Constructivism and US-Iran Relations

Constructivism is arguably the most difficult international relations theory to grasp. However, it offers some very relatable ideas that, if put into more accessible language, provide a compelling and useful complement to other international relations theories – especially for those attempting to understand the dynamics of US-Iran relations. Alexander Wendt applies Constructivism to the international state system, arguing that states are engaged in social relationships which derive meaning independently of the actual material environment. In Wendt’s theoretical view, states begin their interactions with a blank slate: nothing predisposes them to conflict or to cooperation. The early interactions are critical; they can set the relationship and intersubjective meaning construction between two countries on a largely positive or negative course. In the case of US-Iran relations, I argue that the following is a plausible explanation of the countries’ persistent conflict: Intersubjective meaning construction was placed on a negative trajectory when the current Iranian state known as the Islamic Republic of Iran emerged from revolution in 1979. 

Western imperialism and interference, backed by the historical realities of America’s role in the 1953 coup in support of the Shah, helped motivate the creation of a new state whose identity was to be largely based on opposition to America and the West. Meanwhile, a critical moment for the US in its early intersubjective meaning construction with post-revolutionary Iran was the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and subsequent hostage crisis. If there were a momentary blank slate between the US and post-revolutionary Iran, this event helped to establish the Islamic Republic of Iran as a radically hostile enemy in American eyes. Relations between the two countries have thus arguably been handicapped over the last three decades by the intersubjective meaning constructed with hostility, trauma, and distrust. In such a Constructivist view, the state of US-Iran relations cannot be blamed on conflicting geopolitical, military, or economic interests. Instead, it is the result of ideas and narratives of grievance and threat developed in each country about the other. These ideas and narratives are in some cases rooted in real historical events that occurred at critical times, but often assume a power and a scale beyond what many outside observers would consider “rational” or objective.

Not only can the Constructivist approach explain the evolution of the Iranian-U.S. relationship, it can also offer a new way forward. The United States’ perception of Iran as an actor engaging in criminal activities in the Middle East must change to understand that Iran, like the United States in the Middle East, is acting according to its perceived interests. Conceiving of the Islamic Republic as an unrelenting source of regional malignancy will only perpetuate the U.S.’ negative view of Iran. To be sure, Iran is a leading sponsor of “terrorism” and violence throughout the Middle East, perhaps only trailing the U.S. as the leading source of violence in the region. However, U.S. policymakers should attempt to engage Iran in an earnest fashion. This engagement and even limited, but symbolic concessions—such as allowing Iran to enrich its own uranium as long as it remains below weapons grade—will beget a new understanding. The United States could also demonstrate by its own efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons and leading a global call of disarmament that nuclear weapons are no longer the symbol of prestige as they were during the Cold War. This would send a strong signal to the Iranians that being a regional or even global power no longer requires nuclear weapons capability.