مقالات رزومه دکتر مهدی ذاکریان

The Islamic Republic of Iran has well understood the negative effects of war, its consequences such as the influx of refugees and migration flows, because for more than four decades in the absence of international support, under the dire conditions of the eight-year war, unilateral coercive measures and sanctions, He has generously welcomed millions of Afghan refugees. The burden of responsibility of Afghan refugees and the need for a practical approach based on Islamic human rights for sustainable protection of Afghan refugees is well felt in Iran.Based on this, the main question of this research is: "How can the division of responsibility with the approach of Islamic human rights reduce the burden of responsibility of Afghan refugees in Iran as a practical solution?"The research method is descriptive-analytical and collection of documentary and library informationThe findings of the research showed that the division of responsibility, from capacity-building measures at three international levels, non-governmental organizations and governmental organizations, in sync with the principles and provisions of Islamic human rights, can provide practical solutions to reduce the burden of responsibility of Afghan refugees in Iran.

Following the numerous crimes committed by the ISIS terrorist group in Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran rushed to help this country at the official request of the Iraqi government, and finally, the possessions of ISIS were liberated and this criminal group was suppressed. The purpose of this research is to examine Iran's support in the Iraq crisis after the emergence of ISIS with the three steps of the responsibility of support guide including prevention, intervention and reconstruction in an analytical and descriptive way. Examining the behavior pattern of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic in Iraq after the emergence of ISIS shows that although the prevention phase of the responsibility of protection guideline has not been fully implemented by the Islamic Republic of Iran, there is sufficient evidence of the implementation of intervention and reconstruction steps by the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the guideline of the responsibility of protection in Iraq. has it. Iran's presence in Iraq, along with national security justifications, has a human rights and human security aspect. Iran's confrontation with the ISIS terrorist group in Iraq, which has committed all the crimes under the responsibility of protection guidelines, is an example of the Islamic Republic of Iran's support for the oppressed and the oppressed, as stipulated in the Iranian constitution, and the application of human rights is a tool against human rights.
Iran's foreign policy after the victory of the Islamic Revolution has always been a mixture of ideological goals and national interests. Iran's Islamic Revolution brought about a fundamental change in Iran's political and cultural structure, which has always influenced foreign policy. The core of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to secure national interests in the light of preserving human life and dignity. Human dignity has a special place in Islamic teachings. The same humanitarian view can be observed in all foreign policy behaviors of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the beginning until now. Supporting the oppressed and liberation movements is complementary to de-arrogance and anti-oppression, so that there is a logical and functional connection between fighting against the oppressed and supporting the oppressed; Therefore, in parallel with the fight against arrogance and colonialism, the Islamic Republic considers itself obliged to support the oppressed of the world and the liberation movements that fight against the arrogant and colonialists. Article 154 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic states that "the Islamic Republic of Iran ... supports the rightful struggle of the oppressed against the arrogant in any part of the world
Humanitarian intervention in countries has a long history. During his tenure, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon tried to develop a coherent framework for humanitarian intervention to support minorities and the oppressed around the world so that the world would no longer witness tragedies like Bosnia and Uganda. The result of these efforts is the adoption of the UN leaders in 2005, which became known as the Responsibility to Protect Directive, which states that whenever a country is unable or unwilling to defend its citizens against the four crimes of racial discrimination, war crimes, crimes against humanity and mass murder, the international community is obliged to Hasten to help the oppressed. After attacking Iraq and occupying a third of the country's territory, the ISIS terrorist group committed the four crimes under the responsibility of support guidelines, as evidenced by international organizations and the world's media. Considering the weakness of the Iraqi government in supporting the homeless people, this government sought help from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The military forces of our country also entered Iraq in the form of an advisory mission and helped the government. Many western politicians have considered the action of the Islamic Republic as a clear interference in the internal affairs of Iraq. However, according to the opinion of many other politicians, the Islamic Republic of Iran entered into a campaign with the sole aim of helping the Iraqi people, which had no other purpose than the responsibility of support.
This research has been carried out with the aim of adapting the support behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the government and people of Iraq after the emergence of ISIS and seeks to answer the question of how the logic and pattern of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding Iraq after the emergence of ISIS is based on the responsibility of support guidelines. And its triple steps including prevention, intervention and reconstruction can be explained? So far, all the researches about Iran's regional activities have been analyzed with a political, security and ideological approach, and the innovative aspect of this research is the examination of Iran's regional presence from the perspective of international law and human rights.
 
