Today, liberal democracy has faced challenges including populism. As a populist person or party comes to power, a populist foreign policy with special characteristics in any country, including the United States, emerges. Within this context, Trump had deep impact on the country's foreign policy with his populist slogan, like "America First", his nationalist populism approach, and a conflict between the structure and the agent arose. From this perspective, the main question of this research is how Trump made the American establishment as the Other for its populist foreign policy. The hypothesis of this research is that Trump made the establishment as a major Other to his populist foreign policy through the creation of a bipolar atmosphere and confrontation between the structure and the agent, and the unfavorable conditions of the structure and the existing status of the liberal international order. The paper explains how Trump made the establishment as a sublime Other of his foreign policy by using the paradigm of neoclassical realism, the process tracing method, and by referring to sources and written documents about populism and American foreign policy in the Trump era.

Identity is a phenomenon that is created in the course of social communication by creating a border between self and other. The importance of this concept during adolescence period increases the necessity of its rethinking in the field of literature. The novel of "The Eye of the Horse" is one of the novels by Jamila Gavin that represents identity-making and identity-accepting of immigrants and by borrowing Western concepts and values and combining them with Eastern identity characteristics, challenges the indigenous Oriental culture (Hindi). The present paper attempts to answer these questions: how do the identity-making elements of the West challenge and change the identity of the immigrant? And to what extent factors such as otherness, bilingualism, etc. contribute to identity making? Accordingly, the relationship between the characters of the "the Eye of the Horse" novel as a symbol of the East and the West, as well as the suspension and consolidation of their identities in the Western dominant atmosphere are analyzed. The findings of this research show that in the process of forming the identity of the teenage characters of the novel the author has integrated the decentered and centered attitudes of East and West toward each other by creating an intermediate space, and has justified the supremacy of the West as a fixed principle by creating linked subjects. He has also introduced the naturalization and diminution of indigenous identities as an entry to the civilized world and globalization.

Introduction: At least in the last three decades, the concept of identity and its consequences on the behavior of governments at the regional and international levels have been the focus of attention for researchers and more broadly, critics of traditional theories of international relations. In other words, it is argued that, unlike traditionalists who focus on certain principles in the behavior of actors, to explain the actions of states, one must take seriously the power, preferences, interests and normative structures, that are inextricably linked to the identity of the actors. For example, post-Structuralists argue that the identity of the state is achieved through the inscription of boundaries that mark the 'inside' from the 'outside', the 'self' from the 'other', and “domestic” from “foreign”. Against this background, this research tries to evaluate the process of othering by actors in international arena and answer the basic questions of what othering is. What role does othering play in the identity of actors? In addition to answering the above questions, this study also attempts to evaluate othering in the eastern policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation.Research question: How do the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation try to distinguish themselves from others with the "looking to the east" strategy and what is the common point or intersection of their strategies?Research hypothesis: The research has arguments, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation are trying to distinguish themselves from others (the West) by emphasizing elements such as geography, culture, civilization, ideology, etc. The common point of this distinction is the rejection of the West (especially the United States). Similarities in the Eastern strategy of the two countries, such as the geographical overlap, the emphasis on traditionalism and traditional values (anti-modern) and anti-hegemonic multipolar order also strengthens this common position.Methodology: This research is qualitative, and the author has tried to test the research hypothesis using a descriptive-analytical approach. The data needed to explain the problem is also collected through library studies (authorized articles, books and internet sources). Since the purpose of the research paper is to provide evidence of othering in the search strategy of Iran and Russia, the conceptual framework of othering was used to test the hypothesisResults and discussion: The results of this research show that countries define their identity in the regional and international arena and differentiate themselves from others through the process of othering. This distinction is based on the specific characteristics of each country, which can be cultural, historical, geographical, etc. This othering is an inevitable part of identification. The results of this research also show that identification and foreign determination can be seen largely in the looking east strategy of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran.Conclusion: Iran and Russia are trying to distinguish themselves from others (especially the West) by referring to their unique geographical, cultural and civilizational features in the form of a look-to-the-east strategy and at the same time they try to attract others (especially Eastern countries) to their side. In the meantime, there are some commonalities between the Russian Federation's and the Islamic Republic of Iran's strategy of looking East, which increase the areas of convergence towards identification and cooperation with each other. The first of these similarities is the geographical overlap. In this context, both countries emphasize regions such as Central Asia and the Caucasus as a region of the East. Regardless of the physical geographical dimension, both countries consider regions such as Latin America in their geopolitical imagination as part of the Looking to the East strategy. The most important point in this context is the non-contradiction of the geographical borders of these two countries.The second similarity between the eastern strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation is that both countries emphasize traditional values. Values such as justice, equality, freedom and similar values that are usually in conflict with modern values (especially the interpretation represented by the United States and European countries in the form of liberalism). Finally, the third feature of the Eastern strategy of these two countries is their emphasis on the anti-hegemonic multipolar order. Based on the interpretation of these countries, there are different countries and civilizations in the international system, each of which has its own characteristics and coordinates, so we cannot have one.

