برنامه هسته ای

The aim of this research is to examine how Saudi Arabia represents Iran's nuclear program in the Al Arabiya satellite network. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the question of how the representation of Iran's nuclear program in the Al Arabiya network from 2017 to 2020 has been and what goals and policies have been considered in this representation. This research employs an analytical-descriptive approach based on library and archival information (the media in question) and utilizes the concept of securitization from the Copenhagen School, along with representation and highlighting. The results obtained in response to the research question include the following: the portrayal of Iran's interventionism in the region, the dangers of Iran's access to nuclear energy, Iran's support for militia groups, countering Iran's ambitions and expansionism, Iran's support for terrorism, exacerbating nuclear threats, labeling Iran's nuclear agreement as non-peaceful, legitimizing the claims of Saudi Arabia and its allies, imposing further sanctions on Iran, and creating divisions and rifts between the people and the government in Iran are among the most significant content presented by this network regarding Iran's nuclear program.

Iran's nuclear program has been a topic of international idea since the early 1980s, and this has led to a wide-ranging conflict between Iran and world powers, primarily led by the United States. The significant presence of negative propaganda in Western media, reports from American think tanks, and statements from international organizations highlights the significance of Iran's nuclear capabilities for Western nations. Researchers and commentators have explored the issue of nuclear energy in Iran from various angles, yet one aspect that has received less attention is the exploration of the ideas and norms established in this domain. The artcle method is documentary research process and its theoretical framework emphasizes the approach of new institutionalism. This article aims to address the question of " why the Iran's nuclear file has remained controvertial for so long?" The research findings suggest that normative ideas play a significant role in shaping political behaviors and advancements. Once ideas become institutionalized, they steer political behavior in a specific direction. Therefore, it is possible to analyze the continuation of the nuclear conflict between Iran and the United States based on institutionalized normative assumptions.

Relations between Iran and Russia have been complicated and ups and downs in different historical periods. With the end of the Cold War, the bipolar system also ended and the unilateralist behavior and policies of the United States of America began. With the Islamic revolution, Iran also adopted a foreign policy independent of the two power blocs of the East and the West. On the other hand, in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia put the policy of convergence with the West on the agenda, and this caused Tehran's relations with Moscow not to be at the elementary level. But the situation did not remain like this and the two countries examined the expansion of relations in various economic, political and technical-military fields. The main question is, what are the main axes and fields in the regional and international relations and cooperation between Iran and Russia in the new era?In response to this question, the hypothesis is raised that Iran and Russia in the present era, on the one hand, have high relations in the economic and nuclear fields, and on the other hand, this remains only at the level of the relations between the two countries and they are in regional issues such as Syria and They also cooperate in ending the civil war in Tajikistan and in other countries. Iran's location in a region makes the relations between these two countries important in various regional and international issues. Because on the one hand Iran is a regional power and on the other hand Russia is an actor at the international level and the relations of this country can be analyzed at both levels.

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.

After two decades of controversy over Iran’s nuclear program, and despite the genuine development of the program, it is still non-weaponized. The International Atomic Energy Agency has frequently stated that Iran has sufficient material and capacity to produce nuclear weapons, but there is no information to prove that Iran intends to produce such weapons. Western intelligence agencies including United States, have also a similar assessment. From the viewpoint of realism, the motivation behind Iran’s program is security. However, the important question is that why its nuclear program has not been weaponized, especially considering that the world has experienced the states that have produced nuclear weapons after achieving the necessary capacity. The hypothesis is that the strategic culture in Iran has two important elements which expalin why the nuclear program has not been weaponized. The first element is that the concept of power has remained undeveloped and simplified which has not led to the development of the basic concepts of realism such as nuclear deterrence, and the balance of power in a sense that the world powers has understood and experienced it. On the other hand, Iran’s experience of threat and survival is still at the traditional level, that is Iran has never been under the direct or imminent nuclear threat like the US, the Soviet, China or even Pakistan. And as a result, despite the appearance and development of Iran’s program based on security concerns, the strategic decision-makers have never been under the pressure to complete it. In addition, Iran’s