Iran's presence in Iraq, along with the humanitarian approach and human rights, has national security justifications for the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has attracted the attention of researchers and thinkers, but Iran's approach to human security in the Iraq crisis stems from the Iranian constitution, which protects the oppressed against the aggressors. He knows the duty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Criticisms of Iran's presence in Iraq mostly refer to the interests of the superpowers, which are in conflict with the foreign policy and human security guidelines of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For this reason, over the past years, Iran has always been exposed to human rights accusations by international bodies affiliated with superpowers. Accusations that are mostly caused by cultural and social differences between Iran and the West. Despite all the differences of tastes and perceptions in the definition of human rights, the preservation of the lives of innocents and civilians as well as the survival of the human race is the common thread of all human rights theories and systems. The behavior of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic has a lot of capacity to show this foundation of human rights. The important point is that contrary to the famous saying "Religion is the opium of nations", it is the teachings of Islam that form the basis of this international behavior of Iran. The last word is that Iran's approach to human security in Iraq is an example of applying human-oriented human rights against benefit-oriented human rights. Human rights focus on dealing with human crimes not according to the nature of the crime, but on the basis of friendship or enmity with the perpetrators. Of course, it should be known that the future of human rights depends on a humane and non-discriminatory understanding of human dignity.

The British hegemony and its isolationist policies have been in constant conflict with integration within the EU and its monopoly of adopting political strategies holds opposing views towards the common European foreign and security policy. The focal query of the present study is how to turn to constructivism as post-neo-functionalism and other dominant theories of international relations. Did Brexit address a common European defense and security policy through these two interconnected theories? Regarding the significance of functional and structural pressures within the EU, the assessment of neo-functionalism and its common foreign security policy in the context of politicization dynamics is that this exit strategy may lead to be popularized among other parts of the EU. In the interim, the drawback of the neo-functionalist theory is to pay no heed to of the role and function of governments such as Britain in political convergence and its determinism in underestimating variables and factors outside Europe and trans-European actors in the CFSP. Briefly stated, what neo-functionalist constructivism has to embark upon its theoretical analysis is to mull over the crucial role of national governments and independent decision-making influence of national elites such as the British government in terms of an independent policy, explicitly as the Brexit referendum.

There is a growing stream of critics who see investment arbitration in favor of foreign investors and as a negative force as opposed to sustainable development. The phenomenon of third-party funding and its use in investment arbitration has increased such concerns. Third-party funding is basically the payment of all or a part of the arbitration costs of one of the parties of dispute by a third party funder which in return, the funder receives a percentage of the output of the award if successful. The purpose of this article is to explain and analyze the theoretical differences between pros and cons of third-party funding regarding the access to justice, screening mechanism for the claims, and the financial consequences on the host state. In this article, the advocates see third-party funding as a means of access to justice for aggrieved investors in investment claims, while the adversaries refering on the profitability of third-party funding, see this method in arbitration a form of wealth transfer from public sector to private corporations and also refer to the asymmetric structure of the investment arbitration regime as well as the risks arising from the transfer of management and control of arbitration process to the third party funders.

One of the influential components in the international system and relations between political units is having peace and respecting territorial integrity on the part of these units. The borders of any country are the first areas that are invaded and attacked in case of violation of the territorial integrity of that country, which causes instability and insecurity for the residents of these areas. Keeping this issue in mind, the present study seeks to provide the necessary solutions to stabilize peace in the northwestern borders of Iran, emphasizing the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis. In terms of its objectives the current research is of an applied research type and qualitative in nature. The data of the research has been collected in the way of interviews with elites who are familiar with the subject of the research. The statistical population is 30 people, which was selected based on the theoretical saturation approach. The obtained findings have been analyzed using single-level thematic analysis and coding technique. In this research, after conducting the interview, implementing and coding the themes, three macro and strategic solutions as the general dimensions of the research were extracted as the most important research solutions in the form of the propositions, including the adoption of active diplomacy by the country's diplomatic system, the creation of dependent economic platforms and the use of scientific, cultural and ethnic capacities in the countries adjacent to the northwestern borders of the country. The obtained results showed that in order to prevent the spread of the security consequences of the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis to the border regions of Iran, as well as to establish peace and create sustainable security in the international borders of northwestern Iran, there is a need for written planning in the form of active diplomacy with the coordinated support of military power, the expansion and promotion of scientific relations, cultural and ethnic through public policies on both sides of the border, as well as creating dependent economic platforms among the neighboring countries in the northwestern borders of Iran, on behalf of the policy-makers and the country's officials, in order to witness stable peace and security in the borders of the studied area.

