Introduction: The perceptions of Iran's foreign policy elites regarding the interactions between global and regional powers have been a significant variable influencing Iran's foreign policy in recent decades. The strategic alliance between the United States and Israel, the strategic partnership between the US and some Arab countries, the cooperation/conflict between the US and China, and most importantly, the comprehensive relationship between the US and Europe are among the most influential bilateral relations affecting the cognitive sphere of Iran's foreign policy. The active role of Europe and the United States in Iran's nuclear dossier over the past two decades has doubled the importance of the Europe-US relationship for Iran. The perceptions of Iranian elites have been shaped by this question that whether and how the superficial and potentially deep fluctuations in transatlantic relations can be utilized to realize Iran's national interests. The nature of European and American interactions in addressing Iran's nuclear program between 2013 and 2021 can serve as an appropriate benchmark for evaluating the perceptions of Iran's foreign policy elites regarding the relationship between Europe and the United States. This is primarily due to two factors. Firstly, the approach to Iran's nuclear program effectively illustrates the points of convergence and divergence between Europe and the United States on global strategic issues, which has significantly influenced the perceptions of Iranian elites. Secondly, the aforementioned time period coincides with the dominance of two diametrically opposed political approach in the United States, which have taken contrasting positions on critical international matters. Consequently, any academic assessment of this period is likely to yield greater analytical value and generalizability. Based on these considerations, the main question of this article is: What perceptions have Iran's foreign policy officials had regarding Europe-USA relations during Hassan Rouhani's presidency (2013-2021), and how did these perceptions influence the course of nuclear negotiations?
Theoretical Framework: This article employs a cognitive approach within the field of foreign policy analysis (FPA). Perceptions in foreign policy refer to the mental images that decision-makers have about themselves and others in the international arena. When there is a significant discrepancy between these mental images and reality, misperceptions can occur, potentially leading to flawed decisions. Cognitive approach focuses on the individual level of analysis in foreign policy, emphasizing the role of decision-makers' psychological environment in shaping their understanding and response to the operational environment.
Building on the foundational work of Margaret and Harold Sprout in the 1950s, which introduced the concepts of operational and psychological environments, this framework emphasizes how decision-makers interpret the operational environment through their psychological lens. The Sprouts argued that the operational environment is linked to the decision-makers' psychological environment, and in fact, decision-makers analyze the operational environment based on their psychological environment. This approach was later enhanced by Robert Jervis, who posited that decision-makers' perceptions and assumptions about the international environment play a decisive role in foreign policy decisions and policymaking, potentially leading to success or failure in foreign policy.
The main objective of this article is to highlight the role of Iranian officials' perceptions in the realm of foreign policy and to demonstrate the plurality of perceptions in this domain. This approach allows for a nuanced examination of the cognitive frameworks that shaped Iran's foreign policy during a critical period of international engagement. By focusing on the perceptions of key decision-makers, the study aims to provide insights into the underlying factors that influenced Iran's strategic choices in its nuclear negotiations. Furthermore, by exploring the diversity of perceptions among Iranian officials, the article seeks to challenge monolithic views of Iranian foreign policy and highlight the complex interplay of ideas and interpretations that inform diplomatic strategies. The significance of this study lies in its potential to enhance our understanding of the cognitive dimensions of foreign policy formulation, particularly in the context of high-stakes international negotiations. By examining how Iranian officials interpreted the dynamics between Europe and the United States, the article may offer valuable insights into the decision-making processes that shaped Iran's approach to the nuclear talks and its broader foreign policy orientation during this period.
