Three logics that shape the foreign policy strategy and behavior of the various governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the face of the security dilemma posed by the United States: Fatalist logic, Mitigator logic, and Transcender logic:

"Security Dilemma" is considered a central concept among all neorealist theories. How a country interprets the "security dilemma" resulting from the actions of another country (ies) and what strategy and behavior it adopts based on that interpretation. Government decision-makers and policymakers interpret the security dilemma through three a priori logics (the Fatalist logic, the Mitigator logic, and the Transcender logic). By framing the concept of "security dilemma", this study seeks to answer the main question that the "strategies and behaviors of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in various governments towards the "security dilemma" due to the military presence of the United States in the regions around Iran, How are they formed?"It hypothesizes that "the various governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran, by choosing one of three Fatalist, Mitigator and Transcender logics to interpret the 'security dilemma' resulting from the presence of the United States in the regions around Iran. Iran has chosen a specific type of foreign policy strategy and behavior:1)by Fatalist logic, maximizing the consolidation of components of power (including military power) and not giving up the missile program in exchange for some incentives. Has been pursued, because otherwise the survival of the system is threatened (such as the issue of Libya); 2)by Mitigator logic, policies such as de-escalation and the signing of agreements such as the JCPOA have been unsuccessful due to US cheating and concerns about relative gains