US-Iran Relations

Calls for regime change in Iran have surged once again following the June 2025 aerial bombardments by Israel, encouraged by hawkish factions in Washington and Tel Aviv. These military actions, ostensibly aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear threat, are accompanied by increasingly explicit rhetoric purportedly advocating for the toppling of the Islamic Republic. Yet beneath this resurgent interventionism lies a more profound philosophical danger-- one that transcends mere policy miscalculation or strategic failure. We argue that external efforts to bring about regime change in Iran risk reanimating the very imperialist dynamics that the Islamic Republic has long exploited to justify its rule. The consequence is not merely tactical backlash, but a moral paradox: the reinforcement of an oppressive regime through the very means meant to end it.

Trump's decision to assassinate Iran's General Qassem Soleimani was a monumental escalation in the ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran. Who was Qassem Soleimani? Why did the US find it important for him to be killed and how is it justifying this action? How Iran reacts to this event are critical questions as the Middle East possibly stumbles into greater conflict in 2020. AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, once referred to General Qassem Soleimani as a 'living martyr of the revolution'. Assassinated on 3 January 2020 by US drones in Iraq, Soleimani was a legend in Iran. His was such a big name at home that some equate his assassination, on the orders of President Trump, as the killing of Iran's de facto vice-president. It would thus be virtually impossible for Iran not to respond, but how will Tehran do so? Soleimani was born in southern Kerman province in Iran. He left home at 12 years of age to work as a labourer. When war broke out with Iraq in 1980, Soleimani volunteered and headed to the frontline to fight, eventually becoming a senior commander in the 48th Division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

This paper provides an analysis of the recent escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the wider regional dynamics involving Iran and its allied networks. It examines the strategic, political, and military developments following Hamas’s October 2023 attack on Israel. It highlights the fragmentation and unification efforts among Iran’s regional allies, as well as the shifting power balances across Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. At the same time, the paper discusses Iran’s strategic dilemmas and the potential for unconventional diplomacy.

This paper examines the complex internal and regional dynamics influencing Iran’s stance on U.S. negotiations amid heightened geopolitical tensions involving the U.S., Russia, Turkey, and Israel. It highlights Iran’s internal challenges, regional threats, and the impact of U.S. policies under Trump, emphasizing the implications for nuclear negotiations and future scenarios.

This research report investigates the profound interlinkages between modern conflicts and global supply chain resilience. Focusing on four major case studies—the Russia–Ukraine war, the U.S.–China trade war, the Israel–Hamas conflict, and the Gulf War—the study examines how geopolitical tensions disrupt trade flows, alter strategic trade routes, and reshape global production networks. The analysis highlights the macroeconomic consequences of warfare, including inflationary pressures, currency instability, and energy crises, while also tracing industry-specific vulnerabilities across technology, agriculture, automotive, and consumer goods. Case studies of leading firms such as Apple and Walmart illustrate adaptive strategies like diversification, nearshoring, and digitalization. Beyond economic outcomes, the report emphasizes the broader policy implications for governments, multilateral organizations, and businesses, particularly in securing food and energy supply chains, reducing overdependence on single markets, and investing in resilience. By integrating historical context with contemporary data, the report underscores that wars are not only fought on battlefields but also within the arteries of global trade, making supply chain strategy a critical dimension of both economic and security policy in an increasingly multipolar world.

The primary aim of this paper is to investigate the reasons behind the imposition of one of the most extensive sanctions, in the history of international sanctions, on Iran. This objective is pursued through the following approaches:
• Situating sanctions within the framework of international justice and identifying a theoretical lens or school of thought that can best facilitate the achievement of the stated objective.
• Examining Iranian foreign policy and international relations both prior to and following the 1979 Revolution.
• Providing a succinct history of sanctions, tracing their evolution as a tool of statecraft, with a specific focus on their imposition on Iran, and assessing their impact and effectiveness.
• Proposing potential pathways forward considering the findings.

... In this timely and engaging book, Arzoo Osanloo explores the discourses and practices of women's rights in Iran. ... The bulk of the fieldwork for the book was conducted during Muhammad Khatami's presidency, a reformist moment that changed the tenor of public discourse in a ...

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing has introduced both transformative possibilities and significant ethical dilemmas. While AI tools enhance writing competence through immediate feedback, structural suggestions, and language support, their increasing use raises concerns about originality, authorship, and academic integrity. As students rely on AI to produce content that closely mimics human writing, the boundaries between original thought and algorithmic output blur, threatening the development of critical thinking and independent analysis. This paper examines the implications of AI-assisted writing on the foundational values of academic environments. It emphasizes the necessity for institutions to implement clear policies, ethical guidelines, and pedagogical strategies that both incorporate and regulate AI use. Educators are called to foster critical engagement with AI and redefine instructional methods to ensure technology complements, rather than replaces, cognitive development. Through reflective discourse, structured frameworks, and an emphasis on originality, academia can navigate the challenges posed by AI while upholding educational integrity and fostering responsible innovation.

