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

This study examines the influential factors behind Trump’s aggressive foreign policy towards Iran. Following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 US presidential election and his adoption of aggressive stances vis-à-vis Iran, the already fragile Iran-US ties, forged during the Obama administration under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), faced uncertainties. Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 exacerbated the tensions between the two countries, bringing them to the brink of a full-scale war. Trump’s primary objective in withdrawing from the deal and adopting hostile positions against Iran through a strategy of maximum pressure was to achieve an agreement aligning with the interests of the United States. He pursued his ideal agreement in line with the slogan "America First" and making America great again. For Trump, considerations such as ideology, international agreements, and even global public opinion held no significance. The main question addressed in this study is what factors influenced Trump’s aggressive foreign policy towards Iran. Trump’s aggressive foreign policy toward Iran reveals the motivations underlying his aggressive and hostile behavior toward Iran. The findings of this study are based on Mearsheimer’s offensive realism theory and an analytical-descriptive approach to examining Trump’s personality traits. The conclusion demonstrates that Trump’s aggressive foreign policy towards Iran was shaped by internal factors encompassing the roles and personalities of Trump himself, the Department of State, the Treasury Department, the National Security Council, Congress, think tanks, media outlets, and pro-Israeli lobbies. External factors such as the role of Israel and Saudi Arabia, the European Union, China, Russia, and most importantly, Iran’s regional conduct also played a significant role. Through the integration and overlap of offensive realism and Trump’s personality analysis, this study seeks to provide a better understanding of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy toward Iran.

The current research aims to analyze the type of strategic orientation of the United States of America in facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially after the Islamic Revolution. The dualism of liberalism and realism, or a policy of mutual punishment and encouragement, has been adopted in the face of J.A. Iran. A. Iran. In order to prove the hypothesis of the research, while using the theory of aggressive realism, the behavioral pattern of the United States will be examined. The main findings of the research show that the approach of the United States is of the type of liberalism of "encouragement, encouragement and maximum participation". Or the harmonious model of liberalism and realism is not "positive and negative". Rather, it indicates the continuation and consolidation of the approach of aggressive realism, of the type of acute discursive, geopolitical and geostrategic confrontation in the form of "threat, punishment, sanctions" in the form of "various and complex balancing". So that the conformity and consistency of aggressive realism propositions with the approach of the United States in the acute confrontation with Iran is clear and obvious. The authors conclude that the behavior pattern of the United States is in the fixed form of aggressive realism, without a paradigm shift to liberalism. And it doesn't even have a tendency to shift within the theoretical paradigm of defensive realism. The main goal of America is to turn Iran into an isolated and victimized actor in the field of international politics. They evaluate J.A.Iran in the form of a game with a negative sum. And they always have a pure compliance with the approach of slander and international politics in their agenda. based on strategic rationality and compliance with international law.

This article is prepared and organized based on the security conditions of the Persian Gulf and providing solutions for stability and security in this sensitive international region. Stable security in this geo-strategic, geo-cultural and geo-political region of the world is of great importance due to the route of energy passage and estimation of more than 90% of fossil energies (in 2030). The geography of the Persian Gulf, which is separated from the Sea of Oman by the Strait of Hormuz, consists of the following countries: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar, which are important and vital for the world in terms of economy and fossil energy production. Is. Britain's withdrawal from this region and its replacement by the United States in 1970 has caused many ups and downs in this region of the Middle East. This year, the United States used the two countries of Iran and Saudi Arabia as two pillars of regional security to reduce the tension between the two countries and a barrier against communism in a plan called the Nixon-Kessinger doctrine (two-pillar security).

The JCPOA aimed to resolve nuclear discussions between Iran and the West through multilateralism. The research examines the national security implications of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, the imposition of unilateral sanctions by the United States, and Iran's reduced commitments in response to this withdrawal. The study also discusses the approval of a proposed resolution by the United States, Britain, France, and Germany in the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors, the resurfacing of the issue of extending arms embargoes against Iran, and the US efforts to activate the "snapback" mechanism in the Security Council. Using a qualitative approach based on document analysis and the collection and analysis of textual and electronic data, the research applies a theoretical framework of offensive realism to address the security implications of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA for the Islamic Republic of Iran. The findings indicate that the US withdrawal from the JCPOA led to the reinstatement of previous missile sanctions and the imposition of more severe unilateral sanctions, which had an impact on key security issues in the Persian Gulf region. Some Persian Gulf countries perceived Iran as a significant threat due to conventional and asymmetrical missile capabilities and increased regional influence, leading to a decline in Iran's national security and fueling the desire of these countries to procure arms.

