The European Union's foreign policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran between 2009 and 2024 represents a domain in which the role of parliamentary institutions—particularly the European Parliament—has become increasingly prominent. During this period, issues such as Iran's nuclear program, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and the human rights situation have emerged as central axes of the European Parliament's external action in its engagement with Iran. Focusing on the concept of securitization, this study examines how European parliamentary diplomacy has contributed to shaping the discursive and political frameworks of Iran-EU relations. The main research question is: How has the European Parliament's parliamentary diplomacy, through the securitization of nuclear and human rights issues, influenced the pattern of interactions between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the European Union during the period 2009–2024? The research hypothesis posits that by simultaneously highlighting Iran's nuclear program and human rights issues within a securitized framework, the European Parliament has played an effective role in redefining the nature of Iran-EU relations and steering them from limited engagement toward tension and rupture. The present study employs a qualitative method, utilizing case study analysis and historical discourse analysis to examine the European Parliament's documents, resolutions, and official positions at key junctures, thereby elucidating the institutional and discursive mechanisms that shape this body's external action toward Iran.This article investigates the evolving role of the European Parliament (EP) in the formulation and transformation of the European Union's policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran, with particular emphasis on the intersection of parliamentary diplomacy, human rights discourse, and the securitization of Iran's nuclear program. While EU–Iran relations have traditionally been examined through the prism of intergovernmental bargaining, executive diplomacy, and technocratic negotiations—especially within the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—this study advances the argument that parliamentary institutions have become increasingly consequential actors in shaping both the discursive environment and the practical boundaries of EU foreign policy. The EP, despite lacking formal decision-making authority in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), has developed significant agenda-setting, normative, and legitimizing capacities that allow it to influence policy outcomes indirectly but persistently.





Extended Abstract

The article is theoretically grounded in securitization theory as developed by the Copenhagen School, which conceptualizes security as a socially constructed outcome of discursive practices rather than an objective condition. In this framework, issues become “securitized” when influential actors successfully frame them as existential threats requiring exceptional or priority responses. Building on this perspective, the article introduces the concept of institutionalized parliamentary securitization to capture how security logics can emerge and stabilize through routine legislative practices rather than emergency politics. Unlike classical securitization processes that rely on dramatic speech acts by executive authorities, the EP contributes to securitization through resolutions, committee reports, hearings, symbolic acts, and sustained normative framing. These practices operate within the ordinary institutional setting of the EU, yet they cumulatively reshape perceptions of threat, legitimacy, and appropriate policy responses.

Methodologically, the study employs historical discourse analysis, combining qualitative document analysis with a structured coding strategy. The empirical material consists of EP resolutions, plenary debates, committee documents (notably from the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on Human Rights), parliamentary questions, and official statements issued between 2014 and 2024. This period encompasses critical junctures in EU–Iran relations, including the negotiation and implementation of the JCPOA, the United States' withdrawal from the agreement in 2018, Iran's subsequent reduction of nuclear commitments, and the escalation of tensions following the 2022 riots after the death of Mahsa Amini. The analysis follows a three-stage coding process—open coding to identify recurring themes and key signifiers, axial coding to establish relationships among discursive elements, and selective coding to reconstruct dominant narratives and shifts over time. Particular attention is paid to framing strategies, moral vocabularies, attribution of responsibility, and the coupling of distinct policy domains such as human rights, nuclear non-proliferation, and regional security.

The findings reveal a clear transformation in the EP's discourse across successive legislative periods. During the eighth parliamentary term (2014–2019), the EP largely adopted a dual-track discourse that combined normative criticism of Iran's human rights record with explicit support for diplomatic engagement and multilateral nuclear negotiations. In this phase, Iran was predominantly framed as a problematic but reformable actor, and the nuclear issue was treated as a technical and legal matter to be addressed through international institutions and intergovernmental diplomacy. Parliamentary diplomacy functioned primarily as a complementary instrument aimed at dialogue, confidence-building, and normative persuasion.

From 2019 onward, however, the EP's discourse underwent a pronounced shift toward securitization. This transformation accelerated in the aftermath of Iran's gradual reduction of JCPOA commitments and reached a critical point following the domestic unrest of 2022. Human rights violations were no longer framed as a parallel or ancillary concern but became explicitly linked to Iran's nuclear activities and regional behavior. Parliamentary discourse increasingly portrayed Iran as an inherently unreliable and norm-violating actor, incapable of separating civilian nuclear ambitions from coercive domestic governance and destabilizing foreign policy conduct. Through this discursive coupling, human rights concerns were transformed into security signifiers, reinforcing the perception that engagement and diplomacy had been exhausted.

This securitized framing produced several interrelated effects. First, it contributed to the moral delegitimization of dialogue with Iranian authorities by portraying engagement as ethically problematic and politically futile. Second, it expanded the EP's self-assigned role as a guardian of European values, thereby justifying pressure-oriented policies such as sanctions, international isolation, and the suspension of inter-parliamentary contacts. Third, it constrained the policy space of executive actors within the EU by shaping public expectations and narrowing the range of politically acceptable options in nuclear diplomacy. The EP's decision in November 2022 to suspend all forms of parliamentary engagement with Iran symbolized the culmination of this process and marked a decisive departure from the earlier logic of parliamentary diplomacy as a channel for communication.

The article argues that this trajectory illustrates a paradox inherent in value-driven parliamentary diplomacy. While the EP's normative activism is consistent with its institutional identity as a promoter of human rights and democratic principles, its securitizing practices have generated unintended consequences for EU–Iran relations. By reinforcing a security-centric and moralized framing, parliamentary discourse has contributed to the erosion of trust, the weakening of diplomatic channels, and the increasing reliance on coercive instruments. In this sense, parliamentary diplomacy has shifted from a tool of engagement and socialization to a mechanism of exclusion and pressure.

The contribution of this study is threefold. Empirically, it provides a systematic and longitudinal analysis of the EP's discourse on Iran, highlighting its evolution across a decade of political change and crisis. Theoretically, it advances securitization theory by demonstrating how security logics can be produced and normalized within routine parliamentary practices rather than through exceptional executive measures. Conceptually, it challenges the widespread assumption that parliamentary diplomacy is inherently conducive to dialogue and conflict mitigation, showing instead that it can also function as a driver of securitization and policy rigidity.

The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of these findings for EU foreign policy and for future engagement with Iran. It suggests that a recalibration of parliamentary diplomacy is necessary—one that preserves normative commitments to human rights while avoiding discursive strategies that foreclose diplomatic possibilities. Reintroducing differentiated engagement, strengthening multi-track diplomacy, and decoupling human rights advocacy from total diplomatic suspension may offer pathways to mitigate escalation and restore limited but meaningful channels of interaction. More broadly, the study underscores the need to take parliamentary actors seriously in analyses of EU foreign policy, not merely as symbolic or advisory bodies, but as influential participants in the construction of security, legitimacy, and international order.