Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies

Abstract This paper reexamines the economic security dynamics of the Persian Gulf by applying a neoliberal institutionalist framework to the evolving relationship between Iran and the United States, with particular attention to recent geopolitical shocks, including the 12-day war between Iran and Israel and the US's direct involvement in that conflict. The study explores how shifting patterns of sanctions, trade disruptions, and maritime security risks affect regional economies, particularly those of Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Using process tracing, the analysis identifies causal pathways linking US policy changes to Iran’s economic resilience and the adaptive strategies of Persian Gulf actors. Special emphasis is placed on the mediating and stabilizing role of Qatar, whose neutral diplomacy has grown in importance amid heightened tensions. Findings suggest that economic interdependence, institutional cooperation, and pragmatic mediation—especially by Persian Gulf states like Qatar and Oman—offer pathways to mitigate conflict and preserve economic stability in a region increasingly shaped by sanctions, oil market volatility, and asymmetric warfare. The paper concludes with actionable policy recommendations for Iran to improve regional integration, crisis response, and economic diversification under ongoing US pressure.

Abstract These days, celebrities play an extensive role in people’s lives. They have entered cultural, social, economic—and also political—spheres and influence their audiences. One area that, over recent decades, has been affected by and entangled with celebrities’ involvement is elections in various countries. By endorsing a like-minded candidate, celebrities call on their audiences to support that person and thus advocate for them.



This study, using a comparative approach and Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis method, examines how celebrities expressed support during Iran’s 2017 election and the United States’ 2016 election at the candidates’ campaign rallies. To that end, three celebrities from each country were selected for analysis: Beyoncé, Katy Perry, and Demi Lovato from the U.S., and Sahar Dolatshahi, Baran Kosari, and Leili Rashidi from Iran. The findings indicate that in both countries, celebrity discourse is shaped by the political, cultural, and social context. Iranian celebrities tended to present themselves as aligned with the people and sharing their vote, criticizing existing structures, the previous government, and obstacles to civil liberties, with a stronger emphasis on reform. American celebrities, by contrast, focused more on the values of freedom and on welfare issues.

Abstract Barack Obama entered office promising engagement with Tehran; by the end of his first term, his administration had assembled an exceptionally broad multilateral sanctions regime. This article explains that reversal and uses the case of Iran’s nuclear program to extend the Copenhagen School's theory of securitization in two ways. First, it treats sanctions and institutional measures not just as consequences of a completed securitization but as part of the securitizing process itself: UN Security Council Resolution 1929, the IAEA's 2011 report on possible military dimensions, and the 2012 oil embargo each reset the discursive ground and enabled the next move, so discourse and material action co-produced one another. Second, it theorizes the target state's responses as a structural enabling condition of securitization rather than a factor external to it. Using explanatory-outcome process tracing, the analysis follows the campaign through four stages - discursive entrapment (2009), institutional coalescence around Resolution 1929 (2010), scientific validation through the IAEA (2011), and the normalization of sanctions (2012) - and identifies the United States and its allies as the securitizing actors. Iran's legalism, its missed diplomatic openings, and the timing of its enrichment disclosures emerge as conditions that facilitated the campaign without being its cause.

Abstract Intelligence challenges such as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), terrorism, and cyber threats create uncertainty and incomplete information for the decision makers and people. This uncertainty could manage by the president through persuasive communication. This article examines how Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama employed rhetorical strategies to persuade domestic and international audiences in the face of intelligence-related matters. The study draws on a qualitative content analysis of presidential speeches. The study apply a new seven-category persuasion framework consisting of 25 subcategories that expands the traditional Aristotelian modes of ethos, pathos, and logos. This framework offers a more systematic framework for capturing the complexity of presidential persuasion strategy. The analysis revealed clear differences in presidential styles: Bush consistently relied on pathos, using fear appeals, urgency, and moral clarity to justify preemptive actions related to WMD and rally public support, whereas Obama focused on logos and ethos, appealing to reason, institutional trust, and credibility while framing responses as collaborative and strategic in cases involving technological intelligence activities.