IntroductionOver the span of four decades, the islamic republic of iran (iri) has consistently prioritized the confrontation with the united states as a fundamental axis and ultimate objective in its foreign policy. This stance has not only endured until now but has also shaped the boundaries of iran’s maneuverability in other arenas. The present research aimed to address different aspects of iran–u.s. enmity by answering the following questions: how has confrontation with the u.s. become entrenched as the axis and ultimate objective in the foreign policy of the iri? and what are the prospects for potential shifts in this approach in the future?Literature ReviewIran–U.S. relations, along with the underlying causes of their mutually confrontational policy, has been the subject of numerous research studies. Some studies dealt with Iran–U.S. relations from a historical standpoint, aiming to explain the origins of mutual hostility through a chronological description of events in their relations. For instance, in the book titled US Foreign Policy and Iran: American–Iranian Relations Since the Islamic Revolution, Murray (2010) explored the history of Iran–US relations during the tenure of five presidents. She focused on the role of ideology, the dichotomy of democratization/stability or idealism/realism, informational and cognitive errors, the lack of mutual understanding rooted in language and image-making, the impact of events and their timing, the tools and levers of foreign policy, and the missed opportunities to restore relations. Rubin (1981), in an article titled “American Relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979–1981,” focused on Iran–U.S. relations during the two years following the hostage crisis. For Rubin, the root of the mutual confrontation can be traced back to the perceptions of Revolution’s leaders of America’s role in supporting the Shah and attempting to thwart the success of the Revolution. In the article “US-Iran Relations: Issues, Challenges, and Prospects,” Hussain (2015) addressed the impediments to détente in the history of Iran–U.S. relations. Hussain emphasized various factors such as regional peace processes, terrorism, the nuclear issue, domestic policies in both countries, and America’s regional allies, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia. In Becoming Enemies: U.S.–Iran Relations and the Iran–Iraq War, 1979–1988, Blight et al. (2012) employed the methods of critical oral history, drawing on declassified documentation and interviews with key decision-makers in American foreign policy during the Iran–Iraq war. They argued that the roots of Iran–U.S. enmity would go back to the performance of American foreign policy during the war and its impact on the IRI’s foreign policy.Several studies tried to examine the role of other actors as mediating variables in Iran–U.S. relations. For instance, in the article Jafari-Movahhed (2022) argues that a major impediment to improving relations between Iran and the U.S. is intricately linked to the substantial and fundamental problems that the IRI has with Israel. According to Jafari-Movahhed, the identity ties between the U.S. and Israel, together with the influential role of the Zionist lobby in America, makes it almost impossible to normalize Iran–U.S. relations, at least in the short term. In the article entitled “The Role of Public Opinion Engineering in America on Iran–U.S. Relations,” Pourkhosh-Saadat (2015) attributed the origins of animosity between the two countries to the psychological operations orchestrated by adversaries of the Islamic Revolution. Specifically, Pourkhosh-Saadat points to the influence of the Israel lobby in the U.S, contending that any shift in Iran–U.S. relations would depend on the opinion and decision of the AIPAC lobby and Israel-affiliated media. He argues that AIPAC is actively engineering Iran–U.S. relations through its media. In “Great Power Rivalries and the Persistence of Iran–U.S. Adversarial Relations,” Lotfian and Faghih (2021) posit that as economic pressures on Iran increase due to the delayed lifting of sanctions by both Europe and America, Iran will increasingly turn to alternative allies. They argue that heightened antagonism from the U.S. will push Iran towards closer ties with China and Russia. In response, American policymakers are likely to become more determined to strengthen relationships with regional allies and partners. While the authors do not directly address the underlying causes of Iran–U.S. enmity, they contend that escalating tensions among the U.S., China, and Russia may contribute to the intensification of hostilities between Iran and the U.S. (Lotfian & Faghih, 2021).The literature has also focused on the process of Othering and the construction of Self/Other in Iran–U.S. relations. For example, Duncombe (2016), in the article titled “Representation, Recognition, and Foreign Policy in the Iran–US Relationship,” offered an understanding of Iran–U.S. enmity by focusing on the construction of states’ identity through representation of Self and Other. According to Duncombe, representation and misrecognition contribute to a mutual feeling of disrespect, thus exacerbating the tensions between the two countries.The novelty of the present research lies in its unique interpretation of the process of Othering, in which three types of Others are recognized: the historical Other, the domestic Other, and the foreign Other. The study tried to answer the research questions by examining how the interaction between the three Others has constructed the identity of the IRI. Materials and MethodsThe present study adopted a constructivist approach with a focus on identity, and used it in combination with the typology of states in political economy, incorporating both sub-national and transnational levels of analysis. The aim was to examine the formation and consolidation of the iri’s foreign policy with an eye to the process of othering the u.s. The analysis intended to offer insights that can explain the most endurable axis of the iri’s foreign policy, namely anti-arrogance within the culture of confrontation and conflict, and shed light on its inevitability as well as its structural consequences on domestic policy.ConclusionThe research findings were grounded in the conceptual constructs such as Othering identification, triple Others, projective identification, constitutive and regulative rules, and allocative and authoritative resources. Additionally, the analysis relied on the dichotomy of organic/instrumental state, highlighting structural sclerosis that challenges fundamental transformations. The study finally addressed the feasibility and evaluation of the capacities and requirements for change in the core axes and ultimate objectives of the IRI’s foreign policy.

