دانشگاه رازی مطالعات اقتصاد سیاسی بین الملل 2383-3602 9 1 2026 05 22 Representation of two Opposing and Interactive Models of Foreign Policy in Iran Based on the Distinction between Spirit-Based and Appetite-Based Societies: A Comparative Analysis of the Mossadegh and Rouhani eras بازنمایی دو الگوی تقابلی و تعاملی سیاست خارجی ایران بر مبنای تمایز جوامع روح‌بنیان و اشتهابنیان: تحلیل مقایسه‌ای دوره‌های مصدق و روحانی 125 140 4272 10.22126/ipes.2026.13681.1820 FA حمید یحیوی استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران. 0000-0002-5533-4222 نجف شیخ سرایی استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران. 0000-0002-0661-3268 Journal Article 2026 02 27 This article offers a comparative analysis of Iran’s foreign policy during the administrations of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and Dr. Hassan Rouhani, based on the conceptual distinction between “spirit-based” and “appetite-based” societies. The theoretical framework draws on Platonic philosophical anthropology and contemporary reinterpretations of thymos in the thought of Hegel and Fukuyama. Within thi framework, when reason serves “spirit,” a pattern of behavior oriented toward dignity, recognition, and independence emerges; when reason serves “appetite,” political conduct becomes primarily directed toward material interests, welfare, and economic calculation. The central question of the article is why Mossadegh adopted a confrontational foreign policy toward external powers, whereas Rouhani pursued a strategy of engagement and cooperation. The main hypothesis argues that the predominance of spirit-based elements during Mossadegh’s era and appetite-based elements during Rouhani’s presidency led to the formation of two distinct foreign policy models. The findings indicate that during the oil nationalization movement, national dignity and political independence took precedence over economic considerations, resulting in a confrontational approach. In contrast, under Rouhani, resolving the nuclear crisis and lifting sanctions aimed at attracting foreign investment and improving domestic welfare became the primary objective, transforming foreign policy into an instrument of economic development. Using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on historical and documentary sources, the article concludes that the divergence between these two models stems from differing conceptions of human nature, national interest, and the relationship between dignity and welfare. At the same time, the experience of both periods suggests that the absence of a sustainable balance between spirit and appetite may generate structural challenges in foreign policy. <strong> Introduction </strong> This article seeks to conduct a comparative analysis of Iran's foreign policy during the Dr. Mosaddegh and Dr. Hassan Rouhani administrations. The main research question is that Why did Mosaddegh pursue a policy of confrontation, whereas Rouhani chose the path of cooperation? The article's hypothesis is that during Mosaddegh's era, the reason of Iranian society served ‘the spirit’, leading him, as a representative of this society, to adopt a ‘spirit-based’ foreign policy. Conversely, during Rouhani's era, society's reason served ‘the appetites’, leading him, as a representative of such society, to pursue an ‘appetite-based’ foreign policy. In the nationalization of the oil industry movement, the element of dignity-seeking and independence-seeking prevailed over economic interests. However, in Rouhani's era, it was believed that cooperation between foreign capital and domestic labor could benefit the national economy. <strong> Theoretical framework </strong> The theoretical framework of this article is based on the foundations of Platonic political philosophy and also reinterpretations of the concept of "spirit" in the thought of philosophers such as Hegel. In Plato's view, humans possess three main drives: appetite, reason, and thymos. If reason is placed in the service of the thymos, virtues such as courage, self-esteem, independence-seeking, and self-sacrifice are strengthened in society. Plato described thymos as a part of human desire that encompasses anger, shame, and the need for "recognition." Hegel calls thymos the "desire for recognition" and considers it the source of history movement. Fukuyama, based on his own reading of Hegel, argues that the desire for recognition is a driving force behind many political and social transformations.      When reason comes to serve appetite, material interests take precedence in individual and social motivations. Adam Smith published ‘The Wealth of Nations’ in 1776. The main message of ‘The Wealth of Nations’ is that there is coordination between the activities of profit-seeking individuals and the provision of public goods for the whole society.      Considering the above, two types of society can be distinguished, which form the basis for two different behaviors in politics: First, a spirit-based society, in which humans strive to gain respect. Second, an appetite-based society, in which human behavior is based on achievement to material interests. <strong> Method </strong> The methodology of this article is descriptive-analytical and, using historical sources and documents, seeks to comparatively analyze the intellectual foundations of Iran's foreign policy in two historical periods. Therefore, the article does not aim to adopt a prescriptive approach toward these two periods. <strong> Discussion </strong> Mosaddegh, leader of the National Front, pursued a policy of oil nationalization. Initially, the National Front emphasized two advantages of oil nationalization: first, increased economic revenue; and second, preservation of political independence. However, the aspect of independence-seeking eventually prevailed over economic interests. Mosaddegh rejected international proposals to resolve the oil crisis due to their contradiction with the principle of nationalization. In his view, the activities of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company not only intensified the economic interest conflict between Iran and Britain but also constituted a form of national humiliation and damage to Iranian dignity. The oil nationalization movement can be considered the crystallization of a spirit-based approach in foreign policy.      Hassan Rouhani directed his administration toward "saving the country's economy, reviving ethics and constructive interaction with the world." Rouhani based his foreign policy on resolving the nuclear dispute and returning Iran to the global economy. The Rouhani administration believed that cooperation with global powers, especially Europe, could bring foreign capital back to Iran, accelerate economic growth, and reduce international tensions. Highlighting the country's young workforce, high rate of university education, abundant oil and gas resources, and industrial capacities, Rouhani presented Iran as an attractive location for investment. Rouhani's foreign policy was an attempt to connect foreign capital, natural resources, and domestic labor. The approach that aligns with the theoretical framework of "appetite-based society." <strong> Conclusion </strong> This article, relying on the theoretical framework distinguishing between spirit-based and appetite-based societies, conducted a comparative analysis of the foreign policies of two administrations: Mohammad Mosaddegh and Hassan Rouhani. Mosaddegh considered humans as "dignity-seeking beings," whereas Rouhani assumed humans as "welfare-seeking beings." These two perspectives created two different approaches to foreign policy: one based on recognition and dignity, the other based on interests and interaction. Although both approaches followed a specific logic in their historical context, the inability to create a balance between spirit and appetite in both periods led to serious challenges; In Mosaddegh's era, the dominance of spirit over appetite led to an economic crisis and in Rouhani's era, the dominance of appetite over spirit placed independence and bargaining power under pressure. Successful foreign policy depends on a sustainable balance between dignity-seeking and pragmatism این مقاله با تکیه بر تمایز مفهومی میان «جامعه روح‌بنیان» و «جامعه اشتهابنیان»، به تحلیل تطبیقی سیاست خارجی ایران در دو مقطع تاریخیِ دولت دکتر محمد مصدق و دولت دکتر حسن روحانی می‌پردازد. چارچوب نظری پژوهش بر انسان‌شناسی افلاطونی و بازخوانی معاصر مفهوم «تیموس» در اندیشه هگل و فوکویاما استوار است