Abstract This article examines the U.S. presidents’ securitization and desecuritization of post-revolutionary Iran. Employing securitization theory as its theoretical framework and qualitative content analysis as its research method, it analyzes 104 paramount instances of U.S. presidential rhetoric including State of the Union addresses, speeches delivered during the United Nations General Assembly's General Debates, and National Security Strategy reports. The analysis shows how successive U.S. presidents have framed Iran as an existential threat across multiple security sectors—military, political, societal, economic, and emerging cybersecurity—to justify their extraordinary policies regarding the country. A key finding of the research is the distinction between U.S. presidents’ securitization of the Iranian state and the Iranian nation, which first emerged during George W. Bush’s first term. Moreover, the study identifies both continuity and change in U.S. securitization and desecuritization of Iran over the past four decades, conceptualizing them into two overarching frameworks: the Realist approach and the Constructivist approach. This research introduces the novel concept of Positive Securitization, or Desecuritizing Securitization, as a new addition to the theoretical framework of securitization theory, and highlights its application during the Obama administration. Positive securitization refers to the use of securitizing discourse to justify the desecuritization of dialogue and political engagement within a specific context. It does so by claiming that even extreme exceptional measures—military or economic—would prove inadequate in addressing a perceived threat, thereby presenting diplomacy as the only viable solution. The article offers a comprehensive exploration that provides a detailed understanding of U.S. presidential rhetoric and the gradual construction of Iran’s image as a threat.

Abstract Global supply chains, initially designed to enhance production efficiency and reduce costs through geographically dispersed networks, have evolved into complex global value chains (GVCs) characterized by deep interdependencies among countries and industries. According to Economic Interdependence Theory, higher levels of mutual economic dependence can influence both cooperation and systemic vulnerability, which are often underestimated—especially amid escalating geopolitical tensions. This study examines the resilience of global value chains by analyzing the structural positions of the US and China between 2012 and 2020. Using OECD Inter-Country Input-Output tables and a social network analysis (SNA) framework, it evaluates the network positions of 45 industries across 76 economies (excluding services), through three weighted centrality measures: degree, betweenness, and PageRank. These metrics allow us to (1) measure the degree of bilateral interdependence, (2) evaluate structural resilience to supply disruptions, and (3) uncover network-driven asymmetries in global economic power. Results indicate that China has significantly enhanced its resilience by diversifying industrial connections and expanding its structural centrality, thereby reducing vulnerability to external shocks. In contrast, while the United States remains integral to high-value nodes, its network position is more concentrated, which may expose it to greater risks under conditions of disruption or fragmentation.

Abstract Trauma studies mainly focus on the psychological mechanisms of trauma and the various ways witnesses and victims represent it. But recent approaches in the field emphasize that despite doubts about the accuracy of traumatic memories, trauma narratives could point to the socio-political issues involved because they reflect the dominant societal discourses, and connect the text to history and ideology. As such, literary narratives can potentially depict traumatic events as non-political experiences, obscure their connections to power dynamics, and “depoliticize” these events. As a result, power structures are validated, and challenges to the root causes and consequences of trauma are prevented. To identify the patterns and possibilities of depoliticization in war narratives, this article examines four nationally acclaimed literary works about the Korean and Vietnam wars, written by American veterans. Employing a combination of theoretical frameworks from trauma studies alongside Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak’s models in critical discourse analysis, the research identified and categorized instances of depoliticization to show how they reflect or conceal broader historical and sociopolitical contexts. The results reveal that although these narratives appear to be anti-war, they conform to the dominant discourses of their time by downplaying, manipulating, or omitting political references—i.e., through depoliticization of the narrative. Given that depoliticized trauma narratives can diminish or obscure political responsibility, this study opens up extensive prospects for deeper examination of the relationship between the representation of trauma and political power. Ultimately, the findings emphasize the importance of a critical approach to analyzing trauma narratives and war literature.

Abstract Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, sanctions have consistently been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy against Iran. Beyond their direct impact on bilateral tensions between the two nations, U.S. secondary or extraterritorial sanctions have also significantly influenced Iran's relations with other global actors, particularly the European Union (EU). The conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) generated optimism regarding the end of sanctions against Iran. However, with the advent of the Trump administration and its unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, the United States’ extraterritorial sanctions against Iran were reinstated, dispelling the optimism that had emerged. The US and the EU are major economic and strategic partners. Given this reality, the critical question arises: How has the resurgence of U.S. sanctions, with their extraterritorial dimensions, affected Iran-EU relations? This paper hypothesizes that the resumption and intensification of extraterritorial sanctions have negatively impacted the economic and political aspects of Iran-EU relations. On the one hand, these sanctions have reduced bilateral relations to their lowest possible level; on the other, they have constrained diplomatic channels for resolving issues. To examine this hypothesis, the analysis employs Trump’s Maximum Pressure policy and its theoretical underpinnings as its conceptual framework. The method of research is based on impact analysis. Findings indicate that while sanctions have profoundly impacted Iran-EU
relations, they have failed to achieve their ultimate objective of altering behavior. A key outcome of these sanctions has been the sidelining of Europe in Iran’s foreign policy sphere.

