within the emerging balance-of-power dynamics.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International Relations
  • International System
  • Iranian International Relations
  • Iranian Theory of International Relations
  • Neo-Cold War
امام‌جمعه‌زاده س.ج، رحیمی ر. (1388). جنگ سرد جدید از تئوری تا عمل. سیاست دانشگاه تهران. 39(3): 71-94.
امیراحمدیان ب. (1386). سپر دفاعی موشکی یا جنگ سرد جدید. مطالعات آسیای مرکزی و قفقاز، 13(60): 35-84.
ثمودی پیله‌رود، ع. (1396). جنگ سرد جدید در روابط اتحادیه اروپا و فدراسیون روسیه. مطالعات آسیای مرکزی و قفقاز. 23(100): 53-88.
قاسمیان ر، سیمبر ر، جانسیز الف. (1397). بحران سوریه و جنگ سرد جدید. پژوهش‌های سیاسی جهان اسلام. 8(1): 159-195.
نقدی‌نژاد ح، سوری الف.م. (1387). جنگ سرد جدید. سیاست دفاعی. 16(62): 141-167.
یزدانی ع، تویسرکانی م. (1386). ژئوپلیتیک جنگ سرد جدید: تحلیلی بر ژئوپلیتیک سلطه و نقش آن در عرصه ژئواستراتژیک قدرت‌ها. پژوهش‌نامه علوم سیاسی. 3(2): 195-243.
یزدانی ع، تویسرکانی م. (1387). تحولات قفقاز گامی دیگر در مسیر جنگ سرد جدید؟. مطالعات آسیای مرکزی و قفقاز. 14(63): 111-136.
 

References

Achcar G. (2023). The United States, Russia, and China from Kosovo to Ukraine. Haymarket Books.
Amirahmadian B. (2008). Missile Shield or New Cold War. Central Asia and The Caucasus Journal. 13(60): 35-84. [In Persian]
Baru S. & Sharma R. (2021). A New Cold War: Henry Kissinger and the Rise of China.  Harper Collins.
Berardelli Ph. (2024). Imagine: Winning the New Cold War. Mountain Lake Press.
Brands   H. &  Gaddis J.L. (2021). The new cold war: America, China, and the echoes of history. Foreign Affairs. 100(6). 10-21.
Cohen B. J. (2017). International political economy. Routledge.
Doyle M. W. (1983). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 12(3). 205-235.
Doyle M. W. (2023). Cold Peace: Avoiding the New Cold War. Liveright.
Emamjomehzadeh S.J. & Rahimi R. (2009). The New Cold War from Theoty to Practice. Politics Quarterly. 39(3): 71.94. [In Persian]
Engle E. (2020). Cold War II? China, America, Global Strategy, and the New Cold War (Quizmaster China: Political Economy). Osint Brief.
Fisher A. (2020). A new Cold War? International public opinion of Russia and the United States. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 32 (1). 143-152.
Foster J.B. & Ross J. & Veneziale D. & Prashad V. (2022). Washington’s New Cold War: A Socialist Perspective. Monthly Review Press.
Friedman J. (2015). Shadow Cold War: The Sino-Soviet Competition for the Third World (New Cold War History). The University of North Carolina Press.
Gaddis J. L. (1992). International relations theory and the end of the Cold War. International Security. 17(3). 5-58.
Ghasemian R. & Simbar R. & Jansiz A. (2018). Syria and The Emergence of New Cold War. Quarterly Journal of Political Research in Islamic World. 8(1): 159-195. [In Persian]
Gilpin R. (1988). The theory of hegemonic war. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 18(4). 591-613.
Goldstein J. S. & Pevehouse  J. C.(2008). International relations ‎Pearson College Div..
Harrison E. (2004). The post-Cold War international system: Strategies, institutions and reflexivity. Routledge.
Horton S. (2024). Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine. The Libertarian Institute.
Ikenberry G. J. (1998). Institutions, strategic restraint, and the persistence of American postwar order. International Security. 23(3). 43-78.
James P. (2002). International relations and scientific progress: Structural realism reconsidered. Ohio State University Press.
Jun Zh. (August 24, 2022). Remarks by Ambassador Zhang Jun at the UN Security Council Briefing on Ukraine. Official Website of the Chinese Embassy in the UN: New York. [Cited April 29, 2023].
Kazantsev  A. & Lebedev S. & Medvedeva S. (2021). Russia’s policies in the Post-Soviet space: Between constructive relations and fighting the New Cold War. Russian Politics. 6 (4). 503-530.
Keohane R. O. (2005). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
Keohane R. O. (2020). Understanding multilateral institutions in easy and hard times. Annual Review of Political Science. 1-18.
Larson K. (September 21, 2022). Africa leader warns of pressure to choose sides in Ukraine. AP :News Agancy. [Cited December 29, 2022].
Lavrov S. (2007). Containing Russia: back to the future. Russia in Global Affairs. [Cited December 21, 2022].
Layne Ch. (1993). The unipolar illusion: Why new great powers will rise. International Security. 17(4). 5-51.
