رضا سیمبر

Since the beginning of human settlement, the most important factor in facing various natural and un-natural disasters and facilitating development in a society has been solidarity and unity. However, this can only be achieved through the performance of rulers and the formation of governments. As different societies have formed and various cultures have emerged, and as humanity has progressed toward evolution and excellence, the model of this consensus has also undergone changes. With the establishment of governments, based on the decisions of societies in their modern form, multiple fac-tors have played fundamental roles in shaping this unity, while progressive human thought undoubt-edly influencing this process. However, what prompts further reflection on this issue is how this co-hesion emerges when needed and how its fragmentation being prevented under a governance struc-ture. It is evident that a national governance structure plays a significant role in shaping different pol-icy approaches. Due to the influence of various ideas on the formation of governments and the relent-less efforts of scholars and thinkers to develop a suitable and superior governance model, the concept of "good governance" has gained attention in recent decades. Good governance, when properly aligned with a structure that suits a society’s prevailing conditions, can play a crucial role and evolve over time. Principles such as participation, accountability, transparency, the rule of law, etc., are among the fundamental aspects of governance. Each of these principles can be extensively analyzed, but in this discussion, the focus is on the formation of public consensus or, more appropriately, "so-cial convergence" within a desirable "governance structure." Undoubtedly, this structure plays a key role as a fundamental prerequisite for comprehensive and effective implementation of governance thought in fostering social convergence across various sectors of society and government.

Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the United States of America, in accordance with its interests, has adopted extensive aggressive approaches and strategies against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Analyzing the characteristics of hybrid warfare and comparing them with the concrete and practical actions of the United States since the beginning of the third millennium reveals the intelligent use of hybrid warfare by this country against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This study aims to answer the question: what is America's objective in hybrid warfare against the Islamic Republic of Iran? This study utilizes a descriptive-analytical method, documentary and library studies, as well as questionnaires and interviews with university professors and polit-ical and cultural elite. The findings indicate that the United States' strategy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran since the 1979 Revolution has been pursued at three levels: "containment," "behavior change," and "structure change," each implemented through both soft and hard ap-proaches. Although the United States, at certain times, has managed tensions with the aim of maximizing its own interests, avoiding immediate attribution of the overthrow or collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran to itself, an examination of its step-by-step strategies shows that the country has aimed, through multi-layered strategies and comprehensive containment, to change the behavior of the people and rulers and alter the value and civic structures of the Islamic Re-public of Iran, thus putting the country in a strategic bind and expanding the groundwork for internal collapse through intensified comprehensive pressures.