دوفصلنامه مطالعات سیاسی اجتماعی جهان
پیاپی 1 (پاییز 1390)

The existence of various modalities for American Studies indicates the presence of different approaches to this area of studies. American studies in Iran have also been the target of various approaches within the past century. This article seeks to shed light on the concept of American studies from a strategic Iranian perspective. In this view, first the article briefly explains the concept of "America" and the existing intellectual traditions on American studies and later proceeds to introduce titles written or translated into the Persian language on this subject within the past century. The sources introduced were randomly chosen. Contemporary American Studies comprises relevant activities undertaken both before and after the Islamic Revolution. Additionally, while providing a critique of Liberal American Studies and the critical leftist tradition for American studies, the article aims at providing readers with a new paradigm for American studies based on the indigenous and local perspectives.

The US foreign policy processes in the Middle East, in the post World War II period, have always brought about security challenge, danger and crisis, in the Region. All US presidents have experienced grave security crisis in this geopolitical area. There also exists many indications of distrust of the current foreign US policy exercised in the Middle East on the part of Middle Eastern citizens. They maintain that the US has not been able to establish balance, coordination, and cooperation among political units in the Region. They therefore, try to analyze US security policy according to Middle Eastern structural formations, the role of the US in supporting Israel, and the endless regional conflicts. The US adopted behavioral model in both the Middle East and at the time of the Cold War mainly took after structural indicators of the international system. The collapse of the Bipolar system is among many factors that have challenged the US policy in the Middle East. Such challenges may well be seen in the various Bush, Clinton and Obama Administrations. US presidents employed new and various initiatives to cross the (Middle East) crises in the Post World War II period. However, evidence shows that neither of the adopted initiatives led to desirable results for establishing stability in the Region. This article, thus, attempts to examine the main reason for the ongoing security crisis in the US-led policy in the Middle East. A full understanding of these processes is brought about only when the models for the post World War II US policy in the Middle East are studied from an analytical and case-specific point of view.

The Russia-US cooperation in the early 1990s, culminated in rivalries by the end of the decade. Their strategic cooperation in 2001 and 2002 resulted in rivalry from 2003 onwards and ended in confrontation in the wake of the Ossetia crisis in 2008. However, as of 2009 and further into 2010, their relations entered a phase of strategic cooperation, altogether attracting the attention of many analysts. Analyzing these relations and their underlying reasons is also a matter of significance for Iran. Understanding the new situation, calls for responding to the questions of: Exactly what has happened in the relations between the US and Russia? Are officials of both countries able to solve the various problems they are confronted with in their mutual relations? What drove both countries to meeting this new phase in their relations? What is the perspective of their relations? And what are the consequences for other states? It is most obvious that their new attitude is based on mutual cooperation and the cessation of hostility. A hypothesis which will be examined is that "Russia needs new technologies and the US needs Russia's cooperation in international security issues. Thus, mutual need is the determining factor in their newly-established, close relations." In order to respond to the questions posed in this article and to test the presented hypothesis, a first step is to review the background of both countrie's relationships and the different existing viewpoints about this relationship. Later comes a thorough investigation of significant issues of concern between the two countries at international, regional and bilateral levels, with special emphasis put on recent agreements between Russia and the US. In the last section, the main factors and variants affecting US-Russia relations will be discussed and analysed.

The US-Israeli relationship is regarded as one of the strongest relations between two states in the contemporary world. For a number of cultural, strategic, and political reasons, the US strongly supports the Zionist regime. On the other hand, the role of the strong, influential Israeli lobby in the US has yet been another significant factor for the close relations between the two countries within the past decades. The Israeli lobby resorts to an array of methods- from sponsoring Congress and Presidential candidates and media-specific propaganda to exerting influence on scientific and research circles, to direct not only the activities of US-led policy-making entities, but also the US public opinion towards supporting the Zionist regime. However, there is an ongoing debate among political researchers concerning the main reason for US support of Israel. The question is whether this support is mainly due to the strategic role played by Israel in the Middle East for promoting America's interests, or brought about by the influence of and the pressure exerted by the Zionist lobby in the US. While providing an overall review of existing viewpoints in this regards, this article concludes that the close USIsraeli relations is yielded by both of the above-mentioned factors and not one of them alone.

