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 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.

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.

Although fighting terrorism in recent decades has been embraced by the US National Security Strategy and has been pursued in several United States governments as a strategic priority, examining the performance of US presidents has always indicated a constant dissatisfaction with the efficiency of counter-terrorism strategies. This is also the same for the Obama presidency, as his successor, Trump, during the electoral campaigns, called ineffective what Obama had done in eight years of government in the field of terrorism, especially in the West Asian region. He spoke about a tremendous change in the way of fighting terrorism during his presidency. The introduction of such discussion by Trump has led the authors of this article, while considering the significance of the West Asian region in terms of shared security concerns with the Islamic Republic of Iran, to elaborately review the new US president’ s counterterrorism strategy, with an emphasis on Yemen. Focusing on the main issue, the initial hypothesis stated that Trump called the strategy of committing Yemen (as a victim of terrorism) used by the Obama administration ineffective and thus resorted to a direct military intervention strategy in that country. As the present research is descriptive-explanatory, the hypothesis was measured and validated based on library data.

In many aspects, U. S. President Donald Trump’, s approach to foreign policymaking was in sharp contrast with that of his predecessors, particularly post-WWII presidents. His hostility toward the long-lasting liberal international order that was crafted and maintained by former presidents, his eccentric ways of solving foreign policy issues, and his unusual rhetoric regarding U. S. allies and adversaries, are all indications of his “, unorthodox”,foreign policy approach. In an attempt to explain this unorthodoxy, in this article we aim to examine Trump’, s cognitions and compare them to those of his post-WWII predecessors. In particular, we have measured the cognitive complexity score for each of these presidents to determine Trump’, s position among them. In order to do so, we have calculated the Flesch-Kincaid readability score of the presidents’,verbal statements, assuming that the complexity of the statements indicates the complexity of their author’, s thoughts. The results have clearly demonstrated that Trump was at the lowest level of cognitive complexity among the presidents under examination, and since a low level of cognitive complexity pertains to viewing the situation from limited perspectives, a low need for broader information, adhering to a limited number of policy options, ignoring advice, and decisiveness, we may reasonably infer that his cognitive simplicity played an important role in the unorthodoxy of his foreign policy approach.

