الهه نوری غلامی زاده

The United States’ relations with Cuba are rooted in the US intervention in the process of Cuba’s independence from Spain in the 1890s. The US preserved its interest-based approach towards Cuba during the first half of the 20th century, which culminated in the Cuba’s counter-hegemonic revolution in 1959. This revolution led to more than fifty years of hostility between two countries, which took a new form under President Obama’s administration. Indeed, Barack Obama and Raul Castro surprised the world in 2014, announcing that they would reinstate full diplomatic relations and pacify bilateral tensions. Since World War II, United States has been the hegemon of the world relying on three pillars of its liberal bloc, i.e. liberal values and culture, economic and military capabilities, and international organizations. However, during Obama’s administration, the occurrence of events such as the rise of new economic powers, Global Financial Crisis and the rise of left-turn in Latin America caused some speculations about the declining US hegemony and its transition to leadership. However, qualitative content analysis of the US Inter-American policies indicates that US hegemony in Latin America including Cuba is deeply rooted in the early decades of US formation. Moreover, the continuation of US economic embargo on Cuba and its long-lasting military presence in the island indicate that Obama’s policy did not provide a leveled playing field to resolve Cuba’s problems. Hence, US leadership in Cuba and true and equal partnership between both countries still seem unattainable. 

Social groups and movements are considered a fundamental socio-political force in all countries that intend to get back on the public demands especially when the authorities are not able or eager to do so. Anti-war groups are among the most pivotal social groups that focus on the establishment of sustainable peace in communities so, since the second half of the twentieth century, their efforts have been regarded as the determinant factor in world politics. This paper aims to study the origins and functions of those American anti-war organizations that oppose US war policies mainly against Iran after the September 11 th Attacks. Archival research and historical analysis of the role of these groups and organizations demonstrate that they came into existence in response to the ever-growing global conflicts and created social campaigns for peace without governmental interventions. Similarly, due to the increasing violence and conflict between Iran and the United States during recent decades, the groups such as A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Code Pink, International Action Center (IAC), Peace Action West, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) expressed their opposition against war with Iran mainly after September 11 th and have been progressive and helpful in some cases. Nevertheless, in spite of their long history of activism and firm institutions could never seriously disobey US government regulations and policies.

Formal relationship between Iran and Brazil commenced in 1903 with the signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce. Since then, their bilateral relations have been shaped by political and economic changes in both countries. A pivotal moment after the 1979 Iranian revolution occurred in 2005, when leaders Lula da Silva of Brazil and Ahmadinejad of Iran showed mutual interest in cooperation, driven by Iran's need to balance US threat and Brazil's aspiration to balance US power. However, shifts in the Brazilian foreign policy towards Iran and escalating tensions between Iran and the West impeded further progress. With Lula da Silva's return to power in 2023 and Iranian President Raisi's heightened focus on Latin America, both countries witnessed renewed discussions about the potential for positive balancing between Iran and Brazil. This study delves into the successes and setbacks of Iran-Brazil bilateral approximation through the lenses of positive balancing theory and historical analysis method. During Lula's administrations, Iran's balancing strategy towards Brazil proved beneficial for both nations: Iran sought to counter US threats by fostering a friendly relationship with Brazil, while Brazil aimed to elevate its Global South agenda by mediating in Iran's nuclear program. This engagement also aimed to unite anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist movements under emerging political leaders. Despite these efforts, the US pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program and on Brazil to limit its influence hindered constructive engagement between the two countries. Nevertheless, slow but steady economic interactions and Iran's inclusion in BRICS provide hope for the restoration of Iran's balancing strategy in Brazil and its reinforcement in Latin America.