NUCLEAR HEDGING VS. DISARMAMENT: COMPETING SECURITY NARRATIVES IN U.S.-IRAN DISCOURSE

Abstract

This study examines the competing security narratives of nuclear hedging and disarmament in U.S.-Iran relations, analyzing how these strategies shape diplomatic engagements and geopolitical tensions. By employing qualitative discourse analysis of official statements, policy documents, and multilateral agreements (e.g., JCPOA), the research investigates how the U.S. frames Iran’s nuclear ambiguity as a proliferation threat, while Iran positions its hedging as a deterrent against perceived Western coercion, leveraging disarmament rhetoric to legitimize its stance. Thematic coding of diplomatic exchanges (2002–2023) reveals that both nations weaponize historical grievances and security dilemmas to justify their positions, with the U.S. emphasizing non-proliferation norms and Iran invoking sovereignty and asymmetrical power dynamics. Findings indicate that nuclear hedging perpetuates mistrust, undermining disarmament goals, while rigid disarmament frameworks fail to address Iran’s security anxieties, fueling a cycle of escalation. Recommendations include confidence-building measures, such as phased sanctions relief tied to verified transparency, and multilateral forums to reframe security narratives beyond zero-sum paradigms. Future implications warn of regional arms races if narratives remain unaligned, advocating for hybrid approaches that integrate verification mechanisms with reciprocal security guarantees. The study concludes that sustainable resolution requires reconciling structural inequities in global nuclear governance, balancing disarmament idealism with pragmatic hedging realities to foster cooperative security architectures.