The Liberal Institutionalism of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action faced by Iran and the Middle East’s Realpolitik

Abstract

The sustainability and early successes of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action have been questioned from the beginning. The unfolding failure of the JCPOA can be explained through a theoretical framework of the classic theories of international relations. The divergence between liberalism and realism is one that is difficult to reconcile. The continuous diplomatic and scholarly efforts aim to bridge the gap between differing natures impacted by various variables. However, it is crucial to focus on the concepts that underpin state behaviour to achieve long-term conflict resolution outcomes and sustainable peace and security.

The research aims to explore the nuclear deal with regards to the opposing theories that define the parties involved in its creation and implementation - assessing how the clash between the Middle East’s realpolitik and the liberal approach of the West may leave little to no room for an effective and sustainable deal. Reading the agreement through the lenses of realism and liberalism would provide relevant insight into the current state of international affairs while attempting to pinpoint the shortcomings during negotiations and drafting of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that led to its inevitable failure. To study the effectiveness of liberal institutionalism and idealism within a realist paradigm, and how that affects the motives and therefore, the outcome of negotiations. Subsequent study and analysis of qualitative data and existing literature was conducted to determine the efficacy of liberal intuitionalism’s efficacy when faced by realism under the JCPOA. Conclusions highlight the importance of understanding political ideologies and the role they play in shaping the way international affairs is conducted and how it may be further improved.