جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « اوباما » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

Over the past two decades, despite the partisan changes in the executive branch of the United States between Democrats and Republicans, we have seen some principles and foundations in American foreign policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The question of this article is whether the change of governments of the United States causes a change in its foreign policy towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The findings of this research show that with the change of governments in the United States, the president plays a role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. After that, the political system of the United States gradually overcomes the role of the president, and the foreign policy of the United States continues as usual. Then, government institutions put all-round support for the Zionist regime on their agenda and made the peace process in the Middle East more difficult by granting various aid. Also, to legitimize the Zionist regime, these institutions have followed the process of normalizing the relations of this regime with the Arab countries with all seriousness. This research is based on the qualitative method of studying documents and texts published by governments, international organizations, UN specialized agencies, and think tanks.

Today, cyber space has been turned into one of the most important dimensions of security in our world. With the development and growth of cyber technology, we face an increase in threats of this arena. According to their goals, governmental and non- governmental actors have taken actions against U.S national security. Therefore, change and evolution in the national security with considering cyberspace and its possible threats, from George W. Bush time, has borne different characteristics. The paper tries to review the characteristics of policy and strategies of the U.S presidents against the threats. To answer the paper`s central question, we show that the U.S cyber strategy, under Bush, was defensive and marginal; had domestic and international development under Obama; and was openly offensive under Trump. This paper has been written by library resources and documents in content analysis method and descriptive approach.Keywords: Cyber security, US, Bush, Obama, Trump

In addition to the main and announced goals of the US government for attacking Afghanistan, including: the destruction of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda Network, advancing the process of democratization and nation-state building, strengthening the governmental and political structure, creating stability and security, there were other goals on the agenda, the most important of which was access to important mineral resources and energy transfer routes from Central Asia to South Asia, preventing Russia from regaining power and controlling China and Iran. It is obvious that the achievement of the above-mentioned goals by the United States required the existence of a grand strategy in the foreign policy of this country regarding the issue of Afghanistan. Meanwhile, a review of the actions and approaches announced and implemented by the American government during the three terms of the presidency of George Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, clearly confirms this issue. Adopting different and sometimes conflicting approaches and strategies, Bush's "Anti-Terrorism and "Counterinsurgency Strategies", Obama, and Trump's "Zero Base Strategy" is at least three distinct strategies of the US government in this era, which ultimately ended in the withdrawal of the US military forces from Afghanistan after 20 years of presence in this country.

Research Question: 

The main question of the article is what are the evidence for the change in the approach of the US foreign policy towards Afghanistan in the three mentioned periods? And what is the relationship between Afghanistan's internal developments and this change of approach?

Research Hypothesis: 

The change in the US foreign policy approach towards Afghanistan has been affected by the internal developments of this country caused by the resistance of armed groups, especially the Taliban, against US policies and the failure of the announced and implemented programs of this country during the presidency of Bush, Obama and Trump.

Methodology and Theoretical Framework:

 Since the first question of the article seeks to provide evidence of the change in the strategy of the United States regarding Afghanistan in the three terms of the presidency, by adapting the methodology of a comparative study at the descriptive level, the most important features that support the change in these three periods should be mentioned. Next, by focusing on the second question, we will investigate the relationship between two variables: the change in the US approach with the internal developments of this country from a descriptive and inferential point of view and analyzing the logic governing this change of approach, focusing on one of the causes mentioned in the systemic theory of James Rosena

The findings show that the US diplomatic system did not follow the same approach in Afghanistan during the two terms of Bush's presidency and unlike the 2002 strategy, which sought a combination of ideological and strategic goals from its presence in Afghanistan, in the 2006 strategy, the security aspect of these goals was dominant got more priority. In the Obama administration, the revival of the US global influence and the destruction of terrorist groups required a transition from a counter-terrorism strategy to a counter-insurgency. In the Obama administration, the restoration of the US global influence and the destruction of terrorist groups required a transition from anti-terrorism strategy to counter-insurgency. From this point of view, both the weakening of Bush's anti-terrorism strategy and the clarification of Obama's counter-insurgency strategy clearly indicate the role of Afghan internal groups in the failure of America's policies and successive changes in strategy.

Apart from the ups and downs of the US relations with Afghan government officials, there are three other reasons: the rise of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban during the time of the US presence, the emergence of many internal problems in Afghanistan and the disgust of a large part of the Afghan people with the US government due to its inability to reduce insecurity. There are three reasons all of which confirm the prominent role of internal developments, especially the confrontation of groups such as the Taliban with the US policies. This means that even armed local groups with minimal facilities, if they stand up, can force them to make continuous changes in their strategy in addition to the failure of the policies of the great and superior powers. It is not possible simply by relying on the established approaches of power in the paradigm of realism.