The theory of constructivism provides us an important knowledge about recent structure of international system. Most of the countries in recent world, interact with one another in a constructed manner which clarify that international and social system is constructed. Anarchy is the term which defines social system with the understanding of rivalry relations including enmity and friendly relations. States have variations of ideas about themselves and others. In the anarchic structure of the world states maintain enmity and friendly relations with other states at the same time based on ideas which are constructed. This constructive situation can be observed in US relations with Israel and Iran. USA is more feared about Iran's nuclear power than Israel. Both Iran and Israel are rising their nuclear power but USA is more concerned about Iran rather than Israel. But why this discrimination? Because constructed ideas of friendship and enmity compel USA to do that kind of behavior. USA has constructed the idea that Israel's nuclear weapons are less threatening to USA than Iranian nuclear weapons. USA always reach with its helping hand to assist Israel in any kind of phenomenon to maintain friendly relation with Israel and not deter Israel to stop their nuclear program. Their relational aspects shows us that constructed ideas of countries control the international system not the material objectives (including bombs, mountain, weapons, soil , people and so on).

Ultimately, the Iran–Israel war underscores the dangers of military brinkmanship, failed diplomacy, and regional imbalance. The path forward must include credible international mediation, reinvigorated diplomacy, and mutual recognition of security concerns if further escalation is to be avoided.

Following the recent U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities President Trump claimed the facilities were "obliterated". Almost immediately after, doubts emerged about the extent of the damage, and if the attacks had significantly hampered Iran's nuclear program. With few exceptions, Democrats, liberals, progressives, and the political left denounced the president's action. Republicans and conservatives hailed it as a military success unequaled in history. This paper represents an innovative,  unconventional, and unbiased analysis which is based on contemporary history.

Η ανοχή απέναντι σε ωμές πυρηνικές απειλές, όπως αυτές που εκτοξεύει κατά καιρούς η Ρωσία, υπονομεύει την αξιοπιστία των κανόνων και επιτείνει την αίσθηση ότι το διεθνές σύστημα λειτουργεί επιλεκτικά. Η επόμενη κρίση ίσως δεν ξεσπάσει από έναν «παράφρονα δικτάτορα», αλλά από μια ηγεσία που αισθάνεται περικυκλωμένη, ηθικά νομιμοποιημένη και χωρίς άλλες επιλογές

İsrail-İran çatışması derinleşirken, İran'ın sıkça başvurduğu bir koz yeniden gündeme geldi: Hürmüz Boğazı'nı kapatma tehdidi. Bu tehdit, yalnızca Orta Doğu'daki askeri dinamiklerin değil, küresel ekonominin, enerji güvenliğinin ve jeopolitik dengelerin doğrudan kalbine yönelmiş ciddi bir meydan okumadır. Bir boğazın ötesinde, Hürmüz, 21. yüzyılın petrol damarlarından biri olarak dünya sisteminin kırılganlığını en çıplak haliyle gözler önüne seriyor. Hürmüz Boğazı, Basra Körfezi ile Umman Denizi'ni birbirine bağlayan dar bir geçittir. En dar yeri sadece 33 kilometre olan bu su yolu, dünya petrolünün yaklaşık %20'sinin geçtiği bir ana arterdir. Suudi Arabistan, İran, Irak, Kuveyt, Bahreyn, Katar ve Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri gibi büyük petrol ve doğalgaz ihracatçısı ülkelerin denize açılan neredeyse tek kapısı burasıdır. Günlük yaklaşık 18-20 milyon varil petrol, tankerlerle bu boğazdan geçerek küresel pazarlara ulaşır. Aynı zamanda sıvılaştırılmış doğalgaz (LNG) ihracatı bakımından da dünyanın en kritik noktalarından biridir. Özellikle Katar gibi enerji devleri için Hürmüz, adeta bir ekonomik can damarını temsil eder.

Thanks to the capacity of America, the bravery and skill of her armed forces, and the courageous men and women of the Israeli Defense Forces who paved the way, a great blow has been struck for freedom and security in the world.

Given the facts known, as Commander-in Chief, President Trump made the right call.

But the war is yet to be won. A non-nuclear Iran is not assured. An enduring peace is not yet secured. 