Due to its geopolitical position and energy resources, Iraqi Kurdistan is considered a strategic and important region for regional and extra-regional powers. This issue has caused the formulation and follow-up of a special policy towards this region in the past, in line with or in some cases in conflict with the strategy of these countries towards Iraq, a part of their policy to achieve their interests and goals in West Asia. These conditions have intensified especially since the US invasion of Iraq in 1991 and the establishment of a very distinct state of self-government in this region, followed by the occupation of this country in 2003 and the recognition of the autonomy of the Kurdistan Region in the 2005 Iraqi Constitution. In this context, the main question of this research is how the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States towards the Kurdistan region of Iraq can be explained and evaluated in the period from 2003 to 2023. The findings of this research, which was carried out with a descriptive-analytical method and using documentary sources, show that the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards the Kurdistan region of Iraq is in the framework of the foreign policy of defensive realism and based on the strategy of balancing threats and the foreign policy of the United States. In this region, aggressive realism foreign policy based on the strategy of shifting responsibility has been pursued.

Europe witnessed the largest military conflict since World War II when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Examining the internal events and divisions of this country on the one hand, as well as examining the changes in Ukraine in the interactions between Russia and America and the European Union countries, on the other hand, can be useful in explaining the and military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. In this article, using the components of the aggressive realism theory, the contexts and factors of Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, as well as the role of other effective powers, namely the United States and the European Union, in the formation of this crisis and its continuation will be investigated. The main question is, what role did each of the effective actors play in the formation of the Ukraine crisis and its continuation? The hypothesis of the research is that the expansion of NATO to the east over several decades and the lack of balance in relations with the East and the West by the authorities of Kiev, as well as Russia's attempt to increase its share of global power and regain its former power in order to become a hegemon. Europe has provided the grounds for the formation of the crisis. The continuation of this crisis was also due to the adoption of American policies in line with the erosion of Russia and Europe.

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.

The Belt and Road Initiative was launched in 2013 by Chinese President, Xi Jinping. This initiative is one of the important aspects of China's foreign policy. On the other hand, due to the geographical extent, extensive infrastructural dimensions and subsequent developments of this project, different countries have studied and paid special attention to it at both academic and executive levels. The study of relations between the United States of America and China has always been of interest to international relations experts. In this light, the United States of America has also considered the Belt and Road Initiative and has followed a certain pattern of behavior towards it. Therefore, knowing the American behavior pattern and approach towards the Belt and Road Initiative will reveal important axes of the dynamics of mutual relations between these two countries. The current study examines and evaluates the approach of the United States towards China's Belt and Road Initiative in the light of the US grand strategy towards China in the period of 2013-2020. Therefore, the current research seeks to answer the main question, “How can the behavioral pattern of the United States of America be explained towards China's Belt and Road Initiative in the mentioned time frame?” The findings of the article show that the United States considers the Belt-Road as a project aimed at increasing China's geopolitical influence at both the international level and the Indo-Pacific region, which has followed the pattern of competition and confrontation towards this project due to the level of conflict between the interests of the project and those of the United States. The method of analysis used in the current research is qualitative content analysis and available data, sources and documents.

Russia, as a great power, has one of the highest levels of trans-border military interventions. In particular, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has opened a new chapter in the history of the country's interventions, which requires studying and rethinking the causes of these interventions. This article seeks to respond to the research need in the framework of historical-analytical and explanatory approach. For this purpose, the main research question focuses on the factors influencing Russian military intervention and then identifying the primary factors from the secondary ones. In the research process, we identified 9 variables as related factors to the Russian military interventions and then studied the role and position of each factors among the other factors. These factors include: great power status, regional hegemony, personality and leadership style of political elites, fighting against terrorism, strategic alliances and cooperation with the host government, nationalism and pan-Slavism, supporting the Russian co-identity groups In the host country, economic and military capabilities, and the diversionary war to solving legitimacy problem. Findings show that among these factors, great power status plays a central role in Russian military interventions. Great power status and regional hegemony, have played a major and lasting role in driving Russian interventions. We argued that the Russia’s great power status and regional hegemony, are the two main factors that drive all Russia’s military interventions. The motivation for the accumulation of power, which is crystallized in the main causes of Russian interventions, accepts the offensive Realism as a theoretical basis for research.