Abstract This study assesses the political challenges that hinder the implementation of a proposed referendum on Palestine, framed within Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST), which underscores the significance of a dominant global power in sustaining international order. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has suggested this referendum as a means to determine Palestine's political system. From an HST perspective, the United States significantly impacts the international arena, including policies regarding Palestine. Its support for Israel complicates the political landscape and undermines alternative peace proposals, including those from Iran. This article seeks to answer the main question: what political obstacles prevent holding a referendum in Palestine, and what methods can be used to overcome those obstacles? The findings of the article indicate several political dynamics and factors that impede the referendum: political divisions within Israel regarding peace with the Palestinians, lack of consensus among Palestinian factions, differing approaches among Arab states, and conflicting positions of both Islamic and non-Arab countries. Additionally, the stances of the permanent members of the UN Security Council exacerbate these challenges. The author finds that Iran’s proposal has overlooked the international framework of a two-state solution.

Abstract This study investigates the relationship between religious beliefs, particularly belief in life after death, and political inclinations among Americans. Utilizing data from the 2022 General Social Survey (GSS), we explored the sociopolitical impact of religiosity through statistical analyses, including Pearson’s chi-squared tests and independent samples t-tests. Findings indicate that religiosity significantly correlates with belief in life after death, with more religious individuals demonstrating a stronger inclination toward belief in an afterlife. Additionally, race and gender were found to be influential, as black Americans and American women were more likely to believe in life after death. However, socioeconomic factors such as income and education showed no significant association with afterlife beliefs. Contrary to expectations, age also lacked a meaningful relationship with belief in life after death. Lastly, we found that belief in the afterlife is significantly associated with one’s inclination towards republicans in the elections. These results emphasize the enduring influence of religious identity and spiritual beliefs on social and political attitudes.

Abstract Crisis conditions create ambiguous situations where individuals rely more on their understanding and previous experiences. In the context of politics, depending on a leader’s characteristics, his perceptions may influence and override other agents in policy-making during the crisis time. Many studies claim that leaders’ perceptions may change as they confront crisis, as they learn from critical situations. Based on empirical data regarding President Donald Trump’s operational beliefs and leadership characteristics, this paper examines the theoretical basis for the ways in which core beliefs resist change and learning. To answer the main question, the operational code of President Trump had been analyzed in three separate phases: the immediate pre-presidential phase, his three years in office prior to COVID-19 breakout, his last nine months in office during the crises. The results of this research may address several questions regarding the Trump political leadership and belief system by focusing on changes in the cognitive construct of the president.  

Abstract The 1979 Islamic Revolution marked a pivotal moment in the political relations between the U.S. and Iran, resulting in a “soft war” that primarily unfolded in the media, particularly within films. This study aims to analyze how the selected film, Septembers of Shiraz (2015), represents post-revolutionary Iran from a cognitive perspective. The Islamic Revolution is characterized by distinct signifiers, including anti-Zionism, the duality of the oppressed and the oppressors, legality, Islamism, republicanism, and the rejection of the United States. Rival discourses attempt to dislocate each of these signifiers to delegitimize the hegemon discourse of the Islamic Revolution. This analysis employs a combination of three theoretical frameworks and cognitive construal tools at the micro-level: Talmy’s (2000) force-dynamic paradigms, the multimodal conceptual metaphor proposed by Forceville (2006, 2008, 2016), and the metonymy-producing relationships suggested by Radden and Kövecses (1999). A macro-level analysis will utilize Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001) discourse theory to uncover the hegemon discourse’s semiotic system using the micro-level data. The results demonstrate that this film employs the repetitive metaphor of IRAN IS PRISON, the metonymy of MEMBERS FOR A CATEGORY, and the force-dynamic paradigm of the revolutionaries as a strong Antagonist/ the Jewish society as a weak Agonist. Discursively, the Iranian revolutionaries are portrayed as irrational, dogmatic, and narrow-minded individuals who are drawing their other-making border with all those who are not devoted to the Islamic revolution. Rejecting anti-Semitism, the revolutionaries’ irrationality, Jewish sacred suffering, and messianic redemption are some of the signifiers articulated by this film.      

