There is a long-standing debate about Iran’s accession to the Financial Action Task Force. In this regard, there are supporters and opponents, each with their own goals and arguments. The aim of the present study is to examine the two coalitions of supporters in favor of and against accession to the Financial Action Task Force using the framework of the supporting coalition. To achieve this goal, the qualitative coding research method was used. The research data includes interviews and reports of supporters of these two groups, which were selected using the purposive sampling method. The research findings show that the two coalitions in favor and against have different core beliefs and policy cores, propose different tools, and to some extent have similar resources. These two rival coalitions also have different orientations on other foreign policy issues. The priority of the coalition in favor is economic development, and the priority of the coalition against is security. Accordingly, they have adopted different policies or made proposals. The findings of this research can provide a basis for understanding the two coalitions based on different layers of core beliefs, policy core, and tools.
Keywords: Financial Action Task Force, foreign policy, joining, advocacy coalition framework

Extended Abstract
Introduction
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) aims to strength the international response to money laundering. The FATF issued Forty Recommendations on Money Laundering In October 2001. These recommendations provide a basic framework for combating money laundering and are designed and formulated for implementation at the global level. 198 countries currently have agreed to implement the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force. The FATF publishes a blacklist or list of non-cooperative countries every year. Iran is currently on the group's blacklist. Some conditions are in place for Iran to cooperate with this group. The Anti-Money Laundering Law passed in 2007 by the Islamic Consultative Assembly(The Iranian Parliament), as well as the Anti-Terrorism Financing Law passed in 2015, have provided the opportunity to exchange experiences and information with anti-money laundering organizations in other countries and to exchange information or judicial cooperation with other countries. But so far, no decision has been made regarding Iran's joining to the Financial Action Task Force. There is a long-term debate about Iran's joining The FATF. There are proponents and opponents who each have their own goals and reasons. This debate has prolonged the decision-making process on joining. Each side of this debate has principles, values, and interests that have, in some way, led to wide-ranging policy debates in other areas of foreign policy. This research aims to analysis two coalitions of joining the Financial Action Task Force by using the advocacy coalition framework.
Research Question
What are the components of the three layers of the proponents and opponents Advocacy coalitions of and Iran's joining the Financial Action Task Force, and what resources do these coalitions use to achieve their goals?
Methodology and Theoretical Framework
Qualitative coding research method has been used in this research. Open coding leads to the creation of initial codes. Codes are the main components of the analysis. The axial coding stage involves categorizing the various codes into potential themes and organizing all coded summaries into a specific theme. The research data includes interviews and reports of the supporters of these two coalitions, which collected by the purposeful sampling method.
This research analyzed Iran's foreign policy regarding joining the Financial Action Task Force based on the Advocacy coalition framework (ACF). Advocacy coalitions are indeed groups of individuals with shared beliefs who coordinate their actions to influence public policy. These coalitions include a wide range of actors like legislators, interest groups, public organizations, researchers, journalists, and subnational entities, all working together within a specific policy domain. Their goal is to shape policy outcomes by influencing the policy process.
In the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), Sabatier distinguishes between three levels of beliefs: deep core beliefs, policy core beliefs, and secondary aspects. Deep core beliefs are fundamental, normative, and widely shared across different policy domains. Policy core beliefs are more specific to a particular policy area and represent the core commitments of an advocacy coalition within that domain. Finally, secondary aspects are non-essential details or specific policy preferences that are more likely to change. In advocacy coalitions, while there might be disagreements on specific policies or secondary beliefs, there is generally a strong consensus on the core values and fundamental principles that unite the group. These coalitions form around shared beliefs and strategically coordinate actions to influence policy, even if they differ on the specifics of how to achieve those goals.
Results and discussion
Research findings organized based on the components of Advocacy coalition framework, which includes a "deep core values" layer of normative belief or ideology; second layer of "policy core values" and a third layer named secondary aspects are non-essential details or specific policy preferences that are more likely to change.
Research findings show that the core beliefs of the coalition of proponent of Iran joining the FATF include economic opening and lifting sanctions; improving banking and trade exchanges; and increasing foreign investment. The core beliefs of the opponent’s coalition include prioritizing national security; supporting resistance groups; and preventing the dominance of advanced countries over Iran's economy.
Proponents coalition consider foreign policy and issues such as joining the Financial Action Task Force and the JCPOA as paths or mechanisms for other goals, including in the economic Development, but the opponents coalition views foreign policy as a way to preserve the country's independence and national security.
Conclusion
Research findings illustrate that the two coalitions have different deep core values and policy core values, they propose different tools and they have similar resources to some extent. These two rival coalitions have different orientations in other foreign policy issues as well. The proponents coalition wants more interaction with international organizations, while the opponents coalition believes in caution and attention to the limitations of these organizations. The first coalition has an optimistic view of international organizations and tries to create opportunities through them. The second coalition is pessimistic about international organizations and considers them as a tool of Western countries to control countries like Iran. The priority of the proponents’ coalition is economic development and the priority of the opponents’ coalition is national security. Based on this, they have adopted different policies or made recommendations. The results of this research can provide a basis for understanding the two coalitions based on different layers of deep core values, policy core values and policy tools. By analyzing the layers of these two coalitions, this research provides a picture of how the issue is raised and decision-making is done in the field of Iran's foreign policy. The findings of this research can provide the basis for the two coalitions to understand the different ideological, political, and instrumental layers of the rival coalition. If this understanding is accompanied by political discussions and debates, it can provide the basis for making decisions about Iran joining the FATF.