As of 2001 when the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was established, an important issue was the reaction of regional and beyond regional actors especially that of big powers. Contrary to its traditional policy of not joining any regional security organization, Iran determined to apply for full membership in the SCO, thus achieving the status of an observer member in 2005. The present article seeks to answer the question why Iran changed its traditional policy and sought to join the SCO? In other words, the main question is: what have been the principal factors which shaped Iran's policy towards the SCO? Our main hypothesis is that consequent upon some fundamental changes in the structure of international system since 2001, Iran sought to use what we term the "structural opportunity" and to join the SCO. Iran seeks not only to guarantee its national security, but also to project the image of a powerful country in the Greater Middle East region.

Afghanistan is a country besieged by years of instability and unrest as a result of the weak governments that have seized power, especially after King Zahir. Mohammad Asef Soltanzade’, s “, Brazen Bulls”,is the story of the tragedy that befalls a country similar to Afghanistan. The story is an allegory of the atrocities committed against the civilians and the civilians who resort to extreme forms of violence to Counteract the government and occupied forces’,measures. The novel has propensities for dialogical analysis as a result of the voices that represent different discourses in the present-day Afghanistan. This paper is an attempt to link the text of the novel to the discursive and social practices that gave rise to the emergence of such novels. It aims to illustrate the way in which literary products could engender discourses that are necessary for forcing effective changes in hegemonic discourse over time. The methodology used to fulfill the purposes of the paper and generate discussion is the critical discourse analysis endorsed by Norman Fairclough.

Todays, there are at least two views and different images of the power of the West. The first picture says that with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, Western hegemony and values are spreading to other regions and civilizations of the world, and Western values will continue to play a major role in shaping the future political, economic and security relations of the world. Based on this point of view, nonwestern societies will need to follow western values in order to achieve development, otherwise they will not be able to achieve ideal progress. Against this optimistic view of the West, there is another image that introduces the Western civilization in decline and degeneration. This narrative believes that the current century should be considered the beginning of the end of Western power. From this point of view, it seems that Iran and China have a common vision to contain, reduce or confront the global hegemony of the West. From a political and ideological point of view, Iran has been able to redefine the anti-hegemonic power in the West Asian region, and on the other hand, China's economic performance has been able to expand the Chinese development model in the world and design a full-scale competition against the American hegemony. Meanwhile, most of the leaders of Iran and China believe that the current system ruling the world under the leadership of the United States is unfair and the existing international system cannot and should not continue to rule on this basis. The main question of this article is how the leaders of Iran and China view the structure of the international system. The findings of the research using the discourse content analysis method show that while the Iranian leaders' view of the structure of the international system is confrontational and philosophical, the Chinese leaders' view of the structure of the international system is based on political and economic cooperation. The article shows that despite the similarities between the discourses of the leaders of Iran and China, the critical positions of the leaders of the two countries towards the international order and the attempt to weaken the American hegemony have fundamental differences.

The purpose of this study is to compare the Counter-Hegemonic international news coverage by the Press TV news network against the Hegemonic discourse of the western media in a case study. This study is to find out why, how and by which techniques is the discourse made and who is making it by asking three questions including why they speak, who is speaking, and how do they speak. Discourse analysis method is used to collect qualitative data. The conceptual framework to carry this study is based on the Gramsci's theory of hegemony, Stuart Hall's theory of Representation, and the Laclau and Mouffe's Discourse Theory. The findings show that Press TV uses "Reverse Representation" in the confrontation with western media who shows Islam and East as an inferior otherness. Press TV utilizes special vocabulary system, focuses on the voice of voiceless and employs both organic and traditional intellectuals to verbalize Postcolonial subjects which all are hit off with its Counter-hegemonic purposes.