Abstract The geopolitical significance of Taiwan has prompted the United States to remain vigilant about the island's security, even after recognizing the People's Republic of China in 1979. Consequently, while refraining from any legally binding commitment to defend Taiwan, the U.S. Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, with the aim of equipping Taipei with the necessary military capabilities to deter a potential attack by China—a policy later termed "Strategic Ambiguity". However, while Taiwan’s economic development and democratic transition over the past four decades have underscored the importance of preserving the cross-strait status quo, China’s integration into the global economy has enabled the People’s Liberation Army to challenge it. Although conventional debates suggest the United States must choose between strategic clarity and traditional ambiguity, this paper moves beyond such a dichotomy, arguing that U.S. foreign policy behavior toward Taiwan exhibits elements of both. Building on the new conceptual framework of "Adaptive Strategic Ambiguity", this paper categorizes the U.S. policy toward Taiwan into three distinct dimensions: the reinvigoration of regional balance of power, the transition toward political clarity, and the advancement of economic de-risking.

Abstract After the historic victory of Barack Obama, the first African American president, a movement emerged whose adherents regarded the American dream as no longer realizable and saw the Democratic Party as a threat to the nation's existence. Rapidly garnering support from the Republican Party, particularly the conservative spectrum, this movement adopted a confrontational stance on social services, health care subsidies for the impoverished, and policies toward racial minorities. The Tea Party Movement sustained its efforts to rebuild and maintain conservative republicanism in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 presidential election with the support of the Republican Party, particularly its conservative wing. The early years of the Tea Party witnessed many successful candidates in congressional elections, which contributed to the party's stability and sustained its influence within the American political establishment. This review article investigates the way in which the Tea Party movement influenced conservative republicanism in the United States. It is argued that the Tea Party, which advocated for traditional white American values, has reconstructed conservative republicanism that was on the verge of collapse while attempting to maintain its existence despite all of its ups and downs. Furthermore, this movement contributed to the rise of Trumpism in America and was an essential factor in Donald Trump's triumph in the 2016 presidential election and his 2020 campaign.

Abstract Saudi foreign policy was mostly affected by its strategic relations with the United States as its primary and sole security provider. However, since the rise of Mohammed Bin Salman, Saudi Arabia further developed its relations with permanent non-Western members of the United Nations Security Council, respectively China and Russia. This study mainly contends that this transformation took place through strategic hedging, with regional and global consequences. It is contended that Saudi Arabia has adopted a triangular foreign policy through hedging, in order to balance its foreign relations with America and achieve regional supremacy. In this article, through a thematic analysis, we will investigate the ways in which Saudi foreign policy adopted hedging, the reasons for this action, and the motifs behind this decision. Saudi Arabia has tried to pursue national interests through hedging. This attempt is affected by a post-Cold War environment, preparing for a possible multi-polarization of the international system. Saudi Arabia also tries to improve its image alongside this approach in foreign policy. Correspondingly, this diversification of Saudi foreign policy is noticeably compatible with its domestic policy of opening up and adopting rapid modernization, which is analyzed through hedging and Neoclassical Realism.

Abstract The US foreign policy in the post-World War II has been marked by periods of unilateralism, while in other periods, multilateralism has been more prevailing. The existing works, while explaining certain periods of unilateralism by various domestic and international factors, such as neo-conservative ideology and superpower rivalries in the Cold War, are unable to explain the reason for which in some periods, the US foreign Policy has been more dominant. This article seeks to explain the difference by referring to the conceptual complexity of US presidents. We analyzed the content of news conference transcripts for 11 post-WWII US presidents using the Flesch-Kincaid text readability index to measure presidents’ conceptual complexity. We used the index in our previous study to explain the unorthodoxy of Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Findings suggest with statistical significance that Presidents with low levels of conceptual complexity do not consider many factors as important and prefer unilateral actions by emphasizing short-term achievements. On the contrary, presidents with complex cognition are less likely to believe that the US can solve critical or long-term international issues alone.

Abstract For over three decades, sanctions have been a consistent feature of United States policy towards Iran. Following the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, in 2018 the United States withdrew from the agreement through Executive Order 13846, reinstating previous sanctions. Consequently, Iran decided to bring its case against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The present article analyzes the ICJ's substantive jurisdiction (Merits) over this case, as well as the political and legal implications of the United States' unilateral sanctions against Iran. The research employs an analytical methodology, utilizing library research and note-taking to collect data. The research findings indicate that the ICJ's opinion is based on the illegality of comprehensive economic sanctions imposed on national security grounds, and that the Court has substantive jurisdiction over this case. Furthermore, the findings reveal that the United States' unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions not only violate Iran's sovereignty, but also infringe upon the human rights of the Iranian people. The United States' sanctions policy aligns with liberal and realist theories of international relations.

