فصلنامه مطالعات روابط بین الملل
پیاپی 27 (پاییز 1393)

With appearance of the Orange Revolution in Ukrainein2004, although the political system did not change however a shift of power with in the government occurred by the "Regions of Ukraine" party on the blue revolution in 2010 under the pro-Russian leadership of "Yanakvvych" and was replaced by the common West led way of "Purshnkev" and "Tymoshenko". This shift of power thatwasviolentonce again showed the gapbetweentheEastUkrainewho is pro-Russian andWestUkraine who are thepro-union membershipinEurope andhavingclose relationswithAmerica in further shape. Western countries andRussia havesoughtto attractUkraine.But whileMoscow considered NATO's presence andEuropean Union in its bordersas a threatandis willing topayenormouseconomic and political expenses in order toprevent this from happening, butEuropeanUnion is notprepared topay fortheabsorptionof this country. It seemsKievinsupportoftheEuropeanUniontowardsRussiahaslost hope andwantedWashington presence which hasatougherstancetowardUkraine's crisis.This paperis also attempting todescribetwoblue andorangerevolutionsin Ukraine,the roots of theconflictsexistingin the countryatthree national, regionalandinternational levels andthecompetitivenessof the West andRussiain Ukrainewillbe reviewed andanalyzed.

Up sep.11¡ 2011 terrorist attacks to world trade organization (WTO) as most effective terrorist attacks which was regarded as turning point at international relations: the issue of terrorism was changed into security agenda. In fact sep.11¡2001 terrorist attacks: the issue of terrorism was changed into factor in the way of formation to foreign policy of some countries and in the field of international policy: each country based on its values and norms fight against asymmetric threats and terrorism and selected specific strategy. In his way following up sep.11¡ 2011 terrorist attacks in U.S.A the doctrine of war against terrorism and combat with mass destruction weapons was compiled by neoconservative party. E.U. approved strategy of combat with mass destruction weapons: which resulted in coalition of great worlds powers against terrorism. In the way of combat with terrorism¡ Sep.11¡ 2011 terrorist attacks prepared suitable grounds for attacks of U.S.A to Afghanistan in year 2001 and following up attack to Iraq in year 2003 without accompany of EU countries such as: France and Germany and regardless to U.N. which resulted in great gap between relations of EU beyond Atlantic region and U.S.A in the field of combat with terrorism. In the present research it is dealt with this question that: What is similarity and difference among strategies of EU and U.S.A in relation to combat with terrorism.

Zionism is the product of a political interpretation of the Jewish religion in the nineteenth century, which could gradually and with the support of western countries make a unified discourse and focus Jews’ public opinion on Palestine territory, and with the establishment of a Jewish state in Middle East in addition to giving the promise of peace to the Jewish refugees in the specified land, proposed the para territorial idea of from Nile to Euphrates, but this fragmented society is faced with different challenges in political, sociological, population, strategic areas and intellectual, identity discourse issues, so that vast changes has happened in the dominating ideas underlying the foundation of a Jewish state. The changes in academic levels inside Israel, which has brought in new intellectual challenges to society and the governing board, by reviewing and revising the formation of Zionist discourse consideration and evaluation of the achievement of the aims and objectives. The process has many similarities with the flow of post modernism against modernism in west. Transition from this intellectual operational stalemate point is possible through alternative discourses and new resolutions which are in accordance with the internal and external realities of Israel and the region. Suppositions show public interest would be drawn to the new intellectual proposition which is more conforming with the reality & probability of arc-typical & station.

Security Struggle between Iran and Saudi in the Middle East rather than by competing national interests of both countries will be affected by the symptoms it is linguistics competition.Two Governments seek to dominate the Islam world through the lens of their own knowledge.Due to fundamental differences in the Linguistic symptoms competition and conflict between the two countrie's bilateral not lessened but rather highly developed forms of militant groups affiliated.Syria crisis , the battle between the Lebanese Hezbollah group and Dash (ISIL) in Syria, clashes in Iraq's Sunni and Shiite sectarian militias, sectarian clashes in Lebanon's internal governance of the crisis, some Persian Gulf countries including Bahrain Syndrome battle hardened ideological foundations of linguistics in the Middle East. n other hand, Noting that the two countrie's foreign policy will be strictly limited to the ideological foundation of linguistic elements thatPossibility of a quick solution to control terrorism in the Middle East region is subdued in the short term.With these qualities you should look at the struggle of the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia and Iran, the will power to develop different forms of fundamentalism text to see both sides to the terror leader is.Thus, what is needed in part to linguistic analysts of international relations in the Middle East conflicts and problems to simply consider issues not such as the balance of power.

Israel is one of the most serious threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since 1990 Israeli authorities have repeatedly announced that if Iran reach nuclear bomb and complete Bushehr nuclear plant, they will attack it. Iran's discourse after Islamic Republic revolution have been deeply affected by cultural – religious factors, Independence and rejection of the hegemonic discourse, the discourse of Islamism and ethnic supremacy negation, the unity of the Islamic Forum and supportive discourses towards Palestinians and the elimination of Israel and the rejection of all foreign forces from the region which are caused by this issue. On the other side Israelis have announced their animosity towards Iran. Based on current discourse in Israel, Israeli authorities have said these reasons as their animosity towards Iran: Iran's support from Palestinian groups who are against Israel, Iran's opposition for Middle East peace process, Iran's reach to nuclear weapon. But from the evidence it can be seen that the main factor is nuclear weapon. Israeli authorities are worried about radical Islamism and nuclear weapon. The main cause of military threat of Israel towards Islamic Republic of Iran is ideological which should be said is forever. The main question of this research is that what is the main reason of military threat of Israel towards Iran? the hypothesis that answers this question is that the most important reason for Israel to threaten Iran is identity and fearing Iran to be nuclear and breaking its monopoly, increasing Iran's power and isolation of Israel in the region. Based on this, with securitization of Iran's issue and magnifying its threat on others minds Israel tries to use all the instruments again Islamic Republic of Iran, while Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy for research and development. In this article we from Copenhagen School of thought the subject are examined.