On July 14, 2015, under the leadership of the Obama administration, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal—was signed. After 35 years of diplomatic isolation, the agreement marked a watershed moment in the United States–Iran relations and achieved a key US national security objective regarding nuclear non-proliferation. However, the agreement faced significant domestic opposition grounded in concerns that Iran was untrustworthy. Yet, the prospect of withdrawal generated a sense of insecurity that the United States’s status as a “responsible world leader” would be undermined, despite ongoing anxieties around Iran’s compliance. What explains such a paradox in foreign policy preferences? By incorporating discursive institutionalist approaches with ontological security perspectives, I work to show how President Obama’s entry into the agreement generated ontological insecurities as he struggled to displace existing narratives around Iran as a hostile, untrustworthy actor. Yet, Iran’s compliance with the agreement made it equally difficult for Trump to justify withdrawal; instead, his efforts raised additional concerns that America’s international standing would be undermined. Theoretically, this paper incorporates discursive institutionalist insights with ontological security to disaggregate how different conceptions of the “Self” are contested and activated in policy debates in ways that lead to instability and variation in US foreign policy.

中文翻译：

---

本体论安全与伊朗核协议——解释美国外交政策利益的不稳定

2015年7月14日，在奥巴马政府主导下，伊朗核协议签署。经过 35 年的外交孤立后，该协议标志着美国与伊朗关系的分水岭，并实现了美国在核不扩散方面的关键国家安全目标。然而，由于担心伊朗不值得信任，该协议遭到了国内的强烈反对。然而，撤军的前景产生了一种不安全感，即美国作为“负责任的世界领导人”的地位将受到损害，尽管人们对伊朗的遵守感到持续担忧。如何解释外交政策偏好的这种悖论？通过将话语制度主义方法与本体论安全观点相结合，我致力于展示奥巴马总统在加入该协议时如何产生了本体论上的不安全感，因为他努力取代有关伊朗的现有叙述，将其视为一个敌对的、不值得信任的演员。然而，伊朗遵守协议的情况让特朗普同样难以证明其撤军的合理性。相反，他的努力引发了人们对美国国际地位将受到损害的更多担忧。从理论上讲，本文将话语制度主义见解与本体论安全相结合，以分解不同的“自我”概念如何在政策辩论中争论和激活，从而导致美国外交政策的不稳定和变化。伊朗遵守协议也让特朗普同样难以证明其退出的合理性；相反，他的努力引发了人们对美国国际地位将受到损害的更多担忧。从理论上讲，本文将话语制度主义见解与本体论安全相结合，以分解不同的“自我”概念如何在政策辩论中争论和激活，从而导致美国外交政策的不稳定和变化。伊朗遵守协议也让特朗普同样难以证明其退出的合理性；相反，他的努力引发了人们对美国国际地位将受到损害的更多担忧。从理论上讲，本文将话语制度主义见解与本体论安全相结合，以分解不同的“自我”概念如何在政策辩论中争论和激活，从而导致美国外交政策的不稳定和变化。