Nuclear Diplomacy and Compromise Model in Iran’s Foreign Policy

The strategy of compromise in foreign policy has diversified outcomes and consequences. John J. Mearsheimer believes that compromise can provide the ground for escalation of crisis and raise the growing expectations of the players in the regional and international environments. James Richardson takes the policy of compromise as end of ideological controversy among countries. He considers compromise as the strategy of meeting peace and security through diplomacy. Under certain conditions, compromise can gain strategic importance in diplomacy of countries and reveal signs of cooperation to attain balanced national security and interests to counter threats. The nuclear diplomacy and its outcome base on the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCAP) show that compromise can control and check the national goals and strategic powers of such countries as Iran that is subject to international commitments. The main question of the article is: “What a sort of outcome has the strategy of compromise in nuclear diplomacy left in the field of national interest and foreign policy?” The hypothesis of the article is: “Nuclear diplomacy based on the strategy of compromise has given way to minimizing threats and phased removal of economic and strategic sanctions.” In designing the article, the “strategy of institutionalized neoliberal” was used as the theoretic framework of the paper.