We have witnessed serious developments in the Iranian foreign policy, particularly towards Israel after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, in a way that the Iranian relations with Israel from a strategic alliance suddenly turned into hostility and confrontation with Israel’ s existence. However, this development could not be explained in the framework of materialistic paradigms and it could merely be analyzed through constructivist approach by emphasizing on the concept of identity. By applying a constructivist perspective, we may find out that identity clash after three decades has led to the entrance of new actors in this confrontational front, in which the state of Azerbaijan is one of the most important players because of especial geopolitical characteristics and other potentials such as ethnic nationalism and secular political system which is favorite for Israeli politicians. As long as the factors for the closeness of Israel to Azerbaijan are concerned, there are various views. However, the present research attempts to address this major question as to how the identity and interests differences between Iran and Israel have affected the expansion of Israel and Azerbaijan political-security relations? In answering this question, one has to state that in spite of common identity elements between Iran and Azerbaijan, there are certain challenges which have caused aloofness in their relations such as Karabakh crisis, Azerbaijan ethnic incitements and Iran’ s religious policies, led the Iran-Israel confrontation as a significant and influential factor to be considered for the expansion of Israel and Azerbaijan political-security relations that Israel plan to use against Iran.

The paper reviews recent attempts to sketch the most important elements of that history to appreciate the present state of affairs in the Middle East between these contenders for control of the land that represents their respective destinies as “ landmarks” . Understanding the struggle between Palestine and Israel over what has commonly been known as “ the holy land” represents entanglements between religion and politics. The author In this paper has discussed different subjects such as “ Many Shades of Zionism, The Greater Israel Plan, The Expanding Jewish State, Divisions within Israel, Jewish Group Selection, Holocaust Mythology, 9/11 Political Theater and Israeli False Flags. Eventually the author brings on various statements from present and previous Israeli officials. The author concludes that as long as the United State stands by Israel, Israel will continue to abuse and exploit its neighbors in the pursuit of its ambitions for “ The Greater Israel” . What follows might be viewed as more akin to a relief map intended to highlight the most salient features of a long and complex history than as a definitive account, which will be left for other more authoritative than the present author. Instead, this piece attempts to sketch the most important elements of that history necessary for a student to begin to appreciate the present state of affairs in the Middle East between these contenders for control of the land that represents their respective destinies as “ landmarks” . Understanding the struggle between Palestine and Israel over what has commonly been known as “ the holy land” represents entanglements between religion and politics, where the creation of the State of Israel emerged from political decisions made by the United Kingdom and its allies before and durng World War II, where Jews— along with many other groups--were among the targets of The Third Reich, who rounded them up and incarcerated them in concentration camps to perform forced labor. Before turning to that development, however, another matter of ideology must be addressed, which concerns the nature of Zionism as an ideology transcending traditional forms of Judaism as represented by the first five books of the Bible, known as “ The Torah”...

United States relations with the Zionist regime constitute an important part of American Middle Eastern politics in a way that changes in the presidents of the United States have not translated into important changes in U.S. - Israel relations. Despite ups and downs in the Unites States-Israel relations and the disagreements in their presidents' viewpoints over some issues, Barak Obama has expressed his country's commitment to the security of Israel and has supported maintaining American-Israeli alliance. Despite this, Obama's foreign policy has been widely criticized particularly in Israel and the bilateral relations have been tens and uneasy during Obama's presidency terms. The question here is: What are the reasons for emergence of such problems in the United States-Israel relations? Regarding the realism Obama's foreign policy is characterized with, the roots of problems in U.S - Israel relations should be sought in the realist foreign policy of Obama and subsequently the changes in the United States foreign policy strategies. In the present paper the realist doctrine of Obama will be analyzed and the consequences of that on Israel will be studied.

Military occupation of Iraq following 9/11 terror attacks and the fall of the Baathist regime led to new geopolitical changes in the Middle East subsequent to disintegration of the bipolar world system. Such terms as “New Middle East”, or “Greater Middle East” are telltale signs of geopolitical changes in this sensitive part of the world. The above developments have provided grounds for further rivalry among international and regional powers which aim to increase their clout in the Middle East and make the most of the new geopolitical and geostrategic conditions. Strategic void that followed the fall of Saddam in Iraq provided Israel with a good opportunity to focus on its geopolitical and geostrategic goals and formulate strategic plans for northern parts of Iraq which are of high geopolitical and geoeconomic importance in Israel’s political and military strategy. Thus, Israel sees Iraqi Kurdistan as its geopolitical heartland which can enable it to carry out strategic plans which are reflected by such ideas as “Greater Israel” or “From Nile to Euphrates.”