A Comparison of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States’ Approach to Popular Power in the Middle East

United States claims backing for democratization and political freedoms in the Middle East and uses political expressions suggesting support for popular sovereignty and rights to vote. However, we always witness a disregard to fundamental rights in the US support for undemocratic regimes and response to the Islamic Awakening. The present article compares approach of the United States and the Islamic Republic to popular power in the Middle East. Accordingly, it asks this important question: what’s the reason for the Islamic Republic’s actual support for popular power and the role of the people on the one hand and the US disregard for democracy in the Middle East on the other? The reason lies in Islamic Republic of Iran’s real (without double standards) support for people’s role in the Middle East. In contrast, the US grand strategic approach is guided by a paradox (paradox between democracy/freedom in one hand and security/stability on the other); that guides the US strategic decision making about democracy in the Middle East. The main argument is that in the plan of Islamic republic of Iran for the Middle East, the practical adherence to self-determination is visible completely. In contrast, in U.S approach to Middle East, democracy is a value if does not led to anti-Western or anti-American Islamist groups or Islamic parties. The dependence of the revolutionary leaders of the former regimes in countries to America in on hand and several U.S. interference in their internal affairs in other hand, leading to the popular uprisings against authoritarian Arab regimes supported by Washington led to survival. The expression changes of 2011 in the region must be a related set of factors to know that the ring was connected to all the currents and trends confronting American policy