How America and Iran Can negotiate nuclear deals

Defence affairs - M. Javad Zarif and Amir Parsa Garmsiri

contemporary international relations, security is not just something countries seek for themselves. It is also a concept they use to justify controlling, constraining, and directing others’ behavior. When political scientists speak of “securitization,” they refer to a process through which a particular issue is portrayed as an existential threat justifying extraordinary measures instead of something that governments can address through normal politics.

The Islamic Republic of Iran serves as a perfect illustration. Over the last two decades, Israel and the United States have tried to persuade the world to stop treating Iran as a normal country and to instead treat it like the international system’s leading danger. The result has been constant denunciations, crushing sanctions, threats of military action, and, most recently, military operations against its territory—carried out during diplomatic negotiations between Tehran and Washington. Iran, in response, has been forced to devote more resources and attention to defense. It also increased uranium enrichment in defiance, to show that it would not be pressured into submission. The external securitization of Iran has fed into a parallel dynamic at home, as the state adopted a stricter approach in dealing with domestic social challenges, responding to these challenges with tighter restrictions.

The result is a securitization cycle: a vicious spiral in which Iran and its adversaries feel compelled to adopt more hostile policies in response to each other’s behavior. This phenomenon is somewhat like the security dilemma, in which one government’s decision to bolster its capabilities prompts others to do the same. But with the security dilemma, each side is reacting to material increases in the other’s capacity. This cycle begins with rhetoric. The target country is portrayed as a threat, and then is treated as a threat. And in response, it turns to activities—such as bolstering its missile capabilities or increasing enrichment—that can be used to corroborate the initial allegation. The cycle, in other words, produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. The securitized country gradually distances itself from independent agency and becomes trapped in a series of reactive behaviors.

Breaking this cycle will not be easy, and it will require that foreign powers respect Iran’s rights and dignity and stop constantly defaming, threatening, and coercing a millennia-old civilization-state. But there are steps that Tehran can take to help in breaking the vicious securitization cycle. It can start by shoring up domestic support through economic reforms, bolstering its hand in international negotiations. After all, Iranian people have proved to be Iran’s greatest asset in resisting and deterring foreign aggression. Tehran can also recalibrate its emphasis on material defensive power—an emphasis that often amplifies threat perceptions—and instead prioritize cooperation and coordination, particularly at the regional level. It can establish a frank dialogue with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to address mutual concerns and find a way to resume cooperation. And it can engage with the United States to manage their differences, starting with the nuclear issue and sanctions.

M. JAVAD ZARIF is Associate Professor of Global Studies at the University of Tehran and Founder and President of Possibilities Architects (PAIAB). He served as Iran’s Vice President, Foreign Minister, and Permanent Representative in the United Nations in the past 30 years.

AMIR PARSA GARMSIRI is a Ph.D. candidate of American Studies at the Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran.