Understanding Iran

Teddy Lishan Desta, PhD

Understanding Iran

By

Teddy Lishan Desta, PhD

 

Teddy is an Associate Editor for the Journal of the International Relations and Affairs Group (JIRAG). He has lectured at colleges and universities on International Affairs, and is also a Teaching Assistant at Florida International University. He holds a PhD in International Relations from The University of Texas at Dallas, a Master of Science in Economics degree from Baylor University. He specializes in International Relations Theory, International Trade, Economics and the International Political Economy.

 

The late 1970s ushered the world into a transformative moment. Within a few years from each other, two ancient civilization states passed through massive domestic and international policy change. These two countries are China and Iran. Following the transformations China under Deng Xiao-Ping and Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini , and given the heavyweight these two countries lift in the regional and international arena, world politics has not been the same ever since. However the trajectories of change each country has followed, at least in the international relations context, is starkly contrasted. China abandoned its 40 years old left-wing anti-capitalist rant and joined the capitalist world with gusto.  China courted and engaged the west for its capital investments and export market, while it master planned its revival as a true great power. On the other hand, Iran abandoned its alliance with the west, became antagonistic with western powers, and embraced a very combative nationalist and Islamic ideology as a way to regional and world significance.

 

It is important to recognize that both China and Iran have a great power status ambition. The way they have been building up their military forces and have been extending their ideological, political and economic influences in their respective regions and in the rest of the world give China and Iran a revisionist state status. Revisionist state because both seek for the redistribution of global power and influence to advantage their interests. Of course, the redistribution of regional and global power comes at the expense of the USA which has been left as the sole superpower in the post-Cold War world. What is quite surprising is that we see these two ancient civilization states trying to recover their past glories, but each following a very contrasting path. China has chosen very quiet and unassuming manners while it has been building its economic and military power by engaging the west in a most lucrative economic relationship. Until very recently China took extra care not to ruffle anyone’s feathers as it sought for the extension or protection of its economic and political interests regionally.

In contrast, Iran has adopted a very adversarial stance from the very outset of its revolution.  Iran’s ideological and military behavior has irked regional as well as global powers from the very beginning. Iran has not failed to challenge or undermine the great powers of the Middle-East region, namely Iraq under Saddam, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA. Iran had a the dream to unseat Saddam Hussein and overshadow Iraq Gulf’s most important regional power ,of replacing Saudi Arabia as the great influence in the Islamic world, of destroying the state of Israel  thereby removing from the scene the Middle East’s sole nuclear power, and of eventually edging the global power, the USA, altogether from the region. 

Since Iran has begun reviving its nuclear power program and by the degree its leaders have continued to speak in defiant language about their determination to push forward with their nuclear power ambitions, the fear of the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia that Iran is headed to developing a nuclear bomb have grown apace. These countries most fear once Iran becomes the owner of an atomic bomb its defiant behavior will grow more and that it will be tempted to launch adventurous military and political actions that further disturb the volatile Middle East region.  At the moment, the Middle East is set on edge because of the stand-off between Iran on one hand and the three countries on the other. Even Israel continually threatens to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities to stop Tehran from acquiring the bomb.

We see China cultivating its political and economic influence and growing its military might without garnering any punitive measures from the rest of the world. While China’s rise is quiet and seems to last for long, why is Iran’s ambitions to great power are so noisy and potentially brittle?  What is Iran’s leaders’ calculus to maintain a very combative stance and a defiant tone, even in the face of economic sanctions and the threat of military actions against their country’s nuclear program? Are Iranian leaders rational actors when deciding to turn their back on the west and in keeping challenging  the west’s  presence in the Middle East, in threatening and in working for the dismantling of Israel as a state, and in attempting to overshadow Saudi Arabia as Muslims’ most important religious state?  What kind of tangible gain Iranian leaders expect from their international policy positions, which in the eyes of many are risky undertakings?  Here I list a few reasons why the actions of Iran’s leaders can be viewed rational (albeit, risky). The rationality of Iranian actions could be analyzed by taking a few major goals they will like to achieve; namely:

