Analysis of Misperception in U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Iran: Roots and Legal and Political Consequences

Abstract

This article examines the central role of misperception in shaping U.S. foreign policy toward Iran and the enduring legal and political consequences that emerge from this distorted interpretive framework. Moving beyond materialist explanations of conflict, the study demonstrates that persistent tensions are driven primarily by cognitive bias, cultural misrepresentation, and institutionalized patterns of misunderstanding. Drawing upon an integrated theoretical framework that combines cognitive approaches to misperception with interpretive analysis of political meaning, the research traces how U.S. policymakers have repeatedly constructed Iran through fixed narratives of threat, irrationality, and hostility. These representations have structured strategic assessments, restricted diplomatic imagination, and legitimized coercive policies whose outcomes consistently contradict their stated objectives. The article further shows how such misperceptions have produced significant consequences within Iran, including the consolidation of a resistance-based national identity, the legal-political justification of defense and regional strategies, and the institutionalization of economic self-reliance. Rather than weakening Iranian resolve, U.S. pressure has strengthened internal cohesion and expanded Iran’s regional influence through the Axis of Resistance. At the international level, misperception has contributed to the failure of major diplomatic initiatives, most notably the collapse of the JCPOA, while accelerating regional instability and eroding U.S. credibility. The findings reveal that misperception functions as a self-reinforcing structure embedded within policymaking institutions and political discourse, rendering strategic learning extremely difficult. The study concludes that sustainable conflict management between Iran and the United States is unattainable without a fundamental reassessment of the cognitive and cultural foundations of policy interpretation.