(download to read more)

In recent years, alternative and often controversial narratives about the hidden dimensions of Iran's February 1979 revolution have emerged across media and social networks. These narratives aim to portray the revolution not as a popular uprising but as a scenario orchestrated by foreign powers, particularly the United States. One of these accounts highlights the role of General Robert Huyser and his unofficial contacts with Ayatollah Khomeini's circle as evidence for this claim. According to this viewpoint, Huyser's mission to Iran in January 1979 was intended to weaken the pro-Shah military and to prevent any potential coup. Simultaneously, it is claimed that the U.S. embassy in Tehran, under the coordination of then-Ambassador William Sullivan, was evaluating the political orientations of revolutionary groups to ensure Iran would not drift toward the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union. Some analyses go further, suggesting that a tacit understanding was reached between Washington and Khomeini's associates to safeguard Western interests in the region.

The United States and Iran have resumed a new phase of negotiations aimed at resolving the nuclear dispute. While the current talks focus primarily on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there is skepticism about President Donald Trump’s commitment to securing a broader agreement that addresses all contentious issues. Observers have noted similarities to the 2015 nuclear deal, suggesting a potential return to its framework. However, Trump is unlikely to forgo the chance to leverage pressure and coercive diplomacy to not only prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but also to reshape the broader relationship. His strategy appears to target a deeper transformation — moving beyond decades of estrangement since 1979 and steering Iran toward a shift in its regional policies that the United States views as detrimental to its interests and those of its allies in the Middle East.

Iran, grappling with serious internal and external challenges, has agreed to negotiate under mounting pressure but remains divided between two conflicting camps. The first, aligned with the “hardliner” faction, views diplomacy as a tactical tool —offering calculated concessions to safeguard the establishment’s continuity. Yet, in a notable shift, this faction appears to be signaling flexibility toward the Trump administration, proposing unprecedented incentives that extend beyond the nuclear file. These include openness to economic cooperation and even allowing US investment in key sectors such as oil and nuclear energy. Still, it insists on maintaining certain red lines, notably its ballistic missile program, which has emerged as a sticking point in the talks. On the other hand, a more pragmatic faction advocates for a break from rigid ideological constraints. This faction views reconciliation with the United States as essential for overcoming the persistent economic crisis and moving beyond the cycle of confrontation that has defined Iran’s recent history.

This study explores a critical question: to what extent is Trump’s strategy influencing Iran’s stance on non-nuclear issues and what impact will this have on the future of US-Iran relations? In doing so, it examines several key issues, including the nature of the non-nuclear disputes between the two countries, the incentives and pressures shaping Iran’s current position on these issues and the likelihood of progress on some fronts versus the persistence of firm red lines on others.

This study adopts a neoclassical realist framework to examine the extent to which Iran may respond to US pressure, particularly under Trump’s strategy of coercive diplomacy. By focusing on both internal state-level dynamics and broader international systemic influences, the study seeks to understand the limits and drivers of Iran’s behavior on strategic issues beyond the nuclear file. Employing an inductive methodology, the study prioritizes the meticulous collection and analysis of data to establish broader patterns and relationships. This approach begins with specific observations and cases, then extrapolates general conclusions. Case studies serve as a key tool to assess how domestic, regional and global factors shape Iran’s stance toward Trump’s use of power and diplomatic pressure.

أنهت الولايات المتحدة وإيران الجولة الثانية من المفاوضات غير المباشرة بشأن القضية النووية في العاصمة الإيطالية روما في 19 أبريل 2025، وسط أجواء من التفاؤل، إذ صرح وزير الخارجية العُماني، الذي يلعب دور الوسيط بين الجانبين الأمريكي والإيراني، بأن المرحلة التالية تهدف إلى إبرام “اتفاق عادل ودائم وملزم يضمن خلوّ إيران تمامًا من الأسلحة النووية ورفع العقوبات، ويحافظ على قدرتها على تطوير الطاقة النووية السلمية”، ومن المقرر أن يبدأ الطرفان محادثات على مستوى الخبراء، وذلك من أجل نزع فتيل الأزمة المشتعلة بين الجانبين بسبب الخلافات حول البرنامج النووي الإيراني.

ومن المعلوم أن الأمور قد ازدادت تعقيدًا بالنسبة إلى إيران بعدما عاد ترامب إلى البيت الأبيض في 20 يناير 2025 بنهجه المتشدد تجاه إيران، وبعلاقته العضوية مع إسرائيل، وبرؤية أكثر تشددًا تجاه المنطقة ككل، وبعقوباته القصوى على إيران ليُضاف إلى طهران مزيد من التحديات والضغوط. وجدير بالذكر الإشارة إلى أن ترامب خلال فترة رئاسته الأولى كان قد انسحب من الاتفاق النووي في 2018 باعتباره “أسوأ اتفاق وقَّعت عليه الولايات المتحدة”، وفرض على إيران سياسة الضغوط القصوى على أمل إجبار إيران على توقيع اتفاق جديد بدلًا من اتفاق 2015 الذي وقَّعته إدارة أوباما، لكن الرئيس الأمريكي قد أنهى ولايته الأولى ولم ينجح في تنفيذ وعده، وخلفه الرئيس جو بايدن وفشل هو الآخر في إعادة إحياء الاتفاق أو الوصول إلى اتفاق جديد من خلال الدبلوماسية.

