روسیه

Previous studies on Iranian perspectives regarding the Russia-Japan War have highlighted works written by Qajar-era Iranians in support of Japan. This article, by comparing two Persian texts from the Qajar period, first aims to illustrate the diversity and divergence of Persian-language viewpoints on the Russia-Japan War; secondly, to contribute to a clearer understanding of how Iranians’ mental image of other nations was formed in the modern era. The author of Bahr al-Fawa’id supports Russia, arguing that Russia’s defeat in this war would be detrimental to Iran, citing economic, cultural, and political reasons. He emphasizes the role of Britain and other Western powers in instigating and prolonging this war, ultimately leading to Russia’s defeat. From his perspective, the best way to strengthen the nation is through popular support for the reigning monarch. In contrast, the author of Mikadonameh, a figure associated with the Constitutional Movement, views the Russia-Japan War through the lens of constitutionalism. He sees Russia as Iran’s historic enemy and considers Britain the ideal model for the world, believing that national strength can only be achieved through the establishment of a constitutional government and the promotion of knowledge and justice. In summary, the authors of both works hold extreme and opposing views in their support of contemporary powers and adopt entirely conflicting stances on the Russia-Japan War and its implications for Iran.

The Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia, as two influential actors in the current international system, seek to enhance their roles and standings in global affairs. The United States, as a superpower since World War II and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has significantly expanded its influence globally. As a global power, the U.S. aims to achieve greater interests and promote global processes in line with its objectives and needs, maintaining presence and influence in various regions and fields. The Middle East and the Persian Gulf, as key focal points, have attracted significant attention from the U.S. Iran, with its critical geopolitical and strategic position in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, has played the most influential role in interactions with the U.S., a power beyond the region. Meanwhile, it is observed that while Iran-U.S. relations are characterized by tensions and conflicting policies, Russia has sought interaction and cooperation with the U.S. at various stages. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method and gathers information through library research, with the primary objective of conducting a "comparative analysis of the foreign policies of Russia and Iran towards the United States from 2011 to 2020." The main research question is: How have the foreign policies of Iran and Russia towards the U.S. been, comparatively, from 2011 to 2020? The research results and findings indicate that Russia has maintained a more balanced foreign policy towards the U.S. compared to Iran. Russia is willing to engage and cooperate with the U.S. when its interests are at stake, whereas Iran has pursued an aggressive foreign policy towards the U.S., perceiving the issues between the two countries as insurmountable.

Due to its special geopolitical position, Ukraine has inadvertently been involved in international conflicts, conflicts that are mainly between the three powers of Russia, the European Union, and the United States. Due to the geographical and geopolitical position of Ukraine, the United States and the European Union are seeking dominance and influence in this country in competition with Russia, which represents the height of the differences and geopolitical competition between them. The foreign policy of each of the involved parties does not allow the fire of this crisis to be extinguished. In this research, using library sources and descriptive-analytical research method, we have sought to answer the question of what has been the foreign policy of the United States as a major global power in this field, because the ups and downs of the Ukraine crisis and its results are subject to the pattern It is the behavior of big powers like America in this field. Finally, we have come to the conclusion that America, as a superpower, has taken interests for itself everywhere in the world; This can also be seen in the Ukraine crisis. Confronting Russia's reassertion of power and playing a role as a hegemon is one of the factors affecting the US foreign policy in the Ukraine crisis. Analysis of the foreign policy of Russia and the United States regarding the crisis and war in Ukraine

West Africa has been the scene of new international developments. With the start of coups against previous governments that were dependent on France since 2010, new developments have taken place in this region. Russia, with the aim of harming French interests in the three countries of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, fully supported the military coups in these countries. Finally, with Russia playing a key role in the three African countries, France’s withdrawal from these countries occurred in a domino effect. These events paved the way for cooperation between countries such as Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran with the three West African countries. Therefore, before any direct political, economic, and security cooperation, it is necessary and essential to understand the internal developments of these three countries. Since, geopolitically, the three countries share a common border and all three have had common social, political, economic, and security crises, an attempt has been made to analyze and evaluate all three countries in this study. The West African region, especially the countries of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, is like a powder keg that is exploding every day and at any moment. These countries suffer many human losses due to the activities of extremist groups. In a word, it can be said that this region is one of the most unstable regions in the world. Political, economic and social unrest has dimmed the prospects for peace, stability and development in this region. The countries of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger are facing multiple crises. These countries suffer from poverty and unemployment, a young population, ethnic and tribal conflicts, fragile states, population growth (within 10 years, the population of this region will double) and food shortages. This painful reality has created a favorable environment for terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the region. Takfiri terrorist groups have created terrorist networks throughout this region; so that this region has become one of the most turbulent regions of the African continent in recent years.

