فصلنامه مطالعات روابط بین الملل
پیاپی 52 (زمستان 1399)

The topic of Turkish-Israeli relations is considered as one of the important issues in the regional, Middle East and Islamic world studies. The Republic of Turkey was the first country among the Islamic countries in the Middle East that has recognized the Zionist regime as a country and has established diplomatic relations with it in 1949. Relations between the two countries have a strategic nature based on the security needs of both sides. These relations have continued despite the political changes in Turkey and the emergence of the AKP, a party of an Islamic nature and policy.Israeli officials from every party, including Benjamin Netanyahu''s far-right Likud party, have pursued the policy of maintaining ties with Turkey. The military-security cooperation agreement between the two countries has been in force since 1996 and has not been repealed.Our major question is structured on the convergence and divergence factors, which have shaped the nature of Turkish-Israeli relations during the two last decades (2000-2019). Based on the theory of regional security complex, the framework of Turkish-Israeli relations has been analyzed. The descriptive-analytical model has been opted as the research method. Our analysis is relied on the documents, comments and reports of the experts.The concluding remarks state that in the current situation, Turkey and Israel continue their policy of alliance and co-operation, although this alliance is not sufficiently coherent and both sides use their leverages to force the other party to co-operate in certain circumstances.

Korea's division into North Korea and South Korea was the result of the victory of the Allies in World War II in 1945 and the end of 35 years of domination of Japan over Korea until eventually became an independent Korean government. Soviet's lack of cooperation with the UN program ultimately led to the formation of a Soviet-backed communist state in the north and a pro-Western state in the south. The claim of sovereignty over the whole peninsula of Korea by both governments led to the Korean War in 1950 and temporary Peace in 1953was established with the interference of the Great Powers. Since the end of the Korean War, the aspiration for peace and the unification of the two Koreas has led to a lot of political evolutions on the Korean Peninsula. So the main question in the present paper is what was the role of the current President of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, in the Korean Peninsula Peace Initiative with regard to the context of the unification of the two Koreas?Moon Jae-in, in contrast to the policy of pervious presidents is trying to manage internal issues in Korea for trust building between two Koreas and North Korea and U.S, and fulfiling peace in Korean peninsula at the same time with Negotiations on disarmament between the United States and North Korea.This seems to be due to relating peninsula peace to nuclear disarmamnent and North Korea's concern of endangering its position in strategic rivalry with South Korea.

success in rapid development with economic practice has led india to become one of the most dynamic countries in the global economy and secondly to be regarded as a new powerhouse of wealth and power in the world . The necessity of the country's economic development one hand and the broad change in the international system imposes a new orientation on the foreign policy of this country in the Middle East and to Israel and Iran. , for changing the policy of the Middle East policy, the policy adopted in the Cold War era was defined in the light of the principle of non - commitment to a policy that was redefined by the new urgency of the Indian national interest. therefore , according to the above arrangements , the main question of this paper is that , considering the alternatives to india , the foreign policy of india with regard to israel and iran has changed . the hypothesis of the paper is that india's foreign policy in the Middle East region from ideological policy and the third world based on non - commitment principles is based on policies based on the necessity of access to energy and gas resources, markets, military weapons. The present paper is based on the descriptive - analytic method and by the use of virtual resources , specialized publications , and in terms of subject territory of this paper examines the policy of India 's multiple commitments towards the countries of Iran and Israel

With collapse of the bipolar system and the end of the cold War, the Central and Eastern European countries who were newly abandoned from the communist system tried to join European Structure. The Counties of Vise grad joined the European Union in the first wave of expansion of the European Union in 2004. The global financial crisis 2008 had a profound impact in the economic situation of the people Europe and the reform process in the east of continent faced slowness. Flood of immigrants to Europe affected by Syria Crisis surprised, and central European countries and the nationalist and extremist right parties have strongly resisted. the Brexit and subsequently, the victory of Donald Trump in American`s elections in 2016 has significantly influenced the victory of populism parties in decision-marking centers in Eastern Europe.The main question of this research is how populism phenomenon spread among in vise grad group countries? the research method gathering information through library and research findings shows that populism phenomenon not only split Europe, but also intensified the discourse of Xenophobia and Islamophobia in this region.

