حسین دهشیار

the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), as a prominent example of new regionalism in Asia, was established with the aim of resolving border disputes and enhancing mutual trust among its members. Gradually, the organization's focus expanded to include economic and commercial issues. After many ups and downs, Iran became a permanent member of this regional organization in 2021. This raises the question: what impact does the permanent membership of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the SCO have on Iran's political-security relations with the United States? The hypothesis of the article, which was examined using a descriptive-analytical method, is that the permanent membership of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the SCO enhances the country's economic-commercial and political-security capabilities and increases its bargaining power against the United States. The findings of the article showed that Iran's permanent membership in the SCO has increased the institutional power of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which in turn reduces the impact of the political and security pressures from the United States.

Cultures, like other social phenomena, have life, in the passage of time due to communication with each other and the ease of absorption or removal of each other's elements, or they grow and develop and become new elements. Cultures are fixed things and They are not without change and even though they maintain their principles and foundations, the result of this connection is establishing a mutual relationship between media and culture. The purpose of this research is to investigate the interaction of media and cultural rights in the context of international human rights. The method of this research is descriptive-analytical, and the method of collecting information is documents and library, which was done by referring to documents and examining the theoretical foundations related to the concepts related to the research. The results showed that the trends that have been experienced in the international human rights system in the field of cultural rights indicate that although no legal document is specifically dedicated to culture and all its aspects, but in a wide range of examples All or some of its aspects have been mentioned in international documents, including treaties or declarations and reports and world summits.

With the onset of what is known as the Arab Spring, it was inevitable for Iran and Saudi Arabia to play a role. These two important countries in the region took completely different positions regarding the current developments in the crisis-affected countries, including Yemen. After Iran's support for Ansarullah, Saudi Arabia launched a military attack on Yemen in April 2014. After 6 years of war, Saudi Arabia shifted towards engaging in political dialogue with the Yemeni side. The main issue of this article is why this change occurred. In response to this problem, using the explanatory-analytical method, it is argued that factors at three levels of analysis - domestic (Saudi Arabia), regional, and international - led to the Saudi military attack on Yemen and subsequent changes at these three levels. It is mentioned that this caused Saudi Arabia to opt for diplomacy. Meanwhile, Iran's role is examined at the regional level of analysis.

One of China's policies to achieve hegemony is to effectively influence international financial institutions and institutions to use their capacity to promote national power. China is the only country that is currently a strategic rival to the United States. Its actions in the international arena in the America are interpreted as a code of conduct in competition with Washington and are therefore opposed. China's accession to the World Trade Organization has become one of the most important areas of competition between China and the United States. The main question is what are the most important divisive factors between China and the America in the World Trade Organization? And this issue in macro strategic competition how does it make sense? The hypothesis of the article has been studied descriptively-analytically, the differences between the America and China in the World Trade Organization include the yuan rate, customs tariffs, monopoly on the electronic payment market, and intellectual property.The two countries are trying to use the capacity of the World Trade Organization to enhance their institutional power, and the success of each of them in the World Trade Organization affects the success or failure of the two in the competition for hegemony.

West Asia has been on a different track from the beginning of the second decade of the twenty first century. The behavioral essence of national and transnational players has not transformed but the important point has to be the fact that the performance of transnational players has created a very different understanding regarding capacities and opportunities among region’s countries especially American allies This new reality points to a higher level of comprehension which necessarily leads to a more behavioral independence regarding defining national interest and priorities in realm of foreign policy. American strategic indolence in the region which started by Obama administration coincided with China’s quest to expand its influence in this geography have created security conditions which means the appearance of a new political context to shape decisions by the region’s countries. Article’s question points to what policy America as the most incisive and interventionist player in West Asia has chosen as sufficient for maintaining its position and what behaviors by regional players have been adopted to fortify and enhance their position. The choice of limited responsibility ( strategic indolence) as general American policy in the region has created opportunity to play greater role by other relevant transnational players which inevitability has caused more power for national players in West Asia to formulate behavior and to fashion inter player relations in order to provide optimal national interest.

