Culture and National Identity Analysis: The Background of Great

Britain Involvement in Iran’s Nuclear Deal

Gerald Fatya Mahendra and Siti Rokhmawati Susanto

International Relations Department, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Airlangga

Keywords: Iran’s Nuclear Deal, culture, national identity, level of analysis

Abstract: The involvement of United Kingdom in Iran nuclear deal closely linked to its national culture and identity.

Such foreign policy making can be understood by identifying the national identity of the United Kingdom.

United Kingdom emphasizes the values of Western liberalism in its foreign policy-making process. However,

liberalism adopted by the United Kingdom is not passive tolerance, but rather mucular liberalism which refers

to anti-terrorism.United Kingdom interpreted the Iran’s identity as a threat.The reason behind this

interpretation is the potential of emerging Islamic radical movements in the country. Therefore, nuclear

possession by Iran became a main concern by the United Kingdom due to the the Islam identity of the country.

This phenomenon can be analyzed using an aspirational constructivism that emphasizes the past experience

and the rationality of the political elite in the process of foreign policy making. The terrorist attacks that took

place in London on 7 November became the base of the rationality of the political elite of United Kindom to

establish the differentiation between British and Islamic identities. The main purpose of the foreign policy of

the United Kingdom through its involvement in Iran's nuclear deal is to avoid the misuse of nuclear weapons

by radical Islamic movements.

1 INTRODUCTION

In 2015, Iran and the P5+1 country consisting Great

Britain, Russia, France, China, and Germany, signed

an Iranian nuclear deal in Vienna. The agreement

discusses the limits and inspections required in order

to lift economic sanctions provided by the P5+1

countries against Iran. Prior to the negotiation process,

the P5+1 countries decided to impose economic

sanctions against Iran to stop the Iranian

government’s nuclear development actions that are

perceived to threaten international stability. The

overall agreement known as the joint comprehensive

plan of action became the momentum of a rare process

of diplomacy and negotiation in the Middle East (The

Guardian, 2015). In this paper, the author will explain

the background of British involvement in the

agreement through the level of analysis of culture and

political identity.

The involvement of the Great Britain in Iran’s

nuclear deal of 2015 represents its importance to

realize international security. The main focus of the

United Kingdom after reaching an agreement is to

ensure that the agreement is well implemented and

nuclear weapons are no longer within the reach of

Iran. David Cameron as prime minister of Britain

issued a statement related to Iran’s nuclear deal in a

press conference “After persistent diplomacy and

tough sanctions, the international community has

delivered a historic deal with Iran. A deal which

secures our fundamental aim- to keep Iran from

developing a nuclear weapon- Through this assertion,

it is understood that the fundamental target of Britain

is to keep away Iran from nuclear to create world

security. There is an attempt to distinguish between

Britain (self) and Iran (others) based on culture and

national identity between the two. In this context, it is

understood that the possession of nuclear weapons by

Iran with different identities is viewed by the Britain

as a threat to international stability. Therefore, the

Britain must then participate in the implementation of

sanctions given against Iran which was re-appointed

by agreement with the joint comprehensive plan of

action.

The response provided by Britain represents the

definition of foreign policy (Wilkenfeld et. al., 1980).

According to Wilkenfeld et. al. (1980), foreign policy

is an official action initiated by sovereign states in

order to change or create conditions beyond the

territorial boundaries of the country. In connection

with Iran’s nuclear deal, it is understandable that the

involvement of Great Britain in the agreement is an

attempt to make changes to the development and

enrichment of nuclear facilities in Iran that could

threaten international stability. David Cameron (The

Guardian, 2015) argues that Iran’s nuclear deal is a

first step between the two countries to combat

extremist Islamic movements and the reopening of the

British embassy in Tehran. In an interview with Al-

Arabiya, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

(Telegraph, 2015) argued “We know about the causes

they support, the terrorist groups they have funded,

the problems they’ve contributed in the region, and we

say: ‘Step one: we’ve got them away from a nuclear

484

Mahendra, G. and Susanto, S.

Culture and National Identity Analysis: The Background of Great Britain Involvement in Iran’s Nuclear Deal.

DOI: 10.5220/0010279100002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 484-488

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

weapon; step two is to now engage with them directly

about these issues and seek changes in their behaviour

on these issues too”. Through these statements, it is

clear that differences in identity are the cornerstone of

British involvement in Iran’s nuclear deal.