Identity Explanation about the Conflicts Structure in the Relation of United State of America and Islamic Republic of Iran Abstract The occurrence of the Islamic revolutionary of Iran in 1357, it was a occurrence that its identity discourse in foreign policy ( discourse of revolutionary idealism) was based on discourse elements such as autonomy, fighting against imperialism and colonial powers and support of liberator movements. Basically creation this kind of discourse in a country and region that was regarded as a stable island for United State of America was not concerted with aim and interests of U.S. conquering the embassy of U.S. by the students of follower of Imam Line, U.S disconnected its diplomatic relation with Iran as well as undertake a wide range of hostile actions against Iran that was continued in past four decade up to this time. In this research meanwhile we study on the obstacle of the evolution of two state relations, we try to study the conflict of their interests from the viewpoint of identity and norms that appraise their identity, as it is emphasized on constructive theory of international relations. Finally we conclude that although in some certain and defined cases were holed limited negotiations between two states, because of coflictual identity ,there is not any possibility to fundamental change the relation of Iran and United State of America.

As the wave of uprising of the masses raised in Middle East since 2011, we have seen an evaluation in Russian foreign policy behavior. The behavior that could be analyzed thorough Offensive realism. In this regard, Russia showed a passive behavior in Libya and Tunisia, and the experience then lead to forming a triple soft, hard and smart approach toward Syria. The approach that included political negotiations as well as military intervention all together. At the same time, special skill was shown by Moscow on interactions with conflicting-interest regional actors such as Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The skill was interpreted on a balancing approach. All these approaches led to the patterns of Russian foreign policy behavior in Middle East, that was shown in Qatar political crisis. The vacuum left by the United States presence in the region was also a key element. This paper aims to study the Russian foreign policy behavior in Middle East thorough descriptive-analytical method.

Iran's nuclear program, in the eyes of the West, has the potential to lead to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Therefore, this program, along with the anti-Westernism of the Islamic Republic, is considered a security threat to the West and especially to the United States.The West has two general approaches to limiting Iran's nuclear capability: a peaceful solution or punitive measures and military action.US President Barack Obama has accepted a peaceful solution, which is in line with the UN Charter. This view emphasized multilateralism and the role of international organizations. Negotiations between Iran and the six world powers eventually led to the signing of a "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action " or "JCPOA" agreement. Under the agreement, Iran accepted extensive restrictions of its nuclear program, and instead lifted all UN sanctions, as well as unilateral US and European sanctions. Because the agreement was about international security, the same agreement was passed by the UN Security Council.Trump, the next president of the United States, called "JCPOA" against the national interest and unilaterally withdrew.The question is, what has the Security Council done to violate the UN Security Council? The hypothesis is that the violation of the UN Security Council by the United States is the most serious and clear example of the ineffectiveness of the Security Council in maintaining an agreement on the maintenance of international peace and security.

 The actors of the international system will always be aware of the future, as well as to determine their interactions and reactions, and to identify the future coordinates of the global system with the aim of maintaining their security and interests. By acknowledging the international relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world is practically ruled by a single-polar and despite the presence of China, Russia and the European Union in some global competition, still the hegemony of Washington almost exist. This article in response to the question of "The future of international order in the horizon of 2030?" has attempted to advance the global order based on the Games theory. Authors by using the " Scenario " method, argued that due to the constant effort of the States and a new actors such as India and Brazil to gain power in political, economic, cultural and military, global order will be changed. On the other hand, the USA's efforts to safeguard its hgemoni will cause the actor to maintain its focal focus, as a result of the current single-polar system to a single-multi-polarization system with the aforementioned focal classification and multi-focus (China, Russia, European Union, India and Brazil) will be changed.