Cognitive Research in Political Studies

Cognitive Research in Political Studies

Analysis of the main variables influencing the future of US intervention in Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Seyed Hamzeh Safavi 1
Mohammad Reza Mohammadi 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Regional Studies, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 PhD in International Relations, Faculty of Law, Political Science and Theology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
10.20241403/CRPS.2505.1046.2.5.1
Abstract
Since the Islamic Revolution, the United States has attempted to influence Iran’s internal processes through various means, including comprehensive sanctions, diplomatic pressure, support for opposition groups, extensive psychological operations, and even direct and indirect military threats. From the initial sanctions after the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran to the maximum pressure of the Trump era, US interventions have emerged in various forms. Meanwhile, technological developments and changes in the nature of wars have also transformed intervention methods; this study, using correspondence matrix analysis techniques and specialized questionnaires, seeks to identify key variables affecting the future of US intervention in Iran. The data collected were analyzed with the MiqMaq software, and the results show that hybrid warfare serves as the main method of US intervention in Iran. Components such as cyberattacks, economic warfare, media warfare, and psychological operations fit into this paradigm and create complex causal relationships with other political and security variables. The findings of this study can help Iranian policymakers better understand these dynamics and design appropriate strategies to reduce vulnerabilities and increase national resilience to external interventions.
Keywords
Iran
America
Intervention
Propellant
Future

Ebrahimi, N. (2007). The Evolution of the Concept of Humanitarian Intervention in International Relations, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Year 10, Issue 4, pp. 807-830. [in Persian]
Ambrose, S. (1984). The Hegemonic Trend in the History of American Foreign Policy, Translated by Ahmad Tabandeh, p. 174. [in Persian]
Qarni, R., Influence and Transformation, Tehran, p. 96. Correspondence and Thought (2019). Issue 47, p. 104. [in Persian]
Qavam, S.A.A., Najafisiyar, R. (2013). Promoting the Concept of Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of International Relations Theories (with Emphasis on the English School), International Relations Studies Quarterly, Volume 6, Consecutive Issue, pp. 37-60. [in Persian]
Dehghani Firouzabadi, S.J. (2009). Ontological Security in the Foreign Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, International Quarterly Journal of Foreign Relations, No. 1. [in Persian]
Movahed, M.A. (2003). The Uneasy Sleep of Oil, Tehran, Karnameh, pp. 788-789. [in Persian]
Azghandi, A., Majid, K. (2012). A Study of the National Security of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the Perspective of Constructivism Theory. Political Sciences, 8(21), 205-231. SID. [in Persian]
Ghasemi, F. (2021). A Step Towards a Theoretical Model of a Diffusion Order - A Branch in Modern International Politics Geopolitics Magazine, Spring 2021 - Page Number - From 327 to 352. [in Persian]
Morsali, F. (2016). Intellectual Centers of Arrogance (Introduction and Review of the Functions of Soft War Foundations), Tehran: 2016 Asrar Qalam, p. 86. [in Persian]
Akhtar, S., Shahid, M., Khalid, M. (2003). US Policy of Intervention: A Critical Analysis. India Quarterly, 93-120
Keohane, R. (2011). When Should the US Intervene? Criteria for Military Intervention in Weak Countries. Cornell International Affairs Review, 5(1).
Choi, S.-W., James, P. (2014). Why Does the United States Intervene Abroad? Democracy, Human Rights Violations, and Terrorism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(5), 899-926.
Walker, T. C. (2009). Liberal Internationalism and Intervention: An Early Transatlantic Dialogue between Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant. Retrieved June 3, 2022, from https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/54A33349-DDB5-9122-52D039391EF8BB6C/liberal_intervention_10.pdf.
Brennan, D. (2022, August 2). John Bolton Blasts Joe Biden’s Hollow Iran Threat, Nuclear Deal is Religious Pursuit. Retrieved August 1, 2022, from Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/john-bolton-blasts-joe-biden-hollow-iran-threat-nuclear-deal-jcpoa-religious-pursuit-1676785
Graham, L. (2015, July 16). Press – Release – Mic: Lindsey Graham Slams Iran Nuclear Deal, Saying It “Empowers the Oppressors”. Retrieved June 12, 2022, from
Harkov, L. (2021, January 11). Kissinger: Return to Iran Deal Could Spark Middle East Nuclear Arms Race. Retrieved June 4, 2022, from Jpost
Begby, E. (2003). Liberty, Statehood and Sovereignty: Walzer on Mill on Non-Intervention. Journal of Military Ethics, 2(1), 46-62
Katzman, K. (2018). Iran's foreign and defense policies (Congressional Research Service Report No. R44017). Congressional Research Service. P.23
Cognitive Research in Political Studies
Volume 2, Issue 2 - Serial Number 5
Summer
Summer 2025
Pages 1-25

  • Receive Date 07 May 2025
  • Revise Date 31 May 2025
  • Accept Date 01 July 2025