Afghanistan has played a key role in US foreign policy in recent decades. The US entry into Af Country-snapshot.ghanistan's political-military arena dates back to the late Soviet occupation of the country in the 1980s. The events of September 11, 2001, increased Bush Jr.'s strategic focus on the country and led to the US invasion of Afghanistan, and this strategy more or less continued under the next US presidents, especially Obama and Trump. In this regard, the main question of the present study is what are the similarities and differences between the strategies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump towards Afghanistan? Findings The Obama badge made the security situation in Afghanistan one of its top priorities and won the Nobel Peace Prize with the slogan of war. Obama's policy on Afghanistan was, in fact, his administration's roadmap for dealing with Afghanistan. Continuing US problems in dealing with the Taliban was one of the important issues the Obamasought to resolve as soon as possible. Trump initially to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, but later signed a plan About 4,000 more US troops will be sent to Afghanistan. In his strategy, Trump opposed the hasty withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. The present study is of descriptive-analytical method. Extended abstract:1- IntroductionBarack Obama's government, which came into office with the slogan of change in America in 2009, announced the security situation of Afghanistan as one of the serious priorities of his government and succeeded in receiving the Nobel Peace Prize with the slogan of war. Barack Obama implemented two distinct strategies in two stages regarding Afghanistan: in the first stage, he believed in separating the dirty and clean war, meaning to fight terrorism; Afghanistan is a priority and Iraq should be removed from the direct control of American forces. In this regard, in 2009, Obama sent 17,000 new troops to Afghanistan, most of whom were stationed in the southern regions of Afghanistan. In Obama's second strategy, more emphasis was placed on economic aid and the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan. According to this strategy, he intended to transfer the responsibility of providing Afghanistan's security to Afghan forces, and in the last stage of the implementation of this strategy; In June 2011, Obama announced his decision to withdraw American troops from AfghanistanOn the other hand, Donald Trump was the third president of the United States who faced the challenge of Afghanistan, and his government's strategy was announced after several months of delay, during a speech in August 2017, known as Trump's strategy. At the beginning of entering the White House, Trump promised the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, but then he signed a plan to send about four thousand more American troops to Afghanistan. When Obama entered the White House, he announced the new strategy of the United States in Afghanistan regarding the increase of 30,000 American troops in Afghanistan, as well as a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, but Donald Trump, unlike Obama, in The beginning of his presidency did not have a specific plan for the war in Afghanistan. While at the beginning of his entry into the White House, Trump was critical of the presence of American troops in Afghanistan, but after a while in his new strategy, he opposed the hasty withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and attacked America's enemies, destroying ISIS, hitting Al-Qaeda emphasized preventing the Taliban from dominating Afghanistan, preventing the creation and development of terrorists' sanctuaries, and terrorists' access to weapons of mass destruction, and its strategy was the fear of the collapse of the Afghan government and becoming a nest of terrorists and reducing US military forces in Afghanistan. These developments caused each of the American leaders to adopt a specific pattern of behavior based on their perception of the surrounding and internal conditions of Afghanistan, how to be influenced by the internal conditions of America and individual beliefs. In the years of Obama's leadership, within the region (on the Off-Pak axis) and in the Trump era, a kind of principled realism was on the agenda. With Donald Trump coming to power as the US president, the Afghanistan crisis, which has been on foreign policy since 2001 Washington has cast a shadow, entered a new phase. The noteworthy point at this stage is the official acceptance of the Taliban as a political and field reality in the field of power in Afghanistan, which has put America in the orbit of peace with the Taliban and then ending the war in Afghanistan. This research It aims to compare the change of America's approach towards Afghanistan during the presidency of Obama and Trump. The main question of this research is what are the differences between the foreign policy strategies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump towards Afghanistan. And do they have similarities?2- Theoretical framework The theoretical framework of this research is based on the National security strategy documents (2010 and 2015) of the Barack Obama and 2017 Donald Trump’s era.Obama believed that the mere and superficial pursuit of American interests in the past and the lack of attention to the internal situation of Afganistan has led to popular dissatisfaction in this country and This is a potential threat to US long-term goals in Afganistan. Assessing US national security policy and the pattern of US strategic action will also require recognizing the perceptual differences of presidents. Comparative US security policy requires recognition of the national security document, the four-year defense document, State Department documents, and analytical formats published in the field of US security policy. In addition to the Presidential National Security Document, which is published in turn, there are various indications of the security models and processes available to the State Department, the Department of Defense, and strategic agencies. The US Department of Defense has been publishing the US defense strategy for four years. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparisons of US national security policy during the time of Barack Obama and Donald Trump in Afganistan. 3- Methodology  The research method used in this article is descriptive and data collection has been done using library tools and internet resources.4- DiscussionThe findings of the research show that the American foreign policy was formed after September 11, 2001 in the form of idealism discourse. The most important pillar of this discourse was the establishment of democracy in Afghanistan. The concept of democracy was so challenged in Afghanistan that the United States was hesitant to expand this principle of its foreign policy. Afghanistan's withdrawal from the concepts of this idealist discourse reached its peak. One of America's propaganda maneuvers for attacking Afghanistan was to promote American values such as democracy, human rights, etc. Before Trump took office, the idea of "American exceptionalism" was the driving force behind the internationalism of this country's foreign policy, but Trump's selective internationalism caused America to shirk many of its responsibilities and obligations. Trump intended to adopt The "America First" approach returned this country to the tradition of isolationism in its new dimensions. Trump's indifference to issues such as democracy, human rights, peace... was evident in the peace agreement with the Taliban. Trump made peace with the Taliban primarily to ensure the safety of American soldiers and reduce the cost of war. Abandoning the central government of Afghanistan during the negotiations also showed that democracy and the future of the Afghan people have no place for America in the Arab world. In other words, according to Trump's cost-benefit logic, since this policy did not bring any benefit to America, there was no need to pretend to implement it. Conclusion and SuggestionsTo achieve their goals, great powers use a set of power tools to control actors, resources, and processes. Since the beginning of the 21st century and after the events of September 11, 2001, the United States, as the only remaining superpower of the bipolar system, used the opportunity and by gaining the support of other actors and countries, which was unique in history, attacked and entered Afghanistan. It became a geostrategic region. America gradually became clear in its declared goals the fight against extremism and the overthrow of the Taliban, which is accompanied by global support, is facing major problems. At first, it seems that the initial military successes and the rapid overthrow of the Taliban will lead to the establishment of the desired system of the United States, but gradually the realities of the Afghan scene imposed themselves on the United States and led this country step by step to withdrawal and passivity.

The position of transatlantic relations in the structure of the international system and the role of these relations in the processes of power structures is of great importance. The two power spectra that have the greatest degree of coordination in the international system structures, but the relations have taken on a different form during the Tramp era, and in some cases it has been instable. What has been pointed out in this study is the critical components of the relationship between the two sides, the United States and the European Union, during the Tramp era, which can be expressed in the Paris Agreement, the common security and defense ties and the Middle East peace process. Research question: What are the critical components of EU-US relations during the Tramp era? The research hypothesis; what is more apparent in the foreign policy of Trump is a divergence in various fields with the European Union that the most important components of the crisis in its foreign policy; defense and security policies, the nuclear agreement, the Middle East peace deal and the Paris agreement. The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical and for information gathering, it is mainly used in library and site studies.