علی نظیف پور

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 can be seen as sub-discourses within the Islamic Revolution discourse engaged in a struggle over its “correct” interpretation. The reconciliation discourse emphasizes on “prudence”, while the resistance discourse emphasizes upon “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 US to be dynamic and heterogenous, while the resistance discourse considers 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 relationship with the US the main issue of contention within Iranian foreign policy discourses.

The “Black Lives Matter” civil rights movement has left profound effects on the international approach of the US government toward human rights. This movement reached its peak in 2020 and profoundly affected culture, politics, and policy making in the US. The two major parties reacted differently – the Democrats showed support but Republicans opposed it. These reactions help us analyze the US international policy toward human rights. US human rights policy has been embedded in the theory of “American exceptionalism”, which considered US the best incarnation of human rights and its interests as a superpower equal to its protection. But the Black Lives Matter movement challenges this narrative and claims that human rights violations are an untold part of this story. The Democrats have adopted a new approach to American exceptionalism in response which considers The US to have an exceptional potential to embody human rights values but this potential is yet to be realized. Joe Biden has also prioritized human rights more than his predecessors since 1980s by criticizing the US and also adopting harsher policies toward US allies that violate human rights. It can be predicted that the Democrats will adopt a more normative approach toward human rights in the future.