|
Just finished my senior honors thesis. 102 pages. Thought of a title that I think is pretty neat:
Iran vs. The World: A Look at the Middle East's New Regional Power .
I'm tired! Should I turn it into a PDF and post it here? Would anybody even be willing/interested in reading this?
Included an abstract that I wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Abstract
In these pages I explain the phenomena of Iran becoming a dominant regional power in the Middle East. I use a three pronged approach to explain Iran’s new regional role: (1) an analysis of Iran’s capabilities and geostrategic location, (2) attaching Iran’s behavior with Neorealist theories, and (3) examining domestic commitment in Iran (which is the unique portion of my research). I then synthesize my argument by showing that Iran’s capabilities and geostrategic location place it as the dominant regional power in the Middle East, their behavior matches what theorists suggest a regional power should look like, and the Iranian people are committed to the regime, infusing it with the inherent strength needed to actually assume a role of dominance in the Middle East. In order to explain domestic commitment I have gathered election data and public opinion polls in Iran, combined with accounts from the literature to show that Iranians support and trust the government. Lastly, I ponder the implications of Iranian power, including the possibility of war, especially between Iran and Israel, or Iran and Arab states, and the threat of even greater escalation (regional or world-wide conflict).
Download:
Click Here!
|
hahah i dont mind 
|
you should PDF it, i will read it.
i have read more than 102 pages of nonsense on TL, at least these will be well written and organized.
expect feed back 
|
i'll pdf if tomorrow or something
|
United States22883 Posts
I will definitely read it.
#3 is definitely extremely interesting, but I question why you're looking at the case use neo-realism. Aside from the evidence that neo-realism falls flat on its ass in historical analysis, Iran's ability to become a power is based upon outside perceptions of it, and much of the world does not see Iran as a rational state actor (I disagree with this idea, but it does exist, especially in the West.) I suppose you're driving at that IF people looked at Iran within that frame, its actions would seem rational? That I agree with, but dependency theory also accounts for quite a bit in every middle eastern country. Iran and Israel can complain about the other being a threat all they want, but neither side has a problem with buying/selling guns from eachother.
Obviously this is all conjecture about your paper on my part, so I await to see the whole thing.  I'm on spring break next week so I won't get to look at it for a while.
I'm doing a thesis on Turkey's national security and the Kurdish problem, so I think a comparative look at the regional powers would be interesting, although I know we'd both be biased on the importance of each. I've been bitching about the acceptance of Iran for ages, especially with regards to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia. It'll be interesting to see whether the new oil pipeline actually gets built or if Russia tries to clamp down on Iran with the new ABM shield negotiations going on, and how they might respond.
Just curious, do you view the Ayatollah as a part of the democracy or above/below it?
|
I'll preface and say I'm not reading 102 pages, but maybe just answer this: How can you consider them a dominant power when Israel is right there? Wouldn't dominant mean there's really no nation of comparable power? If anything, I'd think they're dominant, since they're essentially a stand alone country (regionally, obviously they get $$ from US) flipping the bird to the rest of the region.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 05 2009 23:22 Hawk wrote:
I'll preface and say I'm not reading 102 pages, but maybe just answer this: How can you consider them a dominant power when Israel is right there? Wouldn't dominant mean there's really no nation of comparable power? If anything, I'd think they're dominant, since they're essentially a stand alone country (regionally, obviously they get $$ from US) flipping the bird to the rest of the region.
I think dominant in this case means they're of major strategic importance in the area. Iran has tons of oil, has a fair amount of influence on different populations within the region and has strategic connections to the other big countries in the area. Iraq does too, but Iraq is less stable than Iran.
There's no doubt Israel still has more powerful military means, but it has no diplomatic means. Iran could.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0306/p06s01-wogn.html
This adds an interesting fold to things, because any discussion of proliferation is going to bring up the US ABM shields, which "defend" from Iran but also threaten Russia. If the US removes them, we'll likely demand that Russia puts pressure on Iran to halt their nuclear capabilities, open them up completely for inspection or maybe even provide intelligence and stop helping them develop it. In both a dependency and neorealist sense, Iran loses some bargaining power if Russia comes to terms with the US.
|
On March 05 2009 23:22 Hawk wrote:
I'll preface and say I'm not reading 102 pages, but maybe just answer this: How can you consider them a dominant power when Israel is right there? Wouldn't dominant mean there's really no nation of comparable power? If anything, I'd think they're dominant, since they're essentially a stand alone country (regionally, obviously they get $$ from US) flipping the bird to the rest of the region.
