International Relations
Zahra Akbari; Gholam Reza Haddad
Abstract
In recent years, we have witnessed competition between China and the United States that includes various aspects. The competition between these two is an opportunity for Iran to make the most of it by defining new strategies and avoiding direct involvement in future tensions. Based on the concept of ...
Read More
In recent years, we have witnessed competition between China and the United States that includes various aspects. The competition between these two is an opportunity for Iran to make the most of it by defining new strategies and avoiding direct involvement in future tensions. Based on the concept of smart power and in order to achieve the best strategies, in addition to domestic weaknesses and strengths, we should also pay attention to the threats and opportunities created by the competition between the two. Therefore, in response to the central question of the research: What are the best strategies for Iran to take advantage of the competition between China and America? The information has been collected using documentary-library sources and semi-structured interviews with experts. In this pattern; Strengths + opportunities: aggressive strategies, strengths + threats: conservative strategies, weaknesses + opportunities: competitive strategies, and weaknesses + threats: defensive strategies. The main strategies mentioned include the simultaneous use of the technologies of the two powers while trying to reduce dependence on the parties; Paying attention to the category of public-media diplomacy to persuade public opinion to adopt new strategies; and establishing proper trade relations with different countries to avoid dependence on one country.
International Relations
Gholam Reza Haddad
Abstract
IntroductionOver the span of four decades, the islamic republic of iran (iri) has consistently prioritized the confrontation with the united states as a fundamental axis and ultimate objective in its foreign policy. This stance has not only endured until now but has also shaped the boundaries of iran’s ...
Read More
IntroductionOver the span of four decades, the islamic republic of iran (iri) has consistently prioritized the confrontation with the united states as a fundamental axis and ultimate objective in its foreign policy. This stance has not only endured until now but has also shaped the boundaries of iran’s maneuverability in other arenas. The present research aimed to address different aspects of iran–u.s. enmity by answering the following questions: how has confrontation with the u.s. become entrenched as the axis and ultimate objective in the foreign policy of the iri? and what are the prospects for potential shifts in this approach in the future?Literature ReviewIran–U.S. relations, along with the underlying causes of their mutually confrontational policy, has been the subject of numerous research studies. Some studies dealt with Iran–U.S. relations from a historical standpoint, aiming to explain the origins of mutual hostility through a chronological description of events in their relations. For instance, in the book titled US Foreign Policy and Iran: American–Iranian Relations Since the Islamic Revolution, Murray (2010) explored the history of Iran–US relations during the tenure of five presidents. She focused on the role of ideology, the dichotomy of democratization/stability or idealism/realism, informational and cognitive errors, the lack of mutual understanding rooted in language and image-making, the impact of events and their timing, the tools and levers of foreign policy, and the missed opportunities to restore relations. Rubin (1981), in an article titled “American Relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979–1981,” focused on Iran–U.S. relations during the two years following the hostage crisis. For Rubin, the root of the mutual confrontation can be traced back to the perceptions of Revolution’s leaders of America’s role in supporting the Shah and attempting to thwart the success of the Revolution. In the article “US-Iran Relations: Issues, Challenges, and Prospects,” Hussain (2015) addressed the impediments to détente in the history of Iran–U.S. relations. Hussain emphasized various factors such as regional peace processes, terrorism, the nuclear issue, domestic policies in both countries, and America’s regional allies, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia. In Becoming Enemies: U.S.–Iran Relations and the Iran–Iraq War, 1979–1988, Blight et al. (2012) employed the methods of critical oral history, drawing on declassified documentation and interviews with key decision-makers in American foreign policy during the Iran–Iraq war. They argued that the roots of Iran–U.S. enmity would go back to the performance of American foreign policy during the war and its impact on the IRI’s foreign policy.Several studies tried to examine the role of other actors as mediating variables in Iran–U.S. relations. For instance, in the article Jafari-Movahhed (2022) argues that a major impediment to improving relations between Iran and the U.S. is intricately linked to the substantial and fundamental problems that the IRI has with Israel. According to Jafari-Movahhed, the identity ties