لكن مع عودة ترامب إلى البيت الأبيض مرة ثانية في مطلع عام 2025، أتيحت الفرصة للرئيس الأمريكي لاستكمال العمل الذي بدأه ولم يُنهِه. لذلك، بعد عودته إلى البيت الأبيض، كان أوّل قراراته استعادة الضغوط القصوى على إيران، وتوجيه رسالة إلى المرشد على خامنئي منحه خلالها مهلة مدتها شهران لتوقيع اتفاق جديد، أو اللجوء إلى مواجهة حملة عسكرية غير مسبوقة، وهو الضغط الذي اضطر المرشد بناءً على نصائح وضغوط داخلية إلى الاستجابة له بالموافقة على التفاهم بعدما كان يرفض التفاوض تحت الضغط والتهديد.

الأسوأ من ذلك بالنسبة إلى إيران أن هذه المحادثات جاءت في وقت تواجه فيه طهران تحديات جسيمة، إذ دخلت في أول مواجهة واسعة النطاق ومباشرة مع إسرائيل، بعد السابع من أكتوبر 2024،  وتكبدت على خلفية هذه المواجهة خسارة فادحة. هذه الخسارة لم تشمل فقدان محورها الإقليمي فاعليته وقدرته على التأثير وحسب، بل إنها طالت سيادة إيران وهددت أمنها القومي واستهدفت قدراتها الإستراتيجية، الأمر الذي وضعها في الزاوية، لدرجة أن النظام استقبل الهجمات الإسرائيلية الأخيرة لأراضيه في أكتوبر 2024 دون ردّ، ناهيك بالأزمة الاقتصادية الحادة والأوضاع الداخلية المتدهورة نتيجة العقوبات.

في ظل هذه الظروف يثار التساؤل حول مستقبل برنامج إيران النووي، هل سيكون عرضة للتفكيك؟ أم ستفشل المفاوضات النووية؟ وهل ستتعرض إيران لهجوم عسكري؟ أم سيوقِّع الجانبان اتفاقًا جديدًا؟ ستحاول هذه الورقة استشراف السيناريوهات المتوقعة بشأن البرنامج النووي الإيراني، وذلك على أساس تأثير عدد من العوامل المؤثرة في المفاوضات الجارية، ومن هذه العوامل نهج إدارة ترامب الصارم، والأوراق الحاسمة لدى الأمريكيين، الأمر الذي يمنحهم قدرة أكبر على التأثير خلال هذه المرحلة في خيارات إيران، وبالمقابل القيود التي تفرض ضرورة الانحناء للعاصفة وتقديم استجابة تتفادى بها العواقب الوخيمة التي قد تطال بقاء النظام، وموازنة ذلك مع التهديدات المتعلقة بمكانتها ونفوذها المرتبطين بالبرنامج النووي، وخطوطها الحمراء في هذه المفاوضات، وكذلك موقف إسرائيل الذي طالما كان عاملًا مهمًّا في التأثير في هذا الملف، لا سيما في ظل العلاقة المتميزة مع إدارة ترامب والدعم اللامحدود لها من الجانب الأمريكي، والموقف الخليجي من هذه القضية، الذي يختلف عن الموقف في عام 2015 عند توقيع الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، فضلًا عن الواقع الدولي والإقليمي بمعطياته المختلفة، الذي يمتلك فيه الطرفان أوراقًا ويواجه ضغوطًا، فضلًا عن حلفاء وخصوم لديهم نفوذهم على مسار المفاوضات.

Whether or not a new deal between the US and Iran is likely depends on several factors, including the scope of the proposed agreement, the credibility of enforcement mechanisms, and the domestic political climate in both Tehran and Washington. If achieved, a deal could benefit both countries. For the US, it would mark a return to diplomatic credibility and regional de-escalation. For Iran, it would offer economic normalisation and a potential détente with its Arab neighbours. Most importantly, it would re-anchor non-proliferation efforts in diplomacy and multilateral engagement—a principle that is foundational to any stable international order.