The concept of hegemony and post-hegemony in the sciences is directly socially recognized and activities are defined according to the field and national context. hegemony refers to a situation in which a temporary coalition of some social groups becomes the total social authority over other groups. Gramsci believes that the leading theory in this field is that the ruling groups must consider the cause to achieve a logical equilibrium. Lash is also an important researcher in the field of post-hegemony and has changed the description of power that challenges the concept of hegemony. In this article, the views of Gramsci and Lash are compared in terms of historical background, theoretical views, the nature of power, cultural dynamics, and mechanisms of domination with the method of comparing library documents and other types of documents. Modern developments have affected the foundations of power and hegemony and have become thecauses of emergence of dynamics that have emerged from hegemony and post-hegemony. hegemony is the dominance of class ideologies at the borders. At the same time, post-hegemony is the fluidity of power relations and the role of active individuals and communities in resistance and creativity. 1. Introductionhegemony is a concept that is widely recognized and used in the social and human sciences, with different and sometimes contradictory interpretations depending on the field and national context. At the beginning of the 21st century, the relevance and coherence of the concept of hegemony was examined. Various theories of "post-hegemony" have emerged that attempt to provide a realistic political analysis that hegemony once offered. The most important theorist in the field of post-hegemony is Scott Lash. Lash believes that hegemony often works through "symbolic order". This presupposes a high degree of domination by the unconscious. The purpose of this article is to provide a general assessment of "hegemony as seen by Antonio Gramsci, especially from the book (Prison Notebooks)" and "Post-hegemony as seen by Scott Lash, especially In the article (Power after hegemony). 2. Literature Review2. 1. Antonio GramsciGramsci, like many theorists of his time, tried to correct the Marxist rules. He believed that culture has relative independence and that the development of thoughts and ideas or intellectual superstructures can simultaneously change both the mode of production and the intellectual superstructures of society. This happens through the forces of government. The ruling class can secure consensus on its power through ideological means. According to Gramsci, this is necessary for the hegemony of civil society and he sets it against the repressive government. Gramsci refers to the hegemonic means of television channels, the family, schools, churches, newspapers, etc., which connect people to the ruling power instead of oppressing them. According to him, oppression and domination belong to the government, but hegemony is specific to civil society. (Anderson 1976: 53). 2. 2. Scott LashThe post-hegemony in Lash's theories emphasizes the decentralized and dispersed nature of contemporary society. It challenges traditional concepts of power and control and moves beyond the idea of a dominant hegemony to show how cultural, social, and economic forces operate in fluid ways. Lash's work focuses on the rise of information technologies and their impact on social structures, highlighting the shift from stable hierarchies to dynamic, self-organizing systems. In the post-hegemonic era, the concept is immediate and values and realities are presented to us as raw sensory data. Post-hegemony is better understood under the term "communication". Finally, the positivism of the age of hegemony gives way to post-hegemonic empiricism. (Scott Lash: 2007)3. MethodologyThe method of the present study is studying the documents that were used to collect data from various databases. Recent books and articles, reference works, and articles written by theorists were used to collect accurate and unambiguous data. 4. Discussion and ResultsGramsci developed the concept of hegemony based on the role of culture and ideology in maintaining the ruling class’s power. hegemony is exercised through consent rather than coercion, and cultural institutions and media play an important role in this regard. Subordinate groups can challenge power structures through cultural and social resistance. About the fragmentation and decentralization of power in contemporary society, Lash has proposed the concept of post-hegemony. In post-hegemony, power is distributed across different places and networks, digital media and globalization play an important role, and different actors control and compete for power. 5. ConclusionDespite their similarities, Gramsci's and Lash's theories on power and hegemony have important differences. Gramsci, a Marxist philosopher, proposes the concept of hegemony, according to which the ruling class maintains its ideological power through cultural institutions and the media. He points to the role of centralized institutions and the influence of ruling class ideologies in social control. Lash introduces the concept of post-hegemony, which deals with the dynamics of power in the digital age. He argues that power in contemporary societies is dispersed and fluid, exercised through networks and digital platforms. These developments offer new spaces for resistance and creativity and challenge the dominant ideology or ruling class. To summarize, the comparison between Gramsci's hegemony and Lash's post-hegemony shows important changes in the way power is distributed and exercised. Gramsci emphasizes control by centralized institutions, while Lash emphasizes the dispersion of power and the active role of individuals and communities in the digital age. Post-hegemony offers new insights into the challenges and opportunities of social change in the face of decentralization and greater individual agency.

hegemony is considered as one of the important and debatable concepts in the field of political science and international relations. The main goal of this research is to investigate the formation process of this concept in the field of international relations in order to reconsider the concept of hegemony in the literature of international relations. A crucial question addressed in this research is about the contemporary dimensions of the formation of the concept of hegemony in the literature of international relations. The research method is based on theoretical research process. This method aims to explore the major intellectual transformations in the international hegemony concept and, through reconsideration, to clarify the smart hegemony of America in contemporary international relations. Therefore, based on the findings of this research, it can be said that this research first explains the concept of smart hegemony as a type of institution at a theoretical level, which has four dimensions of power and seeks to reproduce its civilizational and identity discourse. In addition to conceptual and theoretical reconsideration, an attempt is made to examine the functions and dimensions of power of the smart hegemony of America in the contemporary international order.

Understanding U.S. behavior in international arena depends on identifying the foundations of American hegemony. According to the theoretical framework of this paper, U.S. hegemony has three bases: "material power", "will and decision to become a hegemonic power" and "an ideology for making global legitimacy for hegemon". They constitute three conditions of U.S. hegemony, which are "necessary", "sufficient" and "sustainability". This paper will show that neo-conservatists have planned and followed a new phase of U.S. hegemony. This new hegemony depends highly on material (military) base of hegemony rather than legitimate global ideology and consensus. This neoconservative version of U.S. hegemony diverted American hegemony to American empire and weekend sustainability condition of US hegemony.