united states

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.

The rise of Donald Trump in the United States and his foreign policy positions represent the most significant departure from internationalism in Republican administrations' foreign policy since the end of World War II. This shift stands in stark contrast to the highly internationalist and interventionist approaches of the three preceding Republican administrations. Such a notable change raises the question: Why did the Trump administration choose a foreign policy path different from its predecessors? To address this question, the present study employs neoclassical realism as its theoretical framework and utilizes a historical research method. It examines three historical periods in U.S. foreign policy in which Republican inclinations toward internationalism declined. By analyzing intra-party dynamics in these three periods, the study aims to identify the key factors influencing shifts in Republican foreign policy. The findings indicate a direct relationship between the reduction of threats to U.S. security and interests and the decline of internationalism in Republican foreign policy. In all three periods, following the decline of a major threat to the U.S., there was a growing shift away from internationalism in Republican foreign policy preferences, which subsequently influenced the foreign policies of Republican administrations. In this context, Trump's foreign policy discourse emerged due to the diminished threat from terrorist groups and the Republican Party's reluctance to bear the high costs of the War on Terror. From this perspective, Trump's foreign policy discourse represents a balance between security concerns and cost aversion within Republican policy preferences.

The South China Sea holds strategic importance in U.S. foreign policy in East Asia. China's economic growth and, consequently, the strengthening of its military capabilities—particularly its navy—and the activities of this force in the South China Sea have raised concerns among coastal states and the United States about Beijing’s dominance in the region. This issue has led to Washington’s intervention and extensive presence in East Asia under the pretext of supporting freedom of navigation operations, but in reality, to curb China's rising influence and create a balance against it in the region. Therefore, the main question of this research is: What policy does the U.S. pursue to prevent China's rise in the South China Sea? The article’s hypothesis is that since China's increasing economic and military power, and consequently its expanding regional influence in the South China Sea, is considered a strategic threat to coastal countries and the United States, Washington has sought to counterbalance China's growing power in the region by expanding its presence and forming alliances with coastal states in the South China Sea. This approach, in addition to preventing China’s increasing power in the region, can also curb Beijing’s hegemony and dominance over the waters of East Asia. The research data has been analyzed using a qualitative analysis method. This study is qualitative in nature and based on a descriptive-analytical approach, while information has been collected through library research.

With the onset of the Syrian crisis, various domestic, regional, and international actors adopted distinct strategies in response to the situation. This was particularly evident due to Syria’s critical geopolitical and geostrategic position in West Asia. As a global superpower with extensive interests, the United States pursued an interventionist strategy aimed at safeguarding its interests and those of its regional allies throughout the Syrian crisis. Initially, the U.S. supported efforts to overthrow the Syrian regime by backing Arab opposition forces. However, as the opposition weakened and faced defeat against the Syrian regime and its allies, the U.S. shifted its focus to the Kurdish forces, seeking to maintain its strategic interests through a new partnership. This study aims to answer the main question: What strategy underlies the U.S. approach toward the Syrian Kurds? The hypothesis suggests that the relationship between these two actors is not characterized by the deep commitments typical of a strategic alliance. Instead, the U.S.-Syrian Kurds partnership is more accurately described as a dynamic alignment—temporary, conditional, and responsive to immediate threats, particularly in combating ISIS terrorism and containing regional powers such as Iran and Turkey. This article examines the factors shaping this dynamic alignment and the limitations that have prevented it from evolving into a strategic alliance. The research is qualitative, employing a descriptive-analytical approach based on the theory of dynamic alignment. Additionally, this study is document-based, utilizing library research methods (both printed and digital sources) for data collection.

From 2013 to 2023, the United States has followed a clear path in its reaction to China's Silk Road initiative, gradually shifting from a position of silence and indirect actions to aggressive and confrontational behaviors regarding China's infrastructure initiative. The aim of this article is to explain why the United States’ positions towards China's Silk Road initiative have gradually become more confrontational. In this context, the main question based on the article's descriptive-explanatory method is: why has the U.S. stance towards the initiative become increasingly confrontational in the decade following the announcement of the Silk Road initiative (2013-2023)? The response proposed as a hypothesis to this question is that the increasing confrontational position of the U.S. towards China's Silk Road initiative is a function of the changing nature of relations between the two countries from cooperation to competition. This shift has led to a move from President Obama’s relatively cooperative approach towards the initiative to a competitive stance under President Trump, followed by an escalation of competition during President Biden’s administration. The findings of the article indicate that, given the evolving U.S. approach to the Belt and Road Initiative, there remains potential for increased competition with China in the area of international infrastructure development.

