Considering Iran's geo-political and geo-energy situation, American statesmen changed their usual strategy towards Iran into the new strategy of containment. Upon this, they conceived vital situation of Iran as an important part of their national security. In Iran's part, taking into account the international and regional situation, statesmen were developing the third force by getting involved the United States in the country's affairs. Iranian statesmen were concerning of their relations with the United States as main part of their thinking to overcome a chain of Foreign and domestic crises which stemmed from geo-political and geo-energy situation of Iran. This was imagined as main way of keeping the country's independence.

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.

way that fighting it for the current generation and the international system; It has become a "natural" thing that should always be dealt with at any level and direction, this thinking has of course been popularized by the intellectual and political circles of "America" ​​and has been instilled as an undeniable "truth" to everyone. U.S.A has taken advantage of all its theoretical and practical possibilities, including discoursive, conceptual, economic, media, military… mechanisms.to convince the world that it has the upper hand in the fight against terrorism and that it is even possible to fight the basic principles of international law in the fight against this phenomenon. Therefore, by resorting to the facilities available to him, he has been able to form domination and subjugation and, in Foucault's terms, a disciplinary society. The current research seeks to analyze this domination and control with regard to the historicity of the events with Foucault's genealogical method. According to the stages of Foucault's genealogy, the present article comes to the conclusion that the "fight against terrorism" as claimed by the United States, was not so benevolent and did not aim at peace, but it is still possible to trace the interests of the United States and its hegemony in this Policy. Found. Discontinuities and analysis of the origin and strength of the American Foreign Policy in the study of the fight against terrorism show that the United States has created the terrorist as "otherness" to build its new nature.  

The United States is a world leader in economic sanctions. Since 2005, with the application of "financial sanctions" we have witnessed a "paradigm shift" in sanctions Policy. This article seeks to answer the question: "What are the foundations of US financial sanctions? " The hypothesis of the article is that financial sanctions are based on two main pillars in which the United States has made it possible to exclusively use financial sanctions for its Foreign Policy: First, to create a legal regime to combat money laundering and its globalization, and secondly, the centrality of the dollar in the global financial system. The second question of the article is "What is the place of financial sanctions in US Foreign Policy? " The author argues that US Policymakers' understanding of the effectiveness of financial sanctions has led to the promotion of this tool among Foreign Policy instruments and the transformation of the Treasury from a marginalized institution to a central one in guiding US Foreign and security Policy.

The aim of this paper is to examine the role of human rights in the making of United States Foreign Policy. While the concept of human rights has had a prominent place in US Foreign Policy especially since the early 1970s, this paper argues that Washington’s concern for human rights is mainly rhetorical and very much interwoven with perceived US national interests at any given time. This study takes examples from human rights Policy of various US administrations, yet focuses on the Carter and Reagan presidencies in order to highlight the dynamics of human rights in US Foreign Policy both in theory and practice. The objective is to understand various executive approaches and limitations to and potentials for the promotion of human rights in American Foreign Policy. The reason for selecting these two administrations is that Jimmy Carter was the first US president to institutionalize human rights in US Foreign Policy formulation and implementation, while the Reagan Administration sought to roll it back. The article also demonstrates how human rights discourse can have its own impact on political developments abroad regardless of the intentions of Foreign Policymakers in Washington.

US Foreign Policy has been accompanied by paradigmatic and behavioral changes. Changes in the structure of international system cause paradigmatic changes. There is a special form of interaction among actors in every international system. In bipolar structure, America and the Soviet Union were controlling each other through the framework of "Realistic Balancing" . This pattern creates its own special behaviors. Among paradigmatic behaviors of this age one can point out policies such as: "Containment", "Deterrence" and "Strategic balance of power". After the cold war, US behavioral patterns changed. A part of these changes were caused by structural changes in the international system; that is, how power is distributed among actors encountered comprehensive and widespread changes. On the other hand, interaction and behavior of different actors, for instance, innovative act of US is completed as well. In the new Process, we can see creation of conceptual and structural frameworks in US Foreign Policy. New patterns have shaped. Among these patterns we can name international hegemonies, preemptive war, regime change Policy, offensive public diplomacy and also expansion of militarism in pre-feial fields especially in Middle East. US regional politics depends highly on paradigmatic changes in Foreign Policy.

Understanding the Policymaking processes of the United States, as a global superpower, is of critical importance. Think tanks are among the most influential behind-the-scenes actors in this arena, having increasingly attracted the attention of researchers and U.S. Foreign Policy experts. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an old, powerful, and impactful think tank that has been active for over a century. This paper addresses the following question: What role has the Council on Foreign Relations played in shaping the Foreign Policy doctrines of the United States? To answer this question, the study analyses and evaluates two major U.S. Cold War strategies concerning their interactions with the two major powers, the Soviet Union and China. The research employs a library-based methodology for data collection. The findings indicate that the Council on Foreign Relations has played a prominent role in shaping U.S. Foreign Policy, particularly during the Cold War. Its influence was exercised through several key mechanisms: forming study groups, publishing the journal Foreign Affairs, generating Policy-influencing ideas, mobilising public opinion, educating future government officials, recruiting retired personnel, organising deliberative meetings, and mediating between different political factions, government officials, and the public.

Following the 9/11 attacks, the US, as a part of its "war on terrorism", attacked Afghanistan and Iraq to lead what was called a campaign to liberate all the people from terrorism and direct them towards freedom and democracy. In the years that followed, thousands of people were killed, injured, and lost their homes; thousands of people tried to find refuge in other countries; and incalculable losses were incurred. Terrorism, however, was not stopped and terrorist activities spread all over the world. This costly and damaging Policy with all its negative consequences was made possible by legitimizing strategies of US administration. This article seeks to analyze the legitimizing discourse of the Bush administration through metaphor and predicate analysis. The findings show how American officials and in particular President Bush, by relying on hegemonic discourses such as liberalism and American exceptionalism, constructed a new representation of the self and the other through which US practices and policies could be justified.

One of the most important issues in Iran-US studies is to understand the US approach towards the Islamic Republic of Iran. In seeking to find an answer to the question why Iran and US are not inclined to normalize their relations, mostly the Islamic Republic has been at the receiving end of the criticisms. The current paper maintains a critical view on US Foreign Policy during Clinton and Bush presidencies coinciding with Khatami administration (1997-2005) to challenge that argument. The paper concludes that the main problem in normalization of ties goes back to the imperialistic Policy of the United States to approach relations with the Islamic Republic through a framework that, here, we can call it ‘ pessimistic ideology. ’ In explaining this approach, we first deliver a theoretical framework on how US Foreign Policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran is shaped. Then, we explain US Foreign Policy in that period. The paper, finally, concludes some patterns of the US ideological Policy to describe its inconsistency in relation with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Studying Iran's Foreign Policy is one of the most interesting topics among the people and the academic community. This behavior is not specific to Iranians and can, also, be seen among other Foreign researchers concerning Iran's Foreign Policy. Luciano Zaccara is one of the authors who has surpassed her counterparts in addressing this issue and has edited a book on the “Foreign Policy of Iran under President Hassan Rouhani’s First Term”. The lack of translation of the book into Persian encouraged the author to introduce the work and critique it in terms of content and form. What makes the book prominent is the participation of some well-known authors in writing the chapters, addressing some areas that have received less attention in Iranian research, such as relations with Africa and the pathology of Hassan Rouhani's Foreign Policy. Lack of theoretical framework for the discussions, incoherence between the contents of the chapters, and ignoring the scientific neutrality by some authors of the book are among the weaknesses of the work.