The international relations between Iran and Russia, as two pivotal players in the global political and economic arenas, have long attracted the attention of researchers and policymakers. Both countries, with their strategic geopolitical Locations, have a significant impact on regional and global developments. Throughout history, relations between Iran-Russia have been characterized by fluctuations shaped by a range of factors, including changes in domestic and foreign policies, regional and global crises and economic and security developments. Bilateral relations have entered a new and dynamic stage in recent decades, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting structural changes in the international system. On the one hand, shared interests in areas such as energy, security and trade have led both countries to seek deeper bilateral and multilateral cooperation. On the other hand, persistent challenges, including international pressures, economic sanctions and political differences, continue to pose significant obstacles to advancing a full-fledged strategic partnership.

Research question: 

This study aims to address the question of what opportunities and obstacles exist in Iran-Russia relations for establishing a strategic partnership?Research hypothesis: Despite the inter-connectedness of Iran-Russia relations in various fields and their extensive cooperation on regional and trans-regional issues, structural, political and economic challenges—including competition in the energy sector, economic sanctions and mutual distrust—have prevented the two countries from achieving a full-fledged strategic partnership.

Methodology and theoretical framework:

 This research uses a qualitative and descriptive approach to analyze the content of selected data along with topic analysis. The theoretical framework of this article is based on the construction of strategic relationships in international relations. The goal of these relations is to bring countries closer together on a global stage, enabling them to pursue and achieve their national interests through proximity.

During the Islamic Republic of Iran, it sought to establish strategic relations with selected governments within the framework of the international system and prioritized a structured approach to these partnerships. Russia stands out as a key country in this effort. Several factors, including historical, political and normative commonalities, provide the foundation for strengthening strategic relations. However, despite some progress, significant challenges remain that prevent the full realization of a sustainable strategic partnership. Iran-Russia relations have evolved over the past four decades, shifting from short-term tactical interactions to more comprehensive cooperation in regional and international geopolitical arenas. Trade relations, with significant growth over the past decade, have been one of the main pillars of this partnership. For instance, Russian exports to Iran increased from $770 million in 2011 to $1.58 billion in 2022, while Iranian exports to Russia increased from $350 million to $750 million over the same period. This economic growth is driven by mutual efforts to counter Western sanctions, with key cooperation in the energy, technology, and agriculture sectors. Joint projects, such as developing oil and gas fields, constructing nuclear power plants and participating in technology transfers, underscore the economic interdependence of the two countries. Geopolitical and security cooperation has also played a vital role, especially in conflict zones such as Syria and during the tensions in Ukraine. In Syria, both countries supported the Assad regime and demonstrated their ability to align with strategic goals. Iran’s stance on the Ukraine crisis further reinforces the country's geopolitical alignment with Russia against Western influence. However, fundamental challenges remain. Geopolitical priorities and diverging national interests often cause friction. Russia’s broader strategies sometimes include aligning with countries that Iran consider enemies, complicating their relations. Domestic political dynamics in both nations further limit their ability to fully commit to a long-term alliance. Despite these obstacles, opportunities remain for deeper cooperation. Strengthening economic ties in energy, technology and agriculture, along with mechanisms for building mutual trust and resolving disputes, could pave the way for a more sustainable and enduring strategic partnership.

Despite a long history of cooperation in geopolitical, security and economic spheres, Iran and Russia have not yet reached the level of a sustainable and comprehensive strategic partnership. This situation is shaped by various structural and systemic challenges that affect their relations at the domestic, regional and international levels. On the other hand, competition in energy markets, different approaches to some regional issues and historical mistrust, especially in economic and political spheres, create significant obstacles to deepening these relations. Western economic sanctions against both countries have created opportunities for closer ties; however, structural challenges, such as inefficient trade mechanisms, underdeveloped transportation infrastructure and a lack of technological innovation, limit their ability to fully capitalize on these opportunities. Additionally, geopolitical issues, such as conflicts in the South Caucasus and Russia's engagement with countries such as the Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia, further complicate their relations. Furthermore, Iran-Russia relations are heavily influenced by external factors, including Russia’s tensions with the West and Iran’s efforts to reduce its dependence on limited partners and their relations are largely opportunistic and tactical rather than strategic. To overcome these challenges and strengthen their strategic relationship, Iran and Russia should focus on several key areas: 1) Building mutual trust through the development of joint institutions and legal frameworks that ensure long-term benefits for both countries. 2) Enhancing economic and trade cooperation by removing structural barriers, improving transportation infrastructure such as the North-South Corridor and strengthening technology-based partnerships.3) Deepening cultural and social interactions to bridge gaps in understanding and create greater social cohesion. 4) Determining long-term and common foreign policy goals with a focus on countering unilateralism and promoting multilateralism in the international system.

The relationship between Iran and Central Asia has a long and complex history. For over a millennium, this region was part of the Iranian/Islamic Empire, leading many Iranians—both scholars and ordinary citizens—to believe that Central Asia remains an integral part of the Iranian cultural and civilizational sphere. As a result, after the occupation of this region by Tsarist Russia and later the Soviet Union, the people of Central Asia were separated from their cultural and civilizational homeland, a separation they inevitably accepted.From this perspective, despite political borders, it is thought that the people of Central Asia have a positive view of Iranian civilization. However, a closer examination of this historical period shows that this notion is incorrect. In the second half of the 19th century, a negative image of Iran prevailed in the region. This article examines the constructed image of Iran in Central Asia by reviewing the works produced during this historical period, especially the travelogues of Iranians and Westerners who visited the region.

Research questions:

 What was the constructed image of Iran in Central Asia like during the second half of the 19th century? What were the primary factors that contributed to the construction of Iran's image in Central Asia during this period?

Research hypothesis:

 The research hypothesis of this article suggests that during this historical period, Central Asia harbored a negative image of Iran and as a result, the people of Central Asia had a contemptuous view of Iran and its people. 

Methodology and theoretical framework:

Qualitative methods and historical analysis were used to test the hypothesis presented in this article. Historical analysis is particularly relevant when the subject of research concerns events that occurred in the past and have come to fruition now. This method applies a scientific approach to historical research, which involves a systematic search for documents and evidence in the field of study. Consequently, historical analysis focuses on events that occurred before the researcher decided to investigate them.  Therefore, the collection method used in this research is qualitative and based on documentary analysis.

A literature review of the image constructed of Iran in Central Asia in the second half of the nineteenth century shows that the public perception of Iranians of Central Asia was significantly divorced from reality. Key factors contributing to this negative image include different religious beliefs, contrasting lifestyles, the weakness of the Iranian central government and Russia’s incursion into Central Asia. As a result, the people of Central Asia viewed Shiite Iranians as infidels and tried to avoid interacting with them. At the same time, the nomadic lifestyle of the Central Asian people, along with their warlike spirit, made raiding trade caravans and villages in northeastern Iran one of the important occupations of the Central Asian people. Therefore, it is not surprising that during this period in history, most of the encounters between individuals on both sides of these conflicts were between them. On the other hand, the weakness of the central government of Iran and its inability to provide security for Iranian villagers had caused central Asians to, in addition to attacking Iranian caravans and travelers, plunder villages in the northeast and even the center of Iran, undermining the country’s security. The painful defeats of the Iranian army against poorly organized groups of Central Asian warlords reinforced this weakness and helplessness of the Iranians in the eyes of the people of Central Asia. Moreover, Russia’s entry into the region was the final blow to Iran's image in Central Asia. While the Iranian style of government and life had remained stagnant for the past thousand years, the Russians brought with them many symbols of modern and advanced life to Central Asia. The power of the Russian army, along with their modern governance, caused the Iranian/Islamic style of governance and lifestyle to become a symbol of backwardness and inefficiency and Russia to be considered a symbol of progress and technology.

