Abstract

In foreign policy studies, emotions are increasingly recognized as important components in shaping perceptions, attributing meaning to international events, and directing political action. Nevertheless, despite the predominance of material, security-oriented, and ideological approaches in analyses of Iran’s foreign policy behavior, the systematic role of emotions in foreign policy decision-making has received limited attention. Focusing on Iran–United States relations, this article examines how emotions shape the perceptual frameworks of Iranian foreign policy decision-makers through institutionalized appraisal processes and influence the range of available policy options. The central argument is that emotions in Iran–United States relations are not merely reflections of political developments; rather, they constitute an integral part of the perceptual and institutional mechanisms of decision-making through which events are assigned meaning, threats and opportunities are defined, and courses of action are recalibrated. Drawing on the Appraisal Process framework and employing Process Tracing, this study examines the mechanisms through which international events are transformed into emotions and subsequently influence Iran’s foreign policy behavior. The findings indicate that the experience of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the United States’ withdrawal from the agreement, strategic shocks resulting from the assassination of the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, senior military commanders and other prominent figures, as well as recent military confrontations (March 2026), have contributed to redefining strategic perceptions and generating emotions such as distrust, threat perception, and a sense of national dignity through emotional appraisal processes. These emotions, functioning as constraining or enabling mechanisms, have affected the range of foreign policy options available to Iranian decision-makers and consequently shaped Iran’s foreign policy orientation toward the United States.







Extended Abstract

Introduction

The growing body of scholarship on emotions in International Relations has challenged the long-standing assumption that foreign policy decisions are primarily driven by rational calculations, material interests, and security considerations. Since the emergence of the “emotional turn” in International Relations, scholars have increasingly emphasized the role of emotions in shaping perceptions, constructing meanings, defining threats and opportunities, and guiding political action. Emotions are no longer viewed as irrational residues that distort decision-making; rather, they are increasingly understood as constitutive elements of political judgment and strategic behavior.

Despite these theoretical developments, the study of Iranian foreign policy has remained largely dominated by materialist, security-centered, and ideological explanations. Existing analyses of Iran–United States relations have primarily focused on geopolitical rivalry, balance-of-power considerations, sanctions, and ideological antagonism. While these factors undoubtedly influence bilateral relations, they do not fully explain important shifts in perceptions, policy preferences, and strategic choices. Consequently, the role of emotions as a mechanism connecting international events to foreign policy behavior remains insufficiently explored.

This article addresses this gap by examining how emotions shape the foreign policy behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran in its interactions with the United States. Rather than treating emotions as secondary reactions to political developments, the study conceptualizes them as institutionalized and socially reproduced interpretive frameworks that influence how decision-makers understand international events and evaluate policy alternatives.

Research Question and Theoretical Argument

The central research question of this study is: How do emotions, through institutionalized appraisal processes, shape the perceptual frameworks of Iranian foreign policy decision-makers and influence the range of policy options toward the United States?

The article argues that international events do not exert a direct and automatic influence on foreign policy behavior. Instead, their political significance is mediated through processes of interpretation and evaluation embedded within official discourse and decision-making institutions. Through these institutionalized appraisal processes, external events acquire emotional meaning and generate collective emotional responses that subsequently shape strategic perceptions, policy preferences, and political choices.

Accordingly, emotions are conceptualized not merely as reflections of political developments but as intervening mechanisms that connect historical experiences and international events to foreign policy outcomes. Emotions such as hope, distrust, anger, perceived threat, and national dignity influence how actors define interests, assess risks, and determine appropriate responses in foreign policy.

Conceptual Framework

The study draws upon Appraisal Theory, particularly the work of Richard Lazarus, which posits that emotions emerge from actors’ evaluations of the significance of events for their goals, values, and interests. From this perspective, emotions are not direct consequences of objective events; rather, they arise from subjective processes through which actors interpret and assign meaning to those events.

While appraisal theory was originally developed to explain emotional responses at the individual level, this study extends the framework to the collective and institutional level of foreign policy analysis. It argues that in foreign policy contexts, appraisal processes become embedded within official narratives, institutional practices, and political discourse. Through these mechanisms, individual evaluations are transformed into collectively shared emotional orientations that structure political perceptions and strategic choices.