The present article is an in-depth study of the structures and actors associated with the Bush Administration's anti-Iran general policy. Although the US general policy against Iran dates back to the early Cold War period following which the Iranian nation has always been the target of US propaganda, the structural transformation of this general policy during the Bush Administration is nonetheless an indication of the ever-increasing political will of America for a soft confrontation with Iran. President Barack Obama, the inheritor of this (political) structure, not only has not alleviated the situation, but has also worsened the conditions. In the period between 2006 and 2009, the Bush Administration openly spent more than $200 million to promote its anti-Iran general policy through the so-called "Democracy Promotion" programmes of the US Department of State, The National Endowment for Democracy, and the US International Broadcasting. In addition to the above-mentioned expenses, another $400 million was allocated to covert propaganda. These initiatives, covert or not, altogether promoted regime change in Iran. During his first year in Office, the Obama Administration has asked for and received an additional $50 million of appropriations for its soft war against Iran.

National security and the different modalities used by states to guarantee and promote it may be considered as a most complex responsibility of Governments. Although there are different environmental conditions attributed to this notion and there exist a variety of definitions for it, US policy-makers have expanded the transnational application(s) of this concept on a daily basis. The following research pursues the hypothesis of the existence of a direct relation between an increase in the US’ interventions at the global level and an increase in the Country’s national and international power. The presupposition however prevails that the American administration has reached consensus on the necessity of their country becoming a power in the world, despite the different political orientations each possess. Within the past two centuries, the various American administrations have shown agreement on concepts such as “security” and “national interests.” The more powerful this country has become, both nationally and internationally, the more expanded the concept of security has become for it. In addition, in the 21st century, the country’s “national” borders have gradually extended from North America to LatinAmerica and finally to all corners of the world. This article is therefore an attempt to analyse the conceptual evolution of the notion of national security in the US, within the past two centuries.

Adopting a unilateral policy, the United States attacked Iraq without permission from the United Nation's Security Council in March 2003. The first intervention of the United States took place in Iraq in 1991 with permission from the Security Council, accompanied by a coalition of the US allies. As a result of this military intervention, the United States managed to liberate Kuwait at that time, but the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was quite different from the previous one. What this research tends to investigate is the main reason for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. To answer this question, the issue of access to and domination of the Persian Gulf Strategic Oil Resources is presented as a main hypothesis and is confirmed. In order to confirm the research hypothesis, the historical attempts of great powers for controlling strategic oil resources was discussed. Additionally, the role of relevant negotiations (oil lobbies) and multinational oil companies was considered. Subsequent to this phase, the geo-strategic and geo-economic position of the Persian Gulf and its oil strategies in the region were taken into consideration.

Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, several novels were published dealing directly or indirectly with the effects of the Event on individuals- both inside and outside of the United States. Though the novels often claim to deal with the post traumatic aftermath of the incident, writers have adhered to orientalist stereotyping and it seems that after 9/11 such attitudes towards Muslims and Arabs have become stronger, strengthening even the dominant orientalist discourse. This paper shall focus on John Updike's Terrorist and Don Delillo's Falling Man. Both novels were New York Time's bestsellers and both novelists are prominent figures in contemporary American literature.Although the European culture is the place to look for orientalism and its roots, the mid 20th century and early 21st century saw a rise in orientalist approaches in the US, where these attitudes were promoted thereon. This article seeks to study how the named authors have represented Muslims and their ideologies. The significant point is that although these novels have been written in the 21st century and there has been an increase in contact with and information about Muslims, these writers have often used the same clichés and stereotypes about Muslims that have existed since the Middle Ages.