Behavioral Comparison of Iran's Foreign Policy (Discourse of Value- Oriented Idealism and That of Value - Oriented Ideological Pragmatism)

Discourse analysis as one of the methods of study of phenomena in humanities addresses the impact of systematic ideas and thoughts on social affairs. Each discourse system has got three characteristics: dominance, opposition, and agency. According to the dominance project, a system attempts to dominate on a society as a whole. This system needs an external "other " to justify its own existence. While a discourse system loses its justifying competency, its forces start redefining that discourse automatically. Following Banisadr's deposal from presidency, Islamism discourse dominated by putting aside the liberal-national discourse. This discourse, surviving up to now, has focused on signifiers as: social justice, defense of the oppressed, anti-oppression campaign; and redefined the west, especially the US, as an external "other". Focusing on signifiers as security and power, the micro-discourses of this dominant discourse have marked its core signifiers. Therefore, adopting such an approach,we will compare two dominant discourses: the value-oriented idealism, and the value-oriented ideological pragmatism which occurred during two periods, 1360-68, and from 1384 up to now. Because of insisting on signifiers of Islamism such as social justice, anti-oppression campaign, defense of the oppressed and anti-arrogance. These two discourses have similar contents in spite of certain formal distinctions.The present article examines this formal distinction and content similarity in three levels: micro –in case of Afghanistan and Iraq-, meso-in case of Lebanon and Palestine-, and macro in that of the US and Britain.