Individual (diplomats) or group/collective (foreign policy decision-makers) emotions are therefore understood as institutionalized emotional dispositions reproduced through official discourse, historical memory, and political narratives. Once established, these emotions become part of the interpretive infrastructure of foreign policy, shaping how subsequent events are understood and evaluated.

Based on this framework, the study proposes a causal mechanism linking four interconnected elements: international events, institutionalized appraisal, emotions, and foreign policy behavior. International events generate political consequences only when they are interpreted through institutionalized appraisal processes that produce specific emotional orientations, which subsequently influence the range of acceptable policy options.

Methodology

The research adopts a qualitative and interpretive methodology and employs Process Tracing to identify the causal mechanisms through which international events are translated into foreign policy behavior. Rather than focusing on statistical correlations, the study seeks to uncover the sequence of processes connecting external developments to political actions

The empirical analysis proceeds in three stages. First, major emotion-generating events in Iran–United States relations are identified. Second, the official interpretation and appraisal of these events are examined through political discourse. Third, the study investigates how the resulting emotions influenced policy preferences and strategic actions.

The analysis covers the evolution of Iran–United States relations from the early 2010s to the security and military developments of 2025. The primary empirical sources include official documents, political statements, and the public speeches of the martyred spiritual leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. These sources are examined not as expressions of individual emotions but as authoritative components of the official discourse through which strategic meanings, threat perceptions, and emotional orientations are produced and reproduced.

Findings

The findings demonstrate that several critical developments functioned as emotional turning points in Iran–United States relations. These include the secret negotiations conducted through Oman (2010-2011), the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the United States’ withdrawal from the agreement, the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, subsequent negotiations concerning the revival of the nuclear agreement, indirect diplomatic engagements through Oman, and the military confrontations and security crises of 2025.

These events did not simply alter the strategic environment; they transformed the emotional context within which foreign policy decisions were made. The JCPOA generated a limited but significant sense of hope regarding the possibility of diplomatic engagement and conflict management. However, the American withdrawal from the agreement fundamentally altered official interpretations of bilateral relations and reinforced narratives emphasizing mistrust, vulnerability, and strategic caution.

Subsequent developments, particularly the assassination of General Soleimani and later military confrontations, intensified collective emotions associated with anger, insecurity, threat perception, and national dignity. Through repeated reproduction in official discourse, these emotions became institutionalized and increasingly shaped how policymakers interpreted new developments and evaluated policy alternatives.

The study further reveals that institutionalized appraisal processes constitute the crucial link between international events and foreign policy behavior. Official concepts and narratives such as “heroic flexibility,” “testing the United States,” “American bad faith,” and “severe retaliation” provided interpretive frameworks through which events were understood and emotionally coded. These narratives transformed political developments into emotionally meaningful experiences and contributed to the formation of enduring collective emotional orientations.

The findings also indicate that emotions perform both enabling and constraining functions. Emotions such as hope, confidence, and national pride can expand diplomatic flexibility and facilitate engagement. Conversely, emotions such as distrust, anger, and threat perception can narrow the range of politically acceptable options and strengthen preferences for deterrence, resistance, and strategic caution.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that a comprehensive understanding of Iranian foreign policy toward the United States requires greater attention to the role of emotions and institutionalized appraisal processes. Foreign policy behavior cannot be adequately explained through material capabilities, security calculations, or ideological commitments alone. Instead, international events influence political behavior through processes of interpretation that generate and reproduce emotional orientations.

By integrating Appraisal Theory with the growing literature on emotions in International Relations, the article contributes to the development of a framework capable of explaining how historical experiences are translated into foreign policy preferences and actions. The findings suggest that emotions function as an intervening variable linking external events to political action through institutionalized processes of meaning construction.

Ultimately, Iranian foreign policy toward the United States emerges from the dynamic interaction of four interconnected elements: international events, institutionalized appraisal, emotions, and political behavior. Once embedded in institutional memory and official discourse, emotions not only shape interpretations of the past but also influence expectations, possibilities, and strategic choices regarding the future. Any analysis that overlooks these emotional and institutional dimensions’ risks missing a fundamental component of the actual logic underlying foreign policy behavior.