The Role of Reception in the Pattern of Confrontation and Engagement of the United States towards the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Nuclear Case

Document Type : Research articles of the special issue of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 13th government

Authors

1 Ph.D. candidate of International Relations, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Political Science, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran. (Corresponding Author)

2 Ph.D. in Regional Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The pattern of strategic confrontation and tactical engagement of the United States towards the Islamic Republic of Iran is usually evaluated in the framework of the macro theories of international relations or from the perspective of foreign policy analysis with emphasis on the domestic and international order. However, the examination of the process of formation of the approach of the Obama and Trump governments towards Iran, and specifically the nuclear case, shows that regardless of the roots and causes of the American confrontational strategy, the type of decision-making and the pattern of Iran's behavior towards Washington It has played an important role in decrease or Increase level of the conflict. Understanding this issue through the lens of cognitive theory and analyzing the place of perception of American politicians in their strategic decision-making can play an effective role in adopting a reciprocal and proportionate approach from Iran. Therefore, the main question is how the American perception of Iran's behavior pattern in foreign policy has affected the formation of Washington's strategy towards Tehran? The findings of this research show that the pattern of engagement and confrontation between America and Iran is frequently counterproductive. In other words, according to experience, Iran's engagement and Détente towards the US has led to the escalation of confrontation on the part of Washington, and the approach of active resistance on the part of Iran has led to retreat of the US and its tactical engagement.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in Social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. [Link]
Bem, D. J. (1970). Beliefs attitudes and human affairs. Utah: Brooks/Cole. [Link]
Crisis Group. (2019). On thin ice: The Iran nuclear deal at three . Brussels: International Crisis Group. [Link]
Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. [Link]
Hasenclever, A., & Mayer, P., & Rittberger, V. (1996). Interests, power, knowledge: The study of international regimes. Mershon International Studies Review, 40(Supplement_2), 177-228. [DOI:10.2307/222775]
Hirt, E. R., & Sherman, S. J. (1985). The role of prior knowledge in explaining hypothetical events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(6), 519-543. [DOI:10.1016/0022-1031(85)90023-X]
Nye, J. (1987). Nuclear learning and U.S.-Soviet security regimes. International Organization, 41(3), 371-402. [DOI:10.1017/S0020818300027521]
Rosati, A. J. (2000). The power of human cognition in the study of world politics. International Studies Review, 2(3), 45-75. [DOI:10.1111/1521-9488.00215]
Snyder, J. (1978). Rationality at the brink: The role of cognitive processes in failures of deterrence. World Politics, 30(3), 3445-365. [DOI:10.2307/2009870]
Sprout, H., & Sprout, M. (1965). Ecological perspective on human affairs. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [DOI:10.1515/9781400877232]
Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political Judgement: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Link]
Strategic Studies of public policy
Volume 12, Issue 44
the special issue of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 13th government
December 2022
Pages 172-192

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics