Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to cover the change that happened in the American foreign policy toward Iran by changing the American leadership from Obama to Trump. In addition to its coverage for the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region during the presidency period of Obama in the USA and also during the presidency period of Trump, to discover whether a change has happened in the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region is a result of the change in the American foreign policy or not. This can be discovered by concentrating on Yemen, Syria and Iraq, taking into consideration the Iranian and American national interests in the Arab region, as well as the regional role of Iran and its intervention in the Arab region. Design/methodology/approach - This study was based on the analytical method of the foreign policy that is based on analyzing facts and events, as well as analyzing the roles and interests within the framework of the states' foreign policy. This method was used in the study for the purpose of analyzing the impact of the change in the American leadership from Obama to Trump on the US foreign policy toward Iran in the light of the American interest; in addition to the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region (Yemen, Syria and Iraq) in the presidency period of both Obama and Trump in light of the regional role of Iran and its passion to achieve its national interest. Findings - The study concluded that the change in the American foreign policy toward Iran is a result of the change of the American leadership from Obama to Trump by the American interest requirements in accordance to the respective of both of them. The change in the American policy led to a change in the trends of the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region in the term of the regional Iranian role. Under the American and Iranian convergence in the period of Obama, the Iranian role in the Arab region was limited to what could achieve its national interest and what did not threaten the American interest, especially after Iran had guaranteed that the USA is by its side. In the framework of the American and Iranian confrontation under Trump's current presidency, the Iranian role has expanded in the Arab region, where Iran has intensified its intervention in Yemen, Syria and Iraq politically and militarily. Iran became more threatening to the American interest, as it became a means of pressure to the USA under Trump's ruling in the purpose of changing its position toward it. Originality/value - The importance of the study stems from the fact that it is seeking to analyze the change of the American foreign policy toward Iran within the period of two different presidential years of Obama and Trump, whereas, their trends were different in dealing with Iran between rapprochement and hostility toward it, on the basis of the American interest. In addition to testing whether this change in the American foreign policy toward Iran has been accompanied by a change in the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh, professor emeritus of economics at Drake University in Des Moines, discussed US and Israeli policy and posturing toward Iran at a December 16 open house sponsored by the Iowa Peace Network at the Stover Memorial Church of the Brethren in Des Moines. Iran is subjected to crushing sanctions, said the Iranian native, a US citizen who has traveled to Iran in recent years. The purpose of the sanctions is to make people so miserable that they will rise up and change the government, he continued -- something that never happened in Iraq. Instead there are indications that the sanctions against Iran are having an opposite effect, increasing popular support for and mobilizing people behind the government, said Hossein-zadeh. Those who benefit from war economically and geopolitically, as Israel does, unfortunately don't look at the terrible damage and casualties of war. They look at the profits involved and the perceived political advantages that result, Hossein-zadeh observed.

Byman seeks to provide a comprehensive evaluation of US policy toward Iraq since the end of Desert Storm. He argues that much of the criticism of US policy toward Iraq is overstated and fails to appreciate many of the accomplishments of the Bush and Clinton administrations and their allies.

Policymakers will need all the tools at their disposal to craft an effective response to international terrorism and to protect and promote other U.S. interests in the coming decades. In this quest to shape the right strategies for the challenges ahead, economic instruments will play a central role. O'Sullivan, an expert on the use of positive and negative tools of economic statecraft, argues that in the post-September 11th international climate, the United States will be even more willing to use its economic power to advance its foreign policy goals than it has in the past. This impulse, she argues, can lead to a more effective foreign policy given the many ways in which sanctions and incentives can forcefully advance U.S. interests. But a recalibration of these tools-sanctions in particular-is necessary in order for them to live up to their potential. Critical to such a reassessment is a thorough understanding of how the post-cold war international environment-globalization and American primacy in particular-has influenced how sanctions work. O'Sullivan addresses this issue in a thorough examination of sanctions-dominated policies in place against Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan. Her findings not only highlight the many ways in which sanctions have often been poorly suited to achieve their goals in the past, but also suggest how policymakers might use these tools to better effect in the future. This book will provide a valuable resource for policymakers groping to find the right set of instruments to address both the old and the new challenges facing the United States. It will also serve as an important resource to those interested in U.S. policy toward 'rogue' states and in the status of the sanctions debate between policymakers and scholars.

The American experience of war is ironic. That is, there is often an intimate and unexamined relationship between seemingly contrary elements in war such as morality and politics. This article argues that without understanding such irony, we are unlikely to reflect in morally comprehensive ways on past, present, or future wars. Traditional schools of thought, however, such as moralism and political realism, reinforce these apparent contradictions. I propose, then, an alternative—\"ethical realism\" as informed by Reinhold Niebuhr—that better explains the irony of war. Through an ethical realist examination of the U. S. Civil War, World War II, and the Iraq War, I consider how American political interests have been inextricably linked with deep moral concerns. Ethical realism charts a middle path that ennobles traditional realpolitik while eschewing certain perfectionist tendencies of moralism. Ethical realism provides a conceptual framework for evaluating these other frameworks—a distinct form of moral-political deliberation about war.

Williams discusses the results of the United Nations Resolution 1483 that legalized the results of the invasion against Iraq. The resolution lifts sanctions and allows US to spend the oil revenue. By lifting the sanctions and allowing the oil revenues to be spent by the occupying forces, the Security Council has recognized that the US has stolen Iraq fair and square.

The sanctions against Iraq have led health care to fall below minimally acceptable standards. Doctors must treat patients without adequate drugs, anaesthetics, or basic surgical supplies. The continuation of sanctions will lead to a further deterioration. No ethical, religious, or humane body should condone this.