1). Great power status

Iranian ambition as a great power is primarily focused on the Middle East region. This ambition has three pronged strategy; namely, challenging other regional great powers and building its own military capabilities. Revolutionary Iran’s strategy is geared towards mainly challenging and diminishing the powers and influences of other major regional powers it considers as its enemies. These enemies primarily are the USA and Israel which Iran likes to daub, as “the Great Satan” and “the little Satan”, respectively. For example, the Iranian revolution severed ties with the USA and Israel right away after the revolution. The new rulers ensured that the USA should no longer have a trusted ally in Iran that it can use for its strategic purposes in the region. Second, in 1982, Iran financed and trained radical Shi’ia groups drove the USA marine force presence out of Lebanon. Due to growing political and military influence of such Shi’ia groups in Lebanon, the influence of the USA in Lebanese affairs is much curtailed.  Third, Iran through the pressure it has been exerting, directly and indirectly, through its Iraqi ally, the Mehadi Army, it has succeeded to cut very short the days the USA military planned to stay in Iraq. Fourth, Iran works tirelessly to delegitimize and dismantle the state of Israel. Iran does not only see the state of Israel as another great power standing in its path of regional supremacy, but also as an alien entity planted as an American or western bridgehead to control Islamic Middle East. So destroying the state of Israel is tantamount to destroying a bastion of USA presence in the region. Fifth, Iran views the Arab Spring in favorable eyes as it topples in many places western friendly autocrats and brings to power islamists, which it hopes can easily identify with Iran’s defiant foreign policies. Sixth, there is also Iran’s nuclear power ambition. This ambition is of a tactical nature; where Iran surmises that if it becomes a nuclear power, it thinks that it can permanently take away any advantage the state of Israel has in this regard, or it can deter any other power’s desire to force to change it its policies.

2). Ideological leadership of the Islamic world

In contrast to the Chinese experience in the late 1970s, the Iranians were in the grip of launching an ideology, which some call fundamental or political Islam. The Muslim high clerics who took power in Iran their political agenda was not merely overthrowing an age-old monarchy and replacing it with a populist revolutionary government, but also launching an Islamic revolution which they believe will restore the political importance of their religion to billions of Muslims world-wide. The way the Iranian leaders were deploying religion to attack powerful global, regional and domestic forces were winning admirers and imitators around the Muslim world who were either chafing under autocratic leaders, or not were not happy  in USA role in the Middle East, or Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, etc. Undoubtedly, the popularity of Iran in the Arab street grew apace the more defiant it became to the west and challenged Israel indirectly through its allies like Hamas and Hezbollah.     

Iranian leaders as astute power players, approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a tactical opportunity in their strategic maneuvering to be the leader of the Islamic world.  Since the Palestinian issue is the major cause célèbre among the Arab people, Iran wants to exploit this issue to the fullest extent to its advantage. Iranian leaders calculate that whoever champions the Palestinian cause or brings down the Jewish state to its knees will get the accolades of the Sunni Arabs and easily be crowned as the undisputed political and moral leader of the wider Islamic world. To this end Iran finances, trains and arms at least two sworn enemies of Israel – Hamas and Hezbollah.  Iran has placed Hamas and Hezbollah as nooses around the neck of Israel and believes that it is a matter of time before Israel gets asphyxiated by these two forces.  

3). National liberation

Iran’s 1979 revolution gave Iranian nationalists the chance to take political power, retain it, and begin the work of national liberation. This is not a national liberation of the classical kind of overthrowing a colonial yoke, but the psychological liberation from great power domination. In the eyes of Iranian nationalists, since the turn of 1900s, Iran has suffered a series of humiliations in the forms of economic concessions (i.e., “capitulations”), and great power political interference as when the USA coordinated the overthrow of the democratically elected nationalist government of Mossasedgh in 1953.  For many Iranians, after his restoration in 1953, the Shah’s government got too close to and very compliant to USA interests, thereby undermining Iranian sovereignty.

After coming to power, Iranian nationalists showed extra zeal to cleanse the soul of the nation from its history of “capitulation” and compliance with America’s economic and political interests. So, the behavior of Iranian leaders in maintaining a very strident antipathy towards  the west and maintain a very independent direction of policy it is because of this hidden need of restoring the honor of Iran, a historically great power which should not play second fiddle to anybody.  We cannot fully understand the defiance and rhetoric of Iranian leaders without taking into consideration their struggle for recovery of national honor which they feel has been trampled underfoot through use of mishandling by imperial powers, such as Russia, Britain and the US.

4). Building a national economy

There is a hidden rationality in Iranian leaders’ choice of de-associating from the mainstream global economic integration. They more or less follow a ‘let-us-do-it-ourselves approach to develop a strong national economy that is mainly geared towards developing the skills sets of its people.  Rather than choosing to be a part of economic globalization, where like many developing countries, Iran becomes an export oriented-economy of low end manufactured or assembled products, Iran followed a different path. Iran followed a very nationalist economic development method, even leaving many sectors of the economy in the hands of the Revolutionary Guard. Iran engaged in military technology development that included its long-range missile and nuclear program. Iranians became masters of reverse engineering as they chose to learn techniques of modern manufacturing management the hard way. Iran’s Resistant Economy carries its own rationality as Iran attempts a self-sustaining economy

Religion: Does it help or hinder peace?