The present study seeks to conduct a comparative evaluation of the nuclear policies of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Rouhani administrations from the perspective of David Easton's systems theory. The primary research question is whether systemic factors have led to differences in the approaches of the Ahmadinejad and Rouhani governments toward nuclear energy. The hypothesis posits that considering the systemic impact of domestic and international factors and the primacy of internal and international structural constraints over foreign policy decision-makers, despite the political and ideological differences between Ahmadinejad and Rouhani, the two presidents' approaches to nuclear energy have not significantly diverged. The research method employed in this dissertation is explanatory and utilizes a causal-structural mechanism. The results indicate that the Ahmadinejad administration, from the outset, pursued its nuclear policy by severing relations with major powers and disregarding sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the United States. However, with the rise of Hassan Rouhani to power, although he initially pursued a path of engagement with major powers regarding nuclear energy—ultimately culminating in an agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with world powers—his administration eventually reverted to the same policies and orientations that had been adopted by the Ahmadinejad government. The reason behind the similarity in nuclear policymaking between the two administrations, despite their distinct political perspectives, lies in the structure of the international system. The behavior of the Rouhani administration toward major powers on the nuclear energy issue, particularly after the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, followed the same trajectory previously experienced by the Ahmadinejad administration. Given the primacy of structure over agents in the international system, political ideologies and partisan affiliations have not significantly influenced the foreign policy decisions of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding nuclear energy. Instead, the structural constraints of the international system have been the determining factors shaping Iran's foreign policy in this domain.

In the post-Cold War era, western liberal governments gradually became more inclined to use the economic sanctions against opposing states, considering the experiences they gained from the costly wars of the Cold War period. This process affected the international order in different ways. Despite the various motivations that have been announced about sanctions, most of them have been established in order to protect the liberal international order. The positive effect of sanctions on international security and consequently the stability of the liberal order could not be denied. But at the same time, there have been consequences that indicate the complexity of the effects of sanctions. The question of the article is the effects of the expansion of Western economic sanctions in the post-Cold War era on the liberal international order. The primary answer is that the expansion of economic sanctions has had a dual impact on the liberal international order. They have helped to strengthen the liberal order, but at the same time, they create losses in the long run. This research has carried out with mixed methods research.

The degree of internationalism in different Administrations of the United States has a direct influence on the degree of interventionism of this country and especially has affected the security and national interests of Iran. Unlike to democratic Administrations, this type of tendency in Republican Administrations has changed its direction twice from a traditional tendency to isolationism to a militant internationalism, during the last century. In order to answer the reason for such a change in the foreign policy preferences of the Republican Party, the present research has used the framework of the neoclassical realism theory and the historical research method and tried to analyze the dynamics in the foreign policy preferences of the Republicans in two historical periods World War II and War on Terror, to identify the factors influencing the occurrence of such a change. The results of the mentioned studies show that in both periods, despite the inherent lack of desire for internationalism, the Republicans have shown a considerable tendency towards a militant internationalism, the first time in order to deal with the emergence of the great threat of Soviet communism after the World War II and the second time It was due to the manifestation of the threat of terrorism after the September 11 attacks. In this way, the results of the foreign policy preferences of the Republicans indicate that in consequence of increase in the degree of major threats against the security of the United States, their tendency to internationalism has increased significantly. A feature that is not seen so strongly in the Democratic Party.

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.

After two decades of a U.S.-led global order, the resurgence of great power competition has emerged as the defining characteristic of the international system in the 21st century. In this new era of great power rivalry, the multipolar dynamics among the U.S., China, and Russia, along with the U.S.-China duality, hold particular significance. China, currently the second-largest economy and the largest energy consumer, is poised to become the world's largest economy by 2030. China's rise as a global power has presented challenges to the U.S. across economic, military, technological, and ideological dimensions. Given the ongoing competition between the two nations, the central question of this article is what trajectory China and the U.S. have followed in their bilateral relations to reach a level of competition and confrontation in the technological sphere, and what are the primary dimensions of this rivalry? Based on the hypothesis and findings of the research, it can be stated that the strategic goal of the U.S. was to integrate China into the international system under its hegemony, grounded in the belief that supporting China's ascent and incorporating it into a Western-centric international order would foster economic liberalization and extend to China's political system. The objective of this research is to provide an overview of the confrontation between the United States and China in the technological-commercial domain. According to the research findings, competition between the U.S. and China is likely to persist over the next decade, and given the complexity of the relations between these two countries, it may lead to limited collusions and cooperation on challenges such as climate change, ultimately shaping a new international order.