Afghanistan has played a key role in US foreign policy in recent decades. The US entry into Af Country-snapshot.ghanistan's political-military arena dates back to the late Soviet occupation of the country in the 1980s. The events of September 11, 2001, increased Bush Jr.'s strategic focus on the country and led to the US invasion of Afghanistan, and this strategy more or less continued under the next US presidents, especially Obama and Trump. In this regard, the main question of the present study is what are the similarities and differences between the strategies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump towards Afghanistan? Findings The Obama badge made the security situation in Afghanistan one of its top priorities and won the Nobel Peace Prize with the slogan of war. Obama's policy on Afghanistan was, in fact, his administration's roadmap for dealing with Afghanistan. Continuing US problems in dealing with the Taliban was one of the important issues the Obamasought to resolve as soon as possible. Trump initially to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, but later signed a plan About 4,000 more US troops will be sent to Afghanistan. In his strategy, Trump opposed the hasty withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. The present study is of descriptive-analytical method.

The purpose of the present study is to explain the role of thinking rooms in Obama’s decision-making about the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear plan. The research method is descriptive-analytic and the results indicated that since thinking rooms as non-official organizations in the USA affect decision-making in that country, we can explain changes in Obama’s policies about Iran’s nuclear plan with respect to the decision-making theory, especially the organizational model. During the presidency of Obama, his foreign policy in terms of Iran’s nuclear plan consisted of 2 stages: the first stage of consensus-building for Iran’s maximum sanctions; and the second stage of negotiation and peace with Iran. Changing the government in Iran caused them to be able to dissuade Iran from Uranium enrichment and some other nuclear achievements.

Obama’s announced policies and approacheshad realistic consequences despite  his emphasis  on economic cooperation, new regional and international capacity building, democracy, human rights, multilateralism, and smart power, whereas the focus in  Trump’s unilateral and offensive  policies was on American values. Trump’s administration regarded national interest as the most influential factor in foreign policy.This descriptive-analytical study aimed to examine its hypothesis using the data collected from printed and online sources together with  the propositions of the theories of defensive and offensive realism, and to answer the following question: “How can the United States’approachtoward the world order under Obama and Trump’s administrationsbe explained using the theories of offensive and defensive realism?” According to the findings, Obama’s foreign policy improved the functional capacities of the international organizations and institutions despite observing the principles of realism by paying special and intelligent attention to national interests, military power, and the importance of diplomacy and soft power. Incontrast, Trump’s foreign policy increased the importance of hard power, decreased the importance of diplomacy and negotiation, reduced the importance of international institutions, facilitated the trend of moving towards a multipolar world order, and increased pessimism about security trends, occurrence of new regional and international arms races and, finally, the level of differences.

This article compares the role of Obama and Trump in the US foreign policy approach to the international system; In the Obama administration, the use of all components of power and not only militarism was used. While Trump's foreign policy has axes such as power-seeking, nationalism or protectionism, and opposition to the promotion of democracy in the world, in this framework, power-oriented becomes important in American foreign policy. This article is responsible for answering the question, what was the foreign policy approach of the United States of America in restraining the great powers during the presidency of Obama and Trump? In response to this question, the hypothesis of the article is that what differentiates presidents from each other is only in relation to their management methods and priorities and their perception of the quality of the US foreign policy approach to the international system.

The purpose of the present research is to explain and clarify the factors and components effective on the U.S foreign policy against Iran during the presidency of Obama and Trump as a period replete with fluctuations. The research method was descriptive-analytic with respect to the systematic review of Obama's and Trump's behavior based on defensive and offensive realism. The U.S foreign policy would be explained based on its security approach to Iran's nuclear activities and regional behaviors involving components such as the character of Arabic-Hebraic lobbies and cabinet members. Obama's foreign policy against Iran relying on the approach of interaction and pressure (intelligent power) was successful whereas Trump's foreign policy failed with respect to its offensive nature and the gap among western countries. Therefore, it can be concluded that both of the presidents attempted to challenge the Islamic Republic of Iran's interests by creating political and economic crises and military threats in internal and external aspects. Obama could restrain Iran's nuclear activities by reaching a nuclear agreement but Trump by withdrawing the nuclear deal, not only could not sustain Obama's achievements but also almost failed to restrain Iran to provide the U.S national interests.