Religion is perceived differently in many societies. The political evolution in Western political thought led to a secular state. The Islamic tradition, on the other hand, has a different view of religion and political governance. The question is if religion is an agent of peace or if it perpetuates conflict in the international system. Some scholars view religion as having the ability to connect different faiths and it has a significant role in the peace process. It is believed that this will also be a way of integrating values of the particular culture and it will possibly lead to a resolution of the conflict. It is also thought that religion also can view how families interact and this can be used as a metaphor for dealing with conflict on a larger scale. It is also thought that considering there are many myths about religion this also plays a factor in dealing with the resolution of the conflict but by studying religion it can also show ways of how to deal with more complex problems and aid in the resolution process. Viewing the peace process from the vantage point of religion can bring about better cultural understanding and help engage with adversaries during meetings (Gopin, 2002).  However, much of these like many potential negotiations for conflict depend on the willingness of the two parties to decide to learn the cultures and religions of the enemy and also respect them in the mediation process. Religion also brings to fruition both positive and negative myths about culture and if the parties decide to concentrate on the negative issues associated with a particular religion than this can be destructive to the peace making process. There must be separations of positive and negative myths but either way both of them should be acknowledged. If myths can be understood to be myths then there can be a critical look into more underlying issues such as apologizing for each side’s wrong doings and try to understand the goals and values of the individual cultures and people involved in the negotiation process, without this, then negotiations the take place will only be concerned with only the obvious issues (Gopin, 2002).

Peace treaties should focus on religion, culture, symbolic gestures, moral commitments, and transformation of relationships. If these factors are not addressed and they are only focused on the political gains and outcomes than there is a possibility that it is going to be a clash in religious and cultural ideologies and the end result would ultimately end in failure. Talcott Parsons who elucidated systems theory believes that action between an individual and actor constitutes “action systems.” His systems places people in the role of “subjects” and “objects” and he also explains that at any given time people are members of several other action systems such as family, religious and nation-state. Parsons states that the three subsystems are (1) the personality system (2) the social system (3) the cultural system. They are interconnected through the action system. If there is a change in one of the subsystems it will affect another in turn affecting the entire action system. The systems theory “assumes the interdependence of parts in determinate relationships, which impose order on the components of the system.” “Social systems are characterized by a multiple-equilibrium process because social systems have many subsystems, each of which must remain in equilibrium in the larger system is to maintain equilibrium” (Dougherty, 115-116). Keeping this in mind and incorporated into religion with regards to peace building and sustainability of that the same method could be used in the planning process.  The interconnectedness of religion into culture is a factor than can be more substantial then the political gains of reaching peace.

The understanding of religion aids in the understandings of culture and how it impacts negotiations. Regardless of the context, culture impacts negotiations in two ways (1) cultural similarities or differences can affect the attitudes of the parties toward each other and (2) cultural similarities or differences can affect their ability to communicate effectively with each other (Regan & Leng, 2008).  Religion along with other variables are fundamentals that can be used to guide this in negotiations, while there are other variables religion and culture can be intertwined(Regan & Leng, 2008). While it is true that the success in negotiations and mediation between states can be dependant of democratic cultures, religion can be the outlier that ensures the success or failure of them. Religion can add to the cultural variables that make it difficult for effective communication between parties including.  When mixed signals are sent to opposing sides the intended interpretation is not received. Many times countries with the same religion have similar ideologies and this can assist in the negotiation process and speed up the negotiations but the lack of societal and local culture and vastly different religious ideologies can prevent the success of negotiations (Regan & Leng, 2008). 

If looking at the correlation of culture and religion on negations then Iran could be looked at. The languages of the two countries are not the same; the United States is primarily English, while Iran is primarily Persian.  Religions of the two states are different and social and political cultures are completely different.  Iran suggests to its people that there should be a theoretical understanding of Islamic ideology and it believes that the citizens are Islamicized (CIA Factbook, 2009). The history of Iran and the study of the Islamic revolution from Iran’s point of view portray the clergy as being very influential in the movement and the changing of the society. The current regime paints the former regime as being oppressive and immoral to the populace and suggests that they had to be liberated and saved by the Islamic Republic (Almond, 2008 p 583). This is based on the idea that the Pahlavi monarchy allowed, women to be unveiled, and other things that were against proper cultural norms. However with all the religious control that the Islamic Republic conveys onto its people several students still mock social morés and policies about male and female relationships and other aspects of the controlling religious state (Almond, 2008 pp 583-584). The highest offices in Iran are held by followers of Shiite Islam and this is a factor that should be addressed in negotiations (CIA Factbook, 2009). Another variable that should be addressed with regards to Iran is that most view themselves as religious and being Muslim with higher accords than they view nationalism of the state; this is not the case with the United States and this should be addressed in preplanning and meetings. While there are several other reasons as to why there has been failed meetings and negotiations between the United States and Iran, religion does play a part in the reason for there not being successful diplomacy between the two countries. The United States is still viewed by Iran as the “great Satan” and the mistrust is not just rooted in political differences but has strong roots in the opposing religious ideologies and public policies of the two nations (Almond, 2008 p 587).