Iran and Saudi Arabia relations is always fluctuating. The two countries are recognized as a regional power in the Middle East and are in competition. This competition is due to mutual concerns about the structure of the international system and the internal environment originates. A power vacuum has been created in the last decade, has increased competition between the two countries.The two countries have structural tensions. Both countries aspire to lead the Islamic world and also have regional hegemony. Iran views Saudi Arabia as the US representative in the region, which has deprived it access to its rights. Saudi Arabia is also concerned about Iran's asymmetric power and regional and nuclear ambitions, especially its strong presence in Iraq, one of the main actors, rival in Syria, Yemen (Direct conflict with the Houthis), influential in Lebanon and Palestine. In fact, Saudi Arabia is concerned about Iran's activities because Iran has the tools and ability to challenge Saudi Arabia against domestic and foreign rivals. The main question of this article: What are the reasons for concern between Iran and Saudi Arabia? The hypothesis tested in response to this question is that identity contradiction, political-security conflicts, and regional rivalry are sources of mutual concern that have led them to pursue offensive, competitive, and in some cases hostile foreign policies.

The present study is a qualitative research with a descriptive-analytic approach and the method of collecting information is library-documentary. In the collection section, library resources are used in both domestic and foreign sections.

To understand the sources of mutual concern between the two countries, it is necessary to carefully evaluate their foreign policy and their relations. In general, Iran's foreign policy goals include: promoting the political values and interests of leaders and friendly groups, exporting Shiite Islam Revolutionary, denying domination, oppression, supporting liberation movements, religious democracy and exporting it to other Islamic countries, fighting against religious extremism, promoting the culture of defending the Palestinian cause. Saudi Foreign Policy goals are: balance of power, leadership of the Islamic World, dealing with movements and revolutions, maintaining unpopular and unelected Arab governments in the Middle East and North Africa, wxporting Wahhabi religion among the countries of the region.

The sources of concern on both sides are rooted in identity, political-security conflicts that have created rivalry between the two sides. The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is largely, but not exclusively, geopolitical in nature. A clear sectarian dimension also contributes to the escalation of the conflict. Internal factors also play an important role in any country, but the main reason for this competition is usually the external environment and proxy competition. When the regional environment is calm and competition is reduced, the two sides do not allow conflicts to escalate and thus create tension. These contradictions are often used as a tool for external competition. The resulting competition poses significant risks that could increase in the future. These risks include the effects of overflows (such as immigration and terrorism), escalating tensions and violent conflict in the Middle East (intensified by competition), pressure to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, and increasing volatility in the global oil market, all of which are of concern. The two countries should consider ways to reduce tensions, if not resolve, through smart initiatives in areas of immediate friction (such as Yemen and Iraq, Syria, Bahrain) substrates that may cause friction and military conflict. These initiatives could include confidence-building measures and the promotion of regional cooperation in the areas of trade, economic development and environmental concerns. The region needs a stable order, and this order is tied to Iran-Saudi Arabia relations.Preventive efforts that can minimize new and potentially dangerous ways of competition and, more broadly, promote stability in the Persian Gulf region would include:Provide positive incentives to encourage responsible Iranian behavior, especially given its support for Lebanon's Hezbollah and Bashar Assad regime in Syria, as well as Saudi Arabia's renunciation of Wahhabi and Salafi movementsProgress and resumption of peace talks in Yemen. Although Iran and Saudi Arabia are currently in the process of negotiating peace and reducing tensions, these efforts are not enough to reduce tensionsEncourage international law to moderate potentially dangerous Saudi-Iranian interactions in air and naval activities, ballistic missile development, cyber-intervention, political and intelligence warfare, and religious events such as the HajjPromote regional institutionalization and participatory activities in areas of common concern, such as resource management, environmental degradation, and regional infrastructure developmentThe participation of key international actors, such as the United Nations, as well as major powers with growing interest in the Gulf region, such as encouraging China and India to contribute to regional stability.

China is increasingly seeking to define its superior position in the international system during Xi Jinping's administration. In doing so, one of the main strategies of Beijing to expand its economic-political influence in around the world is the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI), which is a comprehensive infrastructure plan that could be game-changer in the current Great Power competition of the international system between the United States and the People's Republic of China. Regarding this issue, the U.S. during the presidency of Joe Biden, together with its international allies in the “Group of 7” (G7), proposed a rival global initiative with the same infrastructural factors called “Build Back Better World” (B3W) to compete with the Chinese one. This research aims to examine the extent of how much the U.S., along with its main allies, could compete with the Chinese plan through different strategies. The main finding of the research is that the “Established Power” and the “Rising Power” of international system are in a strategic competition for global supremacy in conducting these initiatives with different spheres of political, economic and ideological worldviews. By applying the “Realism School” theory, the research examines the strategic competition between U.S. and China as the great powers of the International System. Based on the research question, the methodology of the paper is qualitative data analysis and the data has been collected from library sources, statements and valid documents from think tanks and international strategic research institutes.