between the U.S. and Israel, together with the influential role of the Zionist lobby in America, makes it almost impossible to normalize Iran–U.S. relations, at least in the short term. In the article entitled “The Role of Public Opinion Engineering in America on Iran–U.S. Relations,” Pourkhosh-Saadat (2015) attributed the origins of animosity between the two countries to the psychological operations orchestrated by adversaries of the Islamic Revolution. Specifically, Pourkhosh-Saadat points to the influence of the Israel lobby in the U.S, contending that any shift in Iran–U.S. relations would depend on the opinion and decision of the AIPAC lobby and Israel-affiliated media. He argues that AIPAC is actively engineering Iran–U.S. relations through its media. In “Great Power Rivalries and the Persistence of Iran–U.S. Adversarial Relations,” Lotfian and Faghih (2021) posit that as economic pressures on Iran increase due to the delayed lifting of sanctions by both Europe and America, Iran will increasingly turn to alternative allies. They argue that heightened antagonism from the U.S. will push Iran towards closer ties with China and Russia. In response, American policymakers are likely to become more determined to strengthen relationships with regional allies and partners. While the authors do not directly address the underlying causes of Iran–U.S. enmity, they contend that escalating tensions among the U.S., China, and Russia may contribute to the intensification of hostilities between Iran and the U.S. (Lotfian & Faghih, 2021).The literature has also focused on the process of Othering and the construction of Self/Other in Iran–U.S. relations. For example, Duncombe (2016), in the article titled “Representation, Recognition, and Foreign Policy in the Iran–US Relationship,” offered an understanding of Iran–U.S. enmity by focusing on the construction of states’ identity through representation of Self and Other. According to Duncombe, representation and misrecognition contribute to a mutual feeling of disrespect, thus exacerbating the tensions between the two countries.The novelty of the present research lies in its unique interpretation of the process of Othering, in which three types of Others are recognized: the historical Other, the domestic Other, and the foreign Other. The study tried to answer the research questions by examining how the interaction between the three Others has constructed the identity of the IRI. Materials and MethodsThe present study adopted a constructivist approach with a focus on identity, and used it in combination with the typology of states in political economy, incorporating both sub-national and transnational levels of analysis. The aim was to examine the formation and consolidation of the iri’s foreign policy with an eye to the process of othering the u.s. The analysis intended to offer insights that can explain the most endurable axis of the iri’s foreign policy, namely anti-arrogance within the culture of confrontation and conflict, and shed light on its inevitability as well as its structural consequences on domestic policy.ConclusionThe research findings were grounded in the conceptual constructs such as Othering identification, triple Others, projective identification, constitutive and regulative rules, and allocative and authoritative resources. Additionally, the analysis relied on the dichotomy of organic/instrumental state, highlighting structural sclerosis that challenges fundamental transformations. The study finally addressed the feasibility and evaluation of the capacities and requirements for change in the core axes and ultimate objectives of the IRI’s foreign policy.
Gholam Reza Haddad
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to understand the internal logic and semantic structure of Hassan Rouhani's speech at the UN General Assembly in 2018. The question is, influenced by the changing context of Iran's foreign policy following the unilateral withdrawal of the USA from JCPOA, in this speech, what ...
Read More
The purpose of this study is to understand the internal logic and semantic structure of Hassan Rouhani's speech at the UN General Assembly in 2018. The question is, influenced by the changing context of Iran's foreign policy following the unilateral withdrawal of the USA from JCPOA, in this speech, what political goals, how and in what framework, behind what speech acts and under what semantic structure is expressed. With a practical understanding of Fairclough's method, the text is described in vocabulary order, then its strategies are interpreted, and finally its conceptual, value, and directive structures are extracted. The results show that the text is based on the perception that the world of international politics is a civil society in which international law and organizations are the most original values and key institutions, so to protect of the IRI as a committed member, decisive and united confrontation to USA as the outlaw member with other members is necessary. In accordance with the Context, the semantic structure of the text can be explained in order to direct the great powers against USA unilateralism around the JCPOA axis and with the aim of taking advantage of the capacities available in this directive action.