Today, the US-China trade war is one of the major challenges in international relations. Academic circles have analyzed this war from different perspective. This article also seeks to answer this question that what kind of fundamental economic response from China will the US trade war against China eventually lead to? The hypothesis of the article, which is examined in a descriptive-analytical way, is that China's involvement in the US trade war will be a function of China's perception of US goals. If the US trade war against China in Beijing is seen as the result of an inherent rivalry between the United States and China for hegemony, China may move toward economic decoupling from the United States. Inherent rivalry refers to the competition that occurs due to the nature of power between two great powers to gain a hegemonic position. But if in Beijing the US trade war against China is seen as the result of an institutional conflict in the political and economic system of China and the United States, China's response is likely to be in the form of economic reforms and a move toward "greater economic ties" with the United States. The article's findings show that China is regarding both considerations as part of a larger strategy, and from this perspective it doesn't matter to Beijing whether Biden is in power or Trump.

China alone has questioned lots of presuppositions of the world system after the cold war, those which were in America's benefit. Now the question is whether China's rise, just as status quo, will traverse a peaceful trajectory. To answer this question, we should consider different suppositions. The first supposition is piece in the meaning of Chinese surrendering to U.S. and the acceptance of American intentions in East Asia and in other regions in the world. The second one is China's confrontation with the United States and entering into war with U.S. in regions dominated by this country, especially eastern Asia. But there is a mediocre third supposition. In this supposition, one country can neither go to immediate war, nor do its interests and power allow it to compromise. Our hypothesis is that China follows the third logic, i. e. neither war nor piece. But if China's rise continues, disputes will grow notably in eastern Asia. This essay uses "offensive realism" as a theoretical framework to be applied on this subject. The results are going to be shown according to history and experimental considerations.

The Armenian genocide has been one of several contentious situations between Turkey and Europe/the United States. Turkey has always used deterrent elements when European states and the United States have commented about this issue. This research will be fundamental in terms of purpose, descriptive-analytical in terms of the nature of data and library in terms of how information is collected. only in Joe Biden's government "genocide" was recognized as the behavior of the Ottoman Empire. In the perceptual / cognitive conflict between Turkey and Europe, the position of this recognition is so important that, according to Turkish officials this is a violation of the country's "red line". using realism and process research will be used, Avoidance of European integration processes, formation of identity / chauvinist alliances, shift in patterns of regionalism (focus on the Middle East and North Africa region) are referred to as Turkish offensive trends as a hypothesis.

When Obama came to power, Bush's multilateralism and aggressive foreign policy was converted to a "rebalancing" policy, in which US int e r e s t s were considered more than any other issue. Obama's East Asia reb al a n c i n g policy was pursued with the aim of redefining interests, threats and political, economic and military strategies. The question of the current paper is how were Bush's "aggressive foreign policy" and "Obama's" reb al a ncing policy pursued to promote US interests in East Asia? For answering this question, the authors believe that Bush's foreign policy has been pursued by adopting a multilateralism approach focused on resolving the Korean Peninsula’s crisis with the aim of creating consensus in East A s ia and co op eration with China. While the policy of rebalancing with a multilateralism approach has been pursued and focusing on the prevention of China's economic and military growth with the goal of consensus among the co u n tr ies aligned with US policies in East Asia. The research method in this pa pe r is analytical and descriptive through library resources. Using the theory of offensive realism and the Copenhagen School, this paper seeks to exp la i n and analyze the policies of Bush and Obama in East Asia, to ex a m i n e the dif ferences, commonalities and approaches of each, and the orientation of U S foreign policy in the East Asian region

Governments have always sought to maximize their power in the international system and compete with other actors to achieve this. This increase in power, if done at the regional level, will lead to fierce competition among the actors in the region, so that they spend a large portion of their national income on military spending. The Persian Gulf is one of the areas in which international politics and its interference with the interests of the great powers have been the focus of many scholars and policy makers. The main question of this article is: What is the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran in relation to the Persian Gulf in comparison with other Persian Gulf countries and can it be considered as the hegemon of the Persian Gulf in terms of aggressive realism? To advance the present study, descriptive-analytic method of interest has been used based on statistical data. According to the results of this research, from the perspective of aggressive realism, the present government is the top government to become hegemonic of the Persian Gulf, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has significant economic and military advantages in addition to its geopolitical advantages.

The 9/11 incident, along with all the implications for the US security strategy, tested the scope of US commitment to South Asia, and in particular to Afghanistan. The military invasion to this country in the first weeks after the 9/11 incident gradually outlined a broad agenda for mobilizing hard and soft resources for US leaders and each one of these leaders followed a specific behavioral pattern, based on Afghanistan's peripheral and domestic conditions, US domestic conditions and their own individual belief systems. The main question of this article is: What are the similarities and differences of US foreign policy with regard to Afghanistan during the Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies? In response to this question, the hypothesis is: US foreign policy on Afghanistan between 2001 and 2019 was focused on counterterrorism and the relative maintenance and strengthening of the central government. However, in the Bush era, an extra-regional approach (Iraq-Afghanistan-based), in the years of Obama's leadership, the intra-regional approach (Afghanistan -Pakistan) and the in the Trump era a principled realism approach was followed. The Method of Research is Comprative Study.