In recent years, the United States has defined its foreign policy toward Iran on a variety of issues. Iran's nuclear program, Iran's defense program in the development of missile activities and the regional approach are among the topics of interest to the United States towards Iran, which has pursued various policies to counter them. Imposition of unilateral and multilateral sanctions, maximum pressure and disruption of Iran's regional and international interactions and relations can be considered as pressure to change Iran's approach. Among the issues raised was Iran's nuclear program, which led to the JCPOA, which was on the verge of collapse with the withdrawal of the United States and the subsequent reduction of Iran's commitments. The Biden administration came to power with the slogan of returning to the nuclear deal at a time when curbing Iran's regional approach and missile program remains an important issue for the United States. Using functionalist theory and descriptive-analytical method, the present study seeks to answer the question that what approach will the United States take to confront regional policies and develop Iran's missile program? In response, the United States will re-accede to the nuclear deal in order to extend it to other Iranian policies, including missile and regional activities, and to change Iran's position

Foreign policy decisions are often based on assumptions about foreign policy actors. Donald Trump's foreign policy in the Middle East was confused from the beginning! But what exactly was his foreign policy? Many critics see this confusion in the president not making the right decision.A simpler and more accurate explanation for the confusion is that Trump's foreign policy did not take on a name. The purpose of this study is to answer the main question of this article: How was the US foreign policy during the Trump presidency based on decision models? The authors' hypothesis is that US foreign policy under Trump was based on a combination of systematic elements, Trump personal characteristics, the influence of domestic issues, bureaucratic policies and personal connections, and "wrong political assumptions" in Trump decisions. The research confirms the hypothesis of the authors of the article. The type of analysis in this research will be descriptive-analytical and the theoretical framework presented is based on decision theories.

This research aims to analyze and evaluate the United Nations’ activity to settle the crisis in Afghanistan by applying a qualitative method based upon data gathering using the United Nations archival resources and descriptive-analytical method to answer how the United Nations' activity to settle the crisis in Afghanistan has been. the research revealing theory is: The United Nation -one of the most influential intergovernmental organizations- had excessive efforts by implementing and executing political (Through the sixth and seventh resolutions of the UN Charter), diplomatic enterprises (Through the Secretary General and his Special Presentative) and institutionalization (By monitoring the implementation of resolutions and action) through It reduced and confronted crises and empowered and rebuilt the country at some point in time main institutions e.g. security council, general assembly and secretary-general to settle the crisis in Afghanistan, although the aim wasn’t quite accomplished; the research findings according to Micheal Bercher international crisis analysis model and principals indicate that the united nation organization hadn’t been eminent in settling Afghanistan crisis due to organizational weakness and conceptual dependency, despite having high independency and legitimacy level at the international level, and acted passively and nonstrategic. The end of the Second World War was the beginning of the development of organized and regular international and regional relations and dependencies and the comprehensive growth of multilateral cooperation of governments in all fields such as political, economic, and social in international arrangements. In this context, the United Nations as the best and best model and example of an international governmental organization to provide and protect world peace and security, steps into the field of international relations; Therefore, the role of this organization is to protect peace and create security has been revealed today in the form of deterring and preventing conflicts or limiting them. Therefore, despite the many existing deficiencies, he has tried to objectify his capabilities and competence in political fields as a peacemaker and as a reliable and serious broker and agent in bilateral or multilateral relations; Although in this way, due to structural weakness and material dependence, it has not achieved much success. For example, in the Afghanistan crisis, which is considered one of the most complex and long-lasting international tensions, the United Nations has tried to resolve the issue by issuing many resolutions in most of the sixth and seventh chapters of the United Nations Charter and appointing its special representative and sending them to the center of the crisis. and to play an active role in ending crises. Despite this, in reducing or eliminating the crises that have occurred and even now, the performance of this organization has often been passive, proactive, and non-strategic. For example, in 2001, under the pressure of major powers, this organization recognized the invasion of Afghanistan by the US and NATO coalition. Therefore, the activities of the United Nations in Afghanistan show that the operation of this organization has legitimized the will of the great powers in the occupation and their movements against the opposition of the world. Of course, it cannot be denied that some of the so-called democratic actions of this organization, such as holding and monitoring parliamentary and presidential elections, have shown the positive performance of the United Nations in Afghanistan. In this article, while making sense of the crisis from Michael Brecher's point of view, we will discuss more the performance of the United Nations in solving the Afghanistan crisis. This article is written by stating the question, what is the function of the United Nations in the process of solving the Afghan crisis? We implemented and moved forward. In this way, by examining the role and performance of the United Nations as the most influential international organization in the arena of the international system, we examined the duties and performance of the three influential pillars of this organization in the process of resolving the Afghan crisis and the measures that each pillar takes in reducing or reducing the crisis as the keyword of crisis management. He has done in Afghanistan in the years 1947 to 2021. Actions that during a period of time led to the reduction, confrontation and empowerment, and reconstruction of Afghanistan through legal measures (with resolutions under the sixth and seventh chapters of the Charter), diplomatic and political measures (through the activities of the Secretary-General and its special representative) and institution building (monitoring the implementation of resolutions and actions) and these actions were further realized through cooperation with other regional organizations such as the European Union and NATO and the supervision of the United Nations. Among them, it is possible to evaluate the role of the United Nations as constructive, effective, decisive, and active in terms of financial, political, planning, and management of the various periods of presidential, assembly, and provincial council elections. Despite this, the Afghan crisis has continued due to the structural and substantive weakness that has been repeatedly repeated by the member governments and various secretaries-general in this organization. In such way that the existential philosophy of this organization was based on the multipolar system, but during the cold war, this organization was a bipolar system and at the end of the cold war, it was practically dominated by a superpower, which is not only in contradiction with the existential philosophy of this organization, which is currently It has become the most important problem of the United Nations. Also, the fact that the five great powers have the right to veto and its illegal use and abuse are evident in the continuation of the Afghan crisis. For example, the Soviet Union vetoed several resolutions condemning and immediately withdrawing its army from Afghanistan. As another permanent member of the Security Council, with its support for Pakistan, China has considered the crises formed and highlighted in Afghanistan as an internal matter and has continued this situation until now. Also, the United States of America, which is one of the main members of the United Nations Security Council, has repeatedly abused its membership privilege in the Security Council. The issuance of a resolution by the Security Council in 2001 regarding the attack on Afghanistan by the military forces of the United States and its allies (NATO) and the occupation of this country for a period of twenty years is one of the examples of the weakness and structural problems and the substantive dependence of this organization in solving crises, including the Afghan crisis.