 The Gaza crisis, which erupted following the “Al-Aqsa Storm” operation on October 7, 2023, has become one of the most intricate crises in the history of international relations. This crisis, marked by ongoing violence, infrastructure devastation, and what many view as acts of genocide by the Israeli regime, has drawn intense attention from the international community. Developments in Gaza—especially military conflicts, the humanitarian situation, and internal and regional political shifts—have inevitably influenced U.S. foreign policy approaches and priorities. Thus, the primary research question posed here is: what are the foundational elements shaping U.S. foreign and security policy during the Gaza crisis from 2023 to 2024 ?To address this question, the following hypothesis is proposed: U.S. foreign and security policy in the Gaza crisis is driven by a paradoxical attempt to simultaneously uphold its role and credibility as a defender of human rights and democracy, while also safeguarding the strategic and geopolitical interests of the Israeli regime in the region. Research findings indicate that these policies manifest through a dual approach: on one hand, public statements supporting Palestinian rights and managing international criticism, and on the other, substantive support for the Israeli regime in the form of financial, military, security, and diplomatic aid. This apparent contradiction between discourse and action creates a dualistic image of U.S. foreign and security policy in this crisis.This study employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis within the scientific framework, utilizing a descriptive-explanatory approach and gathering data through library research and documentation methods.

The use of sports and sports diplomacy has been well-documented in the history of global diplomatic practices. In recent years, sports have served as a diplomatic tool, with sports diplomacy regarded as one of the most pivotal methods for fostering soft power. Nations have employed such strategies to mitigate tensions in various social, political, economic, and cultural domains with other actors. Over the past few decades, the relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States has faced numerous challenges. The participation of Iran's national teams, particularly the volleyball team, in international events such as the Volleyball World League and the Olympic Games has created opportunities to enhance Iran's standing and even reduce tensions with its long-standing adversary, the United States. This raises the question: how does the soft power of sports diplomacy influence Iran-U.S. relations? This study hypothesizes that the soft power generated by sports diplomacy leads to a relative improvement in cultural and sports relations between Iran and the United States. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, the findings reveal that sports, even amid heightened tensions between the two nations, have maintained minimal levels of interaction and provided a platform for implicit political objectives for both Iran and the United States. While sports diplomacy has the potential to improve Iran-U.S. relations, it faces distinct limitations due to the entrenched mistrust between Washington and Tehran. At critical junctures and with minimal costs, sports have contributed to temporary improvements in Iran-U.S. relations. It is recommended that greater emphasis be placed on hosting major international volleyball events, which can project a different image of the Islamic Republic of Iran by leveraging the soft power of sports. Additionally, targeted investment in sports diplomacy, particularly volleyball, should be pursued to neutralize anti-Iranian propaganda and combat media-driven Iranophobia.

This research, titled "Foreign Policy Strategies of Iran towards the United States after the Islamic Awakening: From Ideological Confrontation to Geopolitical Engagement," analyzes Iran's policies during this period and how they have influenced its regional role and international relations. The main research question is: How has Iran managed to balance its ideological principles with geopolitical requirements in its foreign policy? The hypothesis of this study is that Iran's foreign policy in this period is defined as a combination of ideological confrontation with the United States and purposeful geopolitical engagement, aimed at strengthening its regional strategic interests while maintaining national independence. The research method is descriptive-analytical, utilizing library sources and documented data to conduct a comparative analysis of Iran's policies during this period. The findings of the study show that Iran has leveraged the Islamic Awakening to enhance its ideological role in the region, while also engaging in limited geopolitical interactions, such as the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), to alleviate the economic and political pressures resulting from confrontation with the United States. This study emphasizes that Iran's foreign policy is a blend of ideology and realism, adjusted according to changing regional and international conditions.