The enduring war and conflict in Afghanistan and its endless years have raised many questions over the past 40 years and various answers have been given to the researcher. The most inefficient are the existence of inefficient government, the weakness of the security forces, the ability of extremist groups, the existence of safe havens, illegal trade, and such. In the meantime, the weakness of the government has been the basis of most research and the study of the effects of the war on the Afghan people has been neglected. Research shows that continuous exposure to naked violence will increase the level of violence in the individual. Achieving peace and stability will be difficult and unlikely, however, if one observes and uses violence in a 'normal' society and transforms identity norms. Thus, the paper argues that the solution to the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is to strengthen the government, establish order, and also focus on the level of internalized violence in the various social layers in the country. This is what is referred to as "trauma" and "trauma states"

A conflict of interest is a situation in which there is a potential capacity for impartiality in the decision or action of an official, manager or employee; In other words, a situation in which an individual or organization is faced with different interests, each of which can corrupt the right decision of that person or organization. Although conflict of interest does not necessarily mean corruption, it does mean creating conditions for corruption, and the individual or organization may be consciously or unknowingly engaged in a conflict of interest.
Conflicts of interest in politics are important because of the many slips they can cause. Therefore, any phenomenon that causes personal or group interests to take precedence over national interests in decision-making in any category of administrative responsibilities is a source of conflict of interest.
Conflicts of interest may arise from individual or institutional factors. In the Iranian legal system, conflict of interest has been considered not in the discussion of prevention but in some instances of conflict of interest with a criminal and criminal approach. And is in the pre-legislative stage.
There is a conflict of interest in all areas of public policy, especially in the field of administrative health, which has been evaluated by the field method (questionnaire) as one of the disadvantages of administrative health policies in the stages of development, implementation and monitoring. Indicates low administrative health and confirmation of the existence of conflict of interest in the stages of formulating, implementing and monitoring administrative health policies.

The Islamic Republic of Iran was formed by holding a referendum based on parameters of democratic systematization and then afterward during all these years by holding different elections with various tastes it has proved that the criterion of sovereignty in the Islamic Republic of Iran is people’s vote. The researcher’s purpose is to study this topic which includes different aspects of the election. The best term in this field was a political competition that has shown itself in all recent elections, but it hasn’t been able to find its certain legal place among the laws. The main question is based on what the most important sociological obstacles of political competitions are in Iran. This is a descriptive-analytical study, and its results showed that in addition to structural obstacles, sociological features such as historical features, lack of political culture, lack of political competition, and lack of partisanship are among the most significant characteristics.

As one of the most critical junctures in the contemporary international relations, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 played a significant role in the U.S. reinterpretation, and in many instances, redefinition of international law with regard to the use-of-force in particular. These attacks challenged the UN Charter jus ad bellum regime in matters  related to counter-terrorism and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, the events of 9/11 were the catalyst for the systematic disregard of the established international rules on the use of military force, and provided the ideal opportunity to redefine the global legal order. Moreover, a significant negative consequence of the September 11 attacks in 2001 was the emergence of a new complex and dangerous security environment that led to the revival of the use of force in international relations. Following these events, the jus cogent principle of prohibition of the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which the International Court of Justice in its judgment in the ‘case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo’, has declared as the cornerstone of the Charter, was confronted with a great threat.  In responding to the events, the United States declared that the principle of the non-use of force could no longer be considered efficient against the threats originated from terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Therefore, the United States announced its new national security strategy based on pre-emptive/preventive actions, and challenged the UN Charter jus ad bellum regime. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, the American foreign policymakers have signaled that they are thinking about the U.S. hegemonic position and its leadership role in international system. One major objective of this paper is to find answers to the following research questions: 1. What has been the U.S. approach, as a dominant actor in the international system, to the use of force since the attacks of 9/11? 2. How and to what extent had the U.S. policy with regard to the use of force changed during the presidency of Barack Obama as compared to the policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush? 3. To what extent and how has the U.S. policy for the use of military force abroad influenced the international hegemonic legal order and international use of force? To provide answers to these questions, the authors use a neoclassical realist framework, which takes into consideration a combination of the external and systemic, as well as internal and unit-level factors influencing the foreign policy of states.  In the hypothesis, the authors argue that the post-9/11 U.S. policy and practice regarding counter-terrorism are aimed at obtaining a special status  for the discretionary use of force within a hegemonic international legal system; and this in turn has led to the widespread use of force in international relations. For hypothesis testing, the authors have relied on a qualitative content analysis of the official statements made by the top U.S. leadership, and the U.S. government’s documents such as the 2002 and 2006 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the Bush administration and the 2010 Obama’s NSS in order to gain insight into their complex security decisions regarding the coercive use-of-force instrument of foreign policy. Likewise, the relevant UN documents such as security council resolutions are analyzed to determine the legal status of the use of force in international law. The findings indicate that the 9/11 events legitimized “war on terror” in the international system, and undoubtedly led to an increase in the adoption of the use-of-force policy in international relations.