Due to the lack of a common energy policy in the European Union because of the differing dependence of its members on Russian resources, different geographical conditions and diverse incentives, the Union has committed itself to adhering to a specific security policy for energy. A long-term strategy based on interdependence with the energy market, European unity, and improved governance in energy-producing countries. The present paper analyzes the complex energy relations between Russia and the European Union, which are at the same time involved in conflict and cooperation, in the Charter of "Asymmetric Interdependence". The purpose of this research is to discover and present the reasons for adopting a European Union collective strategy to provide sustainable and secure energy security. In order to achieve this purpose using a theoretical analysis, we identify the EU and Russia's sensitivity and vulnerability axes in terms of energy and the prospects for future interdependence in the forthcoming decades and ultimately conclude from the increasing trend that the symmetric interdependence on the issue of energy security between the two sides, neither party will be able to carry out their own security considerations without regard to the other party's security.

Due to the multifaceted Arab, Islamic and African identity, geographical proximity, nature and diversity of its threats, NA region has great importance for the EU. In this connection, the socio-political developments of this region during the last decade have brought different levels of threats and security challenges to the EU. As a result of these threats, the Eu's security model for the NA region become complicated and seemingly contradictory. In this regard, the current research seeks to find an answer to this question that the EU acts based on which theoretical foundations and security model in order to provide its all-round security against threats arising from the NA region? In response to this question, the authors' hypothesis is that In order to provide comprehensive security against threats from the North Africa region, EU while emphasizing the principle of its "European identity" against the three-faceted identity of "Arab, Islamic and African" of NA region behaves based on the logic of "proportion of threats with European values" and in the form of one of the models of "regional fortress", "ambivalent" or "convergent". In this research, the authors are trying to understand and discover the security model of the EU around the NA region by applying the descriptive-analytical method along with the logic of inference, so that through the lens of this model, the political tools of the Mediterranean Union and the neighborhood policy of the EU can be understandable.

Identity can be considered as a link between Constructivism theory and theoretical studies related to international crises. According to a Constructivist Point of View, identities are the basis of interests and roles, and actors determine their friend and Enemy based on the identity they envision for themselves. Accordingly, the main purpose of the present article is to answer this question: What role does Identity play in International Crises? In answer to this question, using the descriptive-analytical methods, we seek to test Hypothesis that if actors with inconsistent identities are involved in a crisis the crisis will have a high potential for intensification and expansion, and will most likely lead to the use of violent methods of crisis management. The best application of this hypothesis is the Syrian crisis. The beginning of the Syrian crisis was strongly influenced by the identity crisis within the Syrian government, and for this reason, two identity conflicts (Neo-Salafi-Alavi) and (Kurdish-Arabic) were highlighted in this crisis., Subsequently, two revolutionary and conservative axes led by Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as the third actor, Erdogan, entered the crisis and used all their power and proxy forces and allies to eliminate their "other" identities in Syria.

