تحلیلی برساخت گرایانه از مبانی دشمنی میان جمهوری اسلامی ایران و آمریکا؛ فرایند دگرسازی، دگرهای سه گانه و هویت یابی فرافکنانه (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در بیش از چهار دهه که از حیات سیاسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران می گذرد، تقابل با ایالات متحده به عنوان محوری اساسی و هدفی غائی در سیاست خارجی ایران، همچنان پُردوام مانده و محدوده آزادی عمل آن را در سایر موضوعات تعیین کرده است. اما چرا این سیاست خارجی علی رغم چرخش های نسبی در نقاط عطف کابینه ها و با وجود هزینه های قابل توجه در این محور و هدف کلان، مصرّانه استمرار داشته است؟ در این مقاله مبتنی بر برداشتی آزاد از رویکرد سازه انگاری در شاخه هویت محور و ترکیب با گونه شناسی های دولت در اقتصاد سیاسی و تلفیق سطوح تحلیل فروملی و فراملی، تلاش شده است از تکوین و تثبیت هویت سیاست خارجی جمهوری اسلامی ایران در قالب فرایند دگرسازی از آمریکا، فهمی ارائه شود که استکبارستیزی در درون فرهنگی تعارضی به عنوان پردوام ترین محور این سیاست خارجی و تبعات ساختاری آن در سیاست داخلی و نیز دلایل تصلب و گریزناپذیریِ آن را توضیح دهد. یافته های این پژوهش مبتنی بر سازه های مفهومی هویت یابی دگرسازانه، دگرهای سه گانه، هویت یابی فرافکنانه، قواعد تکوینی و تنظیمی و منابع تخصیصی و اقتداری و دوگانه دولت اندامواره- ابزاری دلایل تصلّب ساختاری در دشوار شدن چرخش های بنیادین را توضیح داده و در نهایت به امکان سنجی و ارزیابی ظرفیت ها و ضرورت های تغییر در محورهای اساسی و اهداف غائی سیاست خارجی جمهوری اسلامی ایران می پردازد.A constructive analysis of the othering process in the foreign policy's identity of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Introduction Over the span of four decades, the islamic republic of iran (iri) has consistently prioritized the confrontation with the united states as a fundamental axis and ultimate objective in its foreign policy. This stance has not only endured until now but has also shaped the boundaries of iran’s maneuverability in other arenas. The present research aimed to address different aspects of iran–u.s. enmity by answering the following questions: how has confrontation with the u.s. become entrenched as the axis and ultimate objective in the foreign policy of the iri? and what are the prospects for potential shifts in this approach in the future?Literature Review Iran–U.S. relations, along with the underlying causes of their mutually confrontational policy, has been the subject of numerous research studies. Some studies dealt with Iran–U.S. relations from a historical standpoint, aiming to explain the origins of mutual hostility through a chronological description of events in their relations. For instance, in the book titled US Foreign Policy and Iran: American–Iranian Relations Since the Islamic Revolution, Murray (2010) explored the history of Iran–US relations during the tenure of five presidents. She focused on the role of ideology, the dichotomy of democratization/stability or idealism/realism, informational and cognitive errors, the lack of mutual understanding rooted in language and image-making, the impact of events and their timing, the tools and levers of foreign policy, and the missed opportunities to restore relations. Rubin (1981), in an article titled “American Relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979–1981,” focused on Iran–U.S. relations during the two years following the hostage crisis. For Rubin, the root of the mutual confrontation can be traced back to the perceptions of Revolution’s leaders of America’s role in supporting the Shah and attempting to thwart the success of the Revolution. In the article “US-Iran Relations: Issues, Challenges, and Prospects,” Hussain (2015) addressed the impediments to détente in the history of Iran–U.S. relations. Hussain emphasized various factors such as regional peace processes, terrorism, the nuclear issue, domestic policies in both countries, and America’s regional allies, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia. In Becoming Enemies: U.S.–Iran Relations and the Iran–Iraq War, 1979–1988, Blight et al. (2012) employed the methods of critical oral history, drawing on declassified documentation and interviews with key decision-makers in American foreign policy during the Iran–Iraq war. They argued that the roots of Iran–U.S. enmity would go back to the performance of American foreign policy during the war and its impact on the IRI’s foreign policy.Several studies tried to examine the role of other actors as mediating variables in Iran–U.S. relations. For instance, in the article Jafari-Movahhed (2022) argues that a major impediment to improving relations between Iran and the U.S. is intricately linked to the substantial and fundamental problems that the IRI has with Israel. According to Jafari-Movahhed, the identity ties between the U.S. and Israel, together with the influential role of the Zionist lobby in America, makes it almost impossible to normalize Iran–U.S. relations, at least in the short term. In the article entitled “The Role of Public Opinion Engineering in America on Iran–U.S. Relations,” Pourkhosh-Saadat (2015) attributed the origins of animosity between the two countries to the psychological operations orchestrated by adversaries of the Islamic Revolution. Specifically, Pourkhosh-Saadat points to the influence of the Israel lobby in the U.S, contending that any shift in Iran–U.S. relations would depend on the opinion and decision of the AIPAC lobby and Israel-affiliated media. He argues that AIPAC is actively engineering Iran–U.S. relations through its media. In “Great Power Rivalries and the Persistence of Iran–U.S. Adversarial Relations,” Lotfian and Faghih (2021) posit that as economic pressures on Iran increase due to the delayed lifting of sanctions by both Europe and America, Iran will increasingly turn to alternative allies. They argue that heightened antagonism from the U.S. will push Iran towards closer ties with China and Russia. In response, American policymakers are likely to become more determined to strengthen relationships with regional allies and partners. While the authors do not directly address the underlying causes of Iran–U.S. enmity, they contend that escalating tensions among the U.S., China, and Russia may contribute to the intensification of hostilities between Iran and the U.S. (Lotfian & Faghih, 2021).The literature has also focused on the process of Othering and the construction of Self/Other in Iran–U.S. relations. For example, Duncombe (2016), in the article titled “Representation, Recognition, and Foreign Policy in the Iran–US Relationship,” offered an understanding of Iran–U.S. enmity by focusing on the construction of states’ identity through representation of Self and Other. According to Duncombe, representation and misrecognition contribute to a mutual feeling of disrespect, thus exacerbating the tensions between the two countries.The novelty of the present research lies in its unique interpretation of the process of Othering, in which three types of Others are recognized: the historical Other, the domestic Other, and the foreign Other. The study tried to answer the research questions by examining how the interaction between the three Others has constructed the identity of the IRI. Materials and Methods The present study adopted a constructivist approach with a focus on identity, and used it in combination with the typology of states in political economy, incorporating both sub-national and transnational levels of analysis. The aim was to examine the formation and consolidation of the iri’s foreign policy with an eye to the process of othering the u.s. The analysis intended to offer insights that can explain the most endurable axis of the iri’s foreign policy, namely anti-arrogance within the culture of confrontation and conflict, and shed light on its inevitability as well as its structural consequences on domestic policy.Conclusion The research findings were grounded in the conceptual constructs such as Othering identification, triple Others, projective identification, constitutive and regulative rules, and allocative and authoritative resources. Additionally, the analysis relied on the dichotomy of organic/instrumental state, highlighting structural sclerosis that challenges fundamental transformations. The study finally addressed the feasibility and evaluation of the capacities and requirements for change in the core axes and ultimate objectives of the IRI’s foreign policy.
تبلیغات