In addition, it is understandable that Great Britain

defines Iran as a country with a strong Muslim culture

and identity so that Great Britain assumes that there is

funding from the terrorism’s government by the

Iranian government. Iran also suspects that such

weapons could be abused by extremist movements.

This so striking identity difference makes the writer

analyze the involvement of Great Britain with the

national identity level of analysis.

1.1 National Identity Level of Analysis

in Foreign Policy Analysis

Before a further analyzing, first the author will explain

the level of national identity analysis. Ken Booth

(1990) argues that reality is part of cultural

construction. The national identity formed within a

country is the result of the construction of the existing

culture in the country. Identity itself is a consequence

of the interpretation that arises between self and other

with the cultural basis. A country’s view of other

countries has implications for interaction patterns

with diverse consequences and depends on the

interpretation that arises. David Campbell (1999)

argues that the interpretation of a country against the

potential danger of other actors has an impact on a

country’s policy making. Culture is one of the factors

of a country in the process of making foreign policy

of a country so it is important to understand the culture

in order to find patterns of foreign policy making of a

country. In light of this cultural understanding,

Campbell (1999) then defines foreign policy to be a

process referring to a country’s relations with other

countries, differentiation practices, and a worldview

in assessing the object of foreign policy-making as

foreign. In this context, the foreign policy-making

process is separate from the country’s constitutional

mechanisms since the policy-making resolutions are

based on self-identity and the differences that usually

lie with ethnic, racial, gender, and local values.

Through the process of foreign policy making, a

country seeks to construct, produce and maintain its

political identity. Foreign policy making can also be

understood as a defensive mechanism against

outsiders that threatening the identity of a particular

country.

Anne L. Clunan (2009) explains, when viewed

from the perspective of constructivism, the national

interest is not formed from the material factors, but the

identity, norms, and other social cultural factors.

Identity forms a social structure which then becomes

the foundation of foreign policy making. Social norms

constitute possible action by considers the

consequences of social structures in the international

system. A state acts on the distribution of identities,

norms, and practices that differ from one another. One

constructivist approach is the aspirational

constructivism that assumes that national identity is

not only the result of the historical experience and

habits of the predecessors of a society, but also the

reason of the political elite to determine the national

interest of a country (Clunan, 2009). Aspirational

constructivism examines the current situation and

history to explain the formation of foreign policy by

the political elite. In this context, human beings are

represented as agents in combining past and present

perceptions that shape the national identity and

national interests of a country.

Aspirational constructivism emphasizes the

central role of aspirational logic in the making of

national identity and national interests. The base of

this perspective is the theory of social identity that

explains that a country needs the motivation of

positive distinctiveness of self-esteem from other

countries so as to form a “us” group identity. In order

to discover the distinctiveness, a state will make its

history and experience a reference in its foreign policy

determination. This is then known as aspirations

related to national identity and national interest

(Clunan, 2009). Assuming that humans need self-

esteem, so does a country that wants to obtain self-

esteem collectively from its external environment. In

order to safeguard the self-esteem, a state may

transform itself or another party. Aspiration is derived

from the need to maintain a positive self-esteem or

develop a negative self-esteem, depending on the

country’s interests. When associated with national

identity, political elites try to improve or maintain

collective self-esteem in the international system. A

country’s history of its purpose and status affects

collective self-esteem and becomes the basis of

aspiration in the present and the future.

1.2 Great Britain’s Self Image

In order to understand the identity of Great Britain, it

is important to understand how the country defines

itself in the international system. Great Britain is often

conspired to apply Western culture with a view of

liberalism that highly regarded by itself. Nonetheless,

the liberalism in question is not passive, but liberalism

opposed to the emergence of Islamic extremism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron believes that

in order to safeguard Western ideology and values,

Great Britain should implement muscular liberalism

rather than passive tolerance of liberalism. Muscular

liberalism itself refers to the notion of liberalism that

focuses on the attitude of anti-terrorism (BBC, 2011).

At a security conference in Munich, David Cameron

argued that there would be a separate oversight of the

Muslim group getting funding from the public in order

to counter extremist movements. This attitude can not

only be observed as a national self-image of Great

Britain in promoting muscular liberalism, but also as

an effort to eliminate radical movements of Islam that

Culture and National Identity Analysis: The Background of Great Britain Involvement in Iran’s Nuclear Deal

485

they identified as threats. Through the policy of

monitoring it is clear that there is a suspicion from

Britain against the Islamic groups. In this context, the

British interprets Islam as the others and considers it

a source of threat.

As liberal country, the Great Britain so upholds

freedom of expression, religious freedom, democracy,

rule of law, racial equality and gender. The adoption

of these norms became the basis of British society.

