imiМеждународная аналитикаJournal of International Analytics2587-84762541-9633MGIMO University10.46272/2587-8476-2026-17-2-156-173imi-719Research ArticleОБЗОРНЫЕ СТАТЬИRESEARCH ESSAYОбраз Ирана во внешнеполитическом дискурсе США (1993–2024)The image of Iran in US foreign policy discourse (1993–2024)СавиныхМ. А.SavinykhM. A.

Максим Александрович Савиных, старший преподаватель Факультета политологии и международных отношений

190068, г. Санкт-Петербург, набережная канала Грибоедова, д. 123А

Maxim A. Savinykh, Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and International Affairs

123A, Kanala Griboedova Embankment, Saint Petersburg, 190068

msavinykh@hse.ruНИУ ВШЭРоссияHSE UniversityRussian Federation202617082026172156173Copyright © Савиных М.А., 20262026Савиных М.А.Savinykh M.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.interanalytics.org/jour/article/view/719

В статье анализируются образы Ирана в восприятии пяти администраций США (1993–2024). С опорой на исторический и дискурсивный институционализмы в работе прослеживается, как президенты и высокопоставленные представители внешнеполитического блока воспроизводили два ключевых мифа: о «международном сообществе» и о «странах-изгоях», – которые структурируют подход Вашингтона к Тегерану. На основе детального анализа политического дискурса истеблишмента США автор показывает, что эти мифы формируют устойчивую, зависящую от «эффекта колеи» рамку восприятия: они упрощают сложное политическое взаимодействие до дихотомии «цивилизованные / отверженные» и тем самым сужают спектр политически приемлемых решений. Хотя американские администрации по-разному сочетали курс на вовлечение и давление в отношении Ирана, различия в их подходах не были кардинальными из-за мифа о «государствах-изгоях». Таким образом, в статье объясняется парадокс устойчивой враждебности при эпизодической разрядке: риторика США в отношении Ирана, как и практическая политика, сохраняет цикличность внутри мифологически заданных границ. Иными словами, хотя в американском дискурсе об Иране имеют место и более мягкий, и более жесткий подходы, оба они по-прежнему жестко ограничиваются мифом о «государстве-изгое». В результате полная и долговременная нормализация отношений между двумя государствами оказывается невозможной.

This article analyzes the US representations of Iran across five administrations (1993–2024). Combining historical institutionalism with discursive institutionalism, the study traces how presidents and senior foreign-policy officials produced and reproduced two foundational myths – the “international community” and the “rogue states” – that represent Washington’s approach to Tehran. Based on detailed analysis of presidential statements and key policy discourse, the work argues that these myths produce a durable path-dependent framing: they simplify complex political interaction into a moralized binary (inside / outside; civilized / outcast) and thereby limit the range of politically plausible options. Although US administrations have oscillated between engagement and pressure, such stylistic and tactical differences remain confined by the underlying myths. Even administrations that pursued negotiations or rapprochement did so while implicitly sustaining the “rogue state” frame. The article therefore explains the puzzle of persistent hostility amid episodic détente: US rhetoric as well as policy towards Iran moves in circular patterns within mythic boundaries. In other words, although “dovishness” and “hawkishness” play an important role in US discourse towards Iran, both are still strictly limited by the “rogue state” framework. Such a state of affairs renders complete and lasting normalization between the two states impossible.

