United States

One of the most important economic topics in every country is considering tax issues as a way of increasing the government's income through attracting public confidence by observing the principles of proceeding in the tax system of the country which might likely cause a national production boom, increase economic growth rate, reduce unemployment and the fair distribution of wealth. In this regard, since the majority of taxpayers in a country pay taxes and at the same time their rights might be threatened, it is therefore necessary to establish courts and tribunals for settlement of rights and resolving hostility, and because of the close connection of individuals with the issue of tax, they may refer to these authorities more than others. Accordingly, references must be made in accordance with a fair proceeding in order to best determine the rights of the modalities, which will not be achieved except through the adoption of fair trial principles that are endorsed and supported by international legal institutions and are accepted as the principles for the implementation of fair results in the global prosecution system. Today, there are several systems of tax proceedings in different countries, each of which has weaknesses and strengths in terms of affinity and fairness of fair proceeding principles. In this paper, by examining the tax jurisdiction of Iran, the United States, Britain, Germany and France, as well as the patterns of exploitation of each of these systems and comparing the tax systems of these countries with the accepted principles of fair proceeding, the degree of proximity or the distortion of the above tax systems into the principle of the implementation of justice, which should be the ultimate goal for lawmakers, will be studied.

A decade after the establishment of the Saudi regime Riyadh and Washington constructed a strategic alliance between themselves in 1945. On the other hand, given the “Pivot to Asia” doctrine adopted by the Obama and Trump Administrations, the decline of Washington's dependence on Saudi oil, as well as some important events such as the murdering of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Riyadh officials, the prospect of relations between the two countries has been highlighted in political circles. Based on a scenario-planning study, the current paper tries to answer the question: “what will happen to the future of US-Saudi relations considering the aftermath of the Khashoggi murder?” Concerning the impact of this fiasco on the future of US-Saudi relations, we can logically consider five scenarios: the continuation of the status quo, the deepening of strategic relations, the decline of strategic relations, a strategic shift, and, finally, the elimination of strategic relations. But given ongoing circumstances, the deepening or end of strategic relations is unlikely to happen, the present article only focuses on the three other scenarios; the continuation of the status quo, the power shift and the decline of strategic relations amidst the two countries. However, the removal of Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) from the position of crown prince (should it be low-cost) could also be in Washington's agenda for maintaining strategic ties between the two countries. The paper's hypothesis is inclined to the status quo scenario and argues that with the official stances of the Trump Administration, in particular that of November 20, 2018, the strategic alliance of Riyadh-Washington will continue, with more expenses shouldered from the Riyadh side.

Research on the special relationship between the United States and Israel has usually been focused on strategic aspects, whilst fewer scholars have focused on non-material dimensions of the relationship. In addition, the existing research is mostly confined to the political and decision-making realms, with very few excursions into the academic arena. The current article aims to fill this lacuna through the study of pro-Israel academic discourse in America, focusing on the specific case of the field of terrorism studies. Critical discourse analysis of pro-Israel academic texts in this field is carried out to reveal the discourse, themes and arguments used to build this ideational pillar of the special relationship and move towards a common identity between the US and Israel. The common ingroup identity model (CIIM) is used to describe the process through which a common identity is constructed. The article concludes that defining the Self, defining the Other, and defining the norms are the three main strategies employed in the studied texts to achieve this goal.

In this historical analysis of US foreign policy toward Iran during the presidency of George W. Bush, the author aims to decipher the overarching policy approach guiding United States' Iran policy in the context of the main issues arising during this time period. George W. Bush started his presidency with the legacy of past presidents, viewing Iran as a threat to US interests and drawing from the policy tool box that had been developed during the previous four administrations. In this paper, the implementation of these different policy approaches will be discussed in the context of the events of September 11, the Afghanistan and the Iraq wars, and the nuclear issue. Engagement, containment, and covert and overt means of destabilizing the Islamic Republic of Iran will be discussed. The roots of many of the current issues in U.S. -Iran relations as well as the tactics used to tackle them could be traced to the period under study. In the years after the presidency of George W. Bush and despite the different tactics used, this mentality has led presidents as diverse as Obama and Trump to suffer from the same strategic mistake: an instrumental approach to Iran. The failure of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to withstand the transfer of power in the United States shows how the American practice of the weaponization of all available means to deal with Iran, including diplomacy and economic tools, is jeopardizing any real hope for a different direction in US-Iran relations.

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. .

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the complicated crises that traces back to nearly a century ago. It caused severe challenges and brought about disastrous consequences both for the Middle East region and the conflicting parties. Numerous attempts have taken place so far by different states, organizations and individuals to establish a lasting and comprehensive peace in this conflict, but given the intransigence positions of the conflicting parties, the attempts were futile and still there is no light at the end of this tunnel. The limitations of the realistic viewpoint that dominates the conflict and considers its signs rather than its root causes, made us tackle the issue through a proper, more appropriate approach.. To us, critical studies, particularly the emancipation approach which goes beyond the realistic limitations, deliberates the contemporary and historical conditions together with its nature and tries to remove situations leading to the conflict is a more viable strategy to achieve a lasting peace.