Apart from that, there is also a practical aspect that the

British political elite applied in establishing national

identity in the Great Britain. Immigrants in Great

Britain are educated to speak English and follow the

history curriculum of the Great Britain even though

they are not from there (The Guardian, 2011). It is

aimed at forming cultural commonalities in society

and to unify identity as a citizen of Great Britain. The

main purpose of the education system in such a way

is to build pride in local identity. Through community

education it can also integrate commonalities such as

Islam, Hinduism and Christianity as part of British

society. Based on that view, the assumptions that arise

in the British political elite over Iran’s nuclear

possession are countries with potential Islamic radical

movements should not have access to nuclear

weapons. There is a potential misuse of such weapons

by radical Islamic movements that are interpreted as a

threat to world peace.

When associated with national identity level of

analysis, it can be observed that there is a

differentiation practice undertaken by the Great

Britain. This phenomenon can be explained through

the perspective of aspirational constructivism which

emphasizes the historical experience as well as the

logic in the formation of identity in a country (Clunan,

2009). Through Cameron’s statement regarding

muscular liberalism, it is understandable that potential

threats can arise from minorities so that community

integration from the grass root level is essential. One

of the efforts of immigrant integration to Western

society can be observed through the British education

system that has been designed in such way in order to

establish a common understanding among the

community. Surely there is a reason behind David

Cameron’s negative view of Islam. When examined

from the historical aspect, radical movements in the

name of Islam is the main actor behind the terrorism

event in London that occurred on July 7, 2005.

Through this historical experience, the British

political elite view Islam as a potential threat to the

state. Therefore, they then formulate policies aimed at

integrating immigrant communities and counteracting

terrorist movements. Referring to the aspirational

constructivism approach, it is understandable that the

history of terrorist attacks in London has become a

separate foundation for Britain to apply policies that

can be understood as a response to an identity

perceived as a threat to the state. The formulation of

national interests in this context emphasizes the

integration of society and the efforts to eliminate

radical movements within the international system.

1.3 The Influence of National Identity

on Great Britain Involvement in

Iran’s Nuclear Deal

The Great Britain’s concern about nuclear possession

by Iran is inseparable from its historical experience

and different identity differences between the two

sides. Iran’s nuclear ownership is considered

dangerous given the regime in Tehran has the

potential to issue an aggressive foreign policy. The

assumption that Iran is the world’'s major terrorist

supporter country makes the Western countries’

interpretation of the countries with the Islamic identity

worsening. Terrorism itself often considerate as an

Iranian instrument in achieving foreign policy

interests (Levitt, 2012). In response to this, the Great

Britain which also has a bad interpretation of Islam

then imposed economic sanctions to suppress the

movement of radical movements in Iran. The

background of Iranian identity that does not apply the

values of liberalism within its country also serves as a

basis for poor perception of the Great Britain against

Iran. Therefore, the Great Britain and other P5+1

countries strongly doubt nuclear possession and

development in Iran. The proximity of the Iranian

government to terrorism is considered to be linked to

attacks in the United States, Germany, Great Britain,

and France. When analyzed using an aspirational

constructivism approach, the attacks that occurred in

London on November 7 became the foundation of

British rationality to establish the differentiation

between British and Islamic identities. The Great

Britain’s intention in Iran’s nuclear deal is to avoid the

misuse of nuclear weapons by terrorists.

Following the conclusion of Iran’s nuclear deal,

the main focus of the Great Britain is to ensure the

outcome of the deal is well implemented and nuclear

weapons are not within Iran’s reach. Through the

official press website, the foreign secretary of the

Great Britain believes that the Great Britain will

continue to work with its international counterparts to

encourage Iran to play a transparent and constructive

role in regional affairs, especially in the struggle

against Islamic extremism (gov.uk., 2015). Through

that opinion, the Great Britain identified that

radicalism movements in Iran were a threat. Access to

these movements against nuclear certainly can

threaten international stability. Therefore, the British

government then intends to direct the Iran government

in a transparent and constructive direction so that

movements of Islamic radical groups can be

prevented. The assistance provided by Britain to Iran

was given as an attempt to change the external

situation beyond the territorial boundaries of Great

Britain. Such an effort can be assumed to be a form of

representation of Wilkenfeld et. al’s foreign policy

definition which defines it as an official action

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

486

initiated by a sovereign state in order to alter or create

conditions beyond the territorial boundaries of that

country. In this context, it is understood that the object

of foreign policy of the Great Britain is to alter the

domestic situation of Iran which is interpreted as

having a close connection with terrorism. The signing

of the joint comprehensive plan of action is the first

step for the Great Britain to construct, produce and

preserve its political identity from the threat of

terrorism. Such efforts can be achieved by the

granting of limitation to the nuclear enrichment

control program against civilian nuclear program.

