نشریه مطالعات راهبردی آمریکا
پیاپی 14 (تابستان 1403)

The approach to dealing with the United States has been a fundamental issue since the onset of the Islamic Revolution. However, this issue has been less explored from a theoretical perspective within the discourse of the Islamic Revolution and the thought of the Supreme Leader. By examining the views of the Leader, we gain a deeper understanding of the ideological foundations that guide the Islamic Republic of Iran’s stance toward the United States. In this regard, in response to the question of how the issue of America in the Supreme Leader’s thought can be explained within the framework of the theories of Rubinstein and Smith, the hypothesis was proposed that his confrontational approach toward America since the Islamic Revolution is shaped both by the revolutionary nature of the Iranian government and by the interventionist policies and actions of the United States. This perspective has led to the emergence of key concepts such as anti-imperialism, cultural resistance, and political sovereignty in his thoughts and viewpoints. This study, utilizing the analytical framework of Rubinstein and Smith (1998) and employing qualitative research, documentary analysis, and a descriptive-analytical approach, demonstrates that after the Islamic Revolution, the support for political Islam in Iran became intertwined with anti-American sentiments. This relationship is largely due to the revolutionary nature of the Iranian government and the political policies and actions of the United States. The thought of the Supreme Leader is also influenced by these political actions and the interventionist behavior of America. As a result, the struggle against American imperialism and the stance of resistance has become an inseparable part of the identity of the Islamic Republic, closely linked to the discourse of opposing oppression and hope for the reappearance of the Mahdi in Shia Islam.

Although known to the scholars of Politics and International Relations, the concept of ‘exceptionalism’ has remained ambiguous and bereft of theoretical and conceptual boundaries. The term is mainly limited to the United States, having made it an instrument for the reproduction of American hegemony and the Americanization project. The fact is against the clues that help make understanding of ‘exceptionalisms’, i.e. exceptionalism applied to more than one nation. Theorizing exceptionalism will, in addition to invalidating the exclusive American exceptionalism, enhance the explanation and prediction power of IR via providing a theoretical framework for building intersubjective understanding. The interaction between internal and external policies, states' behavior in times of crisis like that of Iran’s nuclear energy, states' approaches towards peace, their attitudes towards institutionalism, the mechanism of cultural influences through international relations, deciding the mentalities of anarchy versus order, equity, cultural pluralism, etc. are among the problems that a new definition and a ‘theory of exceptionalism’ is expected to deal with. This paper attempts to evaluate the hypothesis that ‘Exceptionalism is categorizable as a theory within the constructivist meta-theory of international relations’, by comparing and contrasting the two in conceptual, ontological, and epistemological senses. The findings of this documentary research guide us to meaningful overlaps between exceptionalism and constructivism. The verification of the hypothesis paves the way for replacing American exceptionalism with the belief in exceptionalisms, a shift from the realist to the constructivist approach in IR.

After World War II speed of science production in the world increased significantly and it became a place of conflict between the great powers. In this period mechanisms to control the spread of sensitive and strategic technologies called export control regimes emerged so that the export of any sensitive and strategic technology can be carried out under the supervision of these regimes. nowdays with the increase of imperceptible spread of technology and the entry of emerging technologies into strategic field, the effectiveness of previous supervision and control has decreased, and more measures are being set to protect the spread of scientific and technical achievements by the leading powers. In this regard, the institution of the university as the main forum for the production of science, technology and innovation has entered the power game and acts as a strategic tool to increase and maintain the power of countries. Using the theoretical literature on international regimes and hegemonic stability, as well as the available empirical evidence, the current research seeks to answer the basic question of how the United States controls the spread of science and technology in universities in order to maintain its leadership in the international system, and the consequences of such What is a policy? The qualitative review of the available data and the analysis of the available documents in the last two decades showed that the main goal of these regimes is to maintain and promote the hegemonic power of the United States and prevent the reduction of its power gap with its strategic competitors, because emerging technologies can create new balances of power, order It is desirable to weaken the hegemony to the point of collapse, and ultimately its consequence is limitation and backwardness, deepening of the technological gap, reduction of welfare and development among other countries.

Artificial intelligence is one of the important tools in shaping a new approach to power in the military, economic and social sectors. The purpose of the research is to discuss the new AI-based power approach between the US and China. The question of the article is, what is the approach of America and China in the field of using artificial intelligence? The tough competition between America and China in the field of artificial intelligence is focused on the military, defense and economic fields, and in the soft field, it is an effort to show appropriate leadership at the world level to gain international credibility and legitimacy in the coming decades. The results of the research have shown that the difficult aspects of using artificial intelligence in America include attention to trade and economy and military fields and hardware sanctions in the chip and semiconductor industry against China. In the soft sphere, the attempt is to show the weakness of China's leadership and prevent this country from gaining international credit. But in China, the hard field related to artificial intelligence is focused on urban planning, building smart cities, medical affairs, and strengthening the Chinese People's Army, and in the soft field, networking for foreign investment in different countries, including in Asia, and showing oneself. It has been considered as a discourse generator in the field of artificial intelligence. In this article, the comparative method and library tools are used, and the theoretical framework of the article is also intelligent power.

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies consisting of Jewish neoconservatives of the Republican Party has always been one of the prominent think tanks of the United States, especially in the field of foreign policy issues in the West Asian region during the 21st century.So that the officials of different American governments as well as the members of the Congress of this country have significant relations with this think tank by their presence and active participation in this foundation as one of the lobbies of the Zionist regime in Washington.Therefore, it is necessary to answer the question that have passed since the beginning of the activities of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, what is the position of the neoconservative intellectual foundations of this think tank in the foreign policy of the United States?The present study by examining and comparing the neoconservative intellectual foundations of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies with institutionalized approaches in the American foreign policy, believes that the foreign policy of the United States is not only influenced by the thought of the neocon elites, the founders and members of this think tank, but also the examination of Washington's foreign behavior in the period After the Cold War, it shows that the intellectual foundations of this think tank have penetrated from theory to practice in the foreign policy of the United States. According to the results obtained, the performance of the different American democratic and republican governments in the field of foreign policy during the post-Cold War era is based on the three complementary pillars of the policy of regime change, unilateralism and preemptive attack, and this process, while trying to maximize the interests of the United States and expand American values seek to maintain the security of the Zionist regime.

With the inauguration of Trump in America, Washington's foreign policy underwent a paradigm shift. The American foreign policy in the Trump era was somehow formed on the basis of the emergence of a confrontational model and incompatibility with the structure of the international system and prioritizing the interests of the United States, which makes Washington's policies in various issues of the international system face a fundamental challenge. did However, with Biden's entry into the White House, the activism of the United States in the field of international relations is defined based on a kind of interactive and cooperative behavioral pattern with the global structure and system, which seeks to restore American global leadership, rejoin international commitments, Working closely with allies and dealing with global threats. Thus, the main research question is, what are the dimensions and components of the foreign policy of the Biden government? The hypothesis of the research is that by adopting the "America First" policy and adopting a confrontational approach with the international structure and system, Trump challenged the policies of the United States in the international arena, which reduced the power and influence of Washington in The scene of international politics. Meanwhile, Biden's foreign policy perceptions are based on cooperation-seeking with America's allies, democratic coalition building against America's rivals, revival of America's rule-oriented leadership in the world arena, joining international institutions, Atlanticism, priority.Diplomacy has been formed with the participation of all partners and the importance of the satisfaction of the American people in foreign policy decisions.