Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs (IRFA)

The present study was conducted to investigate how Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from Iran’s nuclear deal on May 8, 2018 has been framed in political cartoons published in French and Iranian media. In this paper, a thematic analysis of published cartoons available on Google images from May 8, 2018 to June 8, 2018 was conducted in both French and Farsi. Five categories of news frames identified by Semetko and Valkenburg (2002) were applied on selected cartoons to observe how these frames are used on political cartoons in French and Iranian news outlets. Findings of the study showed that withdrawal of Trump from Iran’s nuclear deal has been framed mostly as a threat for France and has been considered in a bilateral perspective between USA and France. For the Iranian press the withdrawal is mostly considered as a result of Trump’s mental instability and P5+1 inaction.

The depth and extension of Iran’s controversial connections with its proxies have caught eyes and thoughts. While much ink has been spilled to Iran's regional policy, the majority of these analyses, either intuitively or deliberately, build their explanation on the so-called ‘Persian-Shia offensive intentions’. Conversely, the present paper seeks the roots of Iran's regional policy in its specific geography and history. From this perspective, Iran’s regional policy is inseparable from its geopolitical strategies. To shed light on these strategies, the paper begins with the rise of the Persian Achaemenes until the establishment of the Islamic Republic, focusing on major driving forces behind Iran’s regional policy and strategies. The paper elaborates on a foundational concept of ‘strategic loneliness’, as Iran’s permanent feature, by highlighting the country’s curse of geography and its long-standing historical insecurity. In following, it shows the consequential impact of Iran’s strategic loneliness for the country’s non-state foreign policymaking strategic connections with military non-state actors—in the containment of its regional enemies. The paper ultimately argues that while this policy has kept Iran’s national integrity and security while entrapped the country in a durable ‘geopolitical predicament’ and deepened regional crisis in the Middle East.

The Coronavirus phenomenon should be considered as an issue that will cause damage to other countries in the context of international interdependence. At the same time, the structure of the international system has placed a responsibility on China, as well as on international organizations and other countries in the fight against this transnational threat. China wants to change its international face, from security and disruptive acting to economic-security acting and protesting the existing international order. As a result, such events tend to have the least impact on the country's international relations and, above all, at the international level, overcoming this crisis will benefit it. At the international level, given China's position in the international economy and the interdependence of many countries, while overcoming this dependence on other areas and the interaction of the economy of all international countries, the Corona crisis is a matter of cooperation and convergence. Currently, under the auspices of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, countries are trying to do their utmost to help reduce this devastating phenomenon. The US approach so far, unlike Japan, which has been trying to resolve the crisis, has been more concerned with China's fear and instrumental use of the crisis to compete with China and define itself as a superpower. In contrast, pro-multilateralist countries, especially US allies in Europe, have used a pragmatic approach to focus on their national interests and help resolve the international crisis.

The AKP’s policy towards Palestine is the main core of this article. The Turkish authorities have tried to play as the mediator in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and have attempted through various political and economic initiatives to support a peace agreement between both sides. However, after the 2008 Gaza war, the AKP government’s foreign policy stance towards Israel began to change, at least officially. This war, alongside to other events such as 2009 Davos, the 2010 Low Chair and the 2010 Mavi Marmara, produced a public political conflict in the Turkish-Israeli relations. This tension extended from the 2008 Gaza war until the normalization deal between the two countries in June 2016. But this political tension did not have very impact on the other current fields of cooperation between Ankara and Tel Aviv. This emphasizes clearly that both countries were pragmatic in maintaining efficient and strategic ties. The major research question can be stated as the following: What has been the Turkish government's policy on the Palestinian issue between 2002-2020? In addition we want to assess the proximity and distance of Turkey's policies from Iranian perspectives and positions.

Chinas` ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has attracted the eye of the many economists worldwide. Many of these economists believe that the Belt and Road Initiative is part of China’s vision of a world where America will no longer be the dominant superpower. It is possible that this may be true. China has committed an outsized chunk of its resources towards this project. More than $1 trillion worth of investments are poured into projects which are directly or indirectly associated with the Belt and Road Initiative. the question is of what else the U.S should do if it’s serious about countering Chinese influence.? Will the developing world fall under China’s sway? whether the U.S should worry about the economic and political influence these projects may bring for China? This paper to both identify areas of common interest and possible cooperation, also as shed light on areas of disagreement that need further work.