Israel's power is quickly declining, Iran's is quickly rising. It's hard to even argue that Israel's military is as power. Really the only thing Israel has going for it is having nuclear weapons. Iran's army is MUCH larger and just about equal in terms of technology. Also, Iran has long range missile capabilities, which Israel doesn't have.
When looking at the Middle East, there are essentially four countries you can think of as "great powers" - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and Iran. In my thesis I argue that Iran, rather than the other three, is the dominant power.
|
On March 05 2009 19:41 Jibba wrote:I will definitely read it. #3 is definitely extremely interesting, but I question why you're looking at the case use neo-realism. Aside from the evidence that neo-realism falls flat on its ass in historical analysis, Iran's ability to become a power is based upon outside perceptions of it, and much of the world does not see Iran as a rational state actor (I disagree with this idea, but it does exist, especially in the West.) I suppose you're driving at that IF people looked at Iran within that frame, its actions would seem rational? That I agree with, but dependency theory also accounts for quite a bit in every middle eastern country. Iran and Israel can complain about the other being a threat all they want, but neither side has a problem with buying/selling guns from eachother. Obviously this is all conjecture about your paper on my part, so I await to see the whole thing. I'm on spring break next week so I won't get to look at it for a while. I'm doing a thesis on Turkey's national security and the Kurdish problem, so I think a comparative look at the regional powers would be interesting, although I know we'd both be biased on the importance of each. I've been bitching about the acceptance of Iran for ages, especially with regards to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia. It'll be interesting to see whether the new oil pipeline actually gets built or if Russia tries to clamp down on Iran with the new ABM shield negotiations going on, and how they might respond. Just curious, do you view the Ayatollah as a part of the democracy or above/below it?
That's where domestic commitment comes in. Neo realism has been proved wrong many times - Israel is a perfect example. Neo realist theory would predict Israel should not exist, it has marginal capabilities, a tiny military, and is surrounded by enemies - it should have died long ago. But it still exists.. Domestic commitment basically allows a country to utilize its power and has some of its own latent power inherent in it. If you look at neo realist theory (I.E Waltz and Mearsheimer) and also add in the domestic commitment factor you can create a somewhat objective analysis of the balance of power in a system.
To your second question, I think Khamenei is neither above nor below the democracy. In some ways he is above, but also democracy is in an interesting and exciting situation in Iran. He really can't just do whatever he wants any longer, Iranian clerics and hard-liners have begun to realize that they are to be held accountable, and if he acts too far outside of democracy the people won't stand for it. The Iranian people wield a LOT of power, although on the surface it doesn't seem that way.
*edit* Also I'd like to add that the June election will be VERY interesting, we will see if a lot of the trends actually follow through (I.e move towards increasing democracy in Iran) or not.
PS.
I'm also writing another paper about Kurds in Iran, and I"m planning on expanding that next year or something to examine the entire Kurdish question.
PPS.
Are you Turkish? I"m half :D!
|
United States22883 Posts
Not at all, but I love the food! :D
OMG WE SHUD COMPAREZ NOTES
|
On March 06 2009 02:46 Jibba wrote:
Not at all, but I love the food! :D
OMG WE SHUD COMPAREZ NOTES
ZEE OH EM GEE!! :D!
|
On March 06 2009 02:26 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2009 23:22 Hawk wrote:
I'll preface and say I'm not reading 102 pages, but maybe just answer this: How can you consider them a dominant power when Israel is right there? Wouldn't dominant mean there's really no nation of comparable power? If anything, I'd think they're dominant, since they're essentially a stand alone country (regionally, obviously they get $$ from US) flipping the bird to the rest of the region. Israel's power is quickly declining, Iran's is quickly rising. It's hard to even argue that Israel's military is as power. Really the only thing Israel has going for it is having nuclear weapons. Iran's army is MUCH larger and just about equal in terms of technology. Also, Iran has long range missile capabilities, which Israel doesn't have. When looking at the Middle East, there are essentially four countries you can think of as "great powers" - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and Iran. In my thesis I argue that Iran, rather than the other three, is the dominant power.
Ok, your last graph clarifies it.
But regarding Israel, wouldn't you consider a nuke a trump card =p ANd how the hell could they not have long range missiles??
