Investigating the Role of Internal Discourses with Iran's Nuclear Diplomacy

In this paper, the influence of domestic policy discourses on the performance of political currents in nuclear negotiations will be examined. The hypothesis of the author's article is that the belief in reformist discourse has led to détente and political development that this discourse opposes the challenge to advance in nuclear technology. On the contrary, fundamentalists perceive nuclear energy as a symbol of opposition and resistance to the West. Moderates are also in favor of building trust with the West to resolve the nuclear issue by believing in economic development and cooperation with the global system. Meanwhile, the composition of the political forces within the system is measured based on belief in the outcome or opposition to the achievement. In order to test the hypothesis, while reviewing some theories, the dimensions of the ideas of the main factions of Iran's politics will be examined on the basis of discourse theory, and then their performance in the context of nuclear negotiations will be evaluated. Iran's nuclear dispute led to a link between domestic politics and foreign policy, so that the ups and downs of this case caused changes in the arrangement of the internal political forces of the system. Some of the principals approached the moderates and led to a large gap between fundamentalists. The nuclear dispute created major gaps in Iranian politics. From the distance between the clergy and the principals until the close proximity of Dr. Vahili and Dr. Larijani to the moderation spectrum.