This article explores the intensifying nuclear standoff between the United States and Iran, spotlighting the indirect negotiations set for April 12, 2025, in Oman amid heightened Middle Eastern tensions. The U.S.-Iran rift, originating with the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup and deepening through the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequent Hostage Crisis, has evolved into a complex geopolitical struggle. Historical grievances, reinforced by U.S. support for Iraq during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War and the 1988 downing of an Iranian airliner, underpin Iran’s distrust of Western powers. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) offered temporary respite, but its 2018 collapse under President Donald Trump’s "maximum pressure" policy spurred Iran to enrich uranium to 60% by 2021, reducing its nuclear "breakout time" to weeks by 2025. With Israel’s ongoing Gaza offensive amplifying regional instability, Trump’s threat of severe military retaliation if talks fail underscores the stakes: Middle Eastern security, global oil stability via the Strait of Hormuz, and the specter of a regional arms race. Analyzing historical enmity and current dynamics, this study frames the Oman talks as a critical test of diplomacy, with potential to avert or precipitate a broader crisis.

These wars have significant geopolitical impacts, disrupting trade routes and shifting investment flows in South Asia and the Middle East. Through a review of existing research and case studies, the study looks at how these conflicts are changing economic and political alliances. The findings show that CPEC, IMEEC, and INSTC are facing new challenges due to regional instability and shifting partnerships. To address these issues, the study suggests that countries focus on stronger diplomatic efforts, regional cooperation, and building strategic partnerships to ensure economic stability. By working together, nations can protect these critical trade routes and continue to develop, even as global tensions persist.

Dans les récentes années, la politique étrangère américaine s'est traduite par des manifestations importantes d'unilatéralisme, outre des éléments incontestables d'isolationnisme. Ni républicaine ni démocrate, mais proprement américaine, cette tendance, d'importance capitale pour les alliés de Washington et pour le système international issu des bouleversements de 1989-1991, était déjà perceptible dans les années 1990, mais a été particulièrement mise en relief par le conflit américano-iraquien (2002)(2003). Ne révèle-t-elle pas des contradictions grandissantes, susceptibles de réduire la suprématie de l'unique superpuissance et d'en compliquer la mise en oeuvre ? Les doctrines -d'ailleurs largement évolutives et interactives -frappent par leur approximation et leur manque de cohérence. Elles méritent d'être rappelées dans ce contexte, car elles ont en partie servi de socle idéologique et ont été aussi bien médiatisées qu'instrumentalisées. Utilisée à l'envi par l'Administration Clinton, la doctrine des Rogue States, « Etats voyous » (ou « parias »), devenue au début de l'Administration Bush Junior celle des Etats « perturbateurs » ou « préoccupants », a permis aux Etats-Unis de renforcer leur rôle de chef de file dans le monde occidental, de ressouder les pays arabes amis et de mobiliser leurs nouveaux alliés de l'ex-Est européen. Si elle a contribué aussi à justifier les sanctions économiques (jusqu'à près de quatre-vingts pays punis par les Etats-Unis, à la fin des années 1990) et à augmenter considérablement le budget de la défense, cela n'a pas empêché Washington de se taire sur des régimes amis, pourtant décriés ou condamnés par une grande partie de la communauté internatio-(*) Maître de conférences à l'Institut d'études politiques de Paris et à HEC et producteur à Radio-France.

A significant component of infrastructure that greatly improves relations and connections between India and Afghanistan is the Chabahar Port in Iran. Chabahar offers an essential entry point to the Indian Ocean as
Afghanistan looks for alternate commercial routes to get past its landlocked condition. This article provides Chabahar's strategic importance, historical background, and recent events, emphasizing how it might strengthen regional stability and economic ties. This paper also highlights the significance of Chabahar in influencing the dynamics of India-Afghanistan relations and more general regional cooperation by carefully examining trade numbers, international cooperation, as well as the future consequences.

At the end of 2023, the conflict between Hamas and Israel abruptly escalated. Within weeks, the clash on the sands of the Gaza Strip metastasized into a broader contest involving regional players and world powers. While multiple factors shaped the trajectory of the Gaza war, one of the most important—yet rarely discussed—is how it intersects with the struggle to control trade corridors across Eurasia. Thus, the 7 October war did not unfold in a geopolitical vacuum. Beneath the immediate military confrontation, a deeper contest over trade routes and global influence was at play. Viewing the war through this geopolitical lens reveals its deeper entanglement in Eurasian trade struggles—and, more crucially, who is winning the fight to shape the emerging global order.

