DOMESTIC POLITICS AND NUCLEAR POSTURING: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF U.S. AND IRANIAN DECISION-MAKING

Abstract

Domestic politics play a pivotal role in shaping national security strategies, particularly in the realm of nuclear policy. This study investigates how internal political structures, elite preferences, institutional frameworks, and public opinion influence nuclear posturing in both the United States and Iran. The aim is to comparatively analyze the decision-making processes behind nuclear policy in these two ideologically and structurally distinct states. This qualitative research employs process tracing, content analysis of policy documents, and elite discourse to understand how leadership transitions, legislative dynamics, and political factions’ impact nuclear stances. Data interpretation relies on comparative case study methodology, focusing on key periods such as the Obama-Trump-Biden transitions in the U.S. and Rouhani-Raisi shifts in Iran. The findings reveal that while the U.S. emphasizes institutional continuity and checks and balances, Iranian nuclear decision-making is deeply intertwined with elite consensus shaped by the Supreme Leader and Revolutionary Guard influence. In both cases, political rhetoric diverges from technical nuclear policy, driven by domestic legitimacy concerns. The study recommends that international diplomacy account for domestic political cycles when negotiating nuclear agreements, particularly under volatile leadership changes. It also suggests enhancing transparency mechanisms to build trust across ideological divides. Future implications include the necessity for adaptive diplomatic frameworks that respond to internal political drivers, rather than assuming static state behavior. Overall, this research contributes to a nuanced understanding of how domestic politics condition global nuclear diplomacy, especially between adversarial states.