Search

On July 14, 2015, under the leadership of the Obama administration, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal—was signed. After 35 years of diplomatic isolation, the agreement marked a watershed moment in the United States–Iran relations and achieved a key US national security objective regarding nuclear non-proliferation. However, the agreement faced significant domestic opposition grounded in concerns that Iran was untrustworthy. Yet, the prospect of withdrawal generated a sense of insecurity that the United States's status as a "responsible world leader" would be undermined, despite ongoing anxieties around Iran's compliance. What explains such a paradox in foreign policy preferences? By incorporating discursive institutionalist approaches with ontological security perspectives, I work to show how President Obama's entry into the agreement generated ontological insecurities as he struggled to displace existing narratives around Iran as a hostile, untrustworthy actor. Yet, Iran's compliance with the agreement made it equally difficult for Trump to justify withdrawal; instead, his efforts raised additional concerns that America's international standing would be undermined. Theoretically, this paper incorporates discursive institutionalist insights with ontological security to disaggregate how different conceptions of the "Self" are contested and activated in policy debates in ways that lead to instability and variation in US foreign policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates emotions conveyed in US presidential speeches and media coverage regarding the Iraq War and the Iran nuclear deal during 2003 and 2015. The researchers gathered and examined news stories about the two policies, all official speeches delivered by George W Bush and Barack Obama, and opinion polls conducted during the respective six-month period in those two years. Nine discrete emotions were coded to capture the valence and volume in the speeches and news media content. The study finds that emotions appear more frequently in the Iraq discourse than in the Iran counterpart. President Bush used more negative emotions while President Obama employed more positive emotions. Emotion in the media coverage is constant and stable across the two policy periods; yet negative emotions are more prevalent than positive counterparts in the media despite distinct foreign policies. The study also examines public opinion trends toward the two policies for inferring potential linkage. This article contributes to the conceptual nexus among emotional persuasion, journalism pattern, and foreign policy-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen (ZIB) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article sheds light on the way narratives translate into policy outcomes and enable foreign policy change. How is it that narratives shape foreign policy change? The analysis focuses on the public discursive strategy employed during the US Congress debate over the 60-day review period of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This article intends to contribute to the literature on policy narratives in International Relations (IR). I argue that foreign policy decisions are framed in a manner that seeks to ensure their supremacy in the context of a process of political contestation of meaning and of attempts to deconstruct and delegitimise alternative narratives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the Obama administration's arguments for ratifying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities and whether these claims encouraged U.S. senators to approve the agreement. The analysis relies on Kahneman and Tversky's (1979) prospect theory in which more risk is taken to avoid certain loss and improve conditions when options are framed in terms of losses rather than gains. We argue that the Obama administration was able to persuade Democratic senators to support the JCPOA by arguing the agreement had the potential to curb the development of nuclear weapons by the Iranian regime. But more importantly, the administration was able to frame the status quo as a certain loss, and thus, the risk associated with the JCPOA was acceptable in comparison to not adopting the agreement. Our analysis of the Obama administration's lobbying efforts and the Democratic senators' statements in support of the agreement demonstrate the value of applying prospect theory to understanding decision making with respect to American foreign policy formulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on debate over ethics of negotiations for Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal. Topics discussed include Iran's history of pushing boundaries with its nuclear program; red lines set forth by the former U.S. President Obama Administration with respect to the deal; and Iran's role in providing accurate information to the International Atomic Energy Agency with respect to the same.

The article discusses that the U.S. president Donald Trump has ambitious goals in the Middle East which are not different from that of administration under the former U.S. president Barack Obama but are being pursued very differently. Topics include Obama pursued diplomatic missions with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran nuclear deal but Trump has withdrawn from the JCPOA, pledged to confront Iran, and prioritized improved relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Few studies to date have investigated the impact of digitalization on Putnam’s two-level game theory. Such an investigation is warranted given that state and non-state actors can employ digital tools to influence decision-making processes at both national and international levels. This study advances a new theoretical concept, Domestic Digital Diplomacy, which refers to the use of social media by a government to build domestic support for its foreign policy. This model is introduced through the case study of the @TheIranDeal twitter channel, a social media account launched by the Obama White House to rally domestic support for the ratification of the Iran Nuclear Agreement. The study demonstrates that digitalization has complicated the two-level game by democratizing access to foreign policy decisions and increasing interactions between the national and international levels of diplomacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the issue of Iran nuclear deal announced by U.S. President Donald Trump in 2018. It states the Iran nuclear deal announced by earlier U.S. President Barack Obama did not had legal sanction as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was not involved in the deal and G 31 comprising 28 EU members plus the U.S., China and Russia had played a role in the deal without proper text and kept wide open nuclear deal and Trump's move will not impact international relations.