One of the most critical issues in any country’s foreign policy is its global image. Many factors play a role in shaping a country's image and this process is inherently relational. That is, regardless of how each nation perceives itself, the perceptions of other nations are equally important. In this article, we examined the self-image of Iranians and compared it with the real image of central Asian Iranians in the second half of the 19th century. Our analysis, based on historical evidence and documents left by Iranian and Western travelers and researchers, revealed significant differences between these two images. Contrary to the Iranian perceptions, the people of Central Asia did not have a positive view of Iran during that historical period; instead, their southern neighbors saw themselves as weak and backward. Therefore, we believe that it is essential for Iranian politicians, academics and the general public to develop a clear understanding of how they are perceived by other nations. This awareness will enable them to define and regulate their relations with these countries more effectively.

Russia's military attack on Ukraine and the annexation of the four regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia to the Russian Federation is considered the largest military conflict in Europe after World War II, which explains why the military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine and the annexation of these regions to the Federation makes it necessary. Therefore, the main purpose of this article is to answer the questions that firstly, why Russia decided to attack Ukraine and annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia to the Russian Federation and secondly, what are the causes of the spread of the crisis and the success of these annexations? In response to this hypothesis, the reason for Russia's decision to attack Ukraine and annex these areas to Russia was to eliminate the threats caused by Ukraine's possible membership in NATO, also, the changes in the common values and norms between Ukraine and Russia during the crisis and commonalities and links between the Russian society and the societies of these regions have played an important role in the spread of the crisis and the success of annexations.To answer the research questions, the method of multiple case study and theories of balance of threat and constructivism have been used. The data was also collected in a library method and analyzed with a descriptive-analytical approach. The findings of the article shows that both material and immaterial factors played a role in Russia's military attack on Ukraine and the annexation of these areas to the Russian Federation.

The issue of national identity has always been a fundamental concern among the Russian people and policymakers. Russia has enjoyed a stable national identity that has been sought throughout different periods of Russian history. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, national identity gained more traction among Russians. Given the vast territory and diversity of ethnicities and religions, the lack of a stable national identity could have led to separatist conflicts that would have brought the country to the brink of dissolution. To reverse the situation, Russia needs a strong leadership that can restore the country’s damaged identity, greatness and integrity and provide a clear vision for the future. The identity crisis in Russia has been a major concern for the country's presidents since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a collapse to which they have dedicated their policies to countering. Based on this background, the present article adopts a multidisciplinary cultural approach to first examine the state of national identity in the post-Soviet era and then analyze the initiatives of Russian leaders in the cultural realm to revive the lost Russian identity. For constructivists, understanding the role of national identity in determining the national interests of states and providing guidance for them in international politics is key. Therefore, analyzing the performance of Russian leaders in crisis management will shed light on their approaches to research question. Yeltsin's legacy in managing the identity crisis and its national revival is assessed as destructive in neglecting the historical past and discarding cultural values, with negative effects on the process of collective identification and a sense of belonging, which delays the realization of a coherent Russian identity. The memories of his administration are marked by economic stagnation and separatist turmoil, while Vladimir Putin’s achievements show positive progress. Although his government was by no means flawless, his reforms convinced Russians that he was the one who could reclaim lost glory and build respect from historical humiliation.

Research question: 

How did Putin, as president of Russia, deal with the national identity crisis after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Research hypothesis: 

Vladimir Putin highlighted Russia's historical past as a superpower and emphasized the centrality of cultural heritage to advance a different reformist approach to redefine Russia's global position and provide a compelling response to the identity crisis.

This article is a qualitative, descriptive-analytical study, and its research method is documentary and uses structural analysis.

Vladimir Putin acknowledges that his country is made up of different ethnicities, religions, generations with unique ideals, experiences, and expectations, and that to redefine national identity in the current circumstances, he must take all this diversity for granted. The cultural divide between younger generations, who have no idea what life was like under the Soviet Union and middle-aged people who have completely different values, makes things worse for the policymakers. The young generation suffers from a lack of national awareness, a decline in patriotic sentiment and the increasing grip of cyberspace - which is fundamentally associated with the Western lifestyle - and has failed to fully integrate with its national identity.Putin redefined modern Russian national identity as a combination of Tsarist and Soviet identities; one of the fundamental Soviet values based on contemporary Russian realities that encompasses the values of different groups and can mobilize them as a nation with common symbols, beliefs, values, political culture and national heroes, so that heterosexual tendencies are minimized. He takes the concept of nostalgia and uses it as a device of collective belonging and patriotism. Dedicating specific days on the calendar to commemorate historical events, opening museums, holding events to celebrate the achievements of past leaders and restoring cultural buildings are all part of Putin’s recognition of the importance of nostalgia in reviving identity. Vladimir Putin’s policy of managing the identity crisis and redefining it over the past years has been successful in restoring hope to Russian society by reconciling generations, ethnicities and religions. It is worth noting that Russia still has a long way to go to become a unified society. While governments strive to consolidate national symbols and emphasize the glorious past to resolve the identity crisis, cyberspace hinders the process of national awareness, especially among young people. The widespread influence of cyberspace dominated by the Western culture continues to further alienate the young generation from their cultural heritage and identity, hindering the pace of identity building in Russia.

Yeltsin's legacy in managing the identity crisis and its national revival is assessed as destructive in neglecting the historical past and discarding cultural values, with negative effects on the process of collective identification and a sense of belonging, which delays the realization of a coherent Russian identity. The memories of his administration are marked by economic stagnation and separatist turmoil, while Vladimir Putin’s achievements show positive progress. Although his government was by no means flawless, his reforms convinced Russians that he was the one who could reclaim lost glory and build respect from historical humiliation.

With the occurrence of the September 11, 2001, the activists of the international system inevitably turned to specific directions in dealing with the phenomenon of terrorism. In the meantime, the Russian Federation, as a powerful player in the eastern part of the international system, considered terrorism as a potential and actual threat to its national security. In addition, Russia is always worried about the spread and influence of terrorism and the dangers arising from it in the countries located in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Therefore, with a different reading of terrorism, Russia has proposed a kind of anti-terrorist discourse that suits its interests. Therefore, it is emphasized in this article, that Russia's view on terrorism, like other actors of the international system, is derived from the discourse procedures of this country in building itself and the other. On the one hand, Russia's anti-terrorism discourse constitutes Russia's motivations and interests in the fight against terrorism and on the other hand, it causes examples of terrorism to be represented in the foreign policy of this country and the presentation of an anti-terrorist policy in line with Russia's priorities.Research question: This research, seeks to find an answer to the question, what factors caused the development and formation of Russia's anti-terrorism discourse after the September 11 incident?

Research hypothesis:

 In response to this question, the present research claims that after September 11, Russia's anti-terrorism discourse was developed and consolidated around the central idea of Radical Islamism and extremism, and led to Russia's intervention with the aim of providing national security in peripheral regions such as Central Asia and the Caucasus.Methodology and theoretical framework: This article is done using the theoretical framework of discourse analysis of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe and its main components. The research method in the article is a combination of descriptive-analytical and causal approach, and the method of collecting research data is based on library and internet sources. This theoretical approach is applicable to communication studies such as political discourses, news analysis and other social communication topics. It can be used to examine a hegemonic discourse and a particular political discourse is shaped by different dominant political forces. In general, this theoretical model can be used to analyze broad issues related to discourse actions. Based on this, this discursive approach and its components have a high explanatory power for analyzing issues in social and political fields. In this article, the principles, and propositions of discourse analysis theory of Laclau and Mouffe are used to detail the field of Russian anti-terrorism discourse.

The most important propositions used are: 

central sign, floating sign, articulation, sphere of discourse, antagonism and hostility. In this way, first, Russia's discursive system against terrorism has been articulated; Then, based on the discourse indicators in the Russian anti-terrorism discourse, an attempt has been made to examine the most important terrorist groups that have been identified by the Russian Federation and Russia's practical actions against these groups.

