<p dir="ltr">We may not disagree that the theories presented by foreign policy thinkers in general talk about a single entity and what it has and what it is. This entity has been identified with the state through cooperative and competitive relations, reading historical contexts and projecting them onto a group of present events, trying through this connection to provide thought with some clarity. Insight into international politics as a whole, and despite the conflict and conflict of opinions in the ideas that stem from it, is natural if we want to talk and analyze the changes taking place in the international system and read the stages that make this rapidly transforming system take its decisions and draw its maps according to global adoptions and through... The relationship between global powers, but this does not mean that they often move away from the truth by studying historical experiences and projecting them onto the current global reality and the multiple stages it is going through, which have become, from the point of view of many theorists, rapid and illegible transformations, especially since the elements of the system It is in constant change and permanent transformation, in addition to the dawn of forces that do not necessarily advance basic aspects addressed by these theories, especially since this world, whether it is one state, several states, or non-state actors, is all centered around reason, management, planning, modernization, and development, and all of them are the result. It examines the process of renewing and embellishing concepts, which essentially leads to hegemony, control, and victory for this team over that party.</p>
<p dir="ltr">We find that many crises, challenges, and stages of change, lack in-depth study, specifically the study of the basic factors in them. Most theories talk about the intellectual and doctrinal inclinations of the theorist and the team supporting the theory and work to come up with results as close as possible to the convictions of the party or school to which the researcher, theorist, or thinker belongs. But what we can focus on in this aspect is that these theories lack a deep explanation of the international drivers, or as many fault them, they lack prediction and are satisfied with describing the situation and analyzing it according to the events and vehicles that dominate the scene at a certain stage.</p>
<p dir="ltr">- The ideal school</p>
<p dir="ltr">&nbsp; It insists that morals be the basis of dealing between states and by the rules of international law, although the supporters of this theory are aware that the deterrent formulas in this law do not prevent states from attacking, especially if the state is global and controls international decision-making or forces possess aspects of power that can repel any threat. Punishment or deterrence issued against it. The supporters and theorists of this theory also know that the relationship between states is a relationship of interest. Despite the cooperation that may overwhelm the relationship, the interest and selfishness with which the state operates remain the driver of the state&rsquo;s work in its relations with states, in addition to the pressures. practiced by international economic institutions that are devoid of any ethical idealism in dealing with, and even if they start from the behavior of the state, the state is, as a result, the result of the behavior of the individuals and human groups that make up it, and the search for the interests of this or that group necessarily becomes selfishness and exploitation of opportunities one of the factors helping to achieve the goal. This certainly may push the state to sacrifice the behavior of ethics and international law for the sake of its desired goals. If we want to examine the laws that this school talks about, which states are obligated to implement, then they are laws that apply to medium and small countries, and therefore the issue of ethics and international law still controls the issue. Its elements and pillars are the major powers, and the evidence is that the wars, occupations, and struggles over hegemony and influence still exist, far from morality and international law. For example, after the Cold War, the United States did not hesitate to restore the policy of containment to the regions that were under Soviet control, and it did not rely on moral behavior specifically in the Balkan region and intervention operations. In Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995 and Kosovo 1999, which even moved away from the United Nations mandate, these interventions were accompanied by genocide (Srebrenica), forced displacement, missing persons, etc.... Therefore, the moral or legal theory was ideal in its presentation, which described an international reality far from the elements that it proposed. Then the occupation of Iraq and the process of destroying and dissolving the state. In addition to policies far removed from the impact of bullets and intercontinental missiles, dangerous economic policies were used that contributed to the impoverishment of people, such as the economic shock policy adopted by the supporters of the &ldquo;Chicago School,&rdquo; which relied on the ideas of &ldquo;Milton Friedman,&rdquo; the guide of the movement. Unrestricted capitalism, and Argentina, Chile, and Brazil were the best evidence of the horror of privatization led by the supporters of this school, and even after the end of the Cold War, the thesis of the clash of civilizations and their fighting was not a prediction indicating that the greatest power in the world depends on expectations and results according to measurements of the other side&rsquo;s view and expectation of its movements to the extent The idea of creating the enemy was not one of the foundations of American global policy until today. The concept of Islamic civilization and Islamic extremism represented by extremist armed groups is not new to the movements of American and Russian foreign policy, which were the ones who helped these organizations to rise, and America did not hesitate to support and arm these groups that were They are called (Reagan's militias), and the situation continued until the events of September 11, 2001, leading to the war on terrorism. All of these events and facts came in contradiction to the morals and beautiful ideals that this school talks about, which, as we mentioned, is nothing but a theory that carries great hope, that perhaps the behavior of states and the regime will change. - Realistic school.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Yes, it has witnessed development mostly between the ideas of the early theorists and the current ones. There are some differences between classical and structural realism and then defensive and offensive realism. When studying the ideas of this school with great precision, the focus in most of the books of theorists and researchers is on those historical facts, some of the tools used are still used to this day. The power that is the basis of the relationship between countries is considered one of the axioms of the state that tries to be the first in control and influence, and striving to maximize this power requires starting from standards that strengthen this power, the basis of its use is to achieve interest, and if this school is a reaction to idealistic ideas, then we We find that the ideas of this school precede all the theories that talk about the necessity of the state or group possessing sufficient power, starting with the protection of its geographical area and ending with the factors of expansion and extension of influence. However, we find that the supporters of this relationship have gone further than that when they talked about hard, soft, and intelligent power and every kind. These types of powers operate according to a different pattern, as they put it, but if we want to shed light on the impact and results of each of them, we find that their impact is great on nations and peoples, whether political, economic, or military and each type has its tools that work to weaken other powers or countries that seek to dominate. on her.</p>
<p dir="ltr">On the other hand, this school focused on studying intentions and remained confined to describing policies hostile to the United States of America, whether those that possess nuclear weapons and cannot use them for fear of a backlash or those forces that America has classified as supporting terrorism. In any case, working with intentions is incomplete and ineffective. Unless this work is limited to the angle of the argument for intervention, the other issue is democracy, which everyone knows. Even John Meyersheimer mentions in his book (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics) that the supporters of the democratic peace theory emphasize that democratic countries do not fight other countries... Democracy, therefore he would confirm that this idea was refuted when studying the historical record by citing the analysis of Christopher Lane, who presented four crises through which democratic countries almost entered into wars. In conclusion, the results reached by the theorists of this school are based on Historical events also according to contexts that have been dealt with and studied extensively, but we did not find any focus on the future of the use of force among these democratic countries, and if we read in-depth John Scheimer&rsquo;s book, we will find that the idea of predicting events is far-fetched, at least in studying events from the reality of the international system and it has been Focus on analyzing crises and challenges and projecting them onto the present.</p>
<p dir="ltr">&nbsp; These two theories and other theories contain a group of ideas that are subject to narration and description, and which were collected to be subject to scientific and academic logic, which began to refine some basic aspects related primarily to the state, its tools, and its reactions, and most of the writings today are concerned with explaining these theories and schools, which are somewhat lacking in giving future results, Consequently, we find that many of the ideas contained in this practice remained confined to the books and intellectual and philosophical proposals of this or that school.</p>
<p dir="ltr">We find that those working in politics, whether they are in the heart of power or theorists in this field, deal with all international issues based on the data of events and a vision based on analysis and expectation that may hit or miss, but each school differs from the other through the process of marketing ideas, applying them, and integrating them into various aspects. Scientific and practical in a manner consistent with the school&rsquo;s philosophy and proposition.&nbsp;</p>