Introduction: The theory of rational choice was one of the significant outcomes of Enlightenment philosophy. Perhaps the most prominent application of rational choice can be found in the neoclassical school, which believed that actors, whether individuals, firms, or even families, seek greater profit and lesser loss in all aspects of economic life. It was after this that the theory of rational choice permeated international relations. Many theorists, including realists such as Edward Hallett Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau, argued that states are cohesive, unified, and rational entities, and their foreign policy decisions should be assessed solely in terms of rationality and cost-benefit calculations. This approach is indeed the conventional framework for understanding decision-making in foreign policy. In political science and international relations, a broad effort has emerged to uncover new dimensions in understanding foreign policy decision-making processes
Research Question: The main question addressed in this article is: Given the foreign policy strategies of many countries, including the regional policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, what conceptual limitations and challenges does the conventional and dominant decision-making model—namely, the rational actor or decision-maker—face?
Research Hypothesis: The theory of rational choice and the rational actor model, according to the theoretical and conceptual frameworks derived from the organizational process model, bureaucratic politics, pluralistic models, groupthink, and the cybernetic model, face significant limitations and shortcomings in understanding foreign policy decision-making. These limitations and shortcomings can be illustrated by citing examples from the foreign policy strategies of various countries, including the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although this article primarily emphasizes the theoretical and conceptual aspects of the discussion and less on specific instances and examples, the aim is to present the material in such a way that the reader, by understanding the problem and hypothesis of this article, gains a new perspective on explaining and interpreting the regional foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Methodology: This article is primarily a theoretical and conceptual endeavor to highlight the shortcomings of the dominant model in foreign policy decision-making, namely the rational actor model. Therefore, in terms of methodology, the article adheres to the requirements of descriptive-analytical research. While describing various models and patterns of foreign policy decision-making, the article utilizes the conceptual contributions of other decision-making theories that have largely remained on the periphery of foreign policy studies. Through this, the failures and limitations of the central model in foreign policy decision-making—the rational actor model—are explored and analyzed.
Results and discussion: In discussing the article, it can be said that each of the decision-making models in foreign policy has revealed aspects of the limitations of the rational actor model. In this regard, the organizational decision-making model clarifies that there are standard procedures in the decision-making process that governments and decision-making organizations usually pay special attention to. That is, decisions made in foreign policy are not the product of a rational calculation focused on cost and benefit but rather the result of organizational processes and standard decision-making procedures. On the other hand, the bureaucratic decision-making model clarifies that decision-making in foreign policy is the product of bargaining and conflict among different parts of a governmental structure. In the third part, the pluralistic model primarily describes the situation in the United States but is also present in many other countries. According to this model, society is the determining factor in decision-making, and society influences the government through tools such as creating social movements, interest groups, and associations, compelling the government to make certain decisions. On the other hand, what Irving Janis proposes in the groupthink model is that decision-making is a function of the tendencies of a small group within the government to maintain consensus. They see themselves as an invincible group that possesses the latest and most accurate information. Thus, they develop a high level of self-confidence. The groupthink model, which emphasizes collective rationality, shows that some U.S. foreign policy decisions related to issues such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Tabas incident, or the Vietnam War were not based on rational calculations. On the contrary, rationality dictated that these decisions should not have been made, but groupthink—collective rationality or the desire to maintain consensus within the decision-making team and preserve their cohesion—led to the dismissal of logical and rational data and the adoption of incorrect decisions. Similarly, we can refer to the cybernetic model. In this model, John Steinbrunner emphasizes that the role of input information in decision-making processes should not be overlooked. Based on this, the information that enters the decision-making system from the environment is a fundamental and determining element. This information can lead to changes in the approaches and decisions of governments, both in the decision-making process and in the implementation process.
Conclusion: it should be noted that this article clarifies that government decision-making is not necessarily governed by rational calculations. In reality, governments cannot be viewed as isolated units detached from social, political, and international contexts, operating endogenously without considering external factors. As is evident, the rational actor model has significant weaknesses and impasses, and ignoring these can lead experts and scholars in the field of foreign policy decision-making into serious confusion. By uncovering unexplored dimensions of the problems with the rational actor model, this article seeks to highlight the role of psychological, social, and international environmental factors. Through this, it becomes possible to analyze the foreign policy of certain countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran in the region, and address some of the ambiguities and questions that arise when relying solely on the rational actor model.