The current essay is about to study Trump's foreign policy as republican's representative toward Latin America. One of the necessities to study this essay is that so far there is not much Persian version available and regional studies requires proper understanding in order to know diplomacy's procedure in this region. So that it could be relatively settled. The method used in research relies more on establishing causes and factors of formation and the process of united states diplomacy in southern hemisphere Thus, the study seeks to answer the question as to which elements and components of Donald Trump's foreign policy behavior after Obama's treatment of a soft nature have now become a hard and challenging one. The main hypothesis of the study is as follows: "US foreign policy in Donald Trump's administration of Latin America has been based on vicious behavior against the Republican anti-hemispherical approach" With his first American approach and nationalist logic in his foreign policy toward the world and later in Latin America, Trump adopted a different line of policy than Latin America. It deeply influenced the political and economic structures of the region and created different foreign policy processes. Much of the change has been a consequence of Donald Trump's individual decisions in opposition to the actions and foreign policy of former President Barack Obama, which has been directly and publicly proclaimed as trivial. These changes have spread nationalist sentiment and racist currents throughout the world that have affected Latin American nations as well.

It seems that the objective of the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" strategy toward Iran is Sovietization of the country or, in fact, the disintegration of the Islamic Republic of Iran through using the experiences of the Reagan administration in dealing with the Soviet Union. The findings of the present article show that the masterminds behind this project include Foundation for Defense of Democracies and certain right-wing and conservative think tanks in the United States such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, which are the remnants of the administrations of George Bush senior or George W. Bush. The US State Department and the CIA are the executive arm of the project that involves US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US special representative for Iran Brian Hook, and White House national security adviser John Bolton. According to this project, the collapse of the "Islamic Republic" or a change in the ruling political system is not enough and the main goal is the disintegration of the "Islamic Republic of Iran". However, the adoption of such a strategy does not necessarily mean that it will succeed and there, are factors that seriously impede the realization of this project.

This article will discuss and compare The United States national security strategies over the past two decades. With focusing on three general considerations of "problem definition, " "goals, " and "approaches" in US national security strategies, the authors believe that there is a significant link between the Bush administration and the Obama administration national security strategies especially in definition of national security goals. This is also correct about foreign policy instruments (such as the alliances, coalition-building and multilateralism) exception the pre-emptive war, of course. The remarkable difference between of them is about the relative importance of international order. During the Trump administration the language of problem definition, goals and tools has changed significantly. In light of the principled realism and sovereignty of the nations, the Trump’ s NSS reflects a significant difference and emphasizes on the America First strategy, protectionism, reject the international responsibilities, diminishing military commitments and unilateralism.

The victory of the Republican Party and Donald Trump's effectiveness in the 2016 elections created open and hidden angles in the field of foreign policy of the United States of America. So that Trump's type of leadership caused him to enjoy significant features in distinguishing himself from his predecessors in the Democratic and Republican parties.By insisting on James Rosena's theory of continuity and using a descriptive-analytical method, this study seeks to answer the main question, what are the characteristics of the decision-making quality of the American Republican Party under the leadership of Trump towards Iran, and the influence of each How long has one of them been?The main assumption of the present research is that according to the individual variables, role, society, government and international system, to a large extent, through James Rosena's continuity model, the type of view and decision-making of the foreign policy of the United States of America in Qbal explained the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The corona pandemic should be considered one of the most important crises of the 21st century. This virus initially plunged China into a growing crisis, but as it spread around the world in less than three months, the pandemic crisis intensified dramatically around the world. The United States, meanwhile, is one of the major victims of the virus, with more than 240, 000 deaths by the beginning of the second half of 2020 making Corona one of the greatest crises in US history. The main issue in this regard has been Trump's policies and approaches to the fight against and control of the coronavirus on the one hand, and the support of various sections and classes of the American society, including medical, economic, and so on. An issue that did not materialize in practice and led to protests from a wide range of people, giving him a broad functional legitimacy for Trump and the neoconservative administration. In this article, the authors attempt to answer the question: what impact the Corona crisis has had on the functioning and legitimacy of the Trump administration, and what is the possible future for the US socio-political system? The authors' hypothesis in this article indicates the intensification of the Trump administration's crisis of legitimacy during the outbreak of the Corona virus in this country, and the findings of the article show that the use of written descriptive and analytical methods, the use of written and library resources indicate the possible occurrence of three It will be a major consequence for Trump. First,Defeat in the upcoming US presidential election,Second, the deepening of bipolarity in the United States and, ultimately, the emergence of security crises in the United States.

Think tanks can be seen as a link between science and politics that enables politicians to predict the consequences and effects of their decisions using scientific-research studies. These think tanks in the United States, which claim to be the leader of the international system in this era, have grown a lot. Considering that the United States needs diverse and numerous strategies in various global issues, especially towards the Islamic Republic of Iran, the vital and influential role of active thinkers in this field seems very prominent.Therefore, the question that this article tries to answer is, how have institutions or think tanks in the field of American foreign policy influenced the approach of the Trump administration towards the Islamic Republic of Iran? The results of the research show that American think tanks and strategists have put many and varied strategies in front of the Trump administration using the American diplomacy system in order to change the behavior and nature of the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In the past four decades, the US-Iran relations have been hostile, especially after Donald Trump took office as president in 2017. Since 1979, Washington's official policy toward Iran has been predicated on containment, push-back, and change of behavior. However, Iran usually perceives the US policy regarding itself in terms of regime change or metamorphosis. The United States has countered Iran through coercive diplomacy, crippling sanctions, military blockade, delegitimization, isolation, and demonization. The present paper aims to investigate the antagonism between the two countries in Donald Trump's administration. The main reasons behind Trump's maximum pressure campaign against Iran and Iran’ s perception of this attitude constitute the main research questions addressed in this paper. The findings show that the two countries have different understandings of their hostilities. Although the US preference in Trump’ s era for Iran was regime change, it would settle for a non-challenging or so-called a normal Iran. But Iran perceived the US policy as undermining its independence, identity, and existence. In fact Iran perceived Trump’ s gesture on negotiation or making new deal as just a propaganda show. This paradigmatic different outlooks has blocked diplomacy. The present paper, through a descriptive-analytic method, elaborates on this antinomy mainly from Iranian side.

Given the fact that convergence and divergence in transatlantic relations and the role of Britain in the European Union have always been two important and determining factors in the EU's relationship with Iran, this article asks what implications Brexit and the presidency of Donald Trump in the United States could have for transatlantic relations and Iran. This paper assumes that Brexit and Trump's presidency— which have led to an unprecedented gap in transatlantic relations and security deficit in Europe— have promoted the EU to move toward reducing its strategic dependence and defend its own values and interests. Past experience has shown that such developments offer unique opportunities for the expansion of the Islamic Republic of Iran's relations with Europe, particularly considering the fact that Iran is one of the main bones of contention that have driven a wedge between governments on the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

The article analyzes the contemporary factors that contributed to US-Poland relations under President Trump. Both the United States and Poland had their fair share of troubles with the EU. For Poland, issues range with compliance over the rule of law, adherence to common EU values and the refugee resettlement and migration policy. For the US, issues with the EU under the Trump presidency formed a larger part of the changing US policy towards the transatlantic alliance. The article argues that while both the United States and Poland find common interests in defense, energy security and their estranged relationship with Germany, Poland’s economic engagement with the EU, in particular with Germany, forces Warsaw at best to find a balance between its main economic partner the EU and its security ally the United States. For the US, its relationship with Poland under the Trump presidency, falls in line with its policy of prioritizing bi-lateral relationships in the EU, thereby undermining the EU-NATO multilateral dynamics.