Topic outline

  • General

  • Topic 1

  • Topic 2

  • Topic 3

  • Topic 4

  • Topic 5

  • Topic 6

  • Topic 7

  • Topic 8

  • Topic 9

  • Topic 10

    • Topic 11

    • This topic

      Topic 12

    • Topic 13

      • Why Realism is still important today ? Page

        Students can justify why Realism is still relevant under current circumstances:

        Realism has four main weaknesses. Three of these weaknesses, which inspire much of the criticism against Realism, appear at what Waltz identifies as the human and state levels of analysis. First, Realism has typically relied on a gloomy view of humans derived from assuming a supposedly unchanging conflict-prone ‘human nature.’ This leads to the second weakness, a tendency to treat politics both within and between states as involving unending competition for advantage. Third, Realists lack clearly articulated theories of how governments of states (or any other type of actor) make decisions. The fourth weakness spans the state and international system levels, and consists of insufficient attention to the increased influence of non-state actors resulting from changes at both of those levels in the last 150 or so years. Conversely, Realism’s continued strengths derive from the attention Realists pay to the structure and the process at the international system level. The shape of that system level does not directly determine the choices of governments and other actors, but it does constrain their choices significantly and shape the outcomes of their interactions. 

    • Topic 14

      • CRITICAL THEORY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS File

        Learning objectives:

        To understand the basic arguments of the critical theorists

        To make difference between positivist and post-positivist theories (after the cold war)

        To make an attempt to understand how the understanding of critical theory influences international relations

      • Meaning of critical theory in international relations (live session) Google Meet™ for Moodle

        Critical Theory aims to question theoretically the intellectual, social, cultural, political, economic and
        technological trends in modern societies. This theory is based on the assumption that international political processes
        are subject to political interests which must be critically evaluated. The various theories of international relations are
        necessarily conditioned by social, cultural and ideological influences, and the real and the most crucial task of critical
        international theory is to reveal the effect of this conditioning. This theory is not just interested in the state alone; it is
        also interested in other factors that shape international relations.

      • first text first session English Third year نموذج امتحان File
        Read the text carefully and answer the question:

        1/ Text comprehension

        2/ Mastery of language

        3/ Translation

    • Topic 15

      • A reading in a book on International Relations Google Meet™ for Moodle

        The book title: 
        International Relations: A Very Short Introduction  
        English edition  by Paul Wilkinson


        Covering topics such as foreign policy, the world economy, and globalization, this Very Short Introduction exemplifies the many disciplines that come together in the study of international events. Discussing not only the main academic theories, but also the practical problems and issues, Wilkinson considers key normative questions, such as how the international state system might be reformed so that international relations are improved.

    • Topic 16

    • Topic 17

      • DEFINING REALISM (theory of IR) an interactive session Google Meet™ for Moodle

        Students will be able to make a useful reading on IR Books (Theories):

        In this session, you are dealing with REALIST THEORY as a main theory in international relations, with a focus on its main assumptions, leaders, key concepts and some historical cases it explained in detail

        1- Don't forget dictionaries to find the meaning of words or expressions you cannot understand

        2- Learn the importance of summarizing and paraphrasing

        3- Translation is a main task in this course

    • Topic 18

    • Topic 19

    • Topic 20

    • Topic 21

      • TEXT ANALYSIS: GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY Google Meet™ for Moodle

        Who really won the Iran war?

        US President Donald Trump announced a temporary two-week ceasefire with Iran after the region endured 39 days of war. It was a conflict that weighed heavily on both the region and the world. The United States emerged declaring it had destroyed Iran’s military power and missile capabilities, while Israel said it had neutralized a threat it had feared for years. Iran, meanwhile, signaled that it had withstood the pressure and the war.

        What happened yesterday was a political moment that encapsulated the entire course of the confrontation. Wars are not always decided by the final strike, but by the outcomes they produce.

        Still, one question arises after the ceasefire announcement: Who actually won the war? To answer it, we must revisit what happened and weigh the gains and losses on the ground. While it is still too early to fully assess them, at least we can examine what has been publicly revealed.

        In Iranian discourse, the ceasefire was presented as an achievement. Victory signs were raised, and terms like “resilience” and “breaking American will” were repeated. This narrative was echoed by Tehran’s allies, most notably Hezbollah, in an effort to construct a parallel version of events. But there is a wide gap between rhetoric and reality, and that gap reveals what truly happened: Iran did not win, it lost, even if it seeks to delay acknowledging that fact.

        This defeat is not reflected only in accepting a conditional ceasefire that includes sensitive concessions such as reopening the Strait of Hormuz. It runs much deeper. A state that once portrayed itself as a regional power capable of imposing deterrence suddenly found itself facing two costly options: either open confrontation with the United States, or accepting a de-escalation imposed on its terms. Choosing the latter was not a victory, but an implicit admission that the cost of confrontation had become unbearable.

        The most significant loss, however, was not political but structural. The targeting of the top of the system, Ali Khamenei, along with senior leadership figures, points to an unprecedented breach deep inside Iran. This was not a routine military strike, but a signal that the center of decision-making is no longer secure, and that the security equation the regime long prided itself on has eroded.

        The impact of striking the leadership is not only immediate. It raises difficult questions: Who is managing this phase? How will internal balances be reshaped? Can cohesion be maintained amid such a vacuum? These questions alone reflect the scale of the loss, shifting Iran from a position of action to one of reaction.

        By contrast, Israel appears to be the primary beneficiary of this round. Despite significant losses that may not have been fully disclosed, it is clear that Tel Aviv has changed since October 7, 2023, and is now capable of absorbing costs that would previously have been intolerable, both material and human. At the very least, it has achieved a key objective it has long pursued: weakening Iran internally, eroding its deterrence, and pushing it onto the defensive. Israel today does not need to declare victory. It sees it unfolding on the ground, in a retreating adversary, a leadership under strain, and a region recalibrating its priorities.

        At the regional level, the confrontation once again exposed the contrast between two opposing paths. On one side are countries like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, which faced unprecedented attacks from Iran despite not being parties to the war. These states have chosen a path of stability, development, economic growth, and reduced reliance on conflict. On the other side is a model based on exporting crises, investing in instability, and entering open-ended confrontations without a clear calculation of costs.

        In this sense, what unfolded was not just a military round, but a test between two models: one focused on building the future, and another consumed by ongoing conflict. With each crisis, it becomes clearer which is more capable of achieving genuine resilience.

        In the end, Iran may succeed in raising slogans of victory and mobilizing its audience with rhetoric of defiance, but facts cannot be obscured for long. Defeat does not always mean total collapse. It can also mean losing the ability to set terms, and being forced to accept rules defined by others.

        In this war, the real question was not who endured more, but who emerged holding the initiative.

    • Topic 22

    • Topic 23

      • Topic 24

        • Topic 25

          • Topic 26

            • Topic 27