Using a descriptive-analytical method and employing the theory of international regimes, this study addresses the question: how have international sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran affected shifts in power dynamics in West Asia? The findings indicate that international sanctions have brought substantial changes to Iran’s military, economic, and diplomatic policies in the region, intensifying regional rivalries and tensions. Although these sanctions have negatively impacted Iran’s economy, they have not fully achieved the West’s objectives against the country and have, instead, contributed to increased geopolitical tensions in the region. On the other hand, the Islamic Republic of Iran has mitigated these pressures through diplomatic tools, informal networks, and alternative pathways, maintaining its influence in the region. Furthermore, despite the economic challenges imposed by the sanctions, Iran has bolstered its military power and continued its support for the "Axis of Resistance" in countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, asserting a pivotal role in regional equations and remaining a key player in West Asia.

The Oded Yinon Plan, proposed in the 1980s, aimed primarily at the disintegration of Middle Eastern countries and their weakening to establish a "Greater Israel." This plan was designed to exploit ethnic and sectarian tensions to create divisions and instability within the region. However, due to the resistance of regional countries, particularly Iran's pivotal role in strengthening resistance fronts in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Palestine, the plan ultimately failed. By supporting these forces, Iran was able to thwart the secessionist agendas of Israel and the United States. Following the failure of the Yinon Plan, Israel and the U.S. pursued a new approach known as the "Deal of the Century" and the "Abraham Accords," aimed at normalizing relations with Arab countries and solidifying Israel's influence in the region as an energy hub. Nevertheless, the occurrence of Operation "Al-Aqsa Storm" in October 2023 rendered all these agreements ineffective, triggering a wave of global reactions against Israeli policies. This article aims to analyze the Yinon Plan and its attempts to fragment the Middle East and weaken regional countries. It examines the roles of the United States and Western powers in implementing this plan, as well as Iran's response and its efforts to bolster the resistance front. This research employs a descriptive-analytical method, utilizing qualitative sources to explore various dimensions of the plan and its impacts.

In the US national security strategy document, a wide range of national security issues of this country, including global competition with great powers, emerging technology threats, multi-pillar challenges in West Asia, regional Iran threat, have been discussed. The concern and issue of the article is what is the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the US government's national security strategy document? This article is applied and done by the method of inductive development of categories. The information of this research has been collected from two methods, "field" using the interview tool and "library" using the text of the 2022 US National Security document and analyzed using the "Max Kyuda" software. The findings of the article indicate that in the national security document of the Biden government, specifically "six" concerns about Iran are claimed, which include "interference in the internal affairs of neighboring countries", "missile and drone proliferation", "hurting Americans, including former officials", "threat to the freedom of navigation", "advancing the nuclear program beyond the need" and also "wasting the fundamental rights of the people of our country". According to the results of the research, the American security strategy to deal with all these challenges and threats to Iran, including delegating responsibility to allies, tactical threats, political deterrence, and strong operational measures to limit Iran's power in domestic, regional and international issues. International, economic sanctions and finally taking advantage of all these will be in the proposition of "strategic integration".

The rise of China as a major power is one of the most significant developments in global politics in the 21st century. As a result, this has sparked concerns from the United States and Southeast Asian countries. In response, Washington has implemented its grand strategy to enhance deterrence and maintain the balance of power in Asia through the "Pivot to Asia" and "Indo-Pacific" strategies. Chinese leadership, on the other hand, views these American strategies as intensifying the security dilemma in the region, which not only increases the likelihood of direct confrontation, but also poses a serious challenge to China's growth trajectory.Given the current situation and China's desire for economic development and strategic engagement with Washington, the question is “What strategy should Beijing adopt to avoid being harmed by pressure from the United States and its allies in Southeast Asia?” China's actions suggest that it has adopted what is known as a "hedging" strategy to secure its strategic interests while avoiding confrontation with the US. Indeed, it seeks to foster its development by leveraging its strategic engagement with the US. In other words, Beijing has endeavored to respond decisively but with strategic caution, to avoid conflict with the US, prevent anti-balancing coalitions (by Southeast Asian countries), and ensure the continuation of its power growth.The hedging strategy is a thoughtful approach that manifests as a cautious response to risks in a constructive, peaceful, and non-confrontational manner. It closely aligns with Beijing's peaceful diplomacy in the region, aimed at maximizing benefits and minimizing threats. In general, China's hedging strategy is based on two pillars: first, reassuring its surrounding environment (Southeast Asia) regarding the benign consequences of Beijing's growing power; and second, indirectly balancing the US through soft competition.