Lederer M. (September 21, 2021). The AP Interview: UN chief warns China, US to avoid Cold War. AP: News Agancy. [Cited December 27, 2022].
Leoni Z. (2024). A New Cold War: US–China Relations in the 21st Century. Policy Press.
Lucas E. (2014). The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West. St. Martin's Griffin; Third Edition.
MacDonald S.B. (2022). The New Cold War, China, and the Caribbean: Economic Statecraft, China and Strategic Realignments. Palgrave Macmillan.
MacKinnon M.A. (2007). The New Cold War: Revolutions, Rigged Elections, and Pipeline Politics in the Former Soviet Union. Basic Books.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2018). Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. In National and International Security. Routledge. 107-158.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2021). The inevitable rivalry: America, China, and the tragedy of great-power politics. Foreign Affairs: Online Published. November/ December Isu. 48. [Cited October 11, 2024].
Milner H. V. (1998). International political economy: beyond hegemonic stability. Foreign Policy: Online Published. 112-123. [Cited December 21, 2024].
Naghdinejad S. & Souri A.M. (2010). New Cold War. Defense Policy. 62(16): 141-167. [In Persian]
Ni V. (May 26, 2022). Antony Blinken says US is not seeking ‘cold war’ with China. The Guardian: Online News Paper.[Cited December 21, 2022].
Niblett R. (2024). The New Cold War: How the Contest Between the US and China Will Shape Our Century. Atlantic Books.
Norrlöf C. (2010). America's global advantage: US hegemony and international cooperation. Cambridge University Press.
Nye J. J. S. (2016). Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. Basic books.
Oatley T. (2018). International political economy. Routledge.
Reiss H. E. (1991). Kant’s Political Writings. Cambridge University Press.
Rosa B. & Larsen C. (2024). Smart Money: How digital currencies will win the new Cold War – and why the West needs to act now. Bloomsbury Publishing; 1st edition.
Ryan M. (October 3, 2015). Rubio: 'US barreling toward a second Cold War. The USA Today: OnlineNewsPaper. [Cited December 23, 2022].
Sakwa  R. (2008). New Cold War’or twenty years’ crisis?:  Russia and international politics. International Affairs. 84(2): 241-267.
Sakwa R. (2021). Deception: Russiagate and the New Cold War. Lexington Books.
Samoudi Pilehroud A. (2018). A New Cold War between the European Union and the Russian Federation. Central Asia and The Caucasus Journal.23(100): 55-88. [In Persian]
Sanger D.E. & Brooks M.K. (2024). New Cold Wars: China's Rise, Russia's Invasion, and America's Struggle to Defend the West. Crown.
Schindler S. & DiCarlo J. & Paudel D. (2022). The new cold war and the rise of the 21st‐century infrastructure state. Transactions of the institute of British geographers. 47(2). 331-346.
Schoen D.E. Kaylan M. (2015). Return to Winter: Russia, China, and The New Cold War Against America. Encounter Books.
Scholz  O. (2023). The global Zeitenwende: how to avoid a new cold war in a multipolar era. Foreign Affairs. 102(4). 22-25.
Takach G.S (2024). Cold War 2: Artificial Intelligence in the New Battle between China, Russia, and America. Pegasus Books.
Tan  K. P. (2023). Interpreting the Cold War and the New Cold War in Asia. Asia in the Old and New Cold Wars: Ideologies, Narratives, and Lived Experiences. 1-24.
Ternin D. (March 2, 2014). The crisis in Crimea could lead the word into a second Cold War. The Guadian:Online NewsPaper. [Cited December 23, 2022].
Tisdall S. (November 5, 2014). Finland warns of new Cold War over failure to grasp situation in Russia. The Guardian :Online NewsPaper. [Cited December 16, 2022].
Tong G.Ch. (November 16, 2022). IMF chief says war in Ukraine is the ‘single most important negative factor’ for global economy. CNBC Channel: USA. [Cited July 22, 2023].
Waltz K. N. (1993). The emerging structure of international politics. International Security. 18(2). 44-79.
Wendt A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International organization. 46(2). 391-425.
Wohlforth W. C. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world. International Security. 24(1). 5-41.
Wohlforth W. C. (2014). The stability of a unipolar world. In Realism Reader. Routledge. 383-395.
Yao Y. (2021). The new cold war: America’s new approach to Sino-American relations. China International Strategy Review. 3 (1). 20-33.
Yazdani E. & Touiserkani M. (2008). The New Cold War Geopolitics and it’s Rol in the Geo-Strategic Arena of the Powers: An Analysys of Geopolitics of Dominance. Research Letter of Political Science. 3(2): 195-243. [In Persian]
Yazdani E. & Touiserkani M. (2009). Developments in Caucasus, another step on the path to New Cold War. Central Asia and The Caucasus Journal. 14(63): 111-136. [In Persian]
Yue J. (2022). The Limits to China's Peaceful Rise–Deep Integration and a New Cold War. Global Policy. 13(1). 91-106.