Words: 801
The current civil war in Syria does not solely affect the national community in Syria; it also affects the members of the international community which hold interests in Syria. More specifically, a civil war not only affects Syrians neighbors, but also impacts the international system’s main powers through potential regional desalination. For the sake of concision, this paper will focus only on Iran and the United States. Each of these states has approached the Syrian civil war with their individual benefits and desired outcomes in mind.
In this essay I will present each country’s relationship tit Syria through the paradigms of realism, liberalism, and constructivism and then argue in favor of the paradigm which best explains their policies. Ultimately, I argue that constructivism is the most dominant and prominent relationship between the Iranians and Syrians. But realism. For years Iran and Syria have strengthened their relationship and built a foundation based on co-desired outcomes and goals.
However, their relationship also emphasizes the necessity of trade and of the attainment of both power and security; thus portraying aspects of the paradigms of Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. As a regional power, Iran has felt and will continue to feel the immediate effects of the Syrian Civil War. Realism predicts that in a permanent state of international anarchy states strive to amidst a constant struggle for power. However, amidst the chaos of a system without an overarching authority, a realist views state behavior as rational and strategic.
For a realist, the longstanding military between Iran and Syria is solely for the purpose of securing their state and balancing against potential threats such as Israel. This attitude can be seen in the two states during several inflicts biblically claiming their military allegiance to one another. As Alan Colonel of the New York Times explained during Saddle Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, “The leaders of Syria and Iran today remolded their longstanding alliance, declaring “full agreement” in their opposition to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent buildup of American and other foreign forces in the region. (Colonel). In terms of realism, one can argue that Iran and Syria were uneasy with the American government gaining influence in the region and upsetting their relative regional power. This led to more defensive measures from the Iranians. They continued to build up their nuclear capabilities, implementing internal balancing. In short, Realism has earned its credibility with the rapport between Iran and Syria during past regional conflicts Liberalism foretells a relationship where, despite the existence of international anarchy, states cooperate rather than engage in a constant struggle for power.
In this case, Iran has several open trade negotiations with Syria. A key example is the creation of a Joint bank in Damascus. The banks opening was attended by multiple important economic figures and provided Iranian investors, businessperson and pilgrims with a variety services. This only added to the several industrial projects in Syria, including cement factories, car assembly lines, power plants, and silo constructions. (>>>>>page.. ). This alliance portrays a key feature of liberalism in that the interactions between the two nations are beneficial to both states’ progresses.
In the case of Syrians Civil War, Iran has provided the Sad regime with resources in order to improve the regime’s chances of victory. Iran provides foreign aid in several fashions to improve Syrians economy and as a result may have a stronger ally in the case of an Sad victory. In regards to liberalism, Iran thus benefits from the mutual operation and codependency with Syria. Even though elements of both realism and liberalism are clearly innate between Syria and Iran, constructivism is also an inherent paradigm that demonstrates several key factors in the relationship between the two nations.
This paradigm revolves around the principles of unity based on similarities, whether it is religion, culture or any other category that the states can identify themselves as to form a single entity. With the case of the Syrian Regime and Iran, religion is what brings those two states together. Iran is one of the largest Shih states in the existence. Syria s also mostly a Sunnis state. Furthermore, Basher al-Sad and the rest of Syrians political elite are Elates – a sub category of Shamanism.
The regime and the Iranian government have united around that very similarity. A core element of constructivism is the notion that although there is no overarching international authority, states can choose to craft their policies however they choose. In this case, without the guidance of a higher international authority, through a shared religious connection, Syria and Iran are choosing to cooperate rather than distrust each other. Although both realism and liberalism are very applicable, constructive.