نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
2 دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین الملل، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Extended Abstract
Introduction: Foreign policy, like any social construct, is subject to evaluation. One method of assessing foreign policy is analyzing its success or failure in achieving intended objectives. However, a challenging aspect is the lack of a shared understanding of what constitutes success or failure in foreign policy, as individuals within different perceptual frameworks present varied narratives of foreign policy outcomes. Despite several years since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was concluded, debate persists in Iran regarding whether this agreement represents a failure in Iran's foreign policy that should be prevented from recurring, or conversely, a successful example of foreign policy that should be revived. Accordingly, the main question of the article is: what are the different narratives about the JCPOA as a pivotal moment in Iran's foreign policy, and what elements constitute these narratives.
Methods: Initially, a qualitative analysis of texts, including official and semi-official statements about the JCPOA, revealed three distinct narratives: Success, Failure, and Intermediate narrative. Subsequently, the structural elements of these narratives— setting of the story, characterization, and emplotment—were analyzed using Oppermann and Spencer's narrative analysis method. In this approach, setting of the story addresses the narrative context, including disputes over alternative decision-making options and interpretations of the decision-making environment. Characterization involves attributing labels, characteristics, and historical comparisons to decision-makers, linking them with well-known figures to either praise or criticize specific narratives. Emplotment examine the process of events, including judgments about goal achievement, their consequences, and attribution of responsibility for these outcomes.
Results and Discussion: Proponents of the Success narrative portrayed the JCPOA as averting the threat of war and signaling Iran's return to the international community (setting of the story). They compared it to the nationalization of the oil industry and likened Mohammad Javad Zarif to Mohammad Mosaddegh and Amir Kabir, while depicting opponents as uneducated and unfamiliar with the modern world (characterization). They also narrated it as successful in achieving objectives, including the lifting of sanctions resolutions (emplotment). Advocates of the Failure narrative depicted the JCPOA as a tool for disarming and pressuring Iran, transformed into a second Treaty of Turkmenchay due to Mohammad Javad Zarif's naivety in exchanging immediate concessions for promised benefits, and approved by circumventing the Iran’s Islamic Parliament (characterization). Consequently, the JCPOA was portrayed as violating the Supreme Leader's red lines and undermining national security, failing to achieve its primary goal of securing Iran's national interests (emplotment). Supporters of the Intermediate narrative initially portrayed the JCPOA as a win-win scenario but gradually developed a narrative, suggesting that Iran should have secured more concessions from the opposing side (setting of the story). This narrative was intermediate, meaning that it rejected both the comparison of the JCPOA to the Treaty of Turkmenchay and its characterization as a great conquest. It simultaneously praised the negotiators' efforts while criticizing some of their oversights (characterization). Prior to the U.S. withdrawal from the Deal, this narrative viewed the Deal as acceptable and valuable, benefits that were subsequently lost (emplotment).
Conclusion: Although the Success narrative initially prevailed over the Failure narrative by presenting a plausible story with appropriate discursive power and portraying the opposing narrative as lacking alternative initiative, the Failure narrative gradually gained ground. By leveraging its structural power and depicting the JCPOA as an incomplete and detrimental agreement, it aligned with the Intermediate narrative, ultimately marginalizing the Success narrative.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)