Рассматривается современная внешняя политика США, проводимая в отношении Афганистана, в контексте вывода контингента НАТО из этой страны и создания новой модели взаимодействия этих стран. Цель исследованиявыявить системные характеристики этой политики в ее исторической динамике и ключевые факторы, влияющие на нее, на основе системного, а также политэкономического анализа в рамках неоклассической теории международных отношений. Ключевые слова: современные политические процессы в Афганистане, внешняя политика США, баланс сил в Центральной и Южной Азии, региональная безопасность. Политическая суть афганской проблемы в контексте внешней политики США и международных отношений в целом выходит далеко за рамки частных вопросов о форме возможного присутствия стран международной коалиции в Афганистане после вывода ее основных сил в 2014 г. или о влиянии политических процессов в этой стране на соседние страны. Главную проблему исследования можно сформулировать следующим образом: основные векторы политики США, проводимой в отношении Афганистана сегодня, и факторы, оказывающие на них основное влияние. Для разрешения этой проблемы используется метод системного анализа международных отношений, разработанный российской школой международных исследований [Косолапов, 1994; Богатуров, Косолапов, Хрусталев, 2002; Хрусталев, 2008], а также метод политэкономического анализа международных отношений, разработанный Р. Гилпином . Основная гипотеза исследования заключается в том, что Афганистан как государство является частью региональной системы баланса сил на стыке Ближнего и Среднего Востока и Южной Азии и в контексте реструктуризации этой системы, на которую вынуждены реагировать Соединенные Штаты Америки, представляет собой один из важнейших факторов этого процесса. Политические предпосылки афганской кампании 2001 г. Политическим предпосылкам вторжения войск международной коалиции, главным образом США, в Афганистан посвящен огромный пласт исследовательской, мемуарной и публицистической литературы (см., например [

Бажатарник М. А. Образ Ирана в представлении администрации Д. Трампа (2017-2021) // Иран и Россия в евроазиатском пространстве: диалог культур, государств, технологий: сборник материалов I Международной молодёжной конференции (Томск, 2 мая 2023 г.) / науч. ред. В.П. Румянцев, отв. ред. Н.С. Пугачёв – Томск: Редакционно-издательский комитет конференции, 2024. С. 143–151.

Overall, US foreign policy under Trump is likely to remain as complex as ever. It is paramount for the US Congress to seek an end to the war in Gaza, bring relief for the Palestinians and work towards establishing peace in collaboration with major powers such as China.

The suspension of the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) during the Trump Administration was a significant moment in the economic relationship between China and Iran. In China and Iran Readjust Relations: Economic Implications of the Suspended Nuclear Deal, Shirzad Azad, an independent scholar with a doctorate in international relations, leverages his extensive academic background to analyze the Sino-Iranian relationship.

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran is marked by a steady flow of misinformation, with both sides attempting to manipulate public perception. Each party tends to conceal unfavorable developments while exaggerating their successes, obscuring the true nature of the war. This approach complicates efforts to grasp the severity of the conflict and underscores the rapidly escalating tensions in the region. The hostilities are evolving into a prolonged war of attrition aimed at weakening both sides.

There has been a notable link/correlation between the rise of China and U.S.–Iran standoff in recent years. The year 2012 marks a watershed moment in U.S. strategic calculation on its relations with China and Iran. Before that year, China was not a peer competitor capable of challenging U.S. preeminence on the world stage and Iran was merely a regional adversary. After 2012, U.S. intelligence reports have consistently assess that China is the only great power with the intent and ability to undermine the liberal world order and its growing ties with U.S. adversaries, Iran included, will pose the biggest threat to U.S. and Western interests. The China factor has become an independent variable in U.S.–Iran relation, and as Beijing continues to grow its economic and military power, the United States will resort to more hawkish policy toward China and Iran, further escalating the U.S.–Iran standoff. Tehran will continue to play a crucial role in its asymmetrical relationships with Beijing and Washington as the two superpowers seek their respective leverage in the triangular relationship to outcompete the other party.

For over three decades, sanctions have been a consistent feature of United States policy towards Iran. Following the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, in 2018 the United States withdrew from the agreement through Executive Order 13846, reinstating previous sanctions. Consequently, Iran decided to bring its case against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The present article analyzes the ICJ's substantive jurisdiction (Merits) over this case, as well as the political and legal implications of the United States' unilateral sanctions against Iran. The research employs an analytical methodology, utilizing library research and note-taking to collect data. The research findings indicate that the ICJ's opinion is based on the illegality of comprehensive economic sanctions imposed on national security grounds, and that the Court has substantive jurisdiction over this case. Furthermore, the findings reveal that the United States' unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions not only violate Iran's sovereignty, but also infringe upon the human rights of the Iranian people. The United States' sanctions policy aligns with liberal and realist theories of international relations.

