خلاصة:
This article investigates the effects of Iran’s internal political discourses on how political events were conducted during nuclear negotiations in the period between 2013 and 2015. The author holds that due to its emphasis on de-escalation and political development, the reformist discourse opposed challenging progress in nuclear technology. In contrast, the principlist camp has seen nuclear energy as a symbol of opposition and resistance against the West. Due to their emphasis on economic development and cooperation with the world system, the moderate camp also agreed on trust building with the West in order to resolve the nuclear problem. To examine the aforementioned argument, the author investigated different ways of thinking of Iran’s main parties in the country’s foreign policy based on discourse theory. The author also evaluates the performance of these discourses in Iran’s nuclear negotiations. Iran’s nuclear case resulted mainly in a relationship made between domestic policy and foreign policy. Meanwhile, the ups and downs of Iran’s nuclear case have challenged the arrangement of its internal politics. In other words, it created a gap between President Hassan Rouhani’s moderate camp and the principalist camp, brought some principlists closer to the moderates, and created a gap among the principlists itself. The author concludes that the nuclear standoff turned the right and left disagreement into disagreement between the proponents and opponents with the JCPOA in Iran’s policy and recreated a new left and right in Iran’s domestic politics.
ملخص الجهاز:
To examine the aforementioned argument, the author investigated different ways of thinking of Iran’s main parties in the country’s foreign policy based on discourse theory.
Introduction The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached between Iran and world powers in Vienna, July 14th, 2015 removed the shadow of non- agreement from Mohammad Javad Zarif, head of the fourth nuclear negotiator team who had taken the most explicit position regarding the relationship between discourse of Iran’s domestic policies and the Western policies.
The principlists in line with the principlist discourse consider a strict approach to maintain nuclear technology 98 as a factor for resisting the West and stabilizing Iran’s regional and trans- regional power.
The nodal point of this discourse is political development and its floating signifiers mixing and making sense together in an equivalent chain of new articulation which includes reforms in civil society, law, and compromising with the West.
It was only in the 11th presidential election when the moderation discourse, in the absence of reformists, could become the main rival of principlists and gained popularity by significantly relying on resolving Iran’s nuclear issue, improving ties with the West, controlling economic disorganizations, and returning the country into a peaceful state.
The second period of the moderates cooperation in Iran’s nuclear issue was during to the post-hegemonization of moderationism discourse.
What can be understood from Iran’s domestic policy is that the resistance micro-discourse originated partially from the principlist discourse, so it seems that nuclear issue has created a large gap between rightist and leftist principlism.