فصلنامه مطالعات روابط بین الملل
پیاپی 47 (پاییز 1398)

Based on evidence provided by the Americans, Russia was able to influence the US presidential election in 2016. Moscow by using its cyberspace technologies could pursue its political goals at a time which it is called post-truth era. Therefore, the main question of this article is how Russia intervened in the presidential election in 2016 and basically what Russia main goal was for this intervention. The hypothesis of this article, which has been analyzed by descriptive-analytic method, is that Russia influenced by the use of cyberspace technologies such as social media, robots and trolls, with the propagation of fraudulent news or selective information to undermine Hillary Clinton's opportunity to win and therefore boost the candidacy of Donald Trump. This issue in turn undermined the US public's confidence in the political institutions and has brought about the intensification of Moscow-Washington relations afterwards. Although Russia officially and repeatedly denied such an intervention by government sources, But the authors, according to the evidence presented by the "United States Intelligence Community" and "the Director of National Intelligence" in 2016, as well as the "Robert Müller Report" in 2019, in which 26 individuals and three Russian entities were charged with cyber – intervention, It assumes the intervention of elements from the Russian soil (not necessarily the Russian government) in the election. This article investigates the consequences of this intervention.

On May 18, 1397, the United States withdrew with official "Tramp" announcement of “The nuclear agreement of the P5 + 1 countries with Iran" called "The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action". Subsequently, us department of treasury announced that it will take action Relative to Restore Iran's nuclear sanctions. Now the question is here that how much does this unilateral action by the United States as a member of the United Nations is proportionate to the United Nations Charter and whether is it legitimate According to the Charter or no. On the other hand, in the framework of the hypothesis, it also seems that “Given that unilateral US sanctions violate several clauses of United Nations Charter, these sanctions are not legitimate in accordance with the Charter.” Therefore, in this article, we will attempt to use the descriptive-analytical method to study the dimensions of this subject and test the hypothesis.

The June 23, 2016 referendum and the 51% vote on Britain's separation from the European Union have caused numerous ambiguities and many uncertainties for foreign policy researchers on the future of British politics at the national and international levels. One of those uncertainties is the future of special relations between Britain and the United States, which has so far had a unique and unique status in its foreign policy. The United Kingdom and the United States are the countries that have enjoyed joint interests over the past decades in their unique international and regional affairs. Therefore, the present paper aims to answer the question by analyzing the descriptive-analytical method with the emphasis on the futuristic approach and collecting and analyzing the question of how the US's relations with the United Kingdom in the post-Treasury period will go. Thus, after examining the relations between the two countries over the past years, using the three scenarios (desirable, probable, and possible), the future of the two countries with the impact of the international environment, and in particular the European Union, will be understandable with the political, economic, cultural and security implications. What the researcher says is that Britain's withdrawal from the European Union will not only impede relations between the two countries, but will also make Britain take more serious action.

Iran's relations to the US has got a shorter life than other great powers. CIA coup in Iran in 1953 and seizing the US embassy on 1978, has formed the beginning and the end of real political relations of the two countries. This article has analyzed the conquest of this place from a particular aspect. The main question of the article is that, what is the relation of the seizure of American embassy in Tehran, to Americans exeptionalism? The assumption of the article is that: “the most important component of the American strategic culture is the idea that this country is exceptional. With the seizure of US embassy, this country got humiliated, and it challenged the US. Perception of exceptionalism, therefore after the event, the country has always been looking for a way to compensate this feeling of shame.” The mentioned assumption has been extracted from the conceptual framework of “The Geopolitics of Emotion”. The article is based on a descriptive-analytic study and reading numerous memories of political officials and American hostages. With assuming the loss of America's strategic interests due to the fall of the Pahlavi regime, this article has considered the American exeptionalism as one of the major reasons of its strategic behaviors towards the Islamic Republic over the past 40 years.

The Syrian crisis has been one of the most devastating and the most complicated issues of international concerns over the past decades. A crisis that, due to the prolonged time, multiplicity of actors in it, as well as a conflict of interests has converted to an arena for rivalry of the regional and world powers. In this regard, Iran and Turkey, as two powerful regional actors, have a great influence on the political and political developments in the crisis. Iran seeks to ensure the survival of resistance in the region, to increase its credibility and influence in the region and the Islamic world, and to promote its international standing, while Turkey, due to some geopolitical concerns, has pursued its strategic depth of policy and its promotion as the leadership of the Islamic world within the framework of Revives the glory of the Ottoman Empire. Given the high role played by normative components in defining the foreign policy behavior of these two influential actors, this study is due to constructive analysis of the foreign-policy action of Iran and Turkey towards the Syrian crisis in 2011-2017. The question posed in this regard relies on the proposition that due to the different construction of the identities and interests of these two actors, we see different patterns of behavior in this case, which witnesses, through common security threats, some effects of cooperation and, as a result of the basic identity issues, witnessed effects of oppression And compete.

Two years has passed since the day Trump took office; In the course of this period, Washington has shown a turbulent foreign policy. Every new decision on foreign policy along with withdrawal announcement by Trump’s administration astonishes the world. This process could be described by the term “Unforeseeable” due to its unconventionality. Therefore, this paper aim is to root out the fundamental cause. Then the main question is what are the leading factors in the U.S foreign policy under Trump administration? In response to the point of view, by using the theory of “continuity” and the findings of two personality-characterization studies, assessing foreign policy positions, analyzing how he interacts with foreign policy institutions and its internal developments, it is argued as a hypothesis that psychological traits of Trump has promoted the status of individual factor on other influential resources of American foreign policy, namely, systemic, bureaucratic, social and role factors. “Populist Authoritarianism”, “Narcissism”, "Revengefulness" and” disagreeableness” are the most prominent characteristics of Trump’s personality which lead U.S toward an Egoistic foreign policy. These individual characteristics of Trump outweighs the bureaucratic institutions of foreign policy, hence made the institutions completely in line with the views of the president. Challenging accompanied by withdrawing from international treaties and arrangements can be considered as result; To the extent that, according to some experts, the existing world order and its compounds are at stake.