This paper aims to firstly explain the significance of the U.S oil independency and its consequences on the U.S foreign strategy in international politics. Secondly, the implications of this energy policy on the U.S foreign policy in the international system context is examined. The hypothesis to address these inquiries is postulated using neo-realism theory. Accordingly, following oil independency by the U.S government has lowered vulnerability to geopolitical developments in oil-rich regions, particularly Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and has reinforced the hegemony of the U.S in rivalry with rising powers, namely China and Russia. In this direction, imposing economic sanctions against large world oil producers such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, sparking trade war with China, escalating social conflicts and war in the Middle East, and decide to benefit of further shale oil production are among the most important components of the U.S foreign policy toward oil independency accomplishment. According to the neo-realistic method of analysis, energy resources are important elements of power in international system and proportionally, more energy production will lead to more power and security for states. The results of this study show that the U.S effort to exploit unconventional oil and gas resources through the technological revolution is in the framework of a strategy of self-sufficiency in energy production to maximize its power and security and to reduce geopolitical vulnerabilities in terms of dependence on the energy supply needed to maintain the country's hegemony in the international system. As the U.S energy supply increases, its economic and political dependence on other regions and countries has diminished and the country has been able to reduce its vulnerabilities in designing and advancing hegemonic policies.

Despite the growing trend of renewable energy production in the world, that will significantly reduce dependence on fossil fuel  in major energy comsuming countries, the IAEA forecasts during the next 30 years all industrialized countries, including menbers of the EU, will be increasingly dependant on the importation of oil and gas. Thereforethe security of energy supply will be a core issue in the EU.  According to forecasts by the European Commission's Energy Office, energy supply within the European Union will decline by about 20% in2030compared to 2005, so that Europe will need to import more than 55%of its energy. Meanwhile, gas is the main source of energy on which there wiil be the most dependence. Gas cooperation between the EU and Russia has existed since 1960. It has passed a variety of challenges successfully and is now an important aspect of the overall EU-Russia relationship. Russia is the largest exporter of natural gas to the European Union, so as the revenues from exports to the EU accounts for a large share of Russia's GDP. However, current EU-Russia energy policies do not appear to becooperative, and implementation of previous initiatives has slowed. There are a number of studies on the interdependence between Russia and the European Union in terms of energy, especially gas trade, as well as the analysis of misunderstandings and conflicts in this regard. However, the way in which such interdependence can affect Iran has not been well explored. None of the studies has considered Iran as an important player or even a solution to the "crisis" in EU-Russia energy relations.

In this research, statistical, descriptive, analytical and historical research methods have been used. Information was also collected through library and Internet resources and using news databases based on objective-historical data, and an attempt was made to use the most reliable and up-to-date statistical and descriptive information of domestic, regional and international study centers. The libraries of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Library of the University of Science and Research, the Library of the Center for Middle East Studies and Research of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Library and domestic and international virtual libraries have been used to obtain library information.

The inability of some members of the European Union to supply energy resources or their monopoly, and high dependence on Russian gas and lack of trust in that country, insufficient gas resources in the Caspian Sea and a 25 percent reduction in energy production within the EU by 2030 (compared to 2000(, the Union's main challenges in ensuring energy security have made the EU adopt a "collective energy security" approach. In line with theories of reciprocity and neo-functionalism, EU-Russia cooperation in the field of energy can reduce the conflict and accelerate cooperation in other areas and establish peace in relations between the two sides. One of the requirements of the EU Collective Security Strategy is the diversification of the EU's energy supply, and in this strategy, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the holder of the world's first energy reserves (total oil and gas), can play a key role in the EU's energy supply. If this is achieved, further stabilization will accelerate Iran's economic development from two perspectives of Iran's security and the region, as well as the provision of economic benefits.

Despite various challenges in reducing the share of Russian gas in the European energy basket, Iran can play a special role in this process due to its abundant gas resources and strategic geographical location. Although the establishment of a special program for strategic cooperation between the EU and Iran regarding energy has always been a serious challenge due to the  US economic sanctions, the strong mutual desire to establish economic relations, especially after the 2013 nuclear deal, confirms that the concept of interdependence can be used for bilateral relations in this regard. This study discusses  how this dependence regarding energy, can ultimately lead to explaining the role of Iran in the future energy supply of Europe. According to the results, Iran will be able to meet 10% of global consumer needs in the long run if it overcomes the political challenges of international relations and lift sanctionsThis will lead to a strategic partnership between the EU andIran that will improve international investment and trade as well as technology transfere. With the rapid,stable improvement in Iran, this can be an advantage.

