نشریه مطالعات راهبردی آمریکا
پیاپی 16 (زمستان 1403)

This study addresses the fundamental question: Why did the American liberal democracy system ultimately lead to the emergence of Trumpism as its final product? The main hypothesis of this research is that Trumpism, as a populist phenomenon, directly stems from the structural and ideological crises of liberal democracy. These crises are primarily due to the weakening of fundamental democratic principles such as civic participation, social justice, and public trust in political institutions. Along with growing dissatisfaction with political elites and systemic corruption, these crises created conditions in which populist and anti-elite discourses transformed into an influential social and political movement, represented by Donald Trump. The methodology of this research is analytical and explanatory. This study seeks to explain how these factors have converged to shape the political phenomenon of Trumpism. The findings indicate that Trumpism, as a direct result of complex processes within American liberal democracy, emerged from identity crises and failures in reproducing equality and social justice. Through a populist discourse, Trump managed to mobilize segments of society that felt excluded from democratic processes. In this context, he exploited deep-seated distrust toward elites and offered simplistic and reductionist solutions, presenting himself as an alternative political force against the liberal democratic system. Thus, the emergence of Trumpism can be understood as a paradoxical response to the internal crises of American liberal democracy.

The rise of Donald Trump in the United States and his foreign policy positions represent the most significant departure from internationalism in Republican administrations' foreign policy since the end of World War II. This shift stands in stark contrast to the highly internationalist and interventionist approaches of the three preceding Republican administrations. Such a notable change raises the question: Why did the Trump administration choose a foreign policy path different from its predecessors? To address this question, the present study employs neoclassical realism as its theoretical framework and utilizes a historical research method. It examines three historical periods in U.S. foreign policy in which Republican inclinations toward internationalism declined. By analyzing intra-party dynamics in these three periods, the study aims to identify the key factors influencing shifts in Republican foreign policy. The findings indicate a direct relationship between the reduction of threats to U.S. security and interests and the decline of internationalism in Republican foreign policy. In all three periods, following the decline of a major threat to the U.S., there was a growing shift away from internationalism in Republican foreign policy preferences, which subsequently influenced the foreign policies of Republican administrations. In this context, Trump's foreign policy discourse emerged due to the diminished threat from terrorist groups and the Republican Party's reluctance to bear the high costs of the War on Terror. From this perspective, Trump's foreign policy discourse represents a balance between security concerns and cost aversion within Republican policy preferences.

One of the key debates among political analysts and experts in the U.S. and around the world concerns the decline of American power and the timing of its realization. Political experts predict the emergence of a multipolar system, with China surpassing its competitors in economic dominance. This article aims to assess the decline of the U.S. and China's global position. The main question is: How can the decline of the U.S. and China's current status be evaluated? To answer this question, the study employs a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing document-based research with data collected through library sources. Traditional and technological power indicators have been used to assess the current status of the U.S. and China. The findings indicate that while the U.S. has lost its previous standing in economic, political, and moral aspects, it still maintains an advantage over China in technological power indicators. However, this does not guarantee the continuation of U.S. dominance, as the effective utilization of emerging technologies can empower weaker states or non-state actors to challenge the established power, ultimately leading to a multipolar global order.

The South China Sea holds strategic importance in U.S. foreign policy in East Asia. China's economic growth and, consequently, the strengthening of its military capabilities—particularly its navy—and the activities of this force in the South China Sea have raised concerns among coastal states and the United States about Beijing’s dominance in the region. This issue has led to Washington’s intervention and extensive presence in East Asia under the pretext of supporting freedom of navigation operations, but in reality, to curb China's rising influence and create a balance against it in the region. Therefore, the main question of this research is: What policy does the U.S. pursue to prevent China's rise in the South China Sea? The article’s hypothesis is that since China's increasing economic and military power, and consequently its expanding regional influence in the South China Sea, is considered a strategic threat to coastal countries and the United States, Washington has sought to counterbalance China's growing power in the region by expanding its presence and forming alliances with coastal states in the South China Sea. This approach, in addition to preventing China’s increasing power in the region, can also curb Beijing’s hegemony and dominance over the waters of East Asia. The research data has been analyzed using a qualitative analysis method. This study is qualitative in nature and based on a descriptive-analytical approach, while information has been collected through library research.

Counterterrorism is one of the key strategies of the United States in the international system. However, evidence suggests that this effort lacks fixed principles and criteria, being primarily defined within the framework of U.S. geopolitical interests and discursive logic. A clear example of this approach is the U.S.’s dual stance toward Hezbollah and Tahrir al-Sham. This research, therefore, seeks to answer the question: How does the U.S. discursive logic shape the representation of terrorism? The study hypothesizes that the U.S. discursive logic leads to the representation of terrorism based more on the political and ideological identity of groups rather than their actual nature. Consequently, groups opposing U.S. interests are labeled as terrorist, whereas those aligned with its interests are less likely to receive this designation. Based on a descriptive-analytical approach and document-based research within Teun A. van Dijk’s ideological framework, the findings reveal that the binary opposition of "us" versus "them," or the "with us or against us" logic, is the fundamental principle in the U.S. definition of terrorism. According to this perspective, regardless of their actual nature, Hezbollah is categorized as the "other" under the concept of terrorism, whereas the terrorist label applied to Tahrir al-Sham, as an "insider," is significantly downplayed.

With the onset of the Syrian crisis, various domestic, regional, and international actors adopted distinct strategies in response to the situation. This was particularly evident due to Syria’s critical geopolitical and geostrategic position in West Asia. As a global superpower with extensive interests, the United States pursued an interventionist strategy aimed at safeguarding its interests and those of its regional allies throughout the Syrian crisis. Initially, the U.S. supported efforts to overthrow the Syrian regime by backing Arab opposition forces. However, as the opposition weakened and faced defeat against the Syrian regime and its allies, the U.S. shifted its focus to the Kurdish forces, seeking to maintain its strategic interests through a new partnership. This study aims to answer the main question: What strategy underlies the U.S. approach toward the Syrian Kurds? The hypothesis suggests that the relationship between these two actors is not characterized by the deep commitments typical of a strategic alliance. Instead, the U.S.-Syrian Kurds partnership is more accurately described as a dynamic alignment—temporary, conditional, and responsive to immediate threats, particularly in combating ISIS terrorism and containing regional powers such as Iran and Turkey. This article examines the factors shaping this dynamic alignment and the limitations that have prevented it from evolving into a strategic alliance. The research is qualitative, employing a descriptive-analytical approach based on the theory of dynamic alignment. Additionally, this study is document-based, utilizing library research methods (both printed and digital sources) for data collection.