The article's hypothesis is examined through a descriptive-analytical method and involves two main variables: First, the independent variable, which includes the "Pivot to Asia" strategy—a form of rebalancing by the United States against China—and the "Indo-Pacific" strategy, which represents an aggressive policy by the United States towards China. Second, the dependent variable is China's hedging strategy.

The relationship between China and the United States, as two major powers, has ranged from cooperation to competition over the past two decades. Throughout this period, Chinese political leaders (from the second generation of leadership to the present) have sought to secure their interests and respond to threats by addressing structural and domestic factors. In essence, China's foreign policy has been based on economic growth aimed at peaceful development and strategic caution in the face of security risks. This approach has enabled Beijing to take steady steps towards continued economic growth and, in parallel, enhance and stabilize its power in the region as it entered the new millennium.In the meantime, China's increasing role in Asia and its high potential to become a hegemon prompted the United States to operationalize its strategy to enhance deterrence and contain Beijing through the "Pivot to Asia" and "Indo-Pacific" strategies. In response, Beijing adopted the hedging strategy as its Asian policy.

Beijing's hedging strategy is structured in two layers. The initial layer itself has two dimensions. The first pertains to the mutual dependency between Beijing and the United States, which China seeks to maintain and exploit to sustain its power growth. The second relates to China's growing security concerns regarding threats from the US, which may lead to a confrontation. These considerations have driven China to manage its relations carefully and avoid geopolitical competition with the US. The subsequent layer concerns Beijing's response to US actions in its surrounding environment, namely Southeast Asia. In this regard, Beijing has attempted to overcome challenges posed by the US by adopting a "reassurance approach" to weaken any coalitions against China.

In recent decades, the international system has witnessed a period of transition from its traditional order to its new order. The change in the distribution of actors' abilities has caused a change in the structure of the international system. Such a setting has caused the old world order with its four characteristics of power-centered, state-centered, interest-centered, western-centered to decline to the center of America. In the meantime, the United States has tried to deal with actors and procedures against the existing order by using various strategies. Russia is one of the actors challenging the current US-centered unipolar system, which it is trying to disrupt. This article seeks to answer the question of what strategies the United States has used to contain Russia in order to face it. The findings of the research, which are based on the library method and a descriptive-analytical approach, indicate that the United States is trying to face the problem of Russia's power increase by adopting strategies such as shifting responsibility and balancing, both hard and soft. The conflicts of Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014 and 2021) can be interpreted in the framework of the strategy of shifting responsibility. On the other hand, the growth of the export of military weapons to Russia's competitors and the development of military-security alliances against this country are examples of a difficult balance. The use of economic sanctions and diplomacy can also be investigated and studied as methods of soft balance.

It seems that the main cause of Russia's 2022 war in Ukraine is America's greed, breach and sabotage in Ukraine's politics. The other ones are the predominance of individualistic and hedonistic spirit among Ukrainian people and politicians, corruption among rulers, execution of the World Bank's economic policies in the country, lack of belief in a transcendental ideology and being trapped in racism. Nato's wrong policies after Ussr's collapse, distortion of facts by the empire of mainstream medias and western obstructionism in the process of peace agreements have transformed Ukraine into an unsolvable problem. In spite of myriad weapons given to Ukraine by the west, Russia already has the upper hand and in the new international order, could prevent Nato expansion toward its borders and converted Ukraine into a rump and non-functional state.
   In the status quo, there is no chance of a stable peace agreement. In the distant future, in some points, the two parts might come to a ceasefire which will lead to a frozen conflict. The United States wants to decrease the power of Russia's army in Ukraine's battlefield, wreck its economy and degrade its ranking in the hierarchical order of international politics.