In this article, the story of Khosrow and Shirin is evaluated using assumptions of postcolonial studies and cultural semiotics. Shirin's presence in place of a female immigrant in Ctesiphon with its dual demand for allegiance with the host country's culture on the one hand and Shirin's emphasis on maintaining and codifying her home-country's culture on the other hand, stucks her in a challenging situation. In this paper, the mechanisms of center culture in the host country, for marginalizing Shirin, and the process of "othering" as her resistance strategy to maintain the cultural identity of "herself" in the host country is analyzed and the role of gender in the success of this process is shown.The results show that the host country's culture tries to marginalize Shirin as a dangerous «other» who seeks out to disrupt the established dominant culture order. Therefore her situation in the host country, sets the stage for the process of othering by her, as an act of resistance, considered as an anti-hegemonic act in order to stabilize her own cultural identity.Shirin's "othering" are divided in to two categories of "distanct others: and close others". Interestingly Shirin's "gender others" or "men" in the host country's land, are under the category of "close others" and "gender in-groups" or women are under the category of "distant others". Thus she takes two different approaches towards each.By such reading Khosrow and Shirin can be a reflection of the marginalized voices which manage to survive in the dominant center culture.

Representing racial, ethnic, cultural, and geographical “, Others”,is considered a focal strategy of a number of American media and entertainment productions. Accordingly, the primary goal of this article is to explain the “, Othering”,mechanisms in the first three seasons of the popular television series Westworld (2016–, present), with a focus on the values of the American Dream. In its theoretical literature and analyses, the study drew on the Western philosophical concept of “, the Other”,and on cultural studies. To understand how the construct of the Others functions in the show, the study used John Fiske’, s semiotics and three-level model, along with Roland Barthes’,Symbolic Code. The research found that the presence and absence of two American Other groups—, Black and Native Americans—, and one non-American Other group—, East Asian people—, in relation to white people, i. e., “, the Self, ”,in the series carry significant implications. Westworld’, s semiotic mechanisms represent white people as the dominant group, East Asian people and Native Americans as subaltern groups, and Black people as being close to whites. By doing so, they normalize a power hierarchy topped by the white race to reproduce for a future world the myth of the “, superior white, ”,a myth that portrays the core elements of the American Dream, including individualism, liberty, and freedom of choice, as being exclusive to white people. The myth also downgrades the essential element of equality by stereotyping and delegitimizing the Others to ensure that whites will be the only group to develop plans and make decisions for the world of the future.

Othering, as the basic political economy of identity construction, has been operative in human societies since ancient times, but it has been conceptually investigated only in recent times. Employing contrapuntal reading, the deconstructive strategy adapted by Edward Said from classic Western music, the present paper deals with the issue of identity politics in “Odysseus’s Tale of Trials” from Homer’s Odyssey to unravel the ideological subtext of this canonical romantic epic and give voice to the figures monsterized and suppressed by the hero and the narrative voice. It is argued that The Odyssey has significantly contributed to the construction of Western subjectivity, giving a sense of national or cultural identity to both ancient Greek people and modern Western man via setting them in opposition to their others. However, upon a contrapuntal reading, Odysseus is no different from the so-called savage, barbarous, villainous others he confronts in his quest and the identity constructed for both parties is merely a matter of convention and discursive power. Thus, the findings of this study challenge the commonsensical identity politics at work in Western culture, in the hope of paving the way for further critical readings of such classical texts and reevaluating their translations.

In the surviving texts from the classical period of Greece, we come across a common word-especially in reference to the Achaemenid Persians-that is still used in the political literature of the contemporary world: Barbarian, derived from the Greek word βάρβαρος. This word, first used in the second book of Homer's Iliad as βαρβαρόφωνος (= speaking a foreign language), indicated only linguistic heterogeneity and meant stranger. Between the 7th and 6th centuries BC, the use of this word increased and it was used not only for linguistic "othering" but also to refer to cultural differences and appreciation of the social system of non-Greeks. In the upcoming study, the authors aimed to analyze the semantic implications of the word βάρβαρος and highlight the turning points of its development by scrutinizing Homer's Iliad and other preserved fragments from the 6th century BC (Archaic period). The results of the present study, based on library sources, show that the word βάρβαρος has been associated with negative connotations (implicit or explicit) since the beginning of its existence in Homer's poetry. Moreover, with Solon's reforms in Athens and the increasing enslavement of non-Greeks in the Greek world of the 6th century BC, the boundary between the two terms "barbarian" and "slave" was gradually erased, and the humiliation of barbarian slaves led to the emergence of the idea of "Greek superiority over non-Greeks. "