Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in a strenuous competition in the Middle East to protect and promote their respective spheres of influence, to each other’s detriment. This qualitative study traces the structural sources of this competition while taking cue from the history. It argues that demise of Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s plunging into civil war, and Arab Spring leading to violent movements in Syria, Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen accentuated Saudi–Iran competition in the region. Study finds that the sources of their rivalry lie at structural level and can be understood by focusing upon their aspiration for the Muslim world leadership, religio-sectarianism, antithetical governance structure, and Iranian nuclear program.

Syrian crisis started as a domestic uprising against President Bashar-ul-Assad, and soon engulfed not only the neighbouring states, but also extra-regional great powers. This study tries to anatomise the crisis by addressing the nature of the actors lying at domestic, regional, and system levels, who have rendered the conflict its multifaceted nature. The main question this study addresses is: What are the actors and factors that have contributed to the complexity of the Syrian Civil War and why has this conflict degenerated into a prolonged violent engagement between different groups? While using the theoretical prism of contentious theory of civil war developed by Adrian Florea and in-depth qualitative case study as methodological tool, this study hypothesizes that grievances at the domestic level have resulted in the onset of the conflict in Syria, which was later exacerbated and prolonged by the rise of ISIS and strategic competition among the regional and system level powers. The study concludes that, though the crisis is not over yet, increasing interests and overtures by Saudi Arabia and the domestic growing Syrian animosity towards Iran has opened new avenues for regional and extra-regional involvement in the post-conflict reconstruction for effective governance, peace, and stability in Syria.

The security-insecurity paradox in a geopolitical struggle between Russia and its ex-territory; Ukraine along with the politics of the influences between great powers has made the Russian invasion a reality. Russian intervention in its periphery in February 2022 has sent shockwaves to the European Union and NATO members, and posed various challenges to the Eurasian states. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a protracted one, but this new phase is more complex and multi-layered. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol in 2014, and support to the militant separatists in Donbas, undermined Ukrainian sovereignty. A series of border skirmishes occurred during 2014-2021, which led to thousands of people dead and injured.[1] The tension converted into a humanitarian crisis with millions of refugees and collateral damages after the 2022 war. This recent situation can be termed as a geopolitical warfare, which is based on the politics of security to assert political advantages in the desired geopolitical sphere of influence. In this paper, an effort has been made to examine the structural, bilateral, and regional issues that have led Russia to engage in a risky war. It hypothesise that this war cannot be recognized only as a bilateral war between Russia and Ukraine based on the old issues, rather it is the result of new developments in the shape of Ukraine’s pursuit for a new identity and affinity with West, its bid for NATO membership and as a client of US and EU against Russia in the great power rivalry. The theoretical lens of Neo-Realism and the security dilemma best explains the causes of the war between the two. Finally, this study also endeavours to trace some important implications for the Eurasian Region.   [1]   Conflict-Related Civilian Casualties in Ukraine. United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, 2022.

Since the publication of the Cold Start Doctrine by India in 2004, India had been preparing for launching a limited war against Pakistan. In the face of an Indian threat of limited war, Pakistan had no other option but to go for the manufacture of low yield nuclear weapons. With the introduction of the low yield nuclear weapons by Pakistan with an official announcement in 2015, Pakistan had been able to contain Indians from pursuing the path of limited war against it. This paper has looked into the role Pakistan's low yield nuclear weapons in dealing with the threat of limited conventional war under the Indian Cold Start Doctrine. Firstly, it has explored three Indo-Pak crises with limited war dimensions, which occurred subsequently in 2008, 2016 and 2019 and brought a fear of limited war on Pakistan's side. Secondly, it has explained the changing military doctrines of India and Pakistan and further highlighted the gap which led to the emergence of India's Cold Start Doctrine and Pakistan's low yield nuclear weapons. Third, it has looked at the role of Pakistan's low yield nuclear weapons in creating a roadblock in the Indian Cold Start Doctrine. Finally, it has given a discussion and summary.

This study intends to explore the rise of Donald Trump to the White House. Why was Donald Trump considered a populist leader, and how did his populist rhetoric and actions impact the contours of American domestic and foreign policies? The study adopted qualitative exploratory and explanatory research techniques. Specific methods utilised to conduct the study remained political personality profiling. It finds that the populist leaders construct the binaries in the society by dividing the nation into two groups: �us� the people, against �them� the corrupt elite or other groups presented as a threat to the lives and livelihood of the nation. Though populism as a unique brand of politics remained active through most of the US history, yet these were only two occasions that populists were successful in winning the American presidential elections � Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Donald Trump in 2016. Structural and historical reasons became the biggest cause behind the election of Donald Trump, who successfully brought a revolution in American domestic and foreign policies. And if structural issues in the United States are not addressed, there is a clear chance that Trump � who is not withering away � will come back to contest and challenge any competitors in the 2024 presidential elections.