The American strategy to combat the ‘Islamic State’ rests on four pillars. The first is to conduct systematic air campaigns against the terrorists. The second involves increasing support for forces fighting the jihadists on the ground. The third is based on the strengthening of international cooperation in counter–terrorism operations. The fourth involves the provision of humanitarian aid to civilians displaced from the territories occupied by the jihadists. This article analyzes the assumptions, tactics, the most important decisions and actions of the American administration to combat the ‘Islamic State’. It is an attempt to provide answers to the questions: why has there been a growth of extremism in the Middle East? Why is the ‘Islamic State’ a new form of terrorist threat? How does it differ from other terrorist organizations? How was the ‘Islamic State’ created? What actions have been taken by the international coalition led by the United States in the fight against the jihadists in the Middle East? Is the strategy taken up by the United States effective? Does the defeat of the ‘Islamic State’ require the involvement of US ground forces in Iraq and Syria?

Freedom of possessing and expressing own ideas and opinions and their dissemination is one of the fundamental rights, that entitled to each person. In addition to this, the freedom enables searching and getting information. Thanks to it, the right to express your own identity, selfrealization and aspiring to truth are guaranteed. It is one of the basic premise and the necessary condition to realize the idea of democracy. In the United States, the cradle of civil rights and modern democracy, the freedom of expression is guaranteed in the First Amendment to American Constitution (Bill of Rights), enacted in 1789 (came into force in 1791). On its virtue, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of (…) the freedom of speech, or of the press (…).” Although the record suggested that this freedom is absolute, (not restricted of any legislation), the later jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court (by case law) isolated categories of utterances that have not been contained by the First Amendment. ! e essential issues are answers on the following questions: in the name of what values Congress can limit the First Amendment? And where is the border of freedom of speech? One of the expressions that are not protected by the law is fi ghting words and hate words. The second are libel and slanders that are understood as a infringement of somebody’s rights.

The end of special relationships between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia?

The Saudi special relationships with the U.S., unlike that of the U.S. with Israel, are mutually beneficial. Saudi Arabia sells about 10 million barrels of oil a day and all those transactions are denominated in American dollars, which helps that currency to perform the role of the currency of account (world, s currency) and has been of crucial help to the American ambition to dominate the global economy. On the other hand the United States did its part to uphold the relationship be granting the security to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil states. This was demonstrated for example in 1990 during Iraqi attack on Kuwait, that also menaced Saudi Arabia. At that time the U.S. deployed 400,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and expelled Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The priority of American foreign policy in that region has been to keep Gulf oil in friendly hands. Since the increase of the production of shale oil in the United States that priority has been less important. Another factor which has exerted an influence on the nature of the U.S.-Saudi relationship was the signing the permanent agreement with Iran in July 2015 on the limitation of the Iranian nuclear program and normalization of political-economic relations with the West. This has led to further worsening of the U.S.-Saudi Arabia alliance which has always been like a ”marriage of convenience” where behind the façade of friendship and harmony there is cold calculation of benefi ts and losses. That alliance will last as long as the potential benefi ts will still be bigger than possible losses.

Politics of Saudi Arabia and the United States against the civil war in Syria – a convergence or divergence of interests?

The policy of Saudi Arabia and the United States towards Syria since 2011 is full of paradoxes. On the one hand, both countries are in favor of overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad and reducing the influence of Iran and Russia in Syria, but on the other hand there are discrepancies in the approach of Washington and Riyad to the Syrian question, which was particularly visible during the presidency of Barack Obama. The issue of financing the opposition groups fighting in Syria, but most of all the problem of launching land intervention in a war-stricken country was among the contentious issues. The Kingdom, as an advocate of intervention, has repeatedly called on Washington to take more decisive steps to overthrow al-Assad and combat the so-called Islamic State. However, the other problems facing the White House and Riyadh, which affect the solution of the Syrian question, are nowadays a priority in the policies of the United States and Saudi Arabia, in contrast to the war in Syria.

Constitutional Oversight of Government Surveillance in the United States

The aim of the article is the analysis of constitutional oversightof the government surveillance in the United States. Referring to Snowden affair and COVID-19 surveillance, the Author discusses the challenges faced by the legislative and judicial branches in pursuing control over the executive’s national security policies. Focusing on the rule of secrecy and other constitutional doctrines and privileges, he tries to explain why effective control of government surveillance is today impossible.

The relationship between the two countries has been a complex and diverse subject of investigation and contemplation. The interconnection between the two countries can be described by the following central notions, such as economic cooperation, rivalry in terms of status acquisition of global hegemonic power, particularly in the Pacific region and beyond controversy mutual suspicion over each other’s intentions. Therefore, it is clearly justified that each state has elaborated and adopted a specific manner of conduct and attitude regarding each other as a potential adversary but has meanwhile maintained an extremely strong economic partnership. It is fair to state, that the relationship between both countries has been described by multiple world leaders and academics as the world’s most significant bilateral relationship of the 21st century. Due to the fact that Chinese economy has started to develop increasingly fast and PRC has strengthened its positions on the world’s arena, the United States started to perceive the Middle Kingdom as a direct threat to the established world order in its drive for regional hegemony in East Asia now as well as future aspirant for global supremacy. Beijing, by contrast rejects these notions, and continues its assertive policies and its quest for allies.

The election of Joseph Biden for the office of the President of the United States has brought expectations of fundamental change in American foreign policy, including policy toward the Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific region. As observed in the last few months, the reality has been more complex as definite changes in the US Indo-Pacific policy are not as visible as expected. It is especially in respect of the US policy toward China being more a continuation than a change from Donald Trump’s approach. Changes are rhetorical rather than actual policies. The situation is different in the case of alliances, as Joe Biden offers much more commitment to allies like Japan or South Korea. Also, multilateral dimensions (both regional and global) witness some – however still limited – change. The main goal is to make a comparative analysis of Joe Biden’s policy toward Asia, referring to the administrations of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Hence the strategies of pivot/re-balance toward the Asia of Obama, and the free and open Indo-Pacific strategy of Trump, will be examined. The analysis refers to the complex interdependence theory and the power transition theory. Methodologically, it is based on document analysis with comparative analysis.

Strategic ambiguity, or the deliberate policy of uncertainty as to whether the United States would use force to defend Taiwan against an invasion by the People's Republic of China, has been the centrepiece of US policy towards the Taiwan issue for decades. This paper discusses the factors driving the redefinition of strategic ambiguity and its recalibration throughout Donald Trump's presidency (2017–2021). The fundamental driver of this change was to balance the rising power of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The paper applied offensive realism as a theoretical framework for its analysis. Under President Donald Trump, Washington modified its policy of strategic ambiguity, explicitly framing relations with Taiwan within a broader Indo-Pacific strategy. While the US retained key elements of strategic ambiguity, including the 'One China' policy, it added new features to deploy it offensively against Beijing's growing regional hegemony. The increased dynamism and unpredictability of relations with Taiwan were matched by a welcoming attitude towards strengthening Taiwanese identity and highlighting the systemic differences between communist China and democratic Taiwan. America stepped up arms sales and encouraged Taiwan to build its self-defence capabilities. Washington engaged in countering Chinese attempts to isolate Taiwan internationally and included it in restructuring global supply chains. Although the United States has not formally revised the boundaries of the 'One China' policy, the modification of strategic ambiguity increased Taiwan's prominence in US-China power competition and pushed back the prospect of peaceful unification.