внешняя политика СШАИранмеждународное сообществостраны-изгоимифы в международных отношенияхUS foreign policyIraninternational communityrogue statesmyths in IR ©ReferencesAlbarasneh, Ayman Saleh, and Dania Koleilat Khatib. “The US Policy of Containing Iran – from Obama to Trump 2009–2018.” Global Affairs 5, no. 4-5 (2019): 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2019.1701951.Albarasneh, Ayman Saleh, and Dania Koleilat Khatib. “The US Policy of Containing Iran – from Obama to Trump 2009–2018.” Global Affairs 5, no. 4-5 (2019): 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2019.1701951.Arynov, Zhanibek. “Opportunity and Threat Perceptions of the EU in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.” Central Asian Survey 41, no. 4 (2022): 734–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2021.1917516.Arynov, Zhanibek. “Opportunity and Threat Perceptions of the EU in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.” Central Asian Survey 41, no. 4 (2022): 734–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2021.1917516.Blum, Douglas. “The Soviet Foreign Policy Belief System: Beliefs, Politics, and Foreign Policy Outcomes.” International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1993): 373–394. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600837.Blum, Douglas. “The Soviet Foreign Policy Belief System: Beliefs, Politics, and Foreign Policy Outcomes.” International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1993): 373–394. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600837.Campbell, David. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Manchester University Press, 1992.Campbell, David. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Manchester University Press, 1992.Davies, Graeme A. M. “Coercive Diplomacy Meets Diversionary Incentives: The Impact of US and Iranian Domestic Politics during the Bush and Obama Presidencies.” Foreign Policy Analysis 8, no. 3 (2012): 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00164.x.Davies, Graeme A. M. “Coercive Diplomacy Meets Diversionary Incentives: The Impact of US and Iranian Domestic Politics during the Bush and Obama Presidencies.” Foreign Policy Analysis 8, no. 3 (2012): 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00164.x.Davis, James. Psychology, Strategy and Conflict Perceptions of Insecurity in International Relations. Routledge, 2013. Doty, Roxanne. “Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of US Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines.” International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 3 (1993): 297–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600810.Davis, James. Psychology, Strategy and Conflict Perceptions of Insecurity in International Relations. Routledge, 2013. Doty, Roxanne. “Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of US Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines.” International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 3 (1993): 297–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600810.Duncombe, Constance. “Representation, Recognition and Foreign Policy in the Iran–US Relationship.” European Journal of International Relations 22, no. 3 (2016): 622–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115597049.Duncombe, Constance. “Representation, Recognition and Foreign Policy in the Iran–US Relationship.” European Journal of International Relations 22, no. 3 (2016): 622–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115597049.Guevara, Berit Bliesemann de, ed. Myth and Narrative in International Politics: Interpretive Approaches to the Study of IR. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53752-2.Guevara, Berit Bliesemann de, ed. Myth and Narrative in International Politics: Interpretive Approaches to the Study of IR. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53752-2.Herrmann, Richard. “The Power of Perceptions in Foreign-Policy Decision Making: Do Views of the Soviet Union Determine the Policy Choices of American Leaders?” American Journal of Political Science 30, no. 4 (1986): 841–875. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111276.Herrmann, Richard. “The Power of Perceptions in Foreign-Policy Decision Making: Do Views of the Soviet Union Determine the Policy Choices of American Leaders?” American Journal of Political Science 30, no. 4 (1986): 841–875. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111276.Hudson, Valerie M., and Benjamin S. Day. Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. 3d ed. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2019.Hudson, Valerie M., and Benjamin S. Day. Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. 3d ed. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2019.Holsti, Ole, and James Rosenau. “The Domestic and Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Leaders.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 32, no. 2 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002788032002002.Holsti, Ole, and James Rosenau. “The Domestic and Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Leaders.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 32, no. 2 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002788032002002.Hurwitz, Jon, Mark Peffley, and Mitchell Seligson. “Foreign Policy Belief Systems in Comparative Perspective: The United States and Costa Rica.” International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 3 (1993): 245–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600808.Hurwitz, Jon, Mark Peffley, and Mitchell Seligson. “Foreign Policy Belief Systems in Comparative Perspective: The United States and Costa Rica.” International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 3 (1993): 245–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600808.Jervis, Robert. “Perception and Misperception in International Politics: New Edition.” Princeton University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77bx3.Jervis, Robert. “Perception and Misperception in International Politics: New Edition.” Princeton University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77bx3.Lake, Anthony. “Confronting Backlash States.” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 2 (1994): 45–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/20045918.Lake, Anthony. “Confronting Backlash States.” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 2 (1994): 45–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/20045918.Maloney, Suzanne. “US Policy Toward Iran Since 9/11.” Politique étrangère, no. 3 (2011): 573–585. https://doi.org/10.3917/pe.113.0573.Maloney, Suzanne. “US Policy Toward Iran Since 9/11.” Politique étrangère, no. 3 (2011): 573–585. https://doi.org/10.3917/pe.113.0573.Miles, Alex. US Foreign Policy and the Rogue State Doctrine. Routledge, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203071984.Miles, Alex. US Foreign Policy and the Rogue State Doctrine. Routledge, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203071984.Pillar, Paul R. “The Role of Villain: Iran and US Foreign Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 131, no. 2 (2016): 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12479.Pillar, Paul R. “The Role of Villain: Iran and US Foreign Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 131, no. 2 (2016): 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12479.Rixen, Thomas, Lora Anne Viola, and Michael Zürn. Historical Institutionalism and International Relations: Explaining Institutional Development in World Politics. Oxford University Press, 2016.Rixen, Thomas, Lora Anne Viola, and Michael Zürn. Historical Institutionalism and International Relations: Explaining Institutional Development in World Politics. Oxford University Press, 2016.Schmidt, Vivien A. “Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism.’” European Political Science Review 2, no. 1 (2008): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577390999021X.Schmidt, Vivien A. “Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism.’” European Political Science Review 2, no. 1 (2008): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577390999021X.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.