Role Theory and Role Conflict in U.S.-Iran Relations ─ Enemies of Our Own Making

U.S.-Iran relations continue to be an international security problem in the Middle East. These two countries could have been friends, but instead they have become enemies. Stating this thesis raises the following questions: Why are the United States and Iran enemies? How and when did this relationship come to be? When the relationship began to deteriorate, could it have been reversed? What lessons can be learned from an analysis of past U.S.-Iranian relations and what are the implications for their present and future relations?

Akan Malici and Stephen G. Walker argue that the dynamics of U.S.-Iran relations are based onrole conflicts. Iran has long desired to enact roles of active independence and national sovereignty in world politics. However, it continued to be cast by others into client or rebel roles of national inferiority. In this book, they examine these role conflicts during three crucial episodes in U.S.-Iran relations: the oil nationalization crisis and the ensuing clandestine coup aided by the CIA to overthrow the Iranian regime in 1950-1953; the Iranian revolution followed by the hostage crisis in 1979-1981; the reformist years pre- and post- 9/11 under Mohammad Khatami from 1997 to 2002. This role theory framework is theoretically and methodologically progressive and innovative in illuminating aspects of U.S.-Iran relations. It allows for a better understanding of the past, navigating the present, and anticipating the future in order to avoid foreign policy mistakes.

Role Theory and Role Conflict in U.S.-Iran Relations will be a useful resource for international relations and foreign policy scholars wanting to be introduced to or extend their knowledge of the field.

Akan Malici is Associate Professor of Political Science at Furman University and the author ofWhen Leaders Learn and When They Don't (SUNY, 2008) and The Search for a Common European Foreign and Security Policy (Palgrave, 2008). He is also the co-author ofU.S. Presidents and Foreign Policy Mistakes (Stanford, 2011), the co-editor ofRe-thinking Foreign Policy Analysis (Routledge, 2011) and Political Science Research in Practice (Routledge, 2012). His published articles appear in theJournal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Peace Research, and Political Psychology.

Stephen G. Walker is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Arizona State University. He has editedRole Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis (Duke, 1987), co-edited Beliefs and Political Leadership in World Politics(Palgrave, 2006) and Re-thinking Foreign Policy Analysis (Routledge, 2011), co-authoredU.S. Presidents and Foreign Policy Mistakes (Stanford, 2011), and authoredRole Theory and the Cognitive Architecture of British Appeasement Decisions (Routledge, 2013). He has published over sixty papers in journals and edited volumes, including "The Psychology of Presidential Decision Making," inThe Oxford Handbook of the American Presidency (Oxford, 2009).