Religious communities do not deal with “moral failure” the same way as political communities do; religious communities usually focus on variables such as atonement, request for forgiveness,  and they suggest forgiveness (Gopin, 2002). With regards to the peace process forgiveness is a key variable and without it there will not actually be true peace. While neither side wants to admit that they are part of the blame there is faults on both sides and the correlation with religion to accept these wrongs and forgive the wrongs of others could be a huge factor in the conflict resolution process. Forgiveness is a factor in most religions and it can be used to forge new relationships and the ability to build trust even if there is still not an acceptance of all ideologies.  Verbal and nonverbal communications with regards to religion can also be taken the wrong way.  While many negotiators focus on these subtleties if they do not understand the religious connotation of gestures and other verbal and nonverbal communications it can be detrimental to the peace process and alienate the situation even more; especially if a miscalculation on a gesture is seen as disrespect (Gopin, 2002). 

Religion is an obstacle in the peace making process and much of this based off the internal culture of countries with regards to religion. It is very clear that culture and the understanding of it has been an obstacle in the negotiation and mediation process for many countries.  While the causes of conflicts may center on factors such as ethnicity, race, ideology, and other factors, to resolve them there must be careful attention in not missing the role that religion has on all of these variables.  The history of the intractable conflict between the countries can also create its own culture other then the internal culture of each country and this has put yet another variable that must be dealt with (Gopin, 2002).  Variables that can continually come up have to do with the mistrust between the countries, language, verbal and nonverbal communications, perceptions of the world and how each country sees themselves, and political and social cultures but many times it stems from religious ideologies and the understandings of them.  It is not impossible for countries to communicate and a lot of it has to do with the degree of commitment by each nation.  If countries want to come to terms they must both step outside of the box and respect the culture and religion of one another whether they necessarily like it or not.  There are several cultural differences between countries but religion can be a tool used to get past most cultural difference but stubbornness of  countries and neither side wanting to be the one the compromises first will destroy the peace making process in any negotiation (Gopin, 2002).

References

Almond, G.A., Powell Jr., G.B., Dalton, R.J.,& Strom, K. (2008). Comparative Politics Today: A World View. 9th Edition. United Sates: Pearson-Longman 

Dougherty, J. E., & Pfaltzgraff, Jr., R. L. (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey, Fifth Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 

Gopin, M. (2002). Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace to the Middle East. New York, NY: Oxford University Press 

Regan, P, & Leng, R. (2008). Culture and Negotiations between Rival States. Workshop on Culture and Conflict, Binghamton University. Retrieved (2009, October 20) from http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/Regan-Leng.pdf

The Historical Development of International Relations and the State of it Today

Daniel J. Evans is the Executive Director and Editor in Chief of the International Relations and Affairs Group.  He has experience analyzing how crises unfold and evaluating contingencies for dealing with complications as they arise. His specialties are foreign affairs research, International Relations Theory, Systems Theory, Globalization, Geopolitics, Intelligence Analysis and Homeland Security. His training deals with assessing transorganizational structures for the management of Homeland Security and developing plans for coordinating networked Homeland Security organizations.


Recently, there has been a growing interest in the field of International Relations and Affairs. However, in conversations and discussions there seems to be a debate between where the field is going and where it came from. The historical development of the International Relations field has always had an emphasis on dominant theoretical perspectives and paradigms. I decided to assess the state of IR today, as well as, where it came from. I also looked at the driving questions and controversies and the crises of thought and of theory.

The historical development of the field of international relations can be traced back for centuries but much of what is thought of as that actual field of study is mainly thought to have emerged in the beginnings of the twentieth century. There are many paradigms and theoretical perspective that have shaped and molded the field, as well as the ever changing international system. In the changing system many new questions have arisen and many controversies from contending theories, and possible lack of theory, have caused this field to become even more vibrant today than it was in its inception. The treaty of Westphalia first discussed the nation state. Prior to Westphalia and the idea of the “nation state,” there existed tribes and ethnicities. In the manner of tribes, the most dominant tribe would dominate the others. International relations theory, especially throughout the late 1940’s and the 1960’s, had a huge interest in theoretical analysis weaving together insights from biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics and the behavioral sciences; it started to give shape an explanation for international politics. The approaches even then were focused on (a) ecological factors and the individual relationships between humans and their milieu (b) functionalism and regional integration (c) systems theory (d) the causes of war (f) arms race (g) decision making (h) games and theory and (i) related subjects in foreign policy and international relations (Dougherty, 16-19).