The new conditions of the international system have caused new components to play a role and countries to use new tools to achieve their goals and national interests, the most important of which can be the use of public diplomacy as a tool of soft power. Given that Africa has an important place in the foreign policy of countries, many countries, including China and Turkey, are trying to use the existing capacities on the continent to their advantage and through public diplomacy, the influence of soft power. The question now is how China and Turkey have been able to improve their public diplomacy in Africa. In the present study, first, with a descriptive-analytical approach and using library documents and sources, the analysis of public diplomacy between China and Turkey in Africa has been studied. Then, with systematic method and SWAT matrix analysis, an attempt has been made to present a strategy by examining the collected data, which is one of the innovations of the mentioned article. Therefore, the results indicate that China and Turkey have been able to have successful public diplomacy in Africa by using various cultural, economic, humanitarian, educational, etc. measures and increase their soft power influence on the continent by using offensive strategy.

Israel lobby in European Union is different from United States and has developed during twenty recent years by granting powers from institutions of European Union. The relations between Iran and European Union has been faced with political challenges such as Iran Nuclear Programs. Israel lobby’ influence on foreign policy behavior of Euroepan Union on relations with Iran especially Iran nuclear programs would be essential according the importance of  European Union as an International actor .

The methodology of this paper is based on descriptive-analytical and discourse analysis methods seek to study the main question that is Lobby Israel’s Influence on relations among Iran and European Union by emphasizing on Iran nuclear programs

Findings of this study are discussed under the following themes:1- institutions of Israel lobby through influencing in European Parliament have attempted to benefit the maximum efficiency via Iran nuclear programs by organizing the sessions, conference, meeting with European authorities, interview, publication article and statement against Iran in order to decresa the relations among Iran and Euroepan Union as well as advancement of Isreal’s interest.2-European Jewish Congress and European Friends of Israel as the most important lobby institutions in Brussles affected on the relations among Iran and Euroepan Union in the fields such as the lack of formatting the relations in framework of comprehensive cooperation agreement, avoiding European authorities for trip to Iran and countinuity of critical tone of Europe to Iran nuclear programs.

Analysis:

Israel by using strategic instrument of negative propaganda agagint Iran as Iranophobia and highliting Iran nuclear programs as destructive threat in the regional and International level has attempted to influence the institutions of Lobby in European Parliament in order to effect and actualize political and strategic purposes.

The main hypothesis emphasize main question that Israel lobby’s influence in European Union has been affected the highlighting the Iran’s nuclear programs threat  in reducing political relations among Iran and European Union by applying economic-commercial sanctions and restrictive measures on Iran as well as continuity of critical tone of Europe to Iran nuclear programs.

One of the most important consequences of the events of 11 September 2001 was the emergence of a new complex and dangerous security environment that led to the revival of the use of force in international relations. Following these events, the jus cogent principle of prohibition of the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter faced a great threat. In responding to the events, the United States declared with concern that the principle of the non-use of force could no longer be considered efficient against the threats coming from terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Therefore, the United States presented its new national security strategy based on pre-emptive/preventive action, and with confirming it in its national security strategy documents and examining it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria challenged the UN Charter jus ad Bellum regime. By analyzing the United States of America’s official stance concerning the use of force in the Bush and Obama administrations, this article argues that the US approach to the use of force, after September 11 events, was an effort to stipulate an interpretation of the Charter jus ad Bellum regime that would grant it exceptional discretion in the use of force within a hegemonic international legal system.