The United States is an immigration-based country. In fact, unlike countries that have a historical background, this country is based on the migration of Europeans who migrated to this land from their homeland for various political, cultural, social, and economic reasons, and as a result, President Obama's executive action may document millions of immigrants. Not help in the long run to avoid deportation and create permanent life in the United States. Unfortunately, the cost of achieving this correction is very high. DACA was perhaps the most important executive action. A large group of legal experts led by Hiroshi Motomura has played a key role in demonstrating to the government how the legal authority of a program like DACA is to the government. In addition, Senator Marco Rubio unwittingly contributed to the entire effort by signaling to Latin voters that they do not have to bet anything on Obama. Maybe DACA won the election for Obama and created a new interest in the GOP value for Latino voters. The method of this research is descriptive-analytical. The study seeks to provide an appropriate answer to the question, "How do Obama's immigration policies affect US national security?" 9/11 seems to have had a significant impact on US domestic and foreign policy. The study examines the impact of Obama's immigration policies on US national security.

The think tanks of the United States have played a special role in the decision-making of American politicians. The main issue is what effect think tanks have on relations with Iran. This study examines the role of think tanks in US foreign policy decision-making toward Iran during the Obama and Trump presidencies. The change in decision-making was due to the change of think tanks during the two presidents. What was the role of think tanks in the decision-making of Obama's and Trump's foreign policy apparatus towards the I.R.Iran? The think tanks with the intellectual and executive elites and the formulation of foreign policy and the design of various scenarios have focused on the decisions of the US foreign policy apparatus towards Iran during the Obama and Trump eras. Through negotiations, Obama signed JCPOA, which sought to reduce related sanctions. Trump left JCPOA. Obama agreed with JCPOA the negotiation scenario that originated from the think tanks and Trump with JCPOA with the scenario of pressure and sanctions of the think tanks. This change in scenario was due to the shift of think tanks from moderate to neoconservative and extremist. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of think tanks on the decisions of the US foreign policy apparatus and use it to adopt a counter-strategy against US policies towards Iran. using the Obama approved think tank comparison method, chose the negotiation approach and Trump chose sanctions and pressure. This research, analytical method and library tools have been used.

This article looks at America's policy regarding international system during Obama and Trump presidency. This research tries to answer the question as to what role did the "individual"variables(Obama and Trump)play in America's approach towards international system, and how influential they were? In answering this question, therefore, the hypothesis of the article is:" given the deciding role of presidents in American foreign policy making; and also the difference in terms of thought and outlook bye the two presidents, the " individual" variable has had a great influence on America's approach to international system. The purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which the "individual" factor influences the US approach to the international system and the scientific and realistic knowledge of Obama and Trump's personality traits and their impact on US foreign policy and the US approach to the international system. Based on the findings of the article, it can be said that the role and influence of individual variables in the foreign policy of this country has been high at this time; So that their foreign policy was due to the fact that they were two different and somewhat contradictory personalities, which originated mainly from their individual characteristics.

The current study examines the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Latin America. The research investigates the factors, components, and criteria of the Obama administration's foreign policy in the region. The study hypothesizes that the Obama administration’s Latin America foreign policy falls within the liberal internationalist ideology. Obama’s engagement diplomacy had a profound and different impact on the region's political and economic structures. For example, a strategic shift in relations with Cuba after 70 years of conflict made the US a positive image. In the next step, the Obama administration accepted immigrants from Latin America based on selecting candidates and elites, mainly from the students. The decision-making process in the Obama administration comes first to his former theoretical attitudes and then back to the views of Democratic

The main purpose of this article is to examine the foreign policy approach of Barack Obama and Donald Trump towards international environmental regimes within the framework of US foreign policy traditions. Accordingly, the questions of this study are: Based on each of the traditions of foreign policy thinking, how is the US approach to international institutions and regimes and the global role of this country defined? Given the foreign policy tradition of each of the two presidents, what are the most important differences and similarities between their foreign policy approaches to international environmental regimes? The findings show that there are no similarities in the foreign policy approach of the two presidents towards international environmental regimes, but in terms of differences, three important differences can be noted: differences in highlighting and Or the two presidents' disregard for environmental issues in US national security documents, the difference in the type of policy adopted and the practical actions of the two presidents towards international environmental regimes (policy of adherence to the policy of exit) and finally the difference in the type of representation The importance of environmental issues and regimes in the speeches of the two presidents.