After establishing its jurisdiction in the case of the violation of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States (hereafter U.S.) on February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice (hereafter ICJ) took a stride towards the Merits stage. In the event of a final judgment and the failure of the U.S. government to comply, the primary question that was raised was the following: What are Iran's options if the U.S. does not act upon the final decision of the ICJ? This article endeavors to address this question. The research methodology employed in this article is descriptive-analytical; through document analysis of the Court's decisions, international treaties, and relevant books and articles, specific findings have been derived. The research results indicate that Iran's options can be within the framework of the United Nations (hereafter UN) or beyond it. Options within the UN framework are predominantly theoretical, lacking effective enforcement mechanisms due to the existing power structures, including the veto power in the Security Council (hereafter UNSC), thereby lacking a guarantee of proper implementation. These options tend to be idealistic. On the other hand, options outside the UN framework, such as bargaining power and countermeasures for Iran, carry a realist aspect, allowing Iran to leverage them for the assertion of its rights.

This article explores the role of the International Court of Justice (hereafter ICJ) in the relations between Iran and the United States (hereafter U.S.), with reference to the last disputes between the two countries over the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights. The article argues that the ICJ has both jurisdiction (Ratione Materiae) and substantive competence (Merits) to adjudicate the case, based on the trans-analytical method. The article draws on the past judgments of the ICJ in similar cases between Iran and the U.S., such as the Case Concerning US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, the Case Concerning the Aerial Incident, and the Case Concerning Oil Platforms, to support its findings. The article also discusses the implications of the U.S. decision to terminate the Treaty of Amity and to challenge the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The article predicts that the ICJ will establish its judgment based on Article 10 of the Treaty of Amity, which affirms the principle of free trade, and conclude that the U.S. sanctions violate the Treaty of Amity.

Carole Jerome's 'The Man in the Mirror: A True Story of Love, Revolution and Treachery in Iran' is a captivating narrative that delves into the complex web of love, political intrigue, and revolution in Iran. In this review, Peyman Adl Dousti Hagh, a seasoned scholar in Iranian history, provides a unique and critical examination of the book's portrayal of historical events and narrative structure, offering a nuanced perspective to intrigue the readers and provide them with new insights. 

Carole Jerome's 'The Man in the Mirror: A True Story of Love, Revolution and Treachery in Iran' is a captivating narrative that delves into the complex web of love, political intrigue, and revolution in Iran. In this review, Peyman Adl Dousti Hagh, a seasoned scholar in Iranian history, provides a unique and critical examination of the book's portrayal of historical events and narrative structure, offering a nuanced perspective to intrigue the readers. 

Iran's nuclear program was initiated by United States through Eisenhower "Atom for Peace" doctrine. United States supported Shah in the development of nuclear weapons for an increase in its influence and the containment of communism in Middle East. After Iranian revolution, friends become enemies and whole scenario was changed. Primarily, nuclear program was halted but then external players: China, Russian and Pakistan restarted it. In the beginning of new century, Iran's nuclear issue became a hot topic for international debates. IAEA and UNSC moved forward and played their part to stop Iran from further uranium enrichment. In spite of massive external pressure, economic sanctions and diplomatic breakup Iran kept its stance. On economic, political and security reasons; it pursued its nuclear technology. Currently, Iran is enriching uranium for nuclear weapons and it has an advance level of missile development program. This thing disturbs Western interests in Middle Eastern region. So, US, with EU lobby, is alarmed for nuclear Iran will not only disturb their interest but will also pose different threats to Israel: the child of US.

In recent years State-sponsored assassination, reframed as "targeted killing" in the context of the war on terrorism, is undergoing a normalisation process due to the hybrid and asymmetrical threat of international terrorism. A more recent concern is the extension of the practice to the realm of interstate relations, as exemplified by the assassination of the Iranian General Soleimani in January 2020. This paper argues that normative transformations in our understanding of concepts such as state sovereignty, alongside the persistence of inclusion/ exclusion criteria in international relations, have facilitated the application of techniques and practices developed in response to non-state military threats in interstate relations.