Abstract Following the Islamic revolution, Iran has consistently faced threats from neighboring countries and major global powers. In response to Iran's revolutionary stance and its challenging position in the international arena, the United States has imposed significant arms and military sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's influence in the region. However, drawing from historical lessons, Iran has adopted a deterrence strategy to counter external pressures. To compensate for its relative conventional military weaknesses and maintain deterrence against adversaries, Iran has prioritized the development and production of missile capabilities. This study delves into the development of Iran's missile capabilities and their correlation with U.S. arms embargoes. It seeks to answer whether these sanctions have effectively contained Iran's regional influence. Employing a Trend Impact analysis methodology that utilizes library resources, we will explore the trajectory of Iran's missile industry development under sanctions. Furthermore, we assess the efficacy of these sanctions on Iran's defense capabilities and military structure. The research findings indicate that U.S. military sanctions have failed to achieve their intended objectives and safeguard the interests of the U.S. and its regional allies. Contrary to assertions, the sanctions have strengthened Iran's missile capabilities and regional influence, solidifying the country's position as a regional power in the international system.

Abstract The Unconventional Gas Production Revolution in the US has ushered in new opportunities for American petrochemical companies, granting abundant access to gas resources and fostering business growth. Consequently, prominent global petrochemical firms have made substantial investments in the United States' petrochemical and chemical industries. Simultaneously, the surge in gas production from unconventional reserves in the US has led to considerable growth in the country's petrochemical output. To address this crucial topic, we conducted a comprehensive time series analysis, investigating the long and short-term relationships between oil and polyethylene prices in the US during the shale gas development phase. Employing an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model for the period spanning from January 2013 to December 2017, our research findings reveal that, in the long run, there exists a positive and significant influence of the oil price variable on polyethylene prices. However, in the short term, no discernible impact on the polyethylene price variable was observed. Interestingly, the analysis also indicates a unidirectional causal relationship, with oil prices influencing polyethylene prices. This finding suggests that despite the divergence between oil and gas prices, oil remains a crucial determinant of petrochemical product pricing. The results underscore the significance of shale gas development and its impact on the petrochemical industry. As the US continues to experience increased gas production, comprehending the intricate relationships between oil, gas, and petrochemical prices becomes imperative for companies' strategic decision-making and policymakers alike.

Abstract WWII and its consequences served to bring a new era of extensive cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States, leading to the birth of the Anglo-American special relationship (AASR). However, the two countries’ global widespread interests led to inevitable conflicts of interest, mostly favoring the US. Here, the question arises: Why did postwar Britain maintain its attachment to the AASR in times of conflicting interest with America? The paper, motivated by Gidden’s definition of ontological security, discusses that the consequences of WWII not only generated for the UK physical security concerns, but also ontological insecurity. In this respect, postwar Britain, accepting an inferior role, sought a special relationship with the US to consolidate this mutual partnership in order to mitigate its ontological insecurity in the postwar world order. The paper then, by investigating two cases of British-American conflicting interests in Iran, and raising a material-ideational debate, aims to identify the advantages of ontological security theory in explaining Britain’s “mechanism of tolerance” in preserving the AASR. Otherwise stated, through the proposed conceptual framework, the paper explores the way in which ontological security needs shape the postwar UK’s behaviors to prioritize its close relations with the US, regardless of the costs.

Abstract One of the most critical issues in Iran's foreign policy is European countries' foreign policy toward the Iran-US crisis. The hostage crisis in Tehran on November 4, 1979 (Aban 13, 1358 SH) was the first Iran-US crisis to affect Iran's relations with Western countries. This study aims to investigate the following question: "What were the French policies toward the hostage crisis, and how were they formed?" To answer this question, the “strategic autonomy” framework was utilized to comprehend France's foreign policy. This research employs a "historical case study" methodology, which critically analyzes historical documents, such as press documents, official reactions, and diplomatic documents. The findings of this study indicate that the French foreign policy of this period can be analyzed using the concept of "strategic autonomy." In its relations with Iran, France adopted the policy of "independently regulating relations with a third country," "independence in foreign policy decision-making," and "ensuring the well-being of citizens," whereas in its relations with the US, it followed the policy of non-interference in the US's reciprocal crisis with the third party and maintaining economic interests.

Abstract The post-world war liberal order has been primarily based on the pillars of international institutions inspired from the idea of multilateral agreements and rooted in the ideological components of Western enlightenment and liberal tradition. This orderو which has been established and consolidated by a complex set of regulations in form of international institutions, trade agreementsو and security alliances, continued to function well after the bipolar system of the Cold War, into the hegemonic US-led era. The principal ideology of this hegemony borrows its spirit from an exceptionality of identity, the much discussed, yet disputable concept of American Exceptionalism. By performing a critical discourse analysis on presidential State of the Union addresses post-World War II regarding nuclear institutional hegemony, this research identifies the way in which political identity and ideational elements, derived from the notion of American Exceptionalism, have played a key role in the strategic culture of America, shaping its grand strategies throughout the past decades to create and maintain an institutional hegemonic dominance in the global arena, and in the nuclear regime as a case study. As a result of the theoretical and critical discourse analysis combined, the concept of Institutional Hegemonic Resilience has been offered to explain the dynamics.

Abstract Negative socio-psychological repertoire about adversary exists in many societies plunged in conflicts. The challenge is how to make the structure of the society more flexible for a conflict resolution with enemies. This article examines the attempts of a pro-Iran-deal civil society, the - International Crisis Group, to change the negative societal beliefs regarding Iran, which  exist in the American society. By using the unfreezing theory of Bar-Tal and Halperin (2011 b) as well as the NVIVO 12, which is qualitative content analysis methodology, this paper attempts  to analyze this procedure from 2011 to 2016. The International Crisis Group made an effort to break the rigidity of barriers and remove their content in the American society. This trend of Iran unfreezing started in 2011 and increased in 2013, during the presidency of Hassan Rohani in Iran. Results indicate that the International Crisis Group fought against the rigid discourse that exists in the US about Iran through four main principles: removing the perception of Iran as a threat, legitimizing and humanizing Iran’s image, emphasizing the importance of the course of time, and expanding new information and alternative data about the US-Iran conflict. This new information aimed at justifying Iran’s actions and giving roadmaps for the future policies of the US toward Iran.

Abstract Both in the U.S. and in Iran, foreign policy making is the result of a complex negotiation process between the different bodies of the government. In both countries, anti-Iranian and anti-American sentiments became the hallmark of the conservative elites’ thinking, which has been effectively blocking a political détente between the parties. The argument of this analysis departs from the dogmatism of the elites and states that the failure of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement was not only the result of the tight constraint of domestic actors on each country’s win-sets, but also due to the fact that both countries denied the addition of Level 3 to Putnam’s Two-Level Game Theory, that is, negotiation with the alliance blocs of the respective parties. Both negotiators failed to recognize the importance of the regional players and their threat perceptions that had not been limited to Iran’s nuclear capability, but at the same time involved Iran’s military ambitions. The analysis argues that widening the scope of the nuclear negotiations to three levels would prove the unfeasibility of a nuclear agreement concluded in the current geopolitical context. Only the deconstruction of the Western double standard – that American military presence in the Persian Gulf is normal while Iranian military presence is unacceptable aggressiveness – could lead to the possibility of a strong and widely accepted deal on the Iranian nuclear activities. The author of the analysis thus suggests the necessity of limiting the military expansion of both the U.S. and Iran as a precondition for a successful three-level negotiation process.

Abstract Since the late 19^th century, Iraqi immigrants have formed a community in the United States, which is widely known as a part of the Arab-Muslim diaspora in the country, while the reality is rather different, since the majority of this community is non-Arab and non-Muslim. The focus of this paper is to investigate the US-based Iraqi diaspora identity regarding its formation and evolution by reviewing its history and exploring its diversity, which could inform readers about the major identification modalities taken by members of the community in the American context. The key question discussed in this paper is therefore the following: how does Iraqi diaspora identity diverge or converge within the American context, influenced by historical, ethnic and religious elements? Using analytical narratives as our corpus of study, we will discuss the way in which Iraqi-Americans present their identity by commenting on their ethno-religious diversity and the impact of the diversity on the community. Findings indicate that affected by US-Iraq relationships as well as different contexts in both homeland and the host country throughout the last three decades, a divergent dynamism has serious potentials to influence the future of this diaspora community in the United States.