Many people had high hopes for significant improvements to the United States foreign policy when Barack Obama took office as president in 2009. Obama’s administration faced enormous financial and military burdens, as well as a great deal of anti-American sentiment due to George W. Bush Jr.'s aggressive strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Following these developments, it appeared that the US was committed to cutting costs and dispelling anti-US sentiment globally, particularly overseas. Obama discussed resolving Iran’s nuclear challenges, bringing an end to the Iraqi conflict, advancing peace between Israel and Palestine, and adopting a fresh approach to diplomacy with the Islamic world when running for office. Despite his concurrent pursuit of his “pivoting to Asia” concept, the Middle East did not appear to have lost direction in this country’s foreign and security-military policy. While in the White House, Obama announced initiatives like minimal footprint, pivoting to Asia, and distant leadership in an attempt to reverse the approaches of his predecessors. A modification that has essentially always been the topic of debate over its nature, requirements, and implementation.It took a long time for the United States to comprehend the nature of the still-unstable changes in the Arab world, where countries like Egypt are frequently close to the country. In addition to changing the military and security setup of the United States,therise of unconventional powers within formerly friendly countries also presented new threats. Washington consistently stressed that Iran should remain the primary focus of the Middle East’s challenges, although dealing with specific positions and steps in response to developments in the Arab world. Simultaneously, he forged unique partnerships with emerging players, inviting them to participate in the area.Following Obama, Donald Trump likewise believed that Iran was the primary cause of the Middle East’s problems. He referred to the nuclear agreement with Iran as a “very bad agreement” and ultimately tightened sanctions against the country by applying the greatest amount of pressure. Donald Trump was also conscious of the costs associated with his nation’s military involvement in the region. Throughout his speech, he emphasized the need for all of the nations in the region to fulfill their security and military obligations, particularly in the Persian Gulf and in anticipation of the US pulling out of the Middle East sooner rather than later. Along with the Palestinian issue, he also brought up schemes like the “Deal of the Century” and the relocation of the US embassy to Tel Aviv. In the end, he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal.

The objective of this study is to comprehend the Middle Eastern geopolitical processes that transpired from 2009 to 2018 and assess their influence on the military-security policies and plans of the United States as a global and regional actor. All levels of analysis should be used to assess these developments, which have given the world’s political knowledge a new dimension of menace and chaos. Using a new term of management and involvement in international relations for all participants in this region is a severe and essentially inevitable task today since turning to traditional ways of crisis resolution in the current world imposes astronomical costs.

This research endeavors to comprehend the contemporary tactics and reactions of the United States of America in the Middle East. The White House, the Pentagon, and US military and security agencies provide records and studies that the author of this piece uses to determine this superpower’s security strategy. As one of the major and influential actors in the area, the Islamic Republic of Iran is both impacted by and has a broad influence on regional developments. Iran may make more informed decisions about its regional alliances and increase its influence in the region by recognizing US behavior and comprehending the formula of US policies in its Middle East partnerships. This underscores the importance of this study.

After careful analysis, this report concludes that the benefits of this partnership outweigh the money the US spent on its prior military presence strategies. By boosting the possibility of aid from friends, the strategic partnership has allowed the United States to improve both deterrence against its forces in the region and its capacity to defend itself against assault. However, realism also explains why countries and non-governmental organizations in the Middle East find strategic partnerships with the United States appealing. An ally is more open to entering into a strategic alliance the weaker it is.Over more than seven decades, the United States has had many plans for security cooperation in the Middle East. These have included training local forces and direct engagement in the fight, with the most significant being the supply of weapons and ammunition to the region. Compared to Asia and Europe, the US has far more slack in its partnership with the Middle East. To combat ISIS, the United States can form a significant coalition with Arab nations and collaborate with Tehran and Damascus concurrently with a Sunni alliance. The extreme unrest in this region has made forming long-term alliances exceedingly challenging.According to US military and security records, China’s circumstances have altered so much over the years that the notion of the US having the most expensive army in the world engaged in a full-scale conflict and maybe losing is still entertained. It seems as though this army’s methods are out of step with the demands of the contemporary world.

The United States has adopted two primary and interrelated strategies to counter these contemporary threats: expanding its network of allies and partners and strengthening its military’s capacity to operate throughout the world. With the ultimate goal of preserving the balance of power in strategically important regions of the world and defending the vital interests of the United States, partners, and allies bolster America’s military and political capabilities and support its operations. Additionally, the United States provides these partners with deterrence against aggressors. Being able to confront adversarial allies and partners and strengthen this alliance while also preventing them from depending on the US to achieve their military objectives would be ideal for the US defense system because it would be less costly and risky to establish deterrence in this scenario. Furthermore, it will strengthen this nation’s capacity to deal with its adversaries in the future