This research study seeks to explain the kind of behavioral logic that the European :union: has been following towards the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In other words: What is the basis of the EU's attitude towards JCPOA? The hypothesis of the article, which has been developed descriptively-analytically, is that the EU foreign policy (behavior) towards JCPOA follows from the normative logic of the EU (good governance, democracy, human rights, rule of law, economic development, immigration regimes and Security regimes) with the aim of changing Iran's behavior. Therefore, the research findings indicate a deep-seated potential at the core of JCPOA, which plays a key role in the pattern of behavior of the European :union:; This means that the European :union:, on the one hand, takes action to create norms to solve international issues and, on the other hand, implements its foreign policy through these norms. From this perspective, the European union؛ views the JCPOA as a norm to change Iran's behavior and considers it as some kind of normative regime that includes the rules in order to regulate Iran's behavior in the nuclear field.

In democratization approach, the root of war and insecurity in the international system is the lack of democracy. Therefore, democratization of the governments has changed to an important procedure in the cold postwar world. This important issue is in progress sometimes in the form of process, and sometimes in the form of project, by the international organizations that have legitimation and universal acceptance. The objective of this research is to analyze the role of the international organizations on democratization of the governments that are in non-democratic status. Hence, by focusing on the role of the UN as one of the most effective public international organizations, this question is raised that what is the role of the international organizations, especially UN, in democratization of the governments? Hypothesis of the research, which is conducted in descriptive- analytical method, is that “the UN plays an active role through its major institutions such as Security Council, general meeting and secretary-general by implementing and executing the legal and political (or diplomatic) actions and institutionalizing for accelerating anti-authoritarianism and fixing democracy in the non-democratic countries”. Findings of the paper show that the high levels of independence and legitimation of the international organizations such as UN have made the democratization of the non-democratic governments possible. The case of Afghanistan will be reviewed for clarifying this interaction.

Proper planning based on future trends to advance national security goals and national interests is one of the most important tasks of strategists in each country.Considering the importance of scenario planning in strategic studies, present paper attempts to use the research methodology of the future research and using the TAIDA model, which focuses on the five approaches of " Tracking, Analyzing, Deciding, and Action", The author seeks to examine possible scenarios for regional order in the event of the withdrawal of US troops from the region. With this statement, the main question of the present study is: What will be the possible scenarios regarding the regional order of the withdrawal of American troops from the region?Scenarios include: - The vacuum of power and the development of the activities of non-governmental forces such as ISIS and the resulting disorder.- The possibility that some countries in the region will prevail and its order will be formed based on their interests.- Formation of regional convergence for security by the countries of the region.Finally, the author will try to express the desired scenario from the point of view of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Although various variables are engaged in emerging and escalating of international crisis, geopolitical variable has some special and important weight. Geopolitics is a hybrid concept that studies the role of geography, power, and politics in international affairs. The geopolitics and international crisis studies cross paths while discussing the escalation of international crises and their Reasons. The researchers believe that there is a strong connection between these two subjects. In the present paper, we will investigate this connection. The research hypothesis is that the more prominent the Geopolitical situation of a crisis-ridden country (enjoying natural resources and location in a strategic region which is critical to great powers) the more potential for escalation of the existing crisis to international level. In other words, the significant geopolitical position of a country is an important factor in the likelihood of intervention of the global and regional powers in the crisis and turning it into an international one. To approve this hypothesis, we will discuss the Syria crisis as a case study. In the present study, three key subjects are investigated and analyzed: the role of geopolitics in the study of the “international crises” from the viewpoint of “Michael Bercher, the leading crisis researcher”, the geopolitical position of Syria, and finically the “geopolitical interests” of the regional and international players in Syria.

The present research, in terms of the nature and method of research, falls into the category of descriptive-analytical research. The data is gathered by referring to the books, articles and strategic reports available in the internet sources and is analyzed based on the question and hypothesis presented. Attempts are made to use the articles and strategic reports of world-renowned think tanks.

