Abstract :
Iranian exceptionalism has been a major factor in preventing rapprochement between the US and Iran. There are two major factions within the foreign policy establishment of the Islamic Republic, representing “reconciliation discourse” and “resistance discourse. These two sub-discourses within the Islamic Revolution discourse engage in a struggle over their correct interpretation. The reconciliation discourse emphasizes prudence,”, while the resistance discourse emphasizes conscientiousness,”, both signifiers within the Islamic Revolution discourse. Both movements agree that these signifiers exist within the discourse, but they disagree about the primacy and centrality of one over the other. The “reconciliation discourse” seeks development as the main goal of Iran s foreign policy and, hence, considers reconciliation with the US to be a precondition to that goal. Its arguments imply that Iran is not an exceptional country. The resistance discourse, on the other hand, is deeply exceptionalist and deems resistance against the US and maximalist independence to be the main objectives of Iran s foreign policy. This discourse strongly opposes mending ties with the US because such a move would be understood as a threat to Iran s exceptionalism. These sub-discourses also perceive the US differently; the reconciliation discourse considers the US to be dynamic and heterogenous, while the resistance discourse considers the US to be unchanging and monolithic, and this disagreement also contributes to their policy toward the US, and this understanding is also closely intertwined with exceptionalism. Overall, the dispute over Iranian exceptionalism has made relations with the US the main issue of contention within Iranian foreign policy discourses.
Keywords :
US , Iran Relations , Exceptionalism , Discourse Analysis , reconciliation discourse , resistance discourse