The findings of this research indicate that Russia, along with the international system, after the September 11th incident, has faced the phenomenon of terrorism and based on its priorities and interests, it has started anti-terrorist discourse. Since September 11th, Russia has put the anti-terrorism policy on the agenda for many security reasons, including maintaining the security of the national borders and ensuring the security of the areas under its influence. Protecting the regions of Central Asia and the Caucasus against the risk of the spread and penetration of terrorism is considered one of Russia’s security priorities , because insecurity in these regions is a warning sign for Russia. In other words, these areas are considered as Russia’s gateway because there is a possibility of spreading any security challenges and tensions in these areas to the national borders of Russia. In addition, the Central Asian region as Russia's private life is of great importance for Russia due to security, economic reasons and shared historical and cultural background. In general, separatism as the main factor, along with factors such as radical Islamism, violent extremism and drug terrorism, constitute the discourse indicators of Russia's fight against terrorism, and since any discourse is bound to define "other" and "alienation" in order to continue its existence, therefore, based on its rhetorical signs in the fight against terrorism, Russia has introduced several xenophobic groups such as ISIS, Islamic Party of Uzbekistan and Caucasus Emirate Organization as terrorist groups, and its performance in dealing with these groups was explained in the context of this article.

The activities of Takfiri and Jihadi terrorist groups in the Middle East is a security threat for Russia because it causes the penetration of these groups in the regions under Russian influence, such as Central Asia and the Caucasus, and the emergence of drug terrorism and arms trafficking and endangers the security of Russia. The presence of separatist movements in the North Caucasus region is a cause of concern for Russia. From Russia's point of view, the existence of the Muslim minority in this region provides the basis for the activities of radical Islamists and Salafist ideas. Therefore, the Russian government has adopted a policy of cooperation with the countries of the Central Asian region to fight terrorism. Russia interprets the fight against these separatist movements and suppression of their movements as part of its global straggle against terrorism.

Hybrid war, has a high importance in the foreign policy of countries, and ,the majority of countries seek to make maximum use of this concept in order to secure their interests. Therefore there is a need to deeply examine the understanding of countries (especially powers) from this concept. For this purpose, explaining the hybrid war from the perspective of Russia, as one of the most important powers of the current international system, is of special importance for the I.R Iran. The main goal of the research is to discover and explain Moscow's understanding of the concept of hybrid warfare. This applied research has been done by exploratory-inductive method. In addition to its documentary tools, which consist of previous literature and Russian documents, this research has also used field tools with a statistical population of 30 people. The results of this research show that due to extensive investment and special attention to the hard and soft components of power, Russia now has the highest capabilities in the military, security and cyber fields and has made significant progress in the media, economic and political sectors. This has significantly increased Moscow's initiative to repel hybrid threats and countermeasures in this area, and has made hybrid warfare an important tool in the relations of this country. Hybrid warfare is a very vital concept in Russian security documents, and identification of hybrid threats and maximum preparation against them is one of the most important security priorities of the Kremlin.

In March 2003, the European Commission established a new policy with the title "New Neighborhood Policy of the European Union", which was later renamed "European Union Neighborhood Policy". The main goal of this policy was to expand peace and security and economic development and democracy in neighboring countries in order to stabilize and develop stability and security within the European Union. The ENP is designed to give new impetus to cooperation with the EU’s neighbours following enlargement.The ENP should reinforce the EU’s contribution to promoting the settlement of regional conflicts. Although the European Neighborhood Policy has been an effective policy in creating a peaceful environment across Europe, the implementation of its instruments must take into account the expectations of other major actors who have vital interests in that particular region. This research tries to explain the active regional policies of the European Union under the European Neighborhood Policy, which is considered by Russia as a security threat. The aim of the current research is to investigate the European Union's neighborhood policy under the theory of normative power of this Union in relation to the Ukraine crisis.In this article, using a descriptive-analytical research method and based on library studies and reliable internet sources, by analyzing the approach of the European Union towards Ukraine, it is concluded that the policy of the European Union negatively led to the escalation of tension in the region, which in turn The operation of the neighborhood policy itself has also disrupted it.

According to the history of European diplomacy, Russia's security hinges on its strategic influence in Central and Eastern Europe. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia's strategy to regain its position and security in Central and Eastern Europe raised concerns among countries in the region. In this regard, the Ukraine crisis in 2014 and the annexation of Crimea by Russia posed serious challenges to the security of the region and Europe as a whole. Consequently, countries in the region turned to forming regionalism patterns characterized by an anti-Russian stance to balance against Russia's power and influence. The Russia-Ukraine war in 2022 further aligned and synchronized anti-Russian behaviors in multilateral regional frameworks. Considering these factors, the question arises: How has anti-Russian regionalism in Central and Eastern Europe threatened Russia's national interests? The research hypothesis posits that anti-Russian regionalism in Central and Eastern Europe has threatened Russia's national interests and security through the political, military, and economic convergence of the regional countries. The research findings indicate that developing strategic relations among Central and Eastern European countries through tripartite cooperation triangles, regional organizations, and multilateral initiatives aimed at balancing against Russia has created military-security, political, and economic threats to Moscow's national interests in the region. The research method is qualitative with an analytical-explanatory approach, using the realist theory of balance of power to explain the subject.

One of the most important events of the 21st century is Russia's war against Ukraine, which affected not only the behavior pattern of the great powers, but also the type of activism of medium and weak governments. From this point of view, the following article, using the balance of power theory, tries to answer the question of what factors and goals caused Russia's military attack against Ukraine, and what are its consequences for Russia? From the point of view of the objective, this research is considered an applied research; Because it aims to investigate its various aspects, in terms of the power struggle between the great powers and its consequences. Due to the qualitative nature of the research, the library study method has been taken into consideration in this research and data has been collected through questionnaires. The main claim of the research states that geopolitical concerns and changes in the world order have caused Russia's military attack against Ukraine. Nevertheless, the type of performance of Russia and Ukraine against each other indicates a balance that has scattered the distribution of power. The research results show that the current war will have many consequences for Russia. So that the aid of Western powers to Ukraine, economic sanctions, imposing military costs on Russia, the development of NATO's influence in Russia's peripheral environment as negative aspects and the weakening of the hegemonic position of the US dollar, the decline of the liberal order and hegemony. America's aggression and multilateralism and the expansion of the look-to-the-east policy have been among the positive consequences for Russia in the Ukraine war.

The Iran nuclear agreement, which was concluded in 2015 between the 5+1 countries (the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany), has been suspended with the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA. Although Western and European countries were initially opposed to Iran's nuclear energy, countries such as China and Russia also supported the Iranian nuclear issue. Russia, in particular, is concerned about Iran's nuclear power on the one hand, along with the United States, and supports Iran's nuclear energy on the other. The main objective of the study, focusing on Russia's position, is to evaluate the country's foreign policy towards the Iranian nuclear issue in the post-JCPOA based on James Rosen's theory of continuum of analysis. The research findings show that although Russia supports Iran's nuclear energy program and does not agree with the US sanctions against Iran, it has chosen a dual policy due to its interests and commercial and economic interactions with European countries. In other words, this country is opposed to a nuclear Iran and seeks to achieve its superpower status. The research method is qualitative, the data collection method is library and cyberspace data, and the analytical method is descriptive-explanatory.

Iran-Russia relations have historically experienced multiple fluctuations, encompassing war, conflict, confrontation, cooperation, friendship, convergence, and divergence. In recent decades, bilateral relations have shifted toward constructive cooperation and interaction to fulfill Tehran and Moscow's mutual interests and objectives. This shift is evident in strategic alliances such as their joint involvement in the Syrian war, which has significantly strengthened their political, military, and security relations. However, statistical data indicate that economic relations between Iran and Russia have not followed the trajectory of other areas of cooperation, remaining at a lower-than-expected level. Officials from both countries have repeatedly acknowledged this issue. Against this backdrop, the present study, through a diagnostic approach, seeks to identify the reasons for the divergence in Iran-Russia economic relations. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and drawing upon the theories of convergence and divergence, the study's findings reveal that weak communication infrastructure, marginalization of the private sector, lack of an industrial economy, weaknesses in marketing strategies, sanctions, imbalanced geopolitical and geo-economic factors, bureaucratic structures, competition in the energy sector, and failure to capitalize on export opportunities are the primary factors impeding the economic convergence between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia. Both countries possess significant potential in these areas.