The geopolitical position of a country in terms of natural resources and the regional interests of great powers plays an important role in international crises. Any state with these two factors that is facing an internal crisis would be in danger of facing the intervention of regional and international players, which has the potential of escalating the crisis into an international one. The crisis in Syria is an ideal example of this phenomenon. It can be used to approve this hypothesis and to study the interactions of geography, power, and politics which forms the basis of all geopolitical theories. If not the most important factor, the unique geopolitical position of Syria was undoubtedly one of the most important factors in the altercation between the regional and global powers in the country. Indeed, the unique geopolitical position of Syria (material, value and strategic resources) turned the country into an arena for the competitions between the regional and international players and escalated the crisis.

According to “Michael Bercher” the leading geopolitics expert, two main factors are required for an internal crisis to be escalated into an international one: first, the crisis should occur in a strategic region that is important for great powers, and second, the abundant natural resources of the region of the crisis. Since Syria ranks 30 among the world countries in oil reserves and 42 in natural gas reserves, it is unlikely that the regional and global players were motivated by the county’s oil or gas resources. Rather it is the geopolitical position of the country (its strategic value) and its presence in the heart of the fragile Middle East belt that has led the regional and global powers to step in. The unique position of Syria and the following four factors: 1) its geographical position in the Middle East and in the heart of the long-standing Arab-Israeli conflict, 2) its position on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean and the junction of three continents, Asia, Africa, and Europe, with more than 183 km of coastline, 3) its neighboring countries: Israel, Lebanon, Turkey and, Iraq and 4) its position at the heart of the regional competition between resistance and conservative forces, have given the country a superior geopolitical position, both regionally and globally, and have forced two great powers (Russia and United States) and four regional powers (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel) to step in and intervene in the brewing crisis.

Iran and America have walked in rugged and tortuous terrain for decades and accordingly have shaped relations that we have to draw enmity as its essence in the broadest sense. The quality of interactions has drawn the two countries into a deep whirlpool. Players of the two sides of enmity because of specific concerns without any regard to the central reason of the crisis entertained sitting to negotiate. The negotiations have demonstrated the greenhouse configuration for the apparent reason of their lack of constitutive nature and absence of immersion into social processes which show the whole case is nothing more than rolling from one side to the other side in order to buy time and hoping for the occurrence of desired events. This question comes to mind very often why greenhouse negotiations in the context of continuity of pattern of enmity have not transformed the crises regarding the two countries' relations?. The failure of the players in the two end of the crises spectrum to discuss identity, ideology, and understanding differences underneath of the conflict of interest aimed at the positive-sum game or mixed-motives game and on the other hand comprehensive deficit in respect to cognitive triangle meaning knowing own domestic environment, the other side internal environment, and international system environment has to be viewed the most plausible answer.

Many researchers believe that, in the recent century, international law has grown and formed in order to achieve the goals of the great powers and in its shadow. In this way, the question is: Why and how great powers of the international system are determinative in the formation and expansion of international law. It seems that the great powers, due to their position in terms of their various capabilities, can be effective in the creation and expansion of international law in various ways, such as customizing and shaping international treaties. The purpose of this article is to investigate the role of major powers in the evolution of international law, especially space law. In any case, just as the great powers created classical international law which did not exist before, in the modern era, it is the position and capability of the great powers, especially in the field of technology, that has given these powers the opportunity to take the lead in these matters. So the present study claims great powers are shapers, stabilizers and advocates of legal rules. In this regard, we try to study the role of the great powers, especially the United States and Russia, based on a descriptive-analytical method and using historical data.

