In this chapter I continue my case study of the representations that frame Iran–US foreign policy discourse. My key objective is to examine Iranian representations of itself, the US and Iran's nuclear program. While the previous chapter outlined US representations of itself (good, rational, leader of the international community) and Iran (dangerous, irrational, aggressive, undeveloped), illustrating how this produces a particular discursive framework through which it understands Iran and its nuclear program, I now do the opposite. In the
The image of Iran stretches back thousands of years to the time of Cyrus the Great and the Persian Empire. The vast empire covered lands from Asia Minor to Europe and Egypt, and was the largest of its kind until the last emperor was overthrown by Alexander the Great. Thus, the components feeding into Iranian state identity have been continually negotiated and (re)constructed over time. Iranian state identity under the Pahlavi shahs, from 1925 until the overthrow of the last shah in 1979, is often understood as completely distinct from the post-Iranian
For a state that regards itself as the intellectual heir to the French Revolution it is unsurprising that the ideas of ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’ remain central to the controversies surrounding the nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 1 From an American perspective, the seizure of the US embassy on 4 November 1979 transformed Iran from an intimate ally into the leading ‘state sponsor’ of terrorism; an appellation that even the thaw in relations under the Obama administration has done little to change. 2 The revolutionary state
In this chapter I begin my case study of the representations that frame foreign policy discourse between Iran and the US. My key objective is to examine US representations of itself, Iran and Iran's nuclear program. In July 2015 Iran and the US finally reached an agreement on the nuclear issue that allows Iran limited nuclear technological capacity in exchange for the lifting of certain sanctions. However, questions remain about how best to explain the success of this deal, considering the decades of animosity between the two nations, which
This book addresses a critical issue in global politics: how recognition and misrecognition fuel conflict or initiate reconciliation. The main objective of this book is to demonstrate how representations of one state by another influence foreign policymaking behaviour. The key argument is that representations are important because they shape both the identity of a state and how it is recognised by others. States respond to representations of themselves that do not fit with how they wish to be recognised. The book provides a thorough conceptual engagement with the issues at stake and a detailed empirical investigation of the fraught bilateral relations between the United States and Iran, which is perhaps one of the most significant flashpoints in global politics today. Despite Iran and the US finally reaching an agreement on the nuclear issue that allows Iran limited nuclear technological capacity in exchange for the lifting of certain sanctions, the US withdrew from the deal in May 2018. However, questions remain about how best to explain the initial success of this deal considering the decades of animosity between Iran and the US, which have previously scuppered any attempts on both sides to reach an amicable agreement. Increasing concerns about declining Iran–US relations under the Trump administration suggest even more so the power of recognition and misrecognition in world politics. Scholars and strategists alike have struggled to answer the question of how this deal was made possible, which this book addresses.
Representations trigger emotions that drive the struggle for recognition and respect. How an entity is represented, or wishes to be represented, influences its actions. Desire to cultivate a certain image of the Self, to be recognised in a particular way, is driven by a feeling of disrespect that manifests as a social hurt. Such hurt fosters a preoccupation with seeking a particular form of recognition through foreign policy actions. 1 If we allow such a reading of Iran's actions to present itself alongside conventional accounts of Iranian
Representation, recognition and possibilities for transformative change
influence foreign policy.
The objective of my book was thus to provide insight into how representations of one state by another influence foreign policymaking behaviour, with a particular emphasis on the reciprocal representations of the US and Iran. I argued that representations matter in foreign policymaking. How an actor is represented, or wishes to be represented, influences its actions. Desire to cultivate a certain image of the Self, to be recognised in a particular way, is driven by a feeling of disrespect that manifests through misrecognition
Representation, recognition and respect in world politics
Iran and the United States. The case study is indicative of how representation is not only evident within state-to-state communication but also plays a significant role in recognition and identity development. Both the US and Iran utilise particular representations to understand themselves, each other and their behaviour. These have had an impact on each state's foreign policy that further destabilises the relationship between Iran and the US.
This book further proposes that states respond or react to externally constructed representations of who
An important moment for strategic action on collective
Jamil N. Jaffer
and provide a
significant security gain to both countries, while also creating a joint
bulwark against key regional-threat players, including China and North Korea, as well as
external actors that are generally hostile to American interests, including India’s
erstwhile ally, Russia, and one of its key energy suppliers, Iran.
The burgeoning U.S.–India strategic partnership: opportunities
and potential challenges
The economics of the U.S.–India relationship
There is little question that the current
tribes, peoples, notably the Arabs, lacked the defined sense of territorial identity and attachment to the land associated with peasant societies. The important exceptions, those societies with substantial peasantries – Turkey, Iran and Egypt – are those where contemporary states most closely approximate national states.
Aggravating the situation was the way the contemporary states system was imposed at the expense of a pre-existing cultural unity deriving from centuries of rule by extensive empires ruling in the name of the Islamic umma . Where