عنوان مقاله [English]
Foreign policy is a phenomenon influenced by a combination of structural factors, internal political dynamics regional and international issues.The structure of the international system is limiting behavior of the states. Waltz argues that the international system to define behavior of states and foreign policies is mainly an attempt to adapt to the pressures of the international system. Waltz says that international politics is the politics of the great powers; He believes that the structure of the international system after the Cold War has a unipolar structure in which America is the undisputed power. Despite the weakening of America's economic hegemony in the past three decades, USA is still the most influential international actor. However, small and medium-sized states in the existing structure, are the relatively able to pursue their development goals. Among these countries, we can compare Iran and Malaysia. Malaysia is located almost in the heart of the East Asian region, South-East Asia, and now became one of the important regions in the global economy, living in peace and stability; Iran is located in the Middle East as an unstable region, war of all against all. This status of regional issues is affected by the influence of great powers on foreign policy of the two countries. The conditions in the Middle East, in addition to the constraints of the international system, have failed Iran foreign policy. The presence of several powers such as China and Japan, along with America, in the East Asia, provided Malaysia's with economic competitive advantage they enjoy of the international system. In other words, presence of foreign powers in East Asia gave a good opportunity to Malaysia and the presence in Middle East was not an opportunity for Iran. The membership of Malaysia in "ASEAN", A functional subset of the local conditions of access to capital and technology, provided economic benefits for members. But membership of Iran in the ECO is not a good benefit. In other words, Malaysia was able to take advantage of the opportunities but Iran was not able to use them and considered the opportunities as a treat to security.
In this study, we used a comparative method by which the two countries of Iran and Malaysia have generally been compared. Then, the two countries have many in common in three dimensions of "the regional system", "benefit from the advantages of regional organizations", and membership in the ECO and ASEAN. These have positive and negative effects on economic development of the states.
Results and discussion
The structure of the international system can create opportunities for policy. Many of the decisions and foreign policies are in response to the behavior of other international actors. International systems of all activities can shape international relations. Malaysia is located almost in the heart of the East Asian region and is composed of two parts, East and West Malaysia an area that already has become one of the raised areas of the global economy with peace and stability. Malaysia has a good and constructive relation with all countries of the world and in taking its own development policies, could play important role in economic development as a newly industrialized country. Iran is a country in Southwest Asia, and has geopolitical and geostrategic potentials in the Persian Gulf, in the heart of the Middle East. Iran has two major oil fields of the world in Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. Iran is in the Middle East, a region critical and convulsions. The regional conditions have changed the impact of the structure of international and major powers over foreign policy between the two countries. Conditions in the Middle East, America gives obstacles, particularly in terms of its impact on Iran's foreign policy, and has limited the development process at the same time; while in East Asia, China and Japan with America, in addition to adjusting the limits of this power, improved technology, capital and the Malaysian economy.
The international system and the major powers as "independent variable" and the sub-region as "intermediate variables" have affected foreign policy of Iran and Malaysia. Political and economic cooperation in the region could limit the power of Malaysia's foreign policy and have taken advantage of the competitive power in favor of economic development. Despite the harsh positions, especially during the critical Malaysia Mahathir Mohammad, the state has a foreign policy that successfully pursued its development. While America's hegemonic supremacy in the Middle East and the impact of the sanctions and the use of existing multilateral presence in the world order as the independent variable limited Iran's foreign policy. Lack of economic integration, as the independent variable in the international system, creates limitations for Iran's foreign policy. It has strengthened Iran's foreign policy in reaching the development goals. America in the Persian Gulf is the main power that influences the region, including Iran. Using tools such as sanctions, multilateral pressure on international organizations and countries, especially Iran's neighbors in southern boundaries, the US attempts to create limitations and obstacles in the way of Iran's foreign policy. The dominant power in Southeast Asia with other major powers such as China and Japan and strong institutions "such as the ASEAN" are competitive in the balance. That is why the countries like Malaysia with a more suitable space can advance their foreign policy towards economic development.
24. Ahmadi, H. (1998). “The Structuralist Theory of International Relations: from Wallerstein to Waltz”. Journal of Faculty of Law and Political Science. Vol. 37. (in Persian).
25. Dehqany Firoozabadi, J. & V. Nouri. (2013). Foreign Policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran in Term of Fundamentalism. Tehran: Publication of the University of Imam Sadeq. (in Persian).
26. Dixon, A. (2009). Development and International Relations. Translated by Hossein Pourahmadi. Tehran: Center for Strategic Studies. (in Persian).
27. Farshad-Gohar, N. (2012). “The Prospect of OPEC in the Era of Globalization (Case Study: WTO)”. Journal of Politics. Vol. 4. No. 1. (in Persian).
28. fuller. E. Graham & lesser. (1997). Persian Gulf mythe. Foreign Affairs. my-june.
29. Ghavam, A. (1994). Principles of Foreign Policy and International Politics. Tehran: Samt Publisher. (in Persian).
30. Ghorbanpoor, M. (2013). “A look at the Performance of the Five-Year Dormant ECO Exchanges”. in http://www.ghatreh.com/news/nn16729884. (in Persian).
31. Hafezian, M. (2009). “The Requirements of Geopolitics in Iran's Foreign Policy”. Development-Oriented Foreign Policy. Under Vaezi, M. Tehran: Expediency Council. Institute of Strategic Research. (in Persian).
32. Henry, Clement m. & R. Spring bory. (2001). Globalization and Politics of Development in the Middle East. Cambridge University Press.
33. http://www.rasekhoon.net/article/print-65073.asp. (in Persian).
34. http://www.rasekhoon.net/article/print-65073.aspx. (in Persian).
35. Hunter, Sh. (2013) Continuity and Discontinuity Between Iran and the World. Translator H. Yekta & A. M. Rostami. Tehran: Faculty of Law and Political Science. (in Persian).
36. Kazemi, A. (1994). International Relations in the Theory and Practice. Second Edition. Tehran: Ghomes. (in Persian).
37. Khosh-heykal, A. (2014). “Return America to East Asia and Approach of Regional Security”. Foreign Policy Journal. Twenty-seventh year. No. 3. (in Persian).
38. Kozegar, V. (2011). The Eco realization until Eco Vision 2015, the opportunities and challenges Eco. Central Asian and Caucasian Studies Quarterly. Vol. 14. No. 62. (in Persian).
39. Koushki, M. & M. Hosseini. (2014). “Economic Analysis Conflictual Relations Between Iran and the Arab States of the Persian Gulf”. Foreign Policy Journal, Twenty-seventh year. No. 3 (in Persian).
40. Mahathir, M. (2013). “Iran's sanctions is America revenge”.in
42. Moshirzade, H. (2007). Evolution. in Theories of International Relations. Tehran: Samt. (in Persian).
43. Moshirzade, H. & H. Jafari. (2013). “Power Hegemony and the Revolutionary Governments: Case Study of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran”. Foreign Relations Journal. No. 1. Spring. (in Persian).
44. Nasri, Q. (2002). Oil and National Security of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran: Strategic Research Institute. (in Persian).
45. Pitsuwan, surin. (2012). ASEAN Economic Community Chart Book, The ASEAN Secretariat Jakarta, December.
46. Rezai, A. (2009). “China Soft Balancing Against the Hegemony of the United States States and of the International System”. Rahbord Jornal. No. 16. Winter. (in Persian).
47. Rodolfoc, H.E. (2012). “ASEAN: Building the Peace Southeast Asia”. 13 July. www.asan.org/resources/2012-10-08-47-56/.
48. Sadjadpour, K. & A. Nourian. (2011). “Foreign Policy Planning in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Check of Relationship Between Regional Power, Economy and Foreign Policy Based on the Vision”. Rahbord. No. 56. (in Persian).
49. Sazmand, B. (2010). Regionalism and Shared Identity in South East Asia (ASEAN). Tehran: Institute for Political and International Studies. (in Persian).
50. Shahande, B. (1998). “Reflections on the Dynamics of South-East Asian Nations Union, its ASEAN”. Journal of Law and Political Science. Vol. 38. (in Persian).
51. Seifzadeh, S. (1994). Various theories of international relations, Tehran: Ghomes. (in Persian).
52. Sodhy, Pamela. (2012). Malaysia- US Relations 2000-2011. Kuala lampur: Institue of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malasia.
53. Tale, H. (1998). “Iran's Foreign Policy Priorities”. Report. No. 8. (in Persian).
56. World Economy Newspaper. (2015). “Sustainable Growth of East Asian Countries”. April1. (in Persian).