Idealism/Wilsonian-Idealism
Woodrow Wilson had the idea that WWI was so horrific that it would be the war that “would end all wars”. Wilson is seen more as an idealist and although idealism has been taught in academia the processes have never seriously been implemented, and most of these liberal reforms have been attained. (Kegley, 34-35). Woodrow Wilson’s perspectives incorporated what he called the fourteen point program. He wanted to have relationships between the great powers after World War I. Wilson thought that there should be “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at” instead of treaties that many countries had kept in secret; he believed that the secrecy between nations was part of the cause of the war. Much of this prompted leaders and academics of countries to study international relations. Wilson was able to do many things that the field of international relations has learned from. There was the inception of the League of Nations which wanted to focus on a peaceful world without war and greater cooperation between nations. Much of this perpetuation of international relations happened between the two world wars and by the 1930’s the League of Nations was already breaking down and leaders were looking at other ways in which conflicts could be created and how to conduct foreign affairs. Idealism comes from liberal thought process. Idealism serves a purpose and it is obviously something that in a perfect world could transform the world into world peace. However much of international relations has been dominated by the realist school of thought – realist theory, neo-realist theory, and neo-classical theory (Dougherty, 65-67).

Realism
Realism has been a major influence in the field of international relations. The realist schools of thought incorporate realist theory, neo-realist theory, and neo-classical realist theory. Realest theory centers on the international systems level of analysis, and the state or unit actor. The balance of power is the main theme, and the nation-state is the primary actor. Power, a key concept is derived from either military prowess or economic power. A notable contributor to realist theory was Hans J. Morgenthau. Morgenthau’s six basic principles were: (1) “political relationships are governed by objective rules deeply rooted in human nature;” (2), political leaders “think in terms of interest defined by political power;” (3), “the meaning of interest defined as power is not easily determined;” (4), “universal moral principles cannot be applied to their actions of states in their abstract, universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place;” (5), political realism does not identify the “moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe;” and (6 the “autonomy of the political sphere” (Dougherty, 14, 16).

Neo-realist theory uses an approach known as “constellation analysis” which is a “multi-method system of inquiry.” This consists of (1) system design (2) perception and reality (3) interest and power (4) norm and advantage (5) structure of independence and (6) cooperation and conflict. Neo-realist theory uses the bases of realism but adds factors such as “cross cultural comparative analysis.” Neo-realism tries to broaden and deepen realism. A major contributor of Neo-realism was Kenneth Waltz who spoke of “structural realism”, and “power remains a key variable”. Others such as Gottfried-Karl Kindermann stated power is not always the primary factor in politics.

Neo-classical realist builds a link between international and domestic politics; it suggests that leaders seek to control resources to advance international and domestic agendas and seek economic and technological wealth. It speaks of external extraction: actors will access resources beyond their borders to achieve domestic and international status or power. External validation: leaders seek authoritative status in the international community so they can enhance their domestic image. Charles Glaser, an influence on neo-classical realism came up with contingent realism: when states enter into escalations, such as arms races, they may enter into a self-help system, because they have seen the benefit versus the cost of making such an agreement; or they have weighed out the consequences (Dougherty, 88-89).

Marxism Feminism & Liberalism
Other theories of international relations are Marxism and Feminism. Marxists focus on the problems in the world as a result of the imperialistic agendas of capitalism and the inability to co-exist which each other. They believe that capitalism wanted to create “surpluses” overseas and the imperialist forces would colonize countries in order to accomplish this. Once this was achieved they would then take materials from those countries to continue the aggressive drive of capitalism. Feminism focuses on the unequal treatment of woman, injustices, and other prejudices. Feminists believe that decision making in foreign policy is influenced by gender-identity (Kegley, 46). The Marxist-Feminist approach focuses on the idea that capitalism oppresses woman. This theory does not focus on power such as in the realist approach. Feminism believes that male driven theories are “inadequate if not misleading” (Kegley, 101, 143, 404). Liberalism or Idealism is much the same thing. There is the belief that negations and agreements, international laws, international organizations, collaboration of states and integration, and ethical principles are the way to establish international relations; not a quest for more power. The theorists of liberalism/Idealism believe in achieving peace through diplomacy, without resorting to war. There is also the belief that much of this is done through the regulation of state behavior along with international organizations, systems, and institutions (Dougherty 65, 419-420).

Constructivism & Postmodernism
There are also other theories such as constructivism, postmodernism and critical theory that have emerged in the field of international relations. These theories are considered to be the Post-positivist era. Feminism can also be incorporated into the post-positivist era. Constructivism started to emerge in the later part of the 20th century and has become in influence on the study of international relations. They believe that “intersubjective consensus” meaning that all institutions are socially constructed to include the state. This also stems from political science and the idea of shared social beliefs, values, and behaviors. Constructivists believe that policy making is derived from individual members and other actors. They believe that this is how decisions of going to war and peace are concluded and what perpetuates cooperation or conflict. Constructivism also incorporates some feminist thought believing that even gender is socially constructed. Postmodernism consists of explaining reality as a condition or state of being. It is said to mainly be a reaction to modernism and against assumed theories. Postmodernism attempts to explain the constantly changing international system and institutions through demonstrating how bodies of knowledge are constructed; this is opposed to relying upon already existing explanations. And though postmodern thought takes the context of culture, gender, history, etc. into account when looking for explanations, it also looks to not be bound by those systems when constructing meaning. Critical theory comes from the 1920’s from the Frankfurt School and is defined as “theory which can provide the analytical and ethical foundation needed to uncover the structure of underlying social practices and to reveal the possible distortion of social life embodied in them” (Dougherty, 38-40, 477-478).