Turkey as one of the regional actors in the Middle East has taken the ‘Look East’ policy in its foreign policy since 2002, when the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has come to power. Although the relations between Turkey and Afghanistan have a historical background dating back to the Ottoman, but the geopolitical and geostrategic position of Afghanistan has doubled its significance for Turkish politicians during the NeoOttomanism, the situation which has emerged in Turkish politics, especially its cultural diplomacy over Afghanistan Since the rise to power of the AKP. So, in this article, the main question is, what are the objectives and tools of Turkish cultural diplomacy in Afghanistan during the AKP era? In response to this question, the main hypothesis is that Turkey's cultural diplomacy during the AKP era was based on the use of shared linguistic, ethnic and religious values to strengthen Turkey's soft power in Afghanistan as well as the hegemony of Turkey in the region.

The purpose of this article is to describe the extensive military buildup of the United States in these regions during George W. Bush presidency (Jan 20, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009) and suggest the reasons for it. Since there were also U.S. bases in the two Caucasian states of Azerbaijan and Georgia, they are included in this study as well. The countries of these strategically important regions are not only significant for their vast oil and gas reserves but also they are seen as actual markets for American goods and services. Moreover security issue seems to be important as well. Similar to the threats posed to the security of Iran from the US presence in these regions.

In the late 2010 and early 2011, the Arab Islamic countries in the Middle East and North Africa underwent developments which were unforeseen and shocking in the view of global observers. The growth and spread of popular protests caused some rulers in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen to be dethroned in the form of a domino; however, in Bahrain, the popular protests faced severe squash by the Al-Khalifa rule. Nonetheless, revolutionary movements in Bahrain are of a long record in the country and the demonstration on 14 Feb. 2011 was the onset of geopolitics of resistance in the state. Despite Shia majority against the ruling minority, the revolutionary movement came to failure for a number of reasons including Bahrain’s geographical location and the revolutionists’ aspirations were unrealized. In the meantime, the present study aims to clarify the Bahrain’s geographical location in the geopolitics of resistance in the country and its impact on the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). The outcome of the study suggests that being in energy transit line and proximity to energy resources, the island location and the strategic value of the country, the 5th US Fleet deployment, being in the Persian Gulf and its neighborhood to Iran and Saudi Arabia affect the Bahrain’s geopolitics of resistance and breed negative consequences for Iran.

In view of the EU’s position in international policy arena and its evolving foreign relations with I.R.I, this research first attempts to elucidate the background of EU-I.R.I foreign relations as well as the EU foreign policy towards Iran and then proceeds to address the importance of Iran for the EU. Efforts have also been put into giving an account of the US role in convergence and divergence of such relations followed by examination of the EU and the Middle East, Iran and WMD as well as issues of human rights and democracy in Iran-EU relations. However, due to interruptions in discourse making in all fields of Iran-EU foreign relations, it seems that these two important actors have not utilized the available opportunities in political terms with significant impacts on their bilateral commercial and economic ties.

The Middle East and the Persian Gulf have witnessed an escalation in conflict and instability over the past few years where tense relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia has had an undeniable effect in creating such a situation. From Iraq to Syria and from Lebanon to Yemen, the two countries have been competing with each other. Furthermore, Tehran-Riyadh disagreement over energy strategy and nuclear activities has been other source of tension and confrontation between the two countries. There is a concern among researchers that how this crisis can be managed. While some scholars see hegemony of a superpower like the United States or a regional power as the best solution to handle this challenge and the others believe that collective security system is the best option, the research aims to illustrate balancing is the most possible and realistic scenario in the Iran-Saudi Arabia rivalry for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, first we canvass these two regional powers rivalry in historical context and then offer practical implications and recommendations to change the status quo and reach to the more stable region. The research method would be descriptive-analytical and the data is provided from library and Internet sources.

Russia's foreign policy has undergone many changes in the last decade. Putin's policies have continued until 2021 and he has changed toward a pragmatic approach to dynamism and initiative in regional and international developments. The Various factors have been influential in this direction. The Regional convergence in the near abroad has always been a priority for Moscow. Russia has tried to use the political, security and economic potential of the Eurasian region in geopolitical rivalries. One of the developments in recent years is the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, which can play an important and effective role in advancing Russia's foreign policy goals. This study seeks to answer the question of how effective the Eurasian Economic Union will be in achieving Russia's foreign policy goals. What are its prospects and challenges? And what opportunities can be imagined for the cooperation of the Islamic Republic of Iran with this economic union? The theoretical framework of the research is based on the theory of neoclassical realism. This theory considers the factors of domestic, regional level and the structure of the international system in evaluating foreign policy. The research method is descriptive-analytical and uses documentary and library information and data.

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.