More than four decades have passed since the onset of the strategic confrontation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States. Throughout this period, governments in both Tehran and Washington have changed, the international environment has undergone profound transformation, the Soviet Union has collapsed, the unipolar moment has emerged and gradually given way to signs of an increasingly multipolar order. Yet despite these sweeping changes, one of the most enduring features of contemporary international politics has remained the persistence of tensions between Iran and the United States.
Most existing analyses explain this enduring rivalry through concepts such as geopolitical competition, security dilemmas, deterrence, economic sanctions, or ideological conflict. While these factors are undoubtedly important, a fundamental question remains unanswered: if the dispute were merely a matter of material interests or rational calculations, why did periods of limited cooperation—such as the indirect coordination following the September 11 attacks, the nuclear negotiations, and ultimately the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—fail to produce a lasting normalization of bilateral relations?
A more convincing answer may lie at a deeper analytical level—one concerned with identity, historical memory, dignity, humiliation, the desire for autonomy, and the quest for recognition. The psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan provides a valuable conceptual framework for examining these less visible dimensions of international politics. Unlike conventional approaches that view human behavior primarily as the product of rational calculation or material interests, Lacan emphasizes the centrality of identity, desire, lack, and recognition in shaping both individual and collective action. From his perspective, actors do not merely seek to maximize objective interests; they also strive to establish their position vis-à-vis the "Other" and to attain a sense of symbolic and ontological security. Over the past two decades, a growing body of International Relations scholarship has employed Lacanian concepts to demonstrate that states, much like individuals, pursue status, recognition, and the mitigation of ontological insecurity arising from experiences of lack. This perspective enables scholars to examine the symbolic and identity-based dimensions of international conflict alongside conventional material and security considerations. From this standpoint, the conflict between Iran and the United States is not simply a dispute between two states over incompatible interests; rather, it represents a confrontation between two competing identity narratives and two distinct political projects seeking to define their respective positions within the international order.
Iran and the Question of Historical Lack
The concept of lack occupies a central place in Lacanian thought. According to Lacan, the human subject is constituted by an inherent sense of incompleteness, and much of human action can be understood as an attempt to compensate for this fundamental absence. At the national level, one may similarly argue that states and nations carry historical experiences that continuously reproduce feelings of deprivation and loss.
In the Iranian case, contemporary historical memory is deeply shaped by events that are represented in the official discourse of the Islamic Republic as manifestations of foreign intervention and the denial of national sovereignty. The 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, decades of the Pahlavi regime's strategic dependence on the United States, Western support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, and the extensive sanctions regime have all contributed to the construction of this historical memory. Within this context, the Islamic Revolution is understood not merely as a domestic political transformation but as an attempt to restore Iran's independence, dignity, and historical agency. Consequently, many of the Islamic Republic's major strategic choices cannot be adequately explained through conventional cost-benefit calculations alone. Rather, they should be understood as elements of a broader project aimed at redefining Iran's place within the international system.
The Desire for Independence and the Politics of Recognition
One of Lacan's most well-known propositions is that "man's desire is the desire of the Other." This should not be interpreted as a simple desire to imitate others; rather, it signifies the subject's aspiration to be recognized by the Other. In international politics, many state behaviors can likewise be interpreted as attempts to acquire status and recognition.
From this perspective, one of the defining characteristics of the Islamic Republic's foreign policy has been its effort to establish Iran as an autonomous and independent actor rather than a subordinate participant in international affairs. Within this framework, issues such as the nuclear program, the development of strategic technologies, regional policy, and participation in emerging international institutions should not be viewed solely as material instruments of statecraft. They also carry significant symbolic meaning. Official Iranian narratives consistently emphasize the sovereign right to independent decision-making and reject hierarchical structures of international power. Accordingly, an important dimension of Iran's confrontation with the United States can be understood as part of its broader struggle to secure recognition as an independent political actor.
The Nuclear Program: Beyond Technology
In dominant Western analyses, Iran's nuclear program is generally framed as a security issue associated with nuclear non-proliferation. From a Lacanian perspective, however, its significance cannot be reduced to its technical or military dimensions alone.
Over the past two decades, the nuclear program has evolved into one of the most powerful symbols of Iran's scientific and technological independence. Among both political elites and large segments of public opinion, it has come to represent not merely a technological enterprise but also a demonstration of Iran's ability to overcome externally imposed constraints and achieve scientific advancement. In Lacanian terms, the nuclear program has become an object of desire—an object embodying broader aspirations for national independence, dignity, and progress. Consequently, attempts to restrict it have frequently been interpreted not simply as technical demands but as efforts to constrain Iran's broader international role and status.
The Islamic Republic's Political Fantasy and the International Order
Another key concept in Lacanian theory is fantasy. In this context, fantasy should not be understood as mere imagination or illusion. Rather, it refers to the symbolic framework through which political action acquires meaning and coherence.
Within the discourse of the Islamic Republic, one of the central political fantasies is the vision of an international order in which the dominance of great powers gradually diminishes and independent nations enjoy greater opportunities to shape global affairs. Accordingly, the decline of unipolarity and the emergence of new centers of power are interpreted as signs of the gradual realization of this broader historical vision. Concepts such as a "multipolar world," the "Look East" strategy, "Global South cooperation," and a "post-Western international order" constitute important elements of this political fantasy. Their significance lies not merely in their practical utility but also in their capacity to provide a meaningful narrative about Iran's place in the evolving international system.
Why Is the Conflict Continually Reproduced?
One of the most influential concepts in contemporary Lacanian International Relations scholarship is ontological security. According to this perspective, states seek not only physical security but also the preservation of a stable and coherent sense of identity.
Over the past four decades, confrontation with the United States has become one of the defining components of the Islamic Republic's political identity. Conversely, within many American foreign policy narratives, Iran has been constructed as one of the principal symbols of resistance to a U.S.-led international order. As a result, both actors have increasingly come to define themselves through their relationship with one another. Consequently, even during periods in which opportunities for cooperation have emerged, entrenched identity structures have often prevented the development of durable mutual trust. Under such circumstances, conflict is not merely the consequence of divergent material interests; it is also reproduced through competing narratives in which each side plays a constitutive role in the other's construction of the Self.
Conclusion
The relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States cannot be adequately explained solely through the conventional concepts of International Relations. A significant part of the persistence of this conflict stems from symbolic, psychological, and identity-based dynamics that remain largely overlooked in mainstream analyses. A Lacanian perspective demonstrates that beneath many geopolitical confrontations lie deeper questions concerning status, recognition, historical memory, and ontological security. From this viewpoint, the Islamic Republic of Iran may be understood as a political actor that, alongside the pursuit of material interests, seeks to consolidate its position as an autonomous and legitimate power within the international system. Recognizing this identity dimension is essential not only for understanding Iran's foreign policy but also for explaining the remarkable durability of one of the most enduring strategic rivalries in contemporary international politics.

Sajad Atazade, Research Fellow, Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS)