آمریکا

War on terrorism, as the motto which formed the cornerstone of global policies of former neo-conservative administration of the United States, is increasingly becoming ineffective in Afghanistan with the dreaded consequence of spilling over into Pakistan. This inevitable consequence of War on Terrorism</em> in Afghanistan has brought the West face to face with the ‘nest of terrorism’ that CIA built in Pakistan’s so-calledmadrasasof extremist Wahhabi teachings in the first place, with the enthusiastic assistance of Nawaz Sharif’s government in Pakistan, the Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia and the Al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates in late 1990s. In their evil planning they found it necessary to invent a state history for Afghanistan based on former British colonial designs for the region during their geopolitics of Great Game with Russia in 19th century. They invented the Afghan state by putting together territories they severed from the veiningPersian Empire of the time. This process of state-manufacturing in Afghanistan though served the colonial purposes at the time, never proved to be working in the sense that is expected of a genuinely founded nation and nation-state. The ills of this ill-designed state will naturally disallow any remedy that is not based on a genuine state-building process in that country. To produce such a remedy Afghanistan needs to address the ills of its state-structure by pinpointing the centrifugal forces that drives various ethnicities apart and to try and find some kind of accommodation among components that makes up the state of Afghanistan. The best method to achieve this in today world of politics would probably be a genuinely designed federalism

The history of international relations represents in vain, that the countries when faced with crises, have made many errors. Most of the decisions of countries have usually lead to huge disasters for the international community. This article utilizes the theory of the international community to acknowledge the dysfunctionality of states’ attention to spending for the wars, siege, and boycott, and torecognize JCPOA’s negotiations as a result of cooperation and power. Using force against Iraq and Afghanistan had no consequent but to help grow terrorism in the world. However, negotiations and granting a positive role to an international actor can help the state to cooperate with the international community. The result of this action would be a stable peace. The Vienna agreement, similar to the Vienna Congress, will start a new era in international relations. This is a new era will be based on dialogue, cooperation, respect and adhere to the principles of international law, and respecting the interests of great powers. The author believes thatthe international security and peace in the world would last, as long as international actors support the JCPOA. 

There is an emerging hierarchical order in the Middle East that is both unstable and is also a source of instability. In the current regional setting, the inherent instability of this order is the result of a confluence of four mutually reinforcing developments. First, the global context has entailed a steady departure, or weakening, of the United States as an active interested power in the Middle East, opening up space among local aspirants for regional hegemony. A second factor is the competition among regional powers not only for the expansion of regional influence but also their power and position in the larger global order. Israel and Saudi Arabia seek to maintain the global status quo, while Turkey and Iran perceive of themselves as counter-hegemonic powers and seek to undermine the Western-engineered global order and hierarchy. Third, while some regional middle powers are more pragmatic in their foreign policy choices (i.e. “pragmatic” middle powers), some form alliances on the bases of ideological or identity affinity (i.e. “allied” middle powers), further deepening and prolonging tensions. Fourth and finally, the collapse of central authority in several Arab states following the 2011 uprisings—in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen—has provided the perfect opportunity for the regional powers, and even some of the secondary regional states, to expand their influence through local proxies and non-state actors. The combined features of the regional order in the Middle East are likely to inhere instability and tensions for the foreseeable future.

The 2015 nuclear deal, known as The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5 +1 world powers changed the dynamics of geopolitics in the Middle East. Access to the global market and a relief from sanctions enabled Iran to tap into its vast economic potential and attract foreign investment. Since the election of President Trump, the US has tried to minimize Iran’s economic benefits from the nuclear deal. Iran’s presence as a leader in the region is increasingly being felt with its growing involvement in surrounding conflicts. In Iran, President Hassan Rouhani’s election promises for social reform and constructive dialogue with the world are being fulfilled albeit slowly. Now, President Trump has decided to kill the deal. In our research, we review the effects of the JCPOA on domestic politics in Iran and regional politics in the Middle East as we examine the potential consequences of President Trump and the United States abandoning the nuclear deal.