With the gradual decline of the United States of America's dominant position, there is an increasing focus on power redistribution and the reshuffling of roles in international politics. This situation has given rise to a significant conflict between countries advocating for the status quo and revisionist powers such as Russia, China, and Iran. The outcome of this conflict holds direct implications for the future of international relations, encompassing elements such as structures, actors, communication patterns, norms, as well as key trends like balances, institutions, and the global economy. Hence, the primary research question at hand pertains to the approaches undertaken by Russia, China, and Iran in countering the goals and plans of the United States as the hegemonic power in international relations. Specifically, the inquiry seeks to ascertain whether these three revisionist countries have adopted similar approaches and reactions against the dominant power. In order to address these questions, we propose the hypothesis that the behavior patterns of Russia, China, and Iran as revisionist countries, in response to the foreign policy of the hegemonic power, are shaped by their respective advantages in terms of geography-geopolitics, politics, defense-security, culture-civilization, and bilateral relations with the United States. Consequently, their experiences and processes differ significantly.

The Islamic State of Khorasan Province is one of the branches of ISIS that is not only still active three years after its establishment, but is currently expanding its regional influence. The capture of Kabul by the Taliban in 1400, along with the withdrawal of the United States and the collapse of the Afghan government, created a new opportunity for ISIS Khorasan to regroup and resume its violent attacks. The terrorist acts that ISIS has so far registered in its name have also provoked a reaction from the Taliban, to the extent that this group has given ISIS the nickname "Khavarej". ISIS Khorasan seeks to disrupt the existing order in the region through violent methods. Given the geographical proximity of Afghanistan to the Iran and the goals of ISIS Khorasan and its regional and extra-regional supporters, this article seeks to explain and identify this group, examine the current status and strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As one of the major global players, Russia has experienced offensive and defensive roles in its lifetime, considering the developments in the regional environment such as West Asia and its power, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have witnessed Russia's regional policy seriously since 2000. Because establishing relations with West Asia has been very important, on the one hand, to improve internal weaknesses after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and on the other hand, to increase and strengthen Russia's influence in the West Asian region. In the West Asian region, Iran and Israel are two important countries for Russia to achieve its goals. Since these two countries are engaged in conflict, Russia's behavioral pattern with these two players is important. Therefore, the main question of the article is what kind of geopolitical approach has Russia adopted towards Iran and Israel, considering the opportunities and challenges it faces? To answer this question, our hypothesis is that Russia has adopted a geopolitical balancing model in order to achieve its great power in this region and consolidate it by continuing its cooperation with both countries. This research is based on a descriptive-analytical approach using trend research and case study methods as qualitative research methods, which were used to collect information from documentary-library sources and reliable cyberspace websites. This research is based on a descriptive-analytical approach using trend research and case study methods as qualitative research methods, which were used to collect information from documentary-library sources and reliable cyberspace websites.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the growth of technologies such as artificial intelligence have transformed the competition between great powers. Tools and systems based on artificial intelligence have special characteristics that allow countries that own the technology to gain greater military power by taking advantage of them and can play an effective role in the global future. Despite the fact that the use of artificial intelligence leads to strategic stability and a lack of motivation for nuclear powers to engage in armed conflict, the lack of attention to understanding how nuclear power policymakers perceive artificial intelligence technologies and their effects has led this research to examine the relationship between artificial intelligence and strategic stability between the United States and Russia not only through the technical nature of artificial intelligence but also through policymakers' beliefs about these technologies and the goals of other countries for using them. Using a documentary study method and a descriptive-analytical approach, this article seeks to answer the question of how decision-makers in the United States and Russia have acted on the military development of artificial intelligence and the establishment of strategic stability by perceptually analyzing their official discourses between 2014 and 2023. Based on the findings, the United States and Russia have created a threat from their artificial intelligence capabilities from a military perspective that reflects their views of strategic stability as well as a social context characterized by distrust and a sense of competition. The discourses in their thinking have led to the formation of a competitive cycle of erroneous and irreparable perceptions after the Ukraine crisis.