International responsibility of states for changes in international borders is considered an important issue in international law. Tensions and movements by real or legal groups across international borders can pave the way for divergent approaches between neighboring political entities. The present study uses a descriptive-analytical method to examine the issue of international responsibility of governments, treaties and agreements on border regulation between Iran and Pakistan and the responsibility of these two countries in securing their borders and the international responsibility of the Pakistani government against terrorist groups located in the southeastern international border of the country. The findings show that if proven support or negligence in the fight and prevention of the emergence of terrorist groups on the international borders of countries that cause damage and hurt to the neighboring country, the injured countries may, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 687, as well as in accordance with paragraphs 2a and 2c of Article 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, take the necessary measures to claim damages from the country. The results show that the activities of terrorist groups in the southeastern borders of Iran and the creation of hostages and clashes with border guards and the martyrdom of those who flee to Pakistan after any activity and due to lack of prosecution, impunity and lack of the expulsion and extradition of members of existing groups by Pakistan was considered an international violation that would give the country international responsibility in international courts to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This article addresses one of the most complex issues in international relations. What to do when confronted with probable force? One of the main issues that has been abused by great powers in the international community is that they resort to attack and war under the pretext of a possible backlash from the enemy. So this article is to answer this key question: what are the political and legal differences and how legitimate is the use of force in responding to force in the face of pre-emptive action, anticipatory self-defense, and preventive operations? The article tests this hypothesis that differences in each of the concepts based on probable legal response (anticipatory, pre-emptive and preventive), motivated to safeguard territory, national sovereignty, human rights protection and the pursuit of security and peace, the nature and form of potential aggression and threats existed, both potentially and imminently and the ambiguity in the reference and the criterion for the recognition of probable force, makes the legitimacy of the options in responding to it, confounded. The author is trying to analyze existing data using content analysis research method.

Strategic culture is often used in relation to factors that are closely related to the “Way of War” of countries but some analysts believe that strategic culture covers a wider range of issues. At a time when many analysts are talking about a chasm in the influence of factors of Iran’s strategic culture during the Islamic Republic, it is possible to see continuity too. The question is how Iran's strategic culture has influenced the construction of regional policy during the Islamic Republic? The final conclusion of discussion, by adopting a discourse and historical-comparative method and applying the theory of discourse analysis and constructivism, is that the discourse of the Islamic Republic led to a change in the Nodal Point of the ruling discourse in Iran, but at the same time, the effect of reproducing strategic culture factors along with three influential macro variables, it has led to the reproduction of the same policies towards countries and the regional system. From this perspective, the findings of this study indicate that a large number of Islamic Republic’s Regional Policies, rather than related to the type of the government in Iran, are influenced by the reproduction of factors of strategic culture like “The experience of being an empire”, “Historical loneliness”, “Being surrounded by enemies” and factors such these. In other words, their foundation is the reproduction of Iran's strategic culture but how they are used, have a close relationship with the Nodal Point of the ruling Discourse.

This research aims at investigating Iran's security and defense policies after JCPOA. One of the most important issues that have been posed among international relations and political science experts is how Iran's security and defense policies will continue in post-JCPOA era. The research question dealt with in this research is as follows: What is the impact of JCPOA on Iran’s security and defense policies? The hypothesis is that “the comprehensive nuclear agreement inspired by the teachings and norms of the nonproliferation regime has not only solved Iran's nuclear crisis and strengthened international peace and security, but also contributed to enhancing Iran's international status and strengthening Iran's regional influence and role. Various analysts and politicians have analyzed the post-JCPOA issue from different perspectives. Considering JCPOA's constituents, some examined its form and content. On the one hand, there are proponents of the JCPOA agreement who believe that reducing tensions over nuclear issues through cooperation can produce a trusting experience and lead to more cooperation and confidence-building. Opponents of the nuclear deal, on the other hand, criticize it, arguing that it has not led to any significant change in Iran's regional policy, and that the deal has in fact strengthened Iran economically which results in Iran's more aggressive approach.