US foreign policy during the neoconservative rule was based on hard power in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, which was not associated with success and led to an increase in Iran's nuclear power. Obama, who came to power with the slogan of changing and solving the nuclear challenge by using diplomacy, was able to choose a smart policy and reach a nuclear agreement with J.A. Iran to achieve But with the coming to power of Donald Trump, the confrontation between the two countries entered a new phase. Obama's diplomatic solution by adopting a multilateralist approach and focusing on preventing J.A. Iran had pursued nuclear weapons with the aim of building a consensus among countries aligned with the policies of the hegemon (America) towards Iran. On the other hand, Trump's policies are based on a one-sided and confrontational approach based on geopolitical tension and what America was looking for; Revival of American dominance in the form of negation of Obama's theory, non-application of sanctions against J.A. After the JCPOA, Iran's development of militarism in the region and limiting Iran is based on the concepts of power and space according to the hegemon's strategy. Based on this, we try to analyze the reason for the change in the direction of America during the Obama era and the legacy it left behind for Donald Trump with an analytical-explanatory approach and using realistic assumptions.

With the victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in February 1978, the strategic alliance between Iran and the Israeli regime came to an end. The severance of Iran's relations with the Israeli regime and the positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards the international system, and especially the Israeli regime, caused fundamental changes in the regime's attitude and foreign policy towards Iran. The purpose of this study is to examine the roots of the confrontation between the two countries and Israel's foreign policy towards Iran. To examine this issue, the "Copenhagen Security School" has been considered as the theoretical framework of this research. The key question in this article is what was Israel's foreign policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and how? The research method in this article has been done using library and descriptive-analytical sources. The results of this study show that Israel's approach to the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced a special trend based on the two characteristics of "continuity" and "change" is significant. The Islamic Revolution has been studied. Israel sees Iran's nuclear program as a catalyst that, by magnifying its Iranophobia and non-peaceful nature, has increased international sanctions and pressure on Iran, posing it as a major threat to its national security and existence.

Iran’s nuclear program has been a central security concern for Israel over the past two decades. In reaction to this threat, Israel has conducted a multifaceted drive to block it, one of which is planning and enforcement a complex psychological warfare to block it from summer 2002(disclosing the program) to July 2015(signing JCPOA). This article seeks to understand the complex psychological warfare in the past three decades by using the process research method and offers recommendations for confronting it. The basic question is, what are the special features of Israel's psychological war against Iran's nuclear program? The main hypothesis is that Israel's psychological war is designed to impress the authorities of Tehran and Washington by making the scenario of a military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities look serious. The first motif was provoking anxiety about threat of Iranian nuclear project; the second emphasized the other threats that the Iranian regime poses, chief among them its aggressive policy, which includes involvement in terrorism and extensive activity to develop long range missiles; the third was the threat of Israel military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities during 2010-2012; and the fourth from 2013 onwards, dealt with the negotiations between the world powers and Iran which had founded the ground for withdrawing Trump from JCPOA in 2018. Part two concentered on assessment of Israel challenges in psychological warfare against Iran’s Nuclear Program, especially under the experience of nuclear negotiations and after the signing JCPOA. In the end, some proper countermeasures would be offered.

The political-security environment of the West Asian region is changing day by day, regional powers are competing with each other in search of more power and influence in the region. In the meantime, the increasing nuclear and military capabilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran have forced Israel to put intelligence, security, and diplomatic measures on its agenda to reduce Iran's influence in the region. In the first step, Israel's intelligence agencies are seeking to gather the necessary information about Iran's nuclear and military program, and by gradually monitoring Iran's nuclear and military activities, they will inflict irreparable damage on the nuclear and military sites and kill people involved in them. According to the above conditions, the question of the current research is as follows: What intelligence strategies does Israel use to deal with the growing influence of Iran in the region? The findings suggest that Israel through a variety of covert measures such as employing skilled spies in Iran's political system and nuclear, missile and drone programs, selling damaged industrial materials and equipment to Iran, sabotaging Iran's nuclear facilities in various ways, cyber-attacks as well as the assassination of Iran's scientists working in nuclear, missile and drone programs.

