جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "متقاعدسازی" در نشریات گروه "علوم سیاسی"

The main objective of this study is to present a theoretical model for explaining how one or more candidates or parties defeat their rivals and win in the national elections. Based on the framework of resource mobilization theory (RMT), different factors at different levels which determine the probability of the victory of a candidate in the presidential and parliamentary elections will be examined. The electoral resources—which are crucial to the success of candidates— include a collection of resource (e.g., explicit and hidden knowledge resources (KR), needs resources (NR), power resources (PR), influence and persuasion, moral resources (MR), facilitation resources (FR), and unforeseen resources (UR)). The relative importance and effectiveness of these six electoral resources are dissimilar. For instance, moral resources are the most sensitive and necessary requirements for entering an election race and remaining throughout the entire election cycle. Knowledge resources are second in importance, and their effectiveness primarily depend on a candidate's capabilities. The financial resources and social mobilization network are two of the facilitation resources which help to reduce a candidate's electoral expenses and/or increase his/her social and political capital. Among the unforeseen resources, the unfortunate events (e.g., wars, terror attacks, and economic crises) might provide opportunities for the conservative candidates, while the incidence of peace and favorable weather conditions often create opportunities for the reformist and change-seeking candidates.The author attempts to find appropriate answers to the following primary and secondary research questions: 1. How do candidates win the elections against their competitors in electoral competitions? 2. What resources are needed to win the elections? 3. How should these resources be mobilized? In the hypothesis of the present study, it is claimed that the victory of a candidate in an election depends largely on a combination of factors, notably the resource mobilization, the degree of success in persuading the voters and other stakeholders in the elections to support their candidacy, and the amount of luck resulted from particular unforeseen events with positive consequences for the candidate, or negative consequences for the rival candidates. Within the theoretical framework of resource mobilization theory, the method of data collection and analysis is based on a careful review and qualitative content analysis of the available evidence and the arguments presented in earlier studies on the subject of presidential and parliamentary elections and voting behaviors. The findings of previous research have indicated that the probability of success of a candidate is higher than the other competitors, when a candidate or his/her political party use the best way to mobilize electoral resources to persuade the voters and other actors in different stages of the election process—ranging from registration, qualification, debates, nomination, voting, post-election acceptance—to support him/her instead of other candidates. The main conclusion of the research is that the availability of the electoral resources is important, but their timely mobilization and allocation in the optimal way by a candidate and his/her supporters are crucial in persuading the key actors (i.e., the electoral officials who must approve his/her credentials, the media and powerful political parties and factions who must nominate and publicize their support for him/her, and the voters who vote) to act in his/her favor. Persuasion is the result of prudent resource mobilization, and luck is increased by the occurrence of unanticipated events with repercussions for the outcome of the elections.

One of the most complex and sensitive relationships in the international system over the past decades has been Iran-US relations. An examination of the policies of various US governments shows that the conflict pattern of that country towards Iran has continued in different governments and no change has been made in its behavior pattern. With the departure of Bush and the coming to power of Obama, with the slogan of change, there was a perception that he would present a new strategy and policy towards Iran. With Obama's entry into the White House, the White House's political literature changed, but such changes did not have much effect on US policy toward Iran. At the same time, the techniques of US political and diplomatic behavior toward Iran changed. This means that although there have been changes in the literature and techniques of Obama's US diplomatic behavior toward Iran, this has only created grounds for rebuilding diplomatic relations in limited areas. In this regard, Obama's strategy for changing Iran has been based on patterns and processes of persuasion through options such as persuasion and seduction. With Trump in office, the situation will change somewhat. In the view of the Trump administration, Iran is an unreliable partner for participation in international politics, so despite its declarative positions, it has not been able to prepare enough to play a role in Middle East security. In other words, Iran's hegemonic role does not have an approach that is in line with international politics, and instead of being in line with it, it is the opposite. On the other hand, the same strategists believe that Obama's negligence in thwarting Iran's strategies has caused Iran to continue to threaten its national interests. In this regard, Iran's organized actions in missile tests as well as Iran's interventionist behavior aimed at destabilizing the region are among the threatening actions of Iran that Western officials, especially US Republicans, have warned of the dangers. The main feature of Trump's foreign policy toward Iran Trump was unilateralism, confrontation, the escalation of sanctions, and the campaign for maximum pressure. There is also a return to Borjam at the heart of Biden's foreign policy, which is pursued by strengthening and expanding its provisions and extending it in later stages, as well as extending it to Iran's missile program and regional influence. Biden's foreign policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran revolves around Borjami's policy. Statements and statements by Biden and his foreign policy team suggest that Biden's possible US policy toward the Iranian nuclear challenge will be a reciprocal return to the UN Security Council. This is the policy that Biden promised before the election. In an interview with Thomas Friedman, he also expressed his commitment to this policy. The main purpose of this study is to examine and compare the foreign policy strategy of the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. So the main question is: What patterns has Obama, Trump, and Biden's strategy towards Iran focused on? Findings show that the issue of Iran in US foreign policy is subject to a grand agenda that is explained transnationally by US institutional structures and the pattern of US conflict behavior towards Iran is one of the main and main priorities in US foreign policy. Has become. Evidence shows that the two countries, on the one hand, need mutual security cooperation in critical areas, on the other hand, have ideological contradictions, and each is trying to re-establish its legitimacy in the process of future strategic rivalries. In other words, the pattern of Iran-US behavior not only reflects signs of cooperation but in parallel with such cooperation, manifestations of conflict and disagreement can also be observed. That is why Iran-US relations must be analyzed in the context of asymmetric cooperation (while maintaining red lines and orbiting revolutionary discourse). The present study has used the method of "analytical and descriptive and using library resources" and the theoretical model of neoliberalism and neorealism.

Security threats are parts of international political realities. Countries with strategic goals focused on changing the status quo، or not synchronized with the big powers objectives and regional actors are subject to security threat. The Islamic Republic of Iran is among countries with geopolitical threat. These countries are subject to conditions and interacting with actors who have different security and strategic objectives. Iranian security situation in the historic circuit of the last hundred years has indicated such a situation. In the period after the Islamic Revolution victory we have witnessed a «combined threat» of national security that is caused by ideological and strategic components of the Islamic Republic. Great powers have sought to control Iran>s security environment، while regional actors like Iraq، Saudi and Israel are doing a great effort to limit and deal with Iran>s securityapproaches. Such a process although different، has continued in the 21st century. In this article the U. S. security threats against Iran>s strategic objectives during George Bush and Barack Obama will be compared. To explain the matter، U. S. national security doctrine in these two stages is used. On the other hand، behavior patterns and strategic positions of the U. S. and itsallies in the framework of politics and international institutions will be considered. Political literature used by the U. S. rulers and strategists shows that there are some aspects of the threat، confrontation and coping in the two mentioned historical periods. These threats were proposed by a more aggressive literature during the Bush era، while the possibility of threat to become operational was limited. Security threats during Obama has a more flexible literature compared to Bush era but the possibility of threat to become operational has increased. In this paper، based on «defensiverealism approach»، comparison of the American threats during the Bush and Obama has been explained.