Based on the nature of research “descriptive-analytic" method was chosen for the current research. The research is framed in neoclassical realism school. In neoclassical realism, the aim is to refine neo-realist theory by adding internal mediating variables among systemic motives and stimuli and foreign policy decisions. Accordingly, in foreign policy analysis, the internal characteristics of countries such as the ability of policymakers to extract resources to pursue and achieve foreign policy goals are examined.

The findings of this study are discussed under the following themes: Iran's regional policies after JCPOA are the outcome of national and international systemic factors. JCPOA has strengthened Iran's activism in pursuing its regional and strategic policies. Regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Israel consider JCPOA as a factor which is increased in Iran's activism in the region. Since US's withdrawal from the JCPOA and the formation of a new alliance and coalition in the region, we see increased pressure on Iran to change its regional policies. Since US's withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran is perusing its deterrent power in the region and is emphasizing the strengthening of the axis of resistance.

Iran's regional policy has always been one of the serious challenges of US Middle-East policy after 1979. Therefore, in this study, the JCPOA has been analyzed according to this framework. The US goal in JCPOA was to content Iran and create a kind of balance in the region to ensure her interests and also her allies’ interests and when the US failed to achieve these goals, she withdrew from the agreement. In the United States, there were two main approaches to the nuclear negotiations and the agreement: the opponents of the nuclear talks believed that Iran's nuclear program was a significant tool for exerting pressure and sanctions and a tool to reduce Tehran's regional and international power and influence; the proponents of the agreement have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. They emphasize on the strategic position of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the regional and international levels, and consider Iran's nuclear program from this perspective.

The research findings show, Iran's regional and strategic policies has played a challenging role in the relationship between Tehran and super and regional powers. It can be concluded that JCPOA has not only resolved the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear crisis and consolidated international peace and security, but also promoted the status of Islamic embarrassment at the international level and has strengthened and provided Iran with regional influence. As a result, Trump and some of his regional allies have questioned the advantages of JCPOA and they have tried to change Iran's defense and security policies and strategies by resorting to such tools as the formation of new alliances and coalitions in the region and reducing Iran's defensive power and weakening the resistance axis. We have witnessed a change in the US approach before and after withdrawing from JCPOA, the explicit opposition of Saudi Arabia and Israel to JCPOA, Turkey's interest-oriented view of JCPOA, and finally Russia's orientation towards JCPOA. This new approach is to put pressure on Iran to change its regional strategy. These are interpreted as systemic variables by internal variables that play the role of mediators.

The wave of revolutions in Arab countries has had a great impact on the strategic position and interests of Iran's regions. The most important of these waves is the arrival of its regional ally, Syria, led by Bashar al-Assad. From the beginning of the unrest, Iran's support for the Syrian regime was clear. The Islamic Republic of Iran followed the developments in Syria with special care and sensitivity, and as an important regional actor and power, tried to take action in order to maintain strategic relations with this country and also to protect its national and regional interests. To take positions in support of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Therefore, the present article seeks to answer the question of what factors and requirements have influenced the policy and stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards the Syrian crisis? The present article, while pointing to the realistic dimensions of Iran's foreign policy, based on the identity components of the Islamic Republic of Iran, analyzes the country's positions on the Syrian crisis. In general, the present study suggests that Iran's foreign policy, and in particular its participation in the Syrian civil war, reflects pragmatism aimed at maintaining the balance of power and maximizing its security while maintaining and expanding revolutionary identity (including religious ethics and normative values). ) have been.

 Introduction:

 Due to Syria crisis after 2011, the Middle East has been affected by the presence of large regional and global powers in this region. Meanwhile, the United States was the first metaphorical actor to enter this area. The US former President Barack Obama supported a pro-oppositions of the central government of Syria. US-backed forces were called the Free Army (al-Jaysh al-Suri al-Bakhr). Because this archeology depended on radical Islam, Washington had to revise its strategy. Since 2014, it was found a new policy of the United States, calling a strategic alliance with the Syrian Kurds and tolerance of the Russian-Iranian axis and the rule of Bashar al-Assad.With the election of Donald Trump as the US president, doubts were raised about the US security strategy toward the Middle East.