Democratic Peace, Core & Gap
Other smaller theories of international relations are the Democratic Peace which states that “democracies are less likely to fight wars with each other”. This theory is rooted in liberalism and is another critic of realism (Appendix C). Thomas Barnett’s “Core and Gap” model has had both criticism and favorable impressions. The model states that there is a core made up of inter-connected states which are technologically, economically, socially advanced and the Gap is composed of isolated less developed or failed states. While the Democratic Peace is much more of a model derived from liberalism the Core and gap model derives much of itself from realism perpetuating the balance of power idea. However, what is shown from the field of international relations is that there are both ideas still being stemmed from realism and liberalism (Barnett).

Wallerstein’s Contribution
Immanuel Wallerstein had a major influence on the study of international relations and more importantly he is known for world systems theory more specifically the capitalist world-system, core/periphery and semi-periphery states. He discussed the rise and hegemonic fall of agrarian, industrial, and financial powers from core states to peripheral areas, as cyclical systemic phenomenon (Dougherty, 137-140). Giving the examples of the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the United States, he demonstrated how power is both gained and then diffused. This perspective has validity and can be applied to recent events with the example of the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union. During the 1980’s the Cold War and arms race was a systemic escalation between the United States and the Soviet Union that could have ended in a cataclysmic war. However, the hegemonic power of the Soviet Union was diffused. With regards to cycles that may be unfolding, if we look to past cycles we see that many cultures when they reach their peak, the next step is that they fall – such as Rome, or Peloponnesians. They do this through becoming over-extended in their resources, through cultural divisions from within, such as the greater division we are now having between liberals and conservatives, as one of many examples (Dougherty, 137-140).

The Cold-War
The Cold-War had a showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union. This may or may not be viewed as a Just War from one of several normative approaches to it: such as applying a qualitative sense of traditional values, in addition to a quantitative analysis of behavior; or even through the application of principles of modern pacifist theory because of economic emphasis of free trade and peace; or any one of the older theories, which could be used to explain, in essence, a traditional concept of war centering it around the nation-state. However, with the end of the Cold War and the beginnings of the Global War on Terrorism the nation-state finds itself no longer engaging with uniformed military. And the military targets themselves and their objectives are no longer clear. It more so finds itself with the nation-state on both a defensive and offensive stance having to be flexible with changing missions and priorities during a conflict, fighting the same local tribes it just trained and at times struggling to trust allies it may have just made (Dougherty 627-630).

The Global War on Terrorism
The Global War on Terrorism has modified many theories such as traditional concepts of war centered on the nation-state. This new phenomenon has several variables including geopolitical emphases that non-state actors have on nation-states themselves, instability of host nation states to combat host non-nation-states, the inability to identify non-state actors in a nation state, non-state actors that work for the nation-state and non-state group, as well as several other factors that ultimately modify the traditional concept of war. Traditional concepts of war could almost describe the nation-state as adversary against adversary and could even be thought of as something as simple as the fairy tale knight fighting the dragon. Both are very distinctive in conflict and there is no misunderstanding as to who is fighting who and ultimately what the demise would be to either of them. An analogy of United States fighting in the global war on Terrorism with the knight could be as such. The knight (US) in The Global War on Terrorism has not slayed the dragon (foe nation-state) and finds himself with no clear adversary. However, there are clearly groups that do not share the same principles as the knight. Whereas before the dragon was easy to identify, but now it is not dragons that the knight is fighting, it is multiple serpents that he is fighting (Drinkwine, 2009). One or two bites from a serpent is not going to effect the knight it a mortal way but if the knight is bit from several different directions and many times eventually it is going to wear down the knight and eventually could be his demise. Al-Qaida could be thought of as the serpent. The group will continue to hide itself and camouflage itself within the geopolitical environments that it now operates. In the age of the Global War on Terrorism technological advances and new tactics will allow nation-states to operate in environments where they are not engaging with a uniformed army and they will continue to have to draw on lessons learned from past wars as well as global histories of wars (Drinkwine, 2009). Adapting the traditional theories of war could require countries like the US, which is the last superpower, to operate more like a “police state” dealing with “criminals” in a non-nation state fight that could cross several geopolitical boundaries (Buck-Morss, 2003). In essence a lot of the fundamentals of theories of war can still be used. The major differences being non-state actors do not have to be part of a nation-state and operate independently not necessarily condoned by the nation-state that they are in.

Integration/Disintegration, Systems, & Structural-Functionalism
Integration and disintegration are becoming key components in the study of international relations. For example, there is integration of the European Union and World Trade Organization and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. Traditional theory has not caught up with much of the current phenomenons. Integration is not necessarily a new concept. Talcott Parsons, a major contributor to systems theory, wrote about integration. Joseph Nye also had perceptions of integration which were slightly different than Parsons. Parsons believes that action between an individual and actor; action in a “societal context” called “action systems.” His systems place people in the role of subjects and objects. He also explains that at any given time people are members of several other action systems such as family, employer and nation-state. Parsons states that the three subsystems are 1) the personality system 2) the social system 3) the cultural system. They are interconnected through the action system. If there is a change in one of the subsystems it will affect another in turn affecting the entire action system. The systems theory “assumes the interdependence of parts in determinate relationships, which impose order on the components of the system.” “Social systems are characterized by a multiple-equilibrium process because social systems have many subsystems, each of which must remain in equilibrium in the larger system is to maintain equilibrium” (Dougherty 115-116).

Causes of disintegration, from Parsons point of view, explicates how the systems deal with stress. Parson’s four functional conditions are prerequisite: 1) Pattern Maintenance 2) adaptation (to the environment) 3) goal attainment 4) Integration (of the different functions and the subsystems into a cohesive, coordinated whole. “The integrative function is fulfilled by the cultural subsystems the serve the function of pattern maintenance.” “According to Parsons, the formulation of common values that cut across national boundaries is essential to international order.” If you look at the EU this is in place and happening very clearly but looking at the former USSR states it can be seen that several of these factors are not taking place and only a handful are fairly being used (Dougherty 115-116). The conditions of integration that Joseph S. Nye explains are what the EU follows: (1) Politicization (2) Redistribution (3) Reduction of Alternatives (4) Externalization. In short the EU has a common interest to have a closer knit Europe, a single currency to allow for less exchange rate processes, the states involved have a parliament that is able to discuss sovereign alternatives, and they seek to not bring in external forces to control the general premise of the EU. This can be very attractive to many countries and membership into the EU could perpetuate them more in the global market where they once had trouble competing (Nye & Dougherty 515-519).

The former Soviet Union continues to be a place of study in the field of international relations. Even after the 1917 revolution, when communism ushered into the country to modern day with the fall of the former USSR and the forces of disintegration. The disintegration of the former Soviet Union which has several implications as to why it did not work and why there is a lack of integration between the former members. The Soviet Union itself integrated was a single party regime that controlled everything and dictated the actions of its members. Of course this ultimately failed and a lot of the factors may not be simply human nature and the inability to completely be socialist because of greed and other factors that influence behaviors (Riasononovsky & Steinberg). Factors that caused the disintegration of the Former Soviet union include nationalism inside former states splitting into separate states along with ethnic disputes, ideological conflicts, competing economic factors that include raising prices higher than market conditions, and several other factors. The disintegration has also caused some states to become Isolationists, such as Russia because of several reasons but a major point being the idea that they had been taken advantage of economically (Dougherty 93 & 106).

Failure to acclimatize to the new systems or not keep up and will be much like indigenous tribes that become extinct because of lack of flexibility. The EU has become very flexible and adaptable to many market conditions. The EU’s inception, whether acknowledged or not, is to knock the US down from being an economic superpower. There is no doubt that the EU supports democracy and capitalism, however its focus may have to become broader as the economies change over time as of right now its flexibility lean towards the idea it will continue to prevail. However, to compare the EU with the US the Structural-Functional approach could be used. It has the ability to view political systems individually as well as compare vastly different political systems to each other. There are two main points with the structural-functionalist approach. (1) “In different countries, the same structure may perform different functions” (2) “institutions often do not have a monopoly on any given function”. This tells us that there are factors that work as a cause and effect type model and derives much of this from systems theory itself (Almond, 33).

The International Political Economy & Globalization
The international political economy has also become a subset of study in international relations. Politics and Economics have intermingled since the existence of one another and most intellectuals acknowledge their relationship but have been studied separately instead of the relations ship between them. In the later part of the 20th century international relations has studies the two together. Capitalism is defined as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market” (Webster). Democracy is a “government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” (Webster). Free countries follow a capitalist market system in which they are able to establish profit for goods and services allowing the seller to make a profit. This is thought to establish and allow economic growth. While these concepts are basic there are economic factors that influence political decisions. The understanding that politics and the economy are nothing new, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and many other dominate historical figures spoke of it but much of the earlier work is thought to be mercantilist and followed: (1) states cannot remain powerful in an anarchic setting without a strong economy (2) economic strength must be preserved by protecting key industries and jobs (3) such protectionism may require tariffs and governmental subsidies (4) low-priced imports may threaten domestic jobs and industry, (5) the state can and should remain sovereign in economic matters and (6) membership in international economic organizations may have adverse consequences for national strength. More contemporary approaches follow economic liberalism and believe that markets need to operate free from government intervention (Dougherty, 416-419).

Globalization has become a huge topic of study for international relations. Instead of just focusing in the nation state there are many more actors than there was before including everything from IGO’s, MNC’s, NGO’s, terrorist groups, rouge states and other actors. Wars are no longer always fought against uniformed armies there is now the clash of ideologies and nation states versus non-nation states such as the United States and the war on terrorism. Many nations feel they must form alliances with one another to combat many of the current problems such as terrorism and rogue nations. The fact that they are surrendering some of its authority to an international organization once again the benefits of protection and collaboration seem to outweigh the costs (Dougherty, 559, 631-632).Globalization and the forces of disintegration and economic integration are changing the field of international relations. The EU is lessoning on countries nationalism and a buy in of economic collectivism because of the common currency and the fact that the economies of these nations are now much stronger and can more easily compete against the United States and now have more clout and purchasing power. However with this there is less patriotism of the individual state and more value for the bigger economy. The loss of group identity in a globalizing world is a contributing factor for the rise of nationalist movements redefining the borders of nation-states but as long as the economies are strong it is almost definite that this is not going to happen as much until a true recession hits hard to drive it home for the individual states (Bhagwati).

The field of international relations has many more actors than is had before. There are Intergovernmental Organizations or IGO’s like NATO that is usually an organization set up so that two or more nations can form treaties and accomplish common interests. The other type of International Organization is a Nongovernmental Organization or NGO. NGO’s are very different from IGO’s in the fact they do not have to “operate in a vacuum” basically meaning they can operate independently from a governments and intergovernmental organizations. However, both IGO’s and NGO’s play an important role in dealing with conflicts and disasters. In essence they are specialists and perform essential tasks that many time governments simply cannot perform. The economy is definitely shaping into more of a global economy than it been. There will always a place for the nation state; however, there are many more actors than there was before including everything from NGO’s, terrorist groups, and rouge states. Wars are no longer always fought against uniformed armies there is now the clash of ideologies and nation states versus non-nation states such as the United States and the war on terrorism. Along with IGO’s and NGO’s there are also multinational corporations or MNC’s that can have immense influence on countries there enter. MNC’s can play much of a role in passing certain conditions for workers and several other factors because of the impact they have on a countries economy especially in the third world (Bhagwati , Dougherty & Bennett).

Conclusion
International relations theory must catch up to modern conditions. Currently there is disconnect with terminology in international relations about modern phenomena, but there is plenty of theory in place to build upon to develop new theory and explain conditions. The end of the Cold War leaves Russia as a superpower no longer, and it has been proven that communism does not work. Now the factor is the disintegration of the former USSR. Russia believes they have been betrayed by the same countries they once supported and kept going economically. There are several parts of theories that can explain some of what is going on such as systems theory, however there is no theory in place the fully explains the disintegration. Like many countries such as in the Middle East there are ethnic disputes and clashes from religious affiliations, but nothing completely like what has happened in the former USSR. If anything it seems to be several factors with several different variables happening simultaneously. The state of international relations is changing and theories that once seemed to be able to explain much of the world are no longer viable. With the ever-changing global climate the field of international relations is probably going to stay exciting and like the rest of the world, students, like countries that do not keep up, will be left in the dust.

References

Almond, G.A., Powell Jr., G.B., Dalton, R.J., & Strom, K. (2008). Comparative Politics Today: A World View. 9th Edition. United Sates: Pearson-Longman

Barnett, Thomas P.M. (2003).The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Berkley Books

Barnett, Thomas P.M. (2005). Blueprint for Action: A Future worth Creating. New York: Penguin Books

Bennett, A. Leroy & Oliver James K., (2002). International Organizations: Principles and Issues, Seventh Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

Bhagwati, Jagdish. (2004). In Defense of Globalization. New York, New York: Oxford University Press

Buck-Morss, S. (2003). Thinking past terror: Islamism and critical theory on the left. London; New York: Verso. Retrieved May 24, 2009 from http://www.versobooks.com/

Capitalism. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Democracy. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Apr., 1957), pp. 135-150. Published by: The University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1827369 on June 2, 2009

Dougherty, J. E., & Pfaltzgraff, R.L., (2001). Contending theories of international relations: A comprehensive survey. New York: NY. Longman.

Drinkwine, B.M. (2009). The serpent in our garden: Al Qa’Ida and the long war. http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/. Retrieved: May 24, 2009.

Kegley, C.W., & Blanton, S (2009). World politics: trend and transformation. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Nye, J.S. (1988). Integration and Conflict in Regional Organization The American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, 4, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1961822 retrieved July 19, 2009.

Riasononovsky, Nicholas V. & Steinberg, Mark D. (2005). A History of Russia. Seventh Edition. Oxford University Press

“The Democratic Peace Idea” Appendix C. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1346/MR1346.appc.pdf Retrieved August 16, 2009