The article explores the U.S.-Iran Nuclear engagement dealing with the U.S.-Iran relations owing to the Iranian nuclear dispute. Topics include tensions between U.S.-Iran, collaborations between U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Also discussed are topics such as role of UN Security Council (UNSC) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The author also discusses U.S. sanctions such as the 2010 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA).

The article discusses the former U.S. President Barack Obama's role in the development the P5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, including in regard Obama's perspective on nuclear weapons disarmament and the JCPOA's objective in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. An overview of IAEA's (International Atomic Energy Agency's) role in ensuring Iran does not violate the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) is provided.

The article reports on the nuclear agreement of Iran passed by the former U.S. President Barack Obama, and mentions role of executive branch's in enacting agreements with foreign nations; and federal government's role in managing foreign affairs between the executive and legislative branches.

One of Donald Trump's stated priorities when he becomes President is to kill the Nuclear Deal with Iran, one of the key legacies President Barack Obama wishes to leave. This article develops a memorandum for President Obama to consider sending to his successor that proposes a series of steps to be taken, with the support of our negotiating partners, on how to make the deal more supportive of the nation's security interests, avoiding the difficult and dramatic step of pulling out of the agreement. A four-part scenario, triggered by an assumed Iranian abrogation of the deal, is employed as a means of gaining insights for drafting this memo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the stance on Middle East policies by President-elect Donald Trump during his election campaign. Topics discussed include Trump being critical of U.S. President Barack Obama's management of the region including the nuclear deal with Iran, allies like Saudi Arabia, and intervention on behalf of Syrian rebels. In addition, Trump also called for banning Muslim immigration to the U.S. and has stated radical Islam is the greatest threat to the U.S. The author opines that Trump could find the implementation of his policies challenging.

Much like Iran's nuclear program, scholars and policy makers are largely puzzled to understand Iran's intentions in developing its ballistic missile program. The aim of this study is to understand Iran's objectives in developing its ballistic missiles arsenal. To fulfill this objective, the article reviews the entire history of Iran's ballistic missile program. It hypothesizes that just like its nuclear program, Iran developed its ballistic missiles arsenal as a strategy of deterrence, a response to Iraq's invasion and Washington's policy of containment. The second hypothesis held that Iran's determination to continue developing its ballistic missile program might be an attempt to dissuade its rivals from exercising power in the Middle East. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S.'s strategy of retreat and military disengagement from the Middle East under U.S. President Barack Obama, including in regard to its impact on alleged increased power of Russia and Iran in the region and the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. An overview of U.S.'s relations with China is provided.

Iran, the United States, and several world super-powers signed a historic nuclear agreement over the summer of 2015. The Agreement is a comprehensive plan of action, with an unprecedented level of minutia and detail regarding Iran's commitment to curb its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of United Nations-imposed sanctions against Iran. This Agreement, if it is successfully implemented, may represent President Obama's most significant foreign policy achievement and may become the most important element of President Obama's legacy. This Article will examine the Iran Nuclear Agreement by focusing on the events which led to the imposition of sanctions against Iran and to the ultimate negotiation of this Agreement, the structure of the Agreement; this Article will also discuss the most significant advantages and disadvantages of this somewhat risky deal. This Article will conclude that the Iran Nuclear Agreement could become one of President Obama's biggest foreign policy accomplishments in the Middle East. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. President Barack Obama's policies towards the Middle East, including the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, instability in the region, the terrorist group Islamic State (IS) and U.S. involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Obama's withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is discussed. The U.S.'s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, including Obama's relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, is discussed.

The nuclear deal is a reaffirmation that complex issues should be resolved, wherever possible, through dialogue rather than confrontation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

President Trump has backpedalled on his disruptive pre-inauguration support for expanding West Bank settlements, a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement. Nevertheless, at least in the short term, Israel is likely to face less US resistance in pursuing aggressive policies, especially vis-à-vis the Palestinians, than it did from the Obama administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the relationship between the U.S. and Israel as of September 2015, highlighting the speech by U.S. President Barack Obama delivered on August 6, 2015 in Washington, D.C. Obama reportedly discussed the U.S.' nuclear nonproliferation deal with Iran and noted that Israel does not support the deal. Also explored are Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's arguments over the nuclear deal and Israel's attitude towards Iran.

The article presents the text of the remarks by U.S. President Barack Obama at the P5+1 meeting held on April 1, 2016 in Washington, D.C. Topics discussed include their goal of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, cooperation among the P5+1 community to achieve their deal to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and U.S. policy regarding Iran's support for terrorism and human rights abuses.