 Methodology:

 Due to these interpretations and in response to the current research question, Donald Trump's foreign policy has been analyzed in the Middle East and ultimately, the US foreign policy approach and its impact on the national and regional security of Iran have been raised for the Iranian diplomacy system. 

 Analysis and conclusions:

 The central government of Syria appears to have taken power again, but the present Syria and post-crisis are not like Syria before 2011. Syria was the central axis of Middle East developments alongside Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but Syria was eliminated by the current transformations and it missed its power cycle in the Middle East. The Trump government is well aware of the erosion of the Syrian government, so it tries to shape the Middle East's security order in the upcoming Syrian regime by isolating Iran as well as using the Kurds that have emerged in Iraq as a new political force in the Middle East since 2003. It is believed that The Trump government is trying to do like the united Iraqi Kurds in Syria to protect the US interests in Syria. Along this, since 2011, Turkey, Iran and Russia have been three main actors in the developments in Syria. The United States is trying to increase its share of the country by creating a balance between Turkey and Syria, but not maximizing its benefits. In sum, Iran plays a major strategic role in the Middle East by pursuing smart diplomacy (a combination of soft and hard power) preventing the implementation of Donald Trump's foreign policy programs in the Middle East centered around the Syrian crisis. In this regard, Iran is in a position to bring Syrian Kurds to Damascus and maintain the Moscow, Tehran and Ankara circles, and reject the Astana Summit, and this is the most important strategy of Tehran that can be taken to counter the security threats of Tramp for the Syrian crisis.

In recent years, one of the most important events in the region is the issue of changing the foreign strategy of the Israeli regime by using various means against the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to the Israeli National Security Document in 2019 and 2020, Israel intends to launch an Iranophobia project in its new regional strategy, in addition to mobilizing the capacity of the West, led by the United States, to gain immediate support for the regime, especially the Gulf Arabs and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia will establish relations and, in addition to intensifying the anti-Iranian atmosphere in West Asia, bring with it the practical agreement and consent of the Arabs against the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, the key question in this article is what effect has the spread of Iranophobia had on Israel's new regional strategy? The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical. The results of this study confirm that Israel aims to spread Iranophobia due to fears of the Islamic Republic of Iran's influence in the Middle East, and in fact intends to use existing tools such as US support and start a friendship plan with Arab countries in order to work harder to advance the issue of Iranophobia.

The aim of the present study was to analyze the policy of the British Middle East in the postwar period with an emphasis on relations with Israel. In this regard, the factors affecting the continuation of bilateral relations between the two countries, including economic, military and cyber security factors, were examined. The results of the research, which was conducted in a future research method, showed that according to the future research approach and using scenario writing method, three categories of "desirable", "probable" and "possible" scenarios can be proposed for Anglo-Jewish relations; For Britain, the continuation of the London-Tel Aviv relationship, more in line with the United States, is to support Israel's policies toward Palestine, to counter the rise of anti-British powers and resistance groups that Britain will take advantage of. Therefore, the continuation of relations with Israel in the political-security and economic fields will be one of the most important priorities of Britain in the post-transition period. Possible scenarios include Britain's neutral policy toward Israel, the signing of arms and military agreements with Arab countries, Israel's close ties with Israel, and its continued support for a nuclear deal with Iran. The escalation of the conflict between Israel and Britain and the lack of attention to Iran's missile activities are among the possible scenarios in the relations between the two countries.

Nowadays, different countries around the world are looking for more sustainable development in the form of international programs and organizations, and the studies of experts in different fields have shown that the issue of development and achievement of their society progress and excellence without active participation of women It is not possible in all spheres, including family, economic and social, and this would not be possible without specialized, sustainable and sustained training for women at the global and regional levels and with the convergence and participation of different countries, so experts and government officials Take advantage of one of the most important axes and leverage to facilitate this process Mansour mechanisms of international organizations to help it understand that one of the most important international institutions that play an important role in improving UNESCO Statement and the promotion of women's status in the world of the play. In this paper, we use a descriptive-analytical approach to investigate the role of UNESCO in the development of quantitative and qualitative education of women in Iran. Is? We came to the conclusion that UNESCO had a positive impact on enhancing the quality and quantity of women's education in Iran, relying on international programs while enhancing scientific, technical and human capacities, especially in the field of higher education and in general.