Not only that, Cameron’s mistrust of Iran was also

conveyed through an interview. He argues that Great

Britain should not be naive in view of the Iranian

regime. Cameron also stressed that Iran is a country

with poor infrastructure, enforcement of justice, and

human rights. Therefore, Iran’s nuclear deal is a good

start to make the world safer (NBC, 2015). Through

these interviews, it is clear that the differentiation

practices underlying the Great Britain to participate in

Iran’s nuclear deal. The entire agreement is

established on the basis of verification, accountability,

and steps that can be taken in response to violations

committed by Iran. A set of mechanisms are intended

to construct external situations caused by threats of

identity interpretation. The rationality of Great Britain

to participate in Iran’s nuclear deal was formed due to

a threat consideration which was further justified by

past experience when Great Britain was attacked by

radical Islamic movements. These variables then

turned into the aspirations of the British political elite

to create an international system free from radical

Islamic movements. Through, Iran’s nuclear deal, the

Great Britain has the opportunity to construct an

interpreted situation that can pose a threat. The

external situations’ construction efforts are reflected

in the pressure placed by the Great Britain on Iran in

order to change its behavior. The pressure was aimed

at forcing Iran to agree on a joint comprehensive plan

of action agreement.

Through a prolonged process of diplomacy, the

Great Britain succeeded in becoming a contributor in

the process of adjusting Iranian identity to no longer

be perceived as a threat. Michael Fallon, the Great

Britain’s Minister of Defense, believes the Iran’s

nuclear deal could help build mutual trust between the

parties and prevent the nuclear race in the Middle East

region (Dailymail, 2015). When analyzed using a

constructivism approach, the agreement made by the

Great Britain with Iran is a form of the Great Britain’s

efforts to maintain its self-esteem. There are two

options for a country to maintain self esteem, i.e.

changing its own identity or external environment. In

this context, Great Britain already has a high self-

esteem of its values in view of the P5 + 1 countries

applying relatively similar values to the Great Britain.

The similarity of view makes the P5+1 countries

identify Iran as a threat. Therefore, the five countries

have the intention to make joint comprehensive plan

of action in order to change the external party that is

Iran. Through the agreement, these countries are

working to change Iran’s internal situation by granting

the IAEA access to monitor Iran’s nuclear

development. The change must also have an impact

on self-esteem. With external pressure, Iran was

forced to approve the agreement and change its

internal situation to fit the values adopted by the P5+1

countries. Adjustments made by Iran can have

implications for the improved relations of Great

Britain with Iran, as Iran is no longer identified as a

source of threat. In addition, the appointment of

economic and financial sanctions represents the great

possibility given to Iran in determining a positive

policy in the Middle East region. Full implementation

and Iran’s compliance with inspection and

verification is the most effective way to stop Iran’s

military nuclear program in order to create regional

security.

2 CONCLUSION

Based on the above explanations, the authors

conclude that the national identity of Great Britain is

closely related to Western culture and the view of

liberalism becomes its own impetus in the process of

foreign policy making to participate in Iran’s nuclear

deal. It should be emphasized that the values held by

the Great Britain have their own distinction.

Liberalism emphasized by the Great Britain is a

muscular liberalism oriented to the values of anti-

terrorism and not a pasive tolerant. Through this

understanding, the Great Britain established a policy

to provide oversight of public funding inputs to

Muslim groups in order to prevent the movement of

extremist Islam. Through this policy, it is clear that

the interpretation of the elite of the Great Britain

against Islam in view of the potential threat of Islamic

identity. Referring to the perspective of aspirational

constructivism, a process of foreign policy-making is

the result of rationalizing political elites based on

history and current situation. When analyzed using

this approach, the involvement of Great Britain in

Iran’s nuclear deal is the result of a consideration of

the history of terrorism attacks in London on July 7,

2015 and the fact that Iran is the largest fund-raising

country for the terrorist movement. Through such

engagement, Great Britain can shape the domestic

situation in Iran to no longer be a threat. In this

context, it can be understood that the Great Britain

interpreted the identity of Islam as the others and

considered it a source of threat. The Great Britain’s

intention in Iran’s nuclear deal is to avoid the misuse

of nuclear weapons by terrorists given the potential

for the emergence of radical movements with Islamic

identity. Therefore, the Great Britain must respond to

its nuclear ownership to prevent the worst-case

scenario. This interpretation of identity to Iran then

Culture and National Identity Analysis: The Background of Great Britain Involvement in Iran’s Nuclear Deal

487

becomes the base of foreign policy making for the

Great Britain to participate in Iran’s nuclear deal.