Addressing Iran’s nuclear case was a major constituent of the foreign policy of the United States of America in the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Therefore, this research attempts to draw a comparison between these administrations with the ultimate goal to answering this question; what were the differences between the Bush and Obama approaches to Iran's nuclear case and which international relations approaches provide the best analysis of the Bush-Obama approach to Iran's nuclear case? According to the research data, the performance of George W. Bush and his cabinet which was strongly influenced by Neo-conservatism beliefs could be analyzed within the framework of offensive realism approach. Bush administration had primarily adopted a unilateral approach to Iran’s nuclear program via emphasis on American exceptionalism, making constant threats to attack Iran’s nuclear installations and not cooperating with other powers involved in the case. On the other hand, Barack Obama, with using the Neoliberalism's facts, demanding of cooperation, interaction, attention to the role of diplomacy, the using of soft power and the capacity of international organizations in foreign policy. Thus, he managed to gain the consensus of major powers and influential economic and political institutions against Iran trough adopting the policy of U.S. driven multilateralism which culminated in an agreement between Iran and 5+1 countries after prolonged negotiations.

Foreign policy of the major powers in international issues and regional developments are very important. Such a way that sometimes, their presence The political fate of a country Has undergone a remarkable transformation. Yemen witnessed violent conflict in recent years that the internal conflicts started and now has become the arena of confrontation of regional and trans-regional powers. political crisis in the these country was started in 2011 after the departure of Saleh and the creation of Mansur hadi ended and in 2015 the crisis appeared in another form. Saudi Arabia is a major player in Yemen That Always trying to The weakening of Yemen to increase their influence in the country. The fall of Saleh and the creation of key Saudi Arabia Mansur hadi, And popular opposition at the same time, Yemen has involved a tension Until now there. America in the face of these developments, special partnership with Saudi Arabia Has implemented. This paper aims to address this question: What is the America and the Fsaudi arabia foreign policy towards the Syrian crisis? The main discussion of the paper is that Saudi Arabia's Yemen Development, Policy status quo With Invasive approach And United States of America to protect its own interests That Sometimes at odds with the policies of Saudi Arabia, towards thees developments, Convergence approach is adopted by Saudi Arabia. The research method in this paper is descriptive analysis with using library tools.

Iran's nuclear policies have been one of the main trends in the interaction between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the international system in the 1980s and 90s. This issue is presented as one of the main variables and factors influencing foreign policy of Islamic Republic of Iran. This article,with an emphasis on the role of the European Union in Iran's nuclear policies during the presidency of the eighth and ninth states, seeks to examine this impact by emphasizing the theoretical model of aggressive realism. The research question is that the European Union has had a lasting impact on Iran's nuclear policy during the period from 1384 to 1392,and the research hypothesis is based on the fact that the European Union has been in the Iranian nuclear issue for years. In the form of a policy of confrontation with Iran and with the United States of America, it has sought to respond to Iran's nuclear actions and activities, and this has led to Iran's aggressive approaches in the field of nuclear policy. The researcher in this study, using a detailed description of the historical process, identifies the impact of the European Union on Iran's nuclear policies. This article is based on the descriptive-analytical model and the use of global updated data of this field and library method and emphasizing the theoretical framework of aggressive realism.

The military-security orientations of the Russian Federation and the United States of America have always been of particular interest in analyzing and interpreting international issues in the post-Soviet era, especially during the last decade. In fact, the collapse of the Soviet Union was the end of the Cold War in Europe and the end of the global divisions; as a result of which the various dimensions of confrontation between these two great powers of the world has been considered by the academic circles. Therefore, the present study seeks to address the issue through the descriptive-analytic approach in order to answer this question that what has been the nature of the Russian-American relations and where does it take the international system? To reply this question, by using the offensive realism theory and focusing on the military-security policies of the two countries in various crises, it will be explained that Russia and the United States of America are in a serious opposition path; which can lead to a new Cold War in the international system.

Developments in North Africa and Middle East from 2011-2015 made new policy toward intra-regional actors such as Russia. Moscow’s long-standing links with this region and his tendency to plays more role in international equations cause to made new decision to achieve the goal. Inactive presence in Tunisia and Egypt lead to accompany with west in Libya, and although surprised Moscow but made to play active role in Syria till military levels.
So we will use descriptive-analytical method on basis of “offensive realism” to express Russia’s importance presence in the Middle East especially after popular uprisings. Of course it is necessary to implement that Russia’s policy based on avoiding transmit of uprisings to Eurasian region and play more active role in international equations through tension with west actors.