USA

If we have libertarian free will, then it is plausible to believe that the occurrences of certain physical events have irreducible and ineliminable mental explanations. According to a strong version of (metaphysical) naturalism, everything in the physical world is in principle explicable in nonmental terms. Therefore, the truth of naturalism implies that libertarian choices cannot explain the occurrences of any physical events. In this paper, I example a methodological argument for the truth of naturalism and conclude that the argument fails. I then consider additional concerns raised against the reality of libertarian freedom. First, I examine the claim that if a physical event E is not causally determined to occur by another physical event, then there is no way to account for the difference between E’s occurring randomly and E’s being causally determined to occur by a mental event. Second, I consider the assertion that the affirmation of libertarianism is a mind-of-the-gaps version of the God-of-the-gaps objection to a divine explanation of a physical event. Third, I take up the question of whether the inability of libertarians (or anyone else) to pinpoint precisely where the initial physical effects of libertarian choices occur is a good reason for rejecting libertarianism. Fourth, I examine the claim that belief in the existence of the soul or immaterial mind is the result of an explanatory hypothesis to account for how libertarian free choices can causally produce physical effects. Fifth, I look at the traditional objection to substance dualism from the impossibility of causal interaction between a soul and its body.

Iran and the United States have experienced hostile and tense relations since the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in 1358. During this time, the White House has not given up on any attempt to change the government in Tehran. The main question is ‘What is the tremendous strategy of the United States to counter the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Biden era?’ The central hypothesis is the U.S. has two new strategies confronting Iran: de-geopolitics abroad and de-legitimacy inside. The present study aimed to analyze these two strategies. The results indicated that according to the teachings of Smart War, the U.S. has two goals for these actions; first, a sinusoidal and erosional process aimed at deprivation and discrediting of the Iranian political system in internal and external levels (de-legitimacy and surrender). The depletion of Iran's strategic and geopolitical capacity in the region to remove power tools from it (weakening to surrender or change the regime).

The South China Sea, along with the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait, is described as one of the three hotspots in East Asia because of its potential for conflict of interest and threat to peace and security. Therefore, the issue of its borders is of international importance. As a quasi-closed sea, it is home to numerous small islands and cliffs, as well as abundant living and non-marine reserves, as well as providing key maritime routes for commercial navigation. For these reasons, the sea has become the target of conflict between coastal countries and its neighbors. In this sea, the main issues in dispute are: 1- Border disputes over the determination of the lines of origin, the boundaries of the territorial seas and also the exclusive economic zone2. Territorial disputes over several islands, including the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos. Because of its superior power, as well as some unproven historical claims, China sets the nine-dash as the final line of its sovereignty, some of which extend as far as the coastal sea. The United States and the countries bordering the South China Sea strongly oppose this, as well as China's historic claims. The littoral states of the South China Sea consider the historic claims and the nine-dash claimed by the Chinese government to be contrary to the laws of the UN Convention. The United States, as a trans-regional player, also provides diverse support to coastal countries. In this research, with a descriptive analytical approach and using new sources, the disputed issues between the claiming countries have been studied and the role of the United States in terms of geopolitical competition has been analyzed.

Russia's military attack on Ukraine has had profound consequences not only for the Middle East, but also for the world. The political-security relations of the two countries, have been affected by this war. Since the beginning of Russia's military operation in Ukraine, Tehran has accepted Moscow's rationale for this attack and has shown its political support at the United Nations General Assembly, but Iran has been cautious in fully supporting this war. Iran's approach regarding the war in Ukraine is important in two ways. First, Iran's orientation towards this war affects Tehran's relations with Moscow. Second, this orientation affects Iran's interests in the international system. For this reason, the main question of this article is "What was Iran's attitude towards the war in Ukraine and how did it affect the relations between Tehran and Moscow?" The hypothesis of the authors is that "Iran's approach towards the war in Ukraine has been cautious - it has neither officially condemned nor supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine - this policy is aimed at maintaining and continuing the relations between the two countries. The purpose of this article is to examine the orientations of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards the war in Ukraine and its effect on the country's relations with Russia. The authors' method in this research is qualitative with a descriptive-analytical approach.