The achievement of Iran’s nuclear deal became an

opportunity for Great Britain to construct,

manufacture and preserve its political identity from

the threat of terrorism. The main focus of the Great

Britain after the signing of Iran’s nuclear deal is to

ensure that the agreement is well implemented and

nuclear weapons are no longer within Iran’s reach.

The background of Iranian identity that doesn’t apply

the values of liberalism in its government is also a

determinant factor of the involvement of the Great

Britain. The Great Britain has a bad perception of Iran

given the condition of the domestic regime in the

country that not in line with Western values so the

potential for nuclear weapons misuse is assumed

higher. In addition, the concept of a country’s self-

esteem can also be used to explain the involvement of

Great Britain in the agreement. The involvement of

Great Britain in Iran’s nuclear deal may be interpreted

as an attempt to maintain its self-esteem. There are

two options for a country to maintain self esteem, i.e.

change its identity or change its external environment.

In the context of Iran’s nuclear deal, the Great Britain

seeks to change Iran over the self-esteem referring

that the understanding between Great Britain and the

P5 + 1 countries are quite high. The author argues that

Iran’s nuclear deal could be the beginning of a good

relationship between Britain and Iran. After being

interrupted, the relationship between the two can be

re-established with the identity construction efforts

undertaken by the Great Britain and other P5 + 1

countries. Referring to the identity of Great Britain,

the main purpose of foreign policy of the Great Britain

by joining the Iran nuclear deal is because of the

government of the Great Britain directed the Iranian

government in a transparent and constructive

direction so that movements of Islamic radical groups

can be prevented.

REFERENCES

Booth, Ken. 1980. Strategic Power: USA/USSR. Palgrave

Macmillan UK.

Campbell, David. 1990. Global Inscription: How Foreign

Policy Constitutes the United States, Alternatives:

Global, Local, Political, 15(3); pp. 263-286.

Clunan, Anne L. 2009. The Social Construction of Russia’s

Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity, and Security

Interests. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins

University Press. Ch.1 & 2.

Dailymail. 2015. UK defends Iran nuclear agreement

[Online]. in

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-

3024383/Cameron-hails-Iran-nuclear-deal.html

[accessed on December 14, 2017].

Gov.uk. 2015. Foreign Secretary welcomes nuclear deal

with Iran[Online]. in

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-

secretary-welcomes-nuclear-deal-with-iran [accessed

on December 14, 2017].

Gov.uk. 2015. Prime Minister's statement on Iran's nuclear

programme [Online]. in

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-

ministers-statement-on-irans-nuclear-programme

[accessed on December 14, 2017].

Levit, Matthew. 2012. Iran’s Support for Terrorism in the

Middle East [Online]. in

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documen

ts/testimony/LevittTestimony20120725.pdf [accessed

on December 14, 2017],

NBC. 2015. British Prime Minister David Cameron: Iran

Deal ‘Better Than the Alternative [Online]. In

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-

talks/prime-minister-cameron-iran-deal-better-

alternative-n394661 [accessed on December 14, 2017],

Telegraph. 2015. David Cameron says ‘we have no starry-

eyed naïvety’ about Iran [Online]. In

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-

cameron/11747929/David-Cameron-says-we-have-no-

starry-eyed-naivety-about-Iran.html [accessed on

December 14, 2017],

Theguardian. 2011. Job anguish for immigrants as English

language courses face cuts[Online]. In dalam

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/feb/13/e

nglish-language-teaching-immigrants-cutbacks

[accessed on December 14, 2017].

Theguardian. 2015. David Cameron: we will not relax

pressure on Iran [Online]. in

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/17/camer

on-we-will-not-relax-pressure-on-iran [accessed on

December 14, 2017].

Theguardian. 2015. Iran nuclear deal reached in Vienna

[Online]. in

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/iran-

nuclear-deal-expected-to-be-announced-in-vienna

[accessed on December 14, 2017017].

Wilkenfeld, Jonathan et al. 1980.Foreign Policy Behaviour,

the Interstate Behaviour Analysis Model. London: Sage

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

488