The British people vote to withdraw from the European Union (Brexit) in 23 June 2016 referendum is one of the most important events occurred in the European Union since its formation. Brexit can highly affect the future status of the EU in the international system and the relationship between the EU and other regions of the world. Withdrawal of the UK from European Union occurred after the agreement reached between Iran and E3+3 on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and at the time when Iran-EU relationship seemed to improve, so this departure can highly shape and affect Iran-EU relationship. The question this paper addresses is that how the Brexit would affect the relationship between the EU and Iran. To answer this question, the hypothesis proposed here is that the Brexit would improve the relationship between Islamic Republic of Iran and the European Union by decreasing the transatlantic weight and the US-oriented tendency in the EU. This article uses descriptive-analytical approach.

The beginning of the political crisis in Syria, each regional and trans-regional actors have adopted different policies based on their interests and goals in relation to this country. Syria is an exceptional issue for countries in the region and the world's powers like the United States of America, and any transformation in that form might have a fundamental impact on the interests of each of these regional and global powers. Turkey as a regional power and the United States has always been present in the Syrian crisis as a regional power based on its interests. But the United' support of the present groups in Syria has sought to fight ISIS extremists, which Turkey has called for terrorist groups to reduce the US and Turkey relations. The present study was conducted using descriptive-analytic method and using documentation sources to provide a theoretical framework, the question of why Turkey is against United States about the Syrian Kurdish issue? This study investigates the presence of United States in Syria and the support of Kurdish groups, as well as the reaction that Turkey and Iran have been involved in. The findings of this article indicate that the United States support the Kurdish groups in northern Syria has led to conflict of interest between the two countries.

The relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates is becoming increasingly complex and strategic. The two countries’ strategic partnership in the fields of security, military, political, and intelligence has also acted as a facilitating variable in this field. The UAE acts as the US financial arm in support of institutionalization and democratization and promotion of liberal values in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and, Palestine. The article’s main question is that how and why the United Arab Emirates and the United States aretrying to contain Iran in the Middle East? In this regard, using the theoretical propositions of aggressive realism, the hypothesis is that the United States has defined a unique role for the UAE in transferring responsibility to regional actors to decrease Washington's balance cost in the Middle East and North Africa. The method used in the present article is based on a descriptive-analytical approach and the data is collected through library researches, interviews with experts, and reliable internet sources.

Egypt is a strategic country for the United States. On the one hand, maintaining Egypt friendly to the West due to its geopolitical location and influence in Arab League, keeping Suez Canal open for economic and military interests, following the market development opportunities, and securing a settlement with Israel is among the reasons which make Egypt vital for U.S. policymakers on the other the Egyptian foreign policy pattern is based on geography, national interests, cold War setting and leaders of Egypt is mainly affected by U.S. policies. This study uses foreign aid political theory to discuss how the United States uses foreign aid to maintain its interests in Egypt despite the political instability caused by the Arab Spring. The archival research on USAID and U.S. foreign policy towards Egypt demonstratesthat after Nasser's presidency and since the late 1970s, the United States has provided significant military and economic assistance to Egypt to pursue its interests in the Middle East. Although Arab Spring and Egyptian uprisings in 2011 and the Egyptian military’s coup in 2013 made the Obama administration suspend temporarily some U.S. assistance to Egypt, after the re-establishment of aids, the steady rate of U.S. military assistance to Egypt hasn’t been changed. This issue shows that U.S. unceasing influence in Egyptian circles of power was saved by foreign aid and proves the permanence of U.S. strategic interests in the region. As a result, the U.S. utilizes these aids as an influential tool to control Egypt and to pursue its goals in the Middle Eastern countries, including Iran. Due to the close partnership with the United State and Israel, Egypt doesn’t have a stable relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Since two decades ago, the Iranian nuclear issue became a full-scale international conflict. Iran's main preference is to guarantee its national security. In fact, the lack of a strategy for Iran and the channels of intense conflict around it, the scarcity of conflict management strategies and mechanisms, are forcing Iran to pursue a nuclear program. Furthermore, some severe institutional and structural confinements and limitations on Iran and the immediate need to recover its vulnerable economy have forced Iran to subsidize its fortified attitudes and behave like a rational actor in the international atmosphere. But the United States’ preference is to stabilize the regional equation with regard to support of its strategic resources and allies in the Middle East. The lack of similar understandings and different levels of calculation between Tehran and Washington over nuclear politics led to long-lasting conflict. While Iran justifies its political logic with normative paradigm and consistency with international regimes, Washington’s political calculations are standing forsecurity, threat and deterrence approaches. Moreover, whereas Iran explains its nuclear activities at the regional and transregional levels, the US analyzes it at the international level disordering the global status quo. In this paper, the game theory models will be used to understand the past and current relationship between US-Iran. Furthermore, the possibility of an equilibrium movement regarding the Iranian nuclear problem will be discussed. This analysis will focus on the preferences and interests of each state, which mainly determine the foreign policy-making process. 

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.