Donald Trump’s 106 handpicked tweets of his supporters in terms of his retweets, during his 2016 presidential campaign starting from the day before his candidacy announcement, June 15th, 2015, until the day he took office on January 20th, 2017, were explored in accordance with the Fairclough’s approach to CDA: (1) to identify the specific linguistic, discursive, and social features employed in Donald Trump’s retweets; (2) to explore how Donald Trump is represented via his retweets; (3) and to examine how Donald Trump’s opponents are represented via his retweets. The findings revealed a severe authenticity issue regarding Trump’s retweets since numerous Twitter accounts from which he retweeted did not exist on Twitter. Additionally, his representation was mainly us vs. them. He was attributed with Godlike characteristics while his opponents were poorly portrayed. Moreover, his representation was concentrated on his personal character, his popularity, and his financial success. From the discourse perspective, his discourse was simplistic, populistic, informal, and repetitious filled with powerful words describing nationalistic and economic–oriented ideologies. Generally, the discourse struggled to legitimize Trump as the prime candidate and delegitimize his opponents due to the people’s discontent with the career politicians. This study indicated that Trump’s presence as a celebrity politician was due to the need in society for a novel character to relieve traditional politics while his language simultaneously transformed the existing social order in the realm of American politics

On May 13, 2024, Indian Minister of Ports, Shipping and Waterways Sarbananda Sonowal and Iranian Minister of Roads and Urban Development Mehrdad Bazarbash signed a long-term agreement to operate the strategic port of Chabahar in Iran. This agreement marks a significant move for New Delhi to strengthen its ties with Iran and establish broader trade connections with Central Asia. While the agreement is crucial for both countries, it also has far-reaching implications for global powers;  the United States and China, with the latter viewing this project  as a potential threat to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as well as other Chinese port projects in the region. This report aims to unpack the nature and significance of the agreement for India and Iran and examine the potential impact of the US position on this development. By exploring these various dimensions, the report seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the strategic and economic implications of the Chabahar port agreement.

ABD'nin Tahran Büyükelçiliği, 1979'daki İslam Devrimi ve sonrasındaki rehine krizinden bu yana kapalı bulunmaktadır. 2013 yılında CNN Türk adına Ahu ÖZYURT ve kameraman Emre Kınacı, Elçiliğe girme izni alarak çekim yaptılar. Bu makale, Elçiliğin içindeki istihbarat merkezinin önemine ve İran'ın binayı ve içerisini sağlam ve kullanılır halde tutma çabasına değinmektedir.

Europe and Iran have had important political, cultural and commercial relations that date back several centuries, but these relations have been steadily strained since 2002 when the uncertainty with regard to Iran's nuclear program became an issue of international concern. In the attempt to demonstrate its role as an important foreign policy actor capable of taking the lead in resolving a global crisis, through the leadership of France, United Kingdom and Germany (EU3) the European Union spearheaded efforts to obtain a solution to the deadlock between Tehran and the international community over Iran's nuclear program. Nowadays, after the nuclear agreement with Iran was sealed, the EU can move beyond its exclusive nuclear focus with Iran, and shift to a relationship based on engagement, not containment. However, this goal encounters an unforeseen obstacle: the new American Administration, who wants to shift the US policy on Iran toward aggressive containment and away from the diplomatic openings created by the precedent one. Therefore, it looks that the divide between Europe and the US is set to deepen over Iran, as long as the Trump Administration's heated rhetoric and actions will continue. The EU made it clear, through its High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy statements that it will continue to support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Furthermore, the European leaders understood that a constructive relationship between Iran and the EU is essential for the latter, and it could help to achieve its common security and defense objectives while safeguarding its commercial and energy interests. This article aims to present the relation between Europe Union and Iran post-JCPOA and the European agenda on Iran and to explain how and whether the nuclear agreement could become the reason of a European-American cleavage.

Despite the military coup in July 2023 against Western-backed President Mohamed Bazoum, the United States maintained its relations with Niger. However, a dispute has emerged between the two sides, with Iran being the focal point. The United States accused the ruling military junta in Niger of striking a deal that would grant Iran access to some local uranium reserves. Despite Niger’s denial, some Western intelligence agencies claimed to have obtained confirmed information about the deal. They asserted that the Nigerien military council had reached an initial agreement with Iran, and consultations were underway to expedite the enforcement of this preliminary agreement. These developments have heightened concerns for the United States and its European allies. There are fears that Iran gaining access to significant quantities of uranium, free from supervision and sanctions, could bolster its nuclear program. Additionally, it could strengthen Iran’s presence in the Sahel region, which is currently grappling with unrest and chaos, thereby threatening US influence in the region. The truth of this deal, its importance, and its implications remain subjects of ongoing scrutiny and analysis.

This research looked at the hurdles to Iran's growth plans in the modern world political economy. The data for this study was gathered from secondary sources such as textbooks, magazine articles, and online sources, and the data was analysed using content analysis. According to this study, Iran has been plagued by violent strife for many years. Furthermore, the mistaken economic policies of earlier Iranian leaders, as well as a reluctance to open the economy to international investors, have contributed to the country's economic stagnation throughout the years. Finally, this study suggests, among other things, that a total shutdown of the Iranian economy in the current global economy will continue to deprive Iran of the myriad economic gains associated with globalisation.