The Russian Empire and United Kingdom as two main players in the GREAT GAME of nineteenth century kicked off a colonial rivalry in the geopolitical arena of Central Asia. However the repetition of this GREAT GAME in the post-cold war world led to some criticisms to the geopolitical ideas dominating 19th and 20th centuries that focus on the geopolitics of resistance as one of the most important approaches in the geographical policies in the beginning of the third millennium.The present paper is an attempt to study the level of influence of these two approaches- domination and resistance - on the current of the NEW GREAT GAME in Central Eurasia. The findings of the study indicate that the degree of congruity of the domination geopolitical approach is higher than that of the resistance approach. At the same time it is necessary to establish an active civil society based on sociopolitical reforms in the countries of the GAME field in order to materialize the principles of geopolitics of resistance.

With increasing economic dependence of world on hydrocarbon energy resources, and ongoing tensions in the Middle East and the emergence of Russia as a major player in the global energy market, the resources of oil and gas in Central Asia and their transportation routes to consumer markets have been GREATly considered by the GREAT industrial powers. There have been decades of long struggles over controlling natural oil and gas resources and infrastructures, and influence of central Asia that has been called "the NEW GREAT GAME" between Europe, China, Russia and America, and each of these powers were trying to outpace each other in order to obtain more influence in the region. In the years of the Soviet Union collapse and the discovery of huge reserves of oil and gas in Central Asia, the competition between the GREAT powers has been intensified. On the one hand, the Russians by confining all the exporting routes of their land have tended to maintain their traditional influence and control over the NEWly independent states. On the other hand, the United States has entered in the region as a serious competitor, and as a fan of the paths that will lead to its own long-term goals and geopolitical interests. Also, China with its strong incentives to be present in Central Asia and to challenge the hegemonic policies of America and also to achieve the regional energy resources and huge market has entered in this competition. Although Russia is the major power in Central Asia's resources, the presence of NEW players such as America, and especially China and the efforts of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to find alternative ways to transport oil and gas have faced the Russian interests with some challenges in the region. Accordingly, the authors of this article ask this question: who is going to win the power GAME of having control over Central Asia's resources?Our hypothesis is that due to China's economic growth and the need of this country to the huge oil and gas resources as well as the development of Beijing's relationships with Central Asian neighbors, in the future China will be the main power in the region.

According to its historical background, natural conditions and political geography, Caucasus is made up of a variety of races, followers and cultures of different rituals and religions. Historical links of Caucasus residents with Iranian civilization and culture resulted in their adherence to Iranian governments in equilibrium with Roman, Ottoman and Russian policies. Following the collapse of Safavids, which was simultaneous s’ with Tsarist Russia being at the height of its power and hundred years an away from the wars of iran & Russia. Political instability of Iran, continual installation and downfall of several governments’ absence, of power in the region, insecurity and internal pressures as well as foreign interventions, all and all paved the ground for the separation of Caucasus from Iran.

The GREAT GAME of Russia and Britain, which began in the early nineteenth century, led to the confrontation of the two powers in Iran until the early twentieth century. The Russian-British rivalry in Iran intensified after the second round of Iran-Russia wars in the Caucasus, when the restoration of Iran’ s historical rule over Herat was on the agenda of the Iranian government, resulting in the siege of Herat in 1837, an incident that caused British politicians to worry about Russia’ s expansion in the western borders of India. The findings of this study indicate that the idea of capturing Herat was partly influenced by Russians’ support to divert the Iranian government’ s attention from the Caucasus. In addition, with the Herat crisis and Britain’ s concern about the expansion of Russia’ s influence on the borders of India, the creation of a buffer state became vital in the framework of India’ s defense strategy. Under the circumstances that Russians were supporting the Iranian court during the siege of Herat, Palmerston’ s regional and extra-regional aggressive policy, followed by Russians’ passive stance, led to the rapid deployment of force to the Persian Gulf and ended the campaign in Herat in favor of Britain. Afterwards, Britain stabilized its position in today’ s Afghanistan. Contrary to other studies that mostly examine the issue of Herat in the framework of Iran’ s relations with Britain, Russia, or the Emirate of Afghanistan, this article examines the issue of Herat’ s siege in the context of the GREAT GAME.

Today, the center of gravity of international politics and security has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The term Indo-Pacific is a term used to describe this evolution. Each of the major international powers is seeking to play a role in this area. This article seeks to answer the question of "what role does Europe play in the GREAT Indo-Pacific GAME? " The hypothesis of the article, which has been studied by descriptive-analytical method, is that the European Union has already gained effective influence in the Indian and Pacific Oceans at the level of "national units" and "Union", but in order to play a more effective role, it can Institutionalization in this area. The interest of the countries in the region in the normative attitude of the European Union and their concern about the negative consequences of the Sino-US competition in the region has provided a good opportunity for Europe to play a role in the Indo-Pacific area. In addition, US efforts to establish a regional order embodied in the Indo-Pacific Strategy and China's efforts to establish a regional order embodied in the Belt-Road Initiative are mutually reinforcing, allowing Europe to do the same. By adopting an "inter-institutional" strategy, to regulate the regional order of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Such a conclusion, within the framework of the role balance theory, practically reinforces the role of Europe, along with the United States and China, in the process of regional and global order developments.

Attempts in establishing a balance of power is always one of the realistic approaches of countries in the international relations scope. This attempt is to maintain the status quo or to revise it. It seems that the natural tendency of countries in establishing balance of power with each other as realists claim, has currently put the United States (USA) in a historical and strategic dilemma. On the one hand, USA seeks to maintain its position as a hegemonic power, on the other hand, countries such as Russia, China and even India try to challenge this position and to establish balance with the hegemonic power. In this regard, nowhere in the world has USA been challenged strategically as in Asia for containing his hegemonic power. The main question is that how USA decreases the common threat from Russia and China and maintain its hegemonic position? In this line, the main hypothesis is that regarding the balance of power as distribution of power, USA seeks to utilize India for establishing the balance of power in central Asia. Also, India seeks to utilize the potential of USA for developing its sphere of influence in this region.