فصلنامه سیاست خارجی
سال سی و چهارم شماره 1 (پیاپی 133، بهار 1399)

The present research aims at examining the role of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) organization, which is known as a political thin tank and lobby in the U.S. foreign policy. Think tanks and political lobbies, as informal actors, have influenced the U.S. foreign policy since their emergence. UANI have focused on Iran’s nuclear program. The think tank established by former U.S. ambassador to the UN during Bush’s tenure, Mark Wallace, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and the U.S. ambassador to the UN during Clinton’s tenure, Richard Holbrooke, former CIA director, Jim Woolsey, and expert on Middle East, Dennis Ross, has launched various domestic and international activities against Iran. This research seeks to answer the following question using system theory in decision-making theory: What are UANI’s tools for influencing the U.S. foreign policy and what is its role in the U.S. foreign policy towards Iran’s nuclear program? Connection with the main power centers and formal actors in the U.S. foreign policy decision-making process, interaction with high-ranking officials in the U.S. foreign policy realm, and relationship with main lobbies in the U.S., are some of UANI’s activities that demonstrate its active role in the U.S. foreign policy.

This article investigates the aims of the United States and main stream European countries toward the latest situations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran’s regional role and missile program. The author argues that the US’s so-called “maximum pressure” policy against Iran, which is aimed at diminishing Iran’s power from inside, thereby forcing the country to retreat from its regional policy and limiting its missile program, supported to some degree by major European powers, mainly due to their strategic inability in opposing with the US’s policies under the Trump administration, has not reached its aims and expected consequences and even brought about reversed results. Now, Iran took five steps to reduce its nuclear commitments under the JCPOA terms, strengthened its regional role by extending its strategic depth, enhanced its missile activities to empower the country’s deterrent power, and most importantly managed relatively its national economic resources to avoid any possibility of the collapse of the state under US coercive economic sanctions, right unlike the aspirations of as the designers of the “maximum pressure” policy envisaged. While the US is still believing in the efficacy of its current policy towards Iran, it is likely that the Trump administration continues its political pressures on Iran without any tendency to enter an all-out war. The author concludes that although the US “zero-export-oil” policy has imposed economic hardships on Iran, it has forced the US to retreat from its initial aims toward the country. In such circumstances, Iran should strengthen its relations at the regional level and with Non-Western countries, focusing on “regional multilateralism” and economic integration at the neighborhood region, benefiting from its privileged geographical situation. Concurrently, Iran should resist against the US bullying policy, until the grounds for any possible talks with Western powers under an “equal political term” become prepared.

The State which commits wrongful act entails the international responsibility for it. This issue is recognized as one of the fundamental principles of international law. Typically, international responsibility is established as a result of commission wrongful act(s) by a State, but in certain circumstances, apart from the State conducted a wrongful act; another State(s) may be responsible as well. The "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001" refers to these terms as "Aid and Assistance" and "Coercion". In general, these two concepts can be called "Assistant to commit an internationally wrongful act". The main issue regarding the assistance in internationally wrongful acts is how it is realized, the various forms of the assistance, and hence the limits of responsibility of the assistant. In fact, the main challenge of the present article is to present the hidden aspects of the responsibility of the assistant of the wrongful international acts and to analyze the impact of the precluding the wrongfulness of act which committed by State on the denial of the responsibility of the assistant.

Since 1985, North Korea has attempted to end its nuclear program and to improve relations with the U.S. But this country has received the different and somewhat antagonistic responses from the U.S. presidents, Republicans and Democrats. While the Republicans were ‘crime and punishment’ oriented and were in favor of punishing the North Korean government, the Democrats followed the ‘give – and – take Diplomacy’. The North Korea, in return, pursued a double track policy of interaction and hardening stance, a combination of pragmatic and realist approaches. In 2006, this country have undertaken nuclear weapon for the first time, and threatened the international community with the faith accompli. Since that, the North Korean nuclear and ballistic missiles programs has been continued relentlessly.

Ever since the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, it has been regarded as one of the most important sources of national income. After the Islamic Revolution, the issue of oil has still been considered essential in regard to Government income. Thus, the enemies of the Islamic Revolution have attempted in different periods to sanction its oil to affect the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran, thereby weakening Islamic Iran. Despite the repetitive emphases on non-oil export, the Iranian oil industry is still regarded as an important national industry thereof. In recent years, this industry has not been exempted from the storm of comprehensive sanction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, aimed at by the sanction attacks of the United States of America and the European Union. The researchers sought to investigate the impacts of oil sanction on the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran with a focus on its main aspects including the military, political, economic, cultural, and social ones. In the first step, therefore, the positive and negative impacts of the sanctions were simultaneously identified and enumerated based on comments by experts in the field. They were prioritized in the second step using the analytic hierarchy Process (AHP), adopted for optimal utilization of the available facilities, time, and resources. Emphasizing the obtained priorities, the results of the research could guide many politicians and managers in that regard. It was demonstrated that the economic aspect of national security has been affected most by oil sanction, and the issues of inflation rise and budget deficit were weighted more by the expert comments than all the other national security aspect subcomponents.

The present article endeavors to compare and contrast two conflicting theories about the concept of the end, i.e. Francis Fukuyama's theory of the end of history and Jean Baudrillard's concept of the end. According to the neo-conservative American theorist Fukuyama, history has reached its ultimate end of Hegelianuniversal freedom. Therefore, the West is reaching the end of history corollary to modern natural science and his simplistic interpretation of Hegel's concept of freedom as a “struggle for recognition”.Baudrillard's stance on the concept of the end, on the other hand, is in stark difference with Fukuyama's reflections of the Promised Land manifest in liberal democracy.Contrary to Francis Fukuyama, Baudrillard proclaims that as a consequence of the velocity engendered by advances in modern science and technologies, the event becomes less important than the contest for its digital broadcast or interpretation.Indeed, he avers that the construction of the non-event is a major objective of the global world order. He claims that this non-occurrence of events precipitates the end of history.