نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
استادیار گروه مطالعات منطقهای، دانشگاه جامع امام حسین(ع)،تهران، ایران
عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the most complex and sensitive relationships in the international system over the past decades has been Iran-US relations. An examination of the policies of various US governments shows that the conflict pattern of that country towards Iran has continued in different governments and no change has been made in its behavior pattern. With the departure of Bush and the coming to power of Obama, with the slogan of change, there was a perception that he would present a new strategy and policy towards Iran. With Obama's entry into the White House, the White House's political literature changed, but such changes did not have much effect on US policy toward Iran. At the same time, the techniques of US political and diplomatic behavior toward Iran changed. This means that although there have been changes in the literature and techniques of Obama's US diplomatic behavior toward Iran, this has only created grounds for rebuilding diplomatic relations in limited areas. In this regard, Obama's strategy for changing Iran has been based on patterns and processes of persuasion through options such as persuasion and seduction. With Trump in office, the situation will change somewhat. In the view of the Trump administration, Iran is an unreliable partner for participation in international politics, so despite its declarative positions, it has not been able to prepare enough to play a role in Middle East security. In other words, Iran's hegemonic role does not have an approach that is in line with international politics, and instead of being in line with it, it is the opposite. On the other hand, the same strategists believe that Obama's negligence in thwarting Iran's strategies has caused Iran to continue to threaten its national interests. In this regard, Iran's organized actions in missile tests as well as Iran's interventionist behavior aimed at destabilizing the region are among the threatening actions of Iran that Western officials, especially US Republicans, have warned of the dangers. The main feature of Trump's foreign policy toward Iran Trump was unilateralism, confrontation, the escalation of sanctions, and the campaign for maximum pressure. There is also a return to Borjam at the heart of Biden's foreign policy, which is pursued by strengthening and expanding its provisions and extending it in later stages, as well as extending it to Iran's missile program and regional influence. Biden's foreign policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran revolves around Borjami's policy. Statements and statements by Biden and his foreign policy team suggest that Biden's possible US policy toward the Iranian nuclear challenge will be a reciprocal return to the UN Security Council. This is the policy that Biden promised before the election. In an interview with Thomas Friedman, he also expressed his commitment to this policy. The main purpose of this study is to examine and compare the foreign policy strategy of the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. So the main question is: What patterns has Obama, Trump, and Biden's strategy towards Iran focused on? Findings show that the issue of Iran in US foreign policy is subject to a grand agenda that is explained transnationally by US institutional structures and the pattern of US conflict behavior towards Iran is one of the main and main priorities in US foreign policy. Has become. Evidence shows that the two countries, on the one hand, need mutual security cooperation in critical areas, on the other hand, have ideological contradictions, and each is trying to re-establish its legitimacy in the process of future strategic rivalries. In other words, the pattern of Iran-US behavior not only reflects signs of cooperation but in parallel with such cooperation, manifestations of conflict and disagreement can also be observed. That is why Iran-US relations must be analyzed in the context of asymmetric cooperation (while maintaining red lines and orbiting revolutionary discourse). The present study has used the method of "analytical and descriptive and using library resources" and the theoretical model of neoliberalism and neorealism.