And isn't israel regarded as having a pretty well trained army?
anyway, gl with the thesis
|
added a link to download. please note this is my first draft, over the next two weeks I'm going to be editing a lot, since it is due March 30th. **edit** I hate how converting shit from doc file to pdf fucks with the format ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
Hawk, they don't have long range missile capabilities, and they do have a powerful and well trained army. Iran's military capacity is something like 20 million possible soldiers, and they have over 500,000 troops in their standing (permanent) army alone. Israel's army is a fraction of that size. Sure it is well trained and well equipped, but Iran has gained on them in terms of technology (aside from not having nuclear weapons, but they will at some point in the next few years).
Also, Israel's blunders in Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (recently) have really hurt the perceived invincibility of Israel throughout the Arab world. Almost any way you look at it - Israel's perceived power (they never actually were a dominant power, I would argue) is declining. Iraq's power declined... and since power is a scarce resource if states' power declines, another state must be increasing its power - Iran.
|
102 pages =O.
I'm so glad I'm still a sophomore undergrad and the longest paper i've had to write is like 10 pages.
any thoughts on the impact of reduced energy prices on iranian power? can the west leverage energy volatility into a "grand bargain" of sorts?
|
good stuff congrats
a little early to be done though isn't it? You have another month+ to go!
|
On March 06 2009 03:53 KOFgokuon wrote:
good stuff congrats
a little early to be done though isn't it? You have another month+ to go!
3 weeks . I guess I should say "finished writing" instead of done - I'm going to be editing it, then giving it to my adviser + other professors to read through, and edit it again.
|
On March 06 2009 03:17 ahrara_ wrote:
102 pages =O.
I'm so glad I'm still a sophomore undergrad and the longest paper i've had to write is like 10 pages.
any thoughts on the impact of reduced energy prices on iranian power? can the west leverage energy volatility into a "grand bargain" of sorts?
I honestly don't think it is going to have that big of an effect on Iranian power to be honest. Especially since they've recently signed some huge ass natural gas deals with many other countries, it seems as if they are trying to move away from oil-dependency. Also they have a really rapidly growing labor force, so in the future it looks as if they'll have some significant economic growth.
The only thing it will affect I think is their power in relation to the rest of the world - even though Iran has a struggling economy it still has the second highest GDP and one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East... although by Western standards obviously it has a fairly poor economy. They'll take a hit in the short run but I expect long term economic growth.
|
In the short run though, it seems low energy prices is making life tough for the Ayatollah. I understand you're saying that Iran will recover in the long run, but how much progress do you think Obama could make if he tried to engage Iran right now, at its most vulnerable?
Also, realistically, in the long run I don't feel like commodity exporting countries can ever have sustainable growth. Prices are too volatile, and reserves become depleted. Moreover, Iran's manufacturing sector is being devestated by western sanctions... like 80% of their exports is oil and oil products, followed closely by fruits and nuts.
|
On March 06 2009 04:56 ahrara_ wrote:
In the short run though, it seems low energy prices is making life tough for the Ayatollah. I understand you're saying that Iran will recover in the long run, but how much progress do you think Obama could make if he tried to engage Iran right now, at its most vulnerable?
Also, realistically, in the long run I don't feel like commodity exporting countries can ever have sustainable growth. Prices are too volatile, and reserves become depleted. Moreover, Iran's manufacturing sector is being devestated by western sanctions... like 80% of their exports is oil and oil products, followed closely by fruits and nuts.
What do you mean by "engage Iran" ? Do you mean militarily, or through diplomacy? Also, even though there are US sanctions on Iran, their trade with European countries (for example, 7% increase in trade with Germany in 2008 I believe is the number) is increasing... and Iran is building friendships with Russia and China. Not only that but their influence in the region is giving them many new and favorable trade agreements. In the long run I don't think the Western (mostly US) sanctions against Iran are going to play a huge factor.
I honestly would argue that Iran is not vulnerable at all right now. Iran is the principle supporter of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as supporting some militias/groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan among other countries.There is a reason the United States actually attacked Iraq and has yet to actually make a move against Iran, because they know that Iran, unlike Iraq, is not a pushover.
It itself is quite powerful in comparison to other countries the US has invaded (Iraq/Afghanistan) and the fact that they fund so many groups that engage in terrorist activities is also troubling for the US... these groups would begin attacking American interests should the US make any real moves against Iran.
Really all Iran wants from the West is to be treated with respect and as an equal. At the end of my thesis I talk briefly about how Iran is crucial to the peace process in the region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