along the years of relationships , these two countries have witnessed various kinds of engagement within political, economic and security areas. Among the most important issues between our two countries are, Hirmand River,the problem of narcotic,Taleban Terrorism and the problem of Afghan refugees as well as economic cooperation. Utilizing the descriptive-analytic method, this article provides true answers to the question of how the relationship between Iran and Afghanistan can be proceed within the De-security framework during 2000 to 2019. In order to test and evaluate the hypothesis of utilizing the theoretical concepts and parameters of securitization -desecuritization within the framework of Copenhagen Security School, endeavors have been taken place to understand better the relationship between two countries within the axis of dsescuritizstion. From this perspective, in answer to the main question, it should be said that with the gradual removal of security issues from the narrow military and political sphere and the transfer of foreign policy from the political-security layers to the economic-trade layers, Iran-Afghanistan relations is at the desired levels of their agents. The country will move towards insecurity. A look at the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Afghanistan shows that these two countries are affected by each other due to their neighborhood. For example, the civil war in Afghanistan led to instability on Iran's borders and the influx of Afghan refugees into Iran. However, there are several factors in the formulation of security policies that have hindered the development of other relations and the emergence of challenges in Iran-Afghanistan relations. From the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran, US and NATO military movements in Afghanistan, political-consensus instability, and economic instability resulting from the presence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, along with drug trafficking, especially in the post-Taliban period from 2000 to 2019. It has been a collection of sources threatening the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This issue has emerged in the formulation of Iran's political-security relations with Afghanistan. This approach has hindered the development of economic-trade relations as a first step of cooperation and coordination. From this perspective, getting out of the narrow military circle is criticized from the point of view of those who considered security one-dimensional and in military dimensions, and comprehensive security is discussed. For this purpose, the above research seeks to study the theory of the Copenhagen school and explain relations Economic and trade and its impact on foreign policy orientation in order to destabilize relations; To answer the question of how the relations between Iran and Afghanistan during the period 2000 to 2019 are in the process of becoming insecure? Theoretical Framework According to Buzan, security is a sense of security (mental security), protection against danger (objective security) and freedom from doubt (trust in the personal perceptions of others) .The process of securing issues goes through four main stages: first, the security discourse, which refers to the identification and urgency of existential threats against the government; second, the legitimacy and public acceptance; third, emergency security operations to deal with threats; These actions affect the internal and external relations of governments . According to the practical solutions of the Copenhagen School to make many phenomena and threats insecure, an efficient political system is necessary to discuss the process of generating security threats before considering the appearance of the threat. the concept of building security is one of the most important topics in the Copenhagen School. A phenomenon becomes a security phenomenon when the actor secures the phenomenon during the process and his audience accepts it. Belief in "manifestation of threat" and "public acceptance" are the two main pillars of "security logic".   History of Iran-Afghanistan relations The Islamic Republic of Iran is neighboring 15 countries, but due to historical and cultural commonalities between Iran and Afghanistan, the relations between the two countries are different. The two countries have a common history, culture, religion and language, and in many other cases there are many commonalities and even a common enemy. The Islamic Republic of Iran has always tried to pursue good neighborliness properly. During the years of holy defense, when Iran was facing many problems, it did not hesitate to cooperate with Afghan refugees, which shows the depth of relations between the two countries. After the victory of Jihad, Iran was aligned with the Mojahedin government and did not leave the Afghan people alone during the Taliban rule. After the fall of the Taliban, he also helped build and institutionalize the government. Iran and Afghanistan, despite having a common political border and common cultural and religious interests, are believed to have the greatest potential for expanding political, security, economic and cultural cooperation. Conclusion The economic diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Afghanistan has been a common element of profit and profit and an effective and relatively sustainable lever in managing water disputes, if the two countries can define a package of mutual interests in the form of economic diplomacy, this dependence Bilateral economic, the two sides will share in the fair use of water resources. In these circumstances, when the outcome of the combination of economic diplomacy and the water issue forms a kind of win-win diplomacy and paves the way for a major deal, it is highly likely that the parties can reach a common solution to the management of the existing water dispute.

The present article addressed the causes of the divergence of the Kurds of the Middle East in the ISIL era. The main question in this studied what are the reasons for the divergence of the Kurds in the ISIL and post-ISIL eras? The findings show that the Syrian Kurds took control of the Kurdish-held areas autonomously in the unique opportunity created by ISIL. in Iraq also provided an opportunity for the Kurdistan Regional Government to take action toward controlling and capturing of Kirkuk and implemented the "Iraqi Kurdistan Independence" plan. But this action failed due to withdrawal of Peshmerga forces from Kirkuk and quitting the results of the referendum. The plan for Kurdish autonomy is ambiguous due to the occupation of part of the Kurdish by Turkey in Syria. the hypothesis of this research is based on the fact that, the most important reasons for the Kurds' failure to converge must be attributed to internal disputes between different groups, the opposition of neighboring countries to Kurdish independence. In addition, the opposition of the UnitedStates must be added to these reasons. The present research is descriptive-analytical and reviewed the issue within the framework of neoclassical realism.

In the opinion of many scholars, international law has grown and formed in the pursuit of the goals of the great powers in the recent century. On this basis, the role of the great powers in the formation and development of international law is somewhat vague and contradictory. In this toward, the question is: Why and how great powers of the international system are determinative In the formation and expansion of international law? it seems that the great powers, due to the position they possess in terms of their capabilities, through institutionalization, the formulation of treaties, the interpretation of norms and by normalization, they play a key role in shaping and expanding international law. legal rules and international institutions can reduce the cost of maintaining the system and increase the legitimacy of the actions of great powers. So the present study claims great powers are shaper, stabilizers and advocates of legal rules. The present study intends to study the role of international powers in the creation and expansion of international law based on a descriptive-analytical method and using historical data and utilizing library practices.