bizhan mirzaie

The virtual world is a reality that overshadows the realities of real life. Two important areas of virtual reality are society and politics, which are closely related. To understand the relationship between the two, attention has been paid to the question of which of the two makes the most of this new habitat. That is, Antonio Gramsci and Isaiah Berlin examine the two concepts of hegemony and freedom. The purpose of this article is to answer the fundamental question of whether the virtual ecosystem has led to more human freedom or not. In analyzing this question, this paper shows that governments and governments, through a new model of government that is closely related to the virtual world and the information society, called hegemony, have created a kind of dependence of satisfaction in citizens, which is the dependence of dependence. It has created an illusion of freedom in their minds.This study shows that governments, through hegemony through the virtual ecosystem, control society, and this is where citizens are confused as to whether they are truly free or in the grip of power; However, it seems that getting out of these two paths of hegemony and freedom in the virtual world is becoming impossible day by day and this hegemonic domination should be controlled only by creating networks of consciousness.

Today, the global system is formed based on multilateralism, which is based on international relations and the origin of international organizations and institutions. But this matter is endangered by the unilateralism pursued by the United States of America. Coercive unilateral measures such as sanctions, threats, military intervention, and even measures such as withdrawal from international treaties are exerted at high levels. Therefore, such actions by a country, which considers itself protector of the human rights and interests of the international police, are contrary to the international law and the United Nations Charter and must be opposed by the international community. This study has adopted a descriptive-analytical approach and is based on internationally accepted documents and procedures. Data collection is done using library and internet tools and relying on objective data. In this study, we seek to answer the critical question of whether the United States' unilateral and hostile sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran are legitimate in terms of international law and human rights. Our initial answer (hypothesis) to this question is that the hostile actions of the United States of America against the Iranian people are blatant violations of international human rights law following the resolutions of the UN and the Human Rights Council. The fundamental rights of the Iranian people, such health, life, and the right to development, in all its legitimate respects, have been directly influenced by the hostile and unilateral actions of the United States, and have a worrying impact on the human rights and life of the Iranians. The United States' actions also impede the establishment of lasting and comprehensive peace and security in the international arena. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine and evaluate the contradictions between the sanctions as one of the most essential enforced and hostile actions of the United States' government against the economic resources of the Iranian state and nation from the perspective of the international law and human rights.