The US foreign policy strategy in the Obama and Trump administrations has been examined from the perspective of various and sometimes conflicting theories, and the gap of comparative study based on the study of these strategies in the context of a grand strategy is quite obvious; So, the main question of the research is what are the commonalities and differences between the US foreign policy strategy under Obama and Trump? In response, the main hypothesis is that: Emphasizing the distance from the grand strategy of American foreign policy primacy between 2009 and 2020, this orientation in the Obama era in the form of "offshore balancing strategy" on the basis of insisting on soft sources of power (Alliance Building, multilateralism and international diplomacy and smart power) It was on the agenda, and in the Trump era, an "nonbalancing strategy" was considered in the context of emphasizing realism abandoned by software orientation. In this research, the combination of the concepts of strategy and change in strategy and Randall schweller's theory of balancing behavior has been used as one of the theories of the school of neoclassical realism and the research method is a comparative method.

The Middle East is one of the most strategic regions in the world and has a very sensitive place in US foreign and strategic policy. The existence of oil and the security of Israel, which is a strategic ally of the United States in the region, has led the United States to intervene fundamentally in the region. During the Obama administration like all previous presidents, the United States considered itself responsible for securing Israel. Based on the theory of chaos, this article seeks to examine the role of US supportive policy in the Obama administration toward Israel. What was US supportive policy toward Israel in the Middle East during Obama's presidency?It seems that the US strategy is to maintain and strengthen the qualitative and quantitative military-economic-political superiority of Israel through securitization of the region.

When Obama came to power in 2008, Washington has had to reassess its foreign policy. This led to a shift in America's approach to the Middle East. One of the most important goals of changing the Obama-era approach to the Middle East was to change from unilateralism to multilateralism. In this regard, the US approach to the nuclear case, cooperation with the P5 + 1, transatlantic relations, and the adoption of a multilateral diplomatic strategy toward Iran can be seen as effects of Obama's multilateralism strategy. In fact, the main question is: what was the reason for the change in US foreign policy toward the Middle East between 2008 and 2016? In response, it can be said that the vast costs and limited benefits of the past US interventionist policy in the Middle East, shale oil economization in the US and the decline of the strategic importance of the Middle East region and US security concerns elsewhere, including in Southeast Asia, have been the causes of the shift in US strategy toward the Middle East between 2008 and 2016. But the most important signs of Obama's strategy toward Iran are: limitation of deterrence strategy against Iran, reduction in strength of multilateral sanctions and restrictions on controlling and reducing the danger of Iran.

The main purpose of this study is to design a new method for image recognition in international relations. According to image theory, images are said to play an important role in decision-making and policy-making; It is believed that leaders make decisions not on the basis of "reality" but on the basis of their "image of reality". In this regard, the discovery of the subject-identifier image of the known object can be used to explain and even predict the decisions made by the subject-identifier. In this regard, this study has tried in an innovative way to count the image of Barack Obama as President of the United States of Iran from Iran. So the main question is what is President Barack Obama's image of Iran and what are its characteristics? The results of this study show that Barack Obama's image of Iran is similar to the stereotypical image of "relative enemy". This result was obtained by examining the three dimensions of Iran's position, capability, and political values ​​from Obama's point of view, which include threatening, relative power, and different political values, respectively.

In this article, we look at the period of Barack Obama and Donald Trump's rule over global developments. He has taken a different approach, looking at how the personality traits of the two presidents have influenced international developments. According to Margaret Hermann's theory of personality, we are trying to explain that Barack Obama had an interactive and participatory personality. Since its inception, it has sought to increase collective participation, control conflicts, and interact with the international system. Its reflection on global developments can be seen in Obama's determination to resolve the Syrian crisis, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and adherence to global agreements. Korean Crisis Management, Improving East Asian Relations. ... In contrast to Donald Trump, who has an adventurous personality. He has been a power seeker and conflict has always been part of his personality structure, he has always sought tension and crisis in the international system, and his policy towards creating crisis in East Asia, unilateral support for Israel, withdrawal from global commitments and agreements, the expansion of the crisis in Yemen, tensions with Europe and opposition to the international system. ... is an example of these actions.

This article will discuss and compare The United States national security strategies over the past two decades. With focusing on three general considerations of "problem definition," "goals," and "approaches" in US national security strategies, the authors believe that there is a significant link between the Bush administration and the Obama administration national security strategies especially in definition of national security goals. This is also correct about foreign policy instruments (such as the alliances, coalition-building and multilateralism) exception the pre-emptive war, of course.  The remarkable difference between of them is about the relative importance of international order. During the Trump administration the language of problem definition, goals and tools has changed significantly. In light of the principled realism and sovereignty of the nations, the Trump’s NSS reflects a significant difference and emphasizes on the America First strategy, protectionism, reject the international responsibilities, diminishing military commitments and unilateralism.