This article examines one of the fundamental challenges of macro-policymaking in the Islamic Republic of Iran: the conflict between the development-oriented goals of the 2025 Vision Document and the security-confrontational approach of its foreign policy over the past two decades. Contrary to mainstream international relations approaches (realism and liberalism), which attribute this contradiction to the prioritization of short-term security interests over long-term economic benefits, this study employs the theoretical framework of constructivism to demonstrate that the issue is rooted in identity and discursive conflicts. The main question of the article is why Iran's foreign policy has practically come into conflict with the development-oriented goals of the 2025 Vision Document. The findings indicate that two competing "national identities" have been constructed and reproduced within Iran's socio-political structure: 1. A developmental-interactive identity, emerging from the discourse of global engagement and cooperation; 2. A revolutionary-resistance identity, shaped by historical experiences and the ideological perspective of the system. Using an interpretive-analytical method and examining key case studies, this article shows that the reality of Iran's foreign policy is not an objective given but a socio-normative construct formed through the interaction of competing identities and discourses. Policies based on economic development and a resistance economy impose different requirements on policymaking institutions, making the simultaneous pursuit of development and resistance impossible. In the process of successive shifts and inconsistent orientations, identity, ideological, and normative indicators undergo constant redefinition, to the extent that one can no longer speak of a fixed path or a stable identity. It appears that an integrated approach, encompassing the requirements of both spectrums and establishing a consensus on central and floating signifiers, could help create a balance between development and security.

Extended Abstract
Introduction
The “Vision 2025 Document of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” issued in 2003, was designed as a high-level strategic roadmap outlining a twenty-year plan for transforming Iran into the leading economic, scientific, and technological power in the region. The document emphasized constructive engagement with the international community, achieving an average annual economic growth rate of 8 percent, attracting foreign investment, expanding infrastructure, and transitioning from an oil-dependent economy to a knowledge-based and competitive one. However, as the country reached the end of the Vision 2025 period, the practical outcomes diverged significantly from the document’s aspirations. Not only were the core economic and technological goals left unfulfilled, but Iran’s foreign policy also shifted away from the envisioned development-oriented trajectory. Instead, it became increasingly shaped by a security-driven and confrontational paradigm, prioritizing strategic depth, military capability, support for the “Axis of Resistance,” and the expansion of deterrence power. This discrepancy raises a central research puzzle: Why did Iran’s foreign policy diverge from the development-oriented goals of the Vision 2025 document, despite its consensus-based adoption among political elites? Materialist theories such as neorealism and liberalism fail to fully explain this contradiction. Neorealism focuses on structural threats and power distribution, while liberalism emphasizes economic cooperation—yet neither can account for the persistent subordination of economic interests to security considerations. This article therefore moves beyond material and behavioral analyses and examines the issue at the level of identity and discourse, arguing that the contradiction reflects a deep identity-based divide among Iran’s ruling elites.
Research Objectives
The primary objective of this study is to explain the identity-based and discursive roots of the contradiction between the development-oriented goals of Vision 2025 and Iran’s security-oriented foreign policy. Specifically, the study aims to:
v Demonstrate that Iran’s foreign policy is not merely the outcome of rational or material calculations but is fundamentally a socially and normatively constructed phenomenon.
v Show that two competing national identities—the interactive developmental identity and the revolutionary–resistance identity—offer divergent interpretations of national interests.
v Reveal how this identity competition imposes conflicting priorities on foreign policy, thereby obstructing the realization of Vision 2025.
v Highlight the necessity of analyzing discourse and identity to understand the roots of Iran’s developmental deadlock.
Methodology
This research employs an interpretive–analytical method, consistent with the epistemological foundations of constructivism. Constructivism posits that identities, interests, and even international structures are socially constructed through discourse, interaction, and shared meanings. Therefore, the methodology focuses on uncovering and interpreting the meanings, norms, and identity narratives that shape foreign policy choices, rather than measuring material variables.
To illustrate how identity competition produces contradictory policy outcomes, the study uses key case studies as “critical tests” that reveal the clash between the two identity logics—developmental interaction versus revolutionary resistance. Discourse analysis is also used to examine the central signifiers, linguistic patterns, and normative frameworks that reproduce each identity.
Discussion and Findings
Constructivism and the Role of Identity in Foreign Policy
Constructivism challenges the rigid separation between “objective reality” and “social construction,” arguing that political behavior is shaped by shared meanings, norms, and identity-based interpretations. From this perspective:
v Concepts such as anarchy, threat, and security are not fixed material realities but social constructs.
v A state’s identity is the primary source of its interests.
v Discourses shape identities and legitimize particular policy choices.
v Competing discourses can lead to inconsistent or contradictory policy outcomes.
Thus, foreign policy is not a stable, predetermined path but a dynamic process shaped by evolving identity narratives.
Two Competing Identities in Iran’s Political Structure
The study identifies two dominant and competing identities within Iran’s political–social structure:
The Interactive Developmental Identity
- Emphasizes constructive engagement with the world, economic cooperation, foreign investment, and stability.
v Views economic development as the foundation of national security.
v Centers its discourse on “development,” “interaction,” and “economic growth.”
v The Revolutionary–Resistance Identity
v Prioritizes independence, threat perception, strategic depth, deterrence, and resistance.
v Considers security a prerequisite for development.
v Centers its discourse on “security,” “independence,” “resistance,” and “deterrence.”
v Advocates increased military spending, missile development, and support for regional allies.
These identities impose divergent priorities on foreign policy. While the developmental identity seeks integration into global markets and reduced tensions, the resistance identity emphasizes confrontation, autonomy, and military empowerment.

Consequences of Identity Competition for Vision 2025
The findings show that:
v Iran’s foreign policy does not follow a stable or coherent trajectory but is shaped by identity shifts and discursive oscillations.
v Normative and ideological indicators are continually redefined, preventing the formation of a consistent long-term strategy.
v Development-oriented and resistance-oriented policies require fundamentally different—and often incompatible—institutional commitments.
v This incompatibility has made it impossible to simultaneously pursue economic development and resistance-based security.
v As a result, the key goals of Vision 2025—global economic integration, foreign investment, stable international relations, and sustained economic growth—have remained unrealized.
Conclusion
This study concludes that the contradiction between Vision 2025 and Iran’s foreign policy is rooted not in miscalculation or external constraints but in a deep identity-based and discursive divide within the political system. The two competing identities—interactive developmental and revolutionary–resistance—offer conflicting interpretations of national interests and impose inconsistent priorities on foreign policy.
Given that foreign policy is a socially constructed and normatively driven process, resolving this contradiction requires addressing the underlying identity divide. The study suggests that a hybrid approach, capable of integrating the essential elements of both identities, may provide a viable path toward balancing development and security. Only through a redefinition of national identity that accommodates both interaction and security can Iran move toward achieving its long-term developmental goals.