Methodology: The article employs qualitative content analysis of relevant texts from Hassan Rouhani's presidency, focusing on Iranian officials. The study examines statements from the President and Foreign Minister, who hold primary responsibility for executing foreign policy according to diplomatic norms and legal positions. The selected texts were subsequently examined using the qualitative text analysis method. They were analyzed based on their relevance to the central theme of perceptions of US-Europe relations across three distinct periods: 1. From Rouhani's inauguration to the JCPOA signing (2013-2015); 2. The JCPOA implementation period (2015-2017) and 3. Post-US withdrawal until the end of Rouhani's term (2018-2021)
Results and Discussion: The findings reveal a complex evolution of perceptions among Iranian foreign policy officials regarding US-Europe relations:
1.  2013-2015 During this period, from the beginning of Rouhani's government in 2013 to the conclusion of the JCPOA in 2015, a dominant perception of differentiation between Europe and the US prevailed among Iranian foreign policy officials. This perception manifested in three sub-perceptions: a) Fundamental differentiation: This refers to cultural and identity-based differences between Europe and the United States. b) Consensus-breaking differentiation: This perception acknowledges that although there have been instances of consensus in US and European positions towards Iran, Iran's diplomatic skill has been to transform this consensus into differentiation and divergence, or as Rouhani put it, to create distance between Europe and the United States. c) Declarative differentiation: This refers to the difference and disparity in the declarative positions of the US and Europe towards Iran. Based on this perception, Iranian foreign ministry officials have sometimes tried to use these differences to exert pressure on American negotiators to moderate their hard positions towards Iran and also to respond to pressures and criticisms from within Iran.
2 . 2015-2017 During the JCPOA implementation period, two types of differentiation perceptions persisted among Iranian officials: a) Declarative differentiation: This perception continued to focus on the different and distinct declarative positions of Europe from the United States towards Iran. b) Approach-based differentiation: This perception asserts a serious distinction and difference between European and American approaches to international issues and how to solve them. It suggests that Europe is seeking a win-win solution in Iran's nuclear program, while the United States is not fully aligned with this approach.
3. 2018-2021 Following the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, previous differentiation perceptions of Iranian officials gradually shifted to more confrontational and passive perceptions. a) Initial hope for European-US divergence under Trump: Some officials in Rouhani administration pinned their hopes on the distinction and gap between Europe and Trump's America and talked about a European JCPOA. b) Some officials went further and try to encourage Europe to confront and stand against Trump's policies on Iran. c) Passive perception of Europe: Europe's inability to meet Iran's demands, especially in the discussion of the INSTEX financial mechanism, led to the emergence of passive perceptions towards Europe among some Rouhani administration officials. To the extent that then-Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif considered Europe a passive prisoner of the United States, repeating America's excessive positions and effectively becoming a paralyzed and bound entity in the face of the United States.
Conclusion: The article demonstrates that, contrary to common belief, there is relative plurality in the discursive space among Iranian foreign policy elites on many key issues. This diversity, while potentially complicating national consensus-building, allows for testing various approaches in practice and gradually leads to cognitive complexity and operational maturity in the Iran’s political system in the field of foreign policy. In fact, the negative and positive feedback received from the international environment can influence the perceptual evolution of many key Iranian foreign policy officials.
On this basis, it can be seen that the dominant cognitive aspect of Iranian officials in the two stages of nuclear negotiations and JCPOA implementation is differentiation perceptions between Europe and the United States, and this perception can be considered the cognitive basis of the Rouhani government's hopes for opening relations with Europe. This hopeful perception even continues after the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, during the one-year period of strategic patience, but the extreme inaction of Europeans against the United States leads to the formation of a perception of European passivity against the United States. Based on this perception, Iran becomes disillusioned with Europe's compensatory role in the JCPOA and begins gradual steps to reduce its nuclear commitments.
Therefore, it seems that the diverse perceptions of Iran's foreign policy officials have had a decisive impact on the process of foreign policy-making and its implementation. This analysis provides valuable insights into the role of perceptions in shaping Iran's foreign policy decisions and highlights the importance of the cognitive frameworks of key decision-makers in international relations. It also underscores the dynamic nature of these perceptions, which evolve in response to international events and behaviors, ultimately shaping the course of Iran's foreign policy and its approach to critical issues such as the nuclear negotiations.