After the Islamic Revolution of 1978 and the fall of the 2,500-year-old imperial regime in Iran, the United States became the first and most important threat to Iran's national security. Although Iran is not the most important threat to US national security, it is considered one of the most important threats to US national security. This study deals with the major impact of US policy on Iran's nuclear program, while also examining the foreign policy of Democrats on a case-by-case basis. In the present article, the pre-theory model of James Rosina is analyzed and evaluated by the descriptive-analytical method of US foreign policy and its impact on Iran's nuclear program, because it is a combination of micro and macro levels in the field of foreign policy. Based on research findings; One. US policies have had a profound effect on Iran's nuclear program, and US coercive policies to destroy Iran's nuclear program have had the exact opposite effect, pushing Iran to the brink of a nuclear bomb capability. The US Democrats are working with Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to change the traditional US policy on Iran's nuclear program.

Russia-Israel diplomatic relations in the political, economic, and cultural areas during the recent decades have led their relations to become more strategic. The role of Israel in the US policy towards Moscow and the trans-regional power of Russia in ensuring the security of Israeli in West Asian developments have developed Moscow-Tel Aviv close relations. On the other hand, Iran and Russia have achieved a level of alignment in behaviors and goals in regional and international developments. The cooperation between these two countries has increased with the intervention of Russia in the Syrian crisis. Accordingly, the present study aimed to investigate the effect of developing Russia-Israel relations on the national interests of Iran in the region and the international system. The hypothesis tested in response to this question was that the High level of Russian-Israeli diplomatic relations, as well as the interdependence at different levels have made Russia impose some restricts on the progress of the interests of Iran in Syria, nuclear program, and arms and economic treaties. The research method in this study was explanatory and the data collection method was library and internet. The research data were analyzed based on the balance of power approach.levels have made Russia impose some restricts on the progress of the interests of Iran in Syria, nuclear program, and arms and economic treaties. The research method in this study was explanatory and the data collection method was library and internet. The research data were analyzed based on the balance of power approach.

The nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran and North Korea is one of the most challenging issues facing the international community so far. The two countries of the Islamic Republic of Iran and North Korea, which are located in two sensitive and strategic regions of the Middle East and the Far East, are countries whose nuclearization process has been accompanied by a strong reaction from the international community from the very beginning.Therefore, the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran and North Korea is being followed with special sensitivity by major and rival powers such as the United States, Russia and China, organizations, media and news agencies. This can be attributed to the conflicting interests and policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and North Korea with Western countries. In view of the above, the authors of this article have tried to describe and explain that a comparative study of this trend shows the application of discriminatory treatment and the use of double standards by major powers such as the United States, Russia and China, as well as the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Atomic Energy and the Security Council. This indicates that this approach is influenced by the economic and strategic interests of the great world powers.

 The nuclear case has been one of the most complicated issues in the foreign and domestic policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. One of the reasons for this complexity was the contradictory approach of the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran to the enjoyment of "enrichment rights" by member states. US official policy in this regard was based on "zero enrichment" and "suspension of enrichment activities", and Iran, instead, emphasized the "right to enrichment" under the NPT. A historical examination of the US approach to the nuclear case shows that the country has imposed heavy multilateral sanctions on the basis of its understanding that the Islamic Republic of Iran is withdrawing under the international pressures from its positions. But, the ineffectiveness of sanctions on social dissatisfaction and the change of political will of the Islamic Republic of Iran to withdraw its right to enrich and halt the growth of Iran's technical capability to enrich uranium has altered Washington's understanding of the Islamic Republic's behavioral logic in foreign policy. The shift in US strategic understanding led to the Obama administration's shift from "zero enrichment" to "limited enrichment", which played an important role in initiating the process of direct Iran-US negotiations in Oman in 2012.

In the last two decades, Iran and North Korea’s nuclear program has Become one of the most important global issues.The two countries Nuclear case has been one of the biggest security challenges the International community has ever faced.The common goal of the major Powers against Iran and North Korea is to dismantle the nuclear Approach.But the strategies to achieve this goal are selective and Contradictory.At the same time,the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency is very crucial and complex.Given this,the main Question of this study is what is the IAEA’s performance is light of the Provisions of the NPT’s security regime vis-à-vis Iran and North Korea’s nuclear program? In seeking to find an appropriate answer to this question,the authors of This article,using “International Security Regime Theory”,have attempted to describe and explain the IAEA,s performance in relation to Its nuclear program despite Iranian cooperation and compliance.The NPT,s security regime and North Korea’s non cooperation with and exit From the regime have not been in line with the IAEA’s and NPT’s Statutes,and are highly discriminatory,with complexity influenced by the Economic and strategic influence and interests of major powers such as The us,china and Russia.

Since the early 1920s, Germany has started a special relationship with Iran. After the Islamic Revolution, it was the only western country that continued to have friendly relations with Tehran. From the perspective of technology exchange, Germany remains the most important partner of Iran today. So, Obvious dispute between the West and Iran over the recent nuclear program has been accompanied by an unpardonable debate between Washington and Berlin on the general approach of the West to Iran. The controversy began more than twenty years ago. Germany has played the role of a “protective shield” for Tehran with a policy of mitigating sanctions and rejecting the use of the threat of a military force. The recent position was supported by Moscow and Beijing, and was rejected by London, Washington and Paris. Germany’s desire to establish its geopolitical position was reinforced by German semi-official foreign policy, which, since 2013, has strengthened the principle of the Western alliance in light of the adoption of a polarized polarization strategy.

Iran-Russia's seems very integrated and warm now, but during last 25 years there were many up and dawn in the course of their relations. Historical realities indicate these relations permanently have experienced very different stages. Many diverse factors have affected their relation in domestic, regional and international levels. The two countries relations in 19 century have shaped their perceptions about others goals and aims. The events of the final stage of the world war II have a very deep impact on Iranian people and government. The Soviet supportive policy in the case of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan separative movement are very important factors in this regards. Policies and activities of Communist Tudeh party has a constant influence on this relation, both before and after the Islamic Revolution in Iran. These historical legacies in Iran- Russia's relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union continue its influence on the two countries relation, that shapes the main question of this paper. the authors use descriptive- analytical methodology for their research.

In the paper, it has been intended to study USA policy to nationalization of the Iranian oil industry and neuclear energy comparatively. The question of the study is as: does USA policy to nationalization of the Iranian oil industry have been the same or not? As explained in the paper, USA policy in the field has been moving from a somewhat active state to an active and thorough state of opposition. The paper, studying USA policy during the period including the two cases, studies the measures of USA states involved in the cases. The base of study lies in paying attention to resemblances and distinctions of social phenomena and political thoughts. The conclusion of the study may be useful in measures made by offices of IRI foreign policy and in their manner of measuring in performing Barjam.

Iran and Israel can be explained in terms of a zero-sum game. This means that it has to c. A. Iran is intolerable and Israel on the other hand c. A. Iran's missile and nuclear program because of the enjoyment of power and considerable influence in the Muslim world, existential threat to its own. For this reason, in the regional and international levels against the interests of c. A. Iran has moved. In this way, it has the potential and capacities of the West, including America’s strategic interest were necessary. In this regard, pressure to stop the progress of Iran's nuclear program is the regime's security strategy.On the other hand, Iran, after long negotiations over its nuclear program controversial, it marked the historic deal with the P5 1 in Vienna. Nuclear deal, "Brjam", this promises that Iran's oil and financial sanctions in exchange for curbs on nuclear enrichment will be lost. The agreement also marks the strengthening of Iran as a regional hegemonic power comes up; it seemed that America had accepted it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran as the worst possible outcome in the current situation, he said. Similarly, the Persian Gulf Arab states felt that the agreement had been excluded. Tehran problematic area for those who know, this agreement means ignoring their demands to "cut off the head of the serpent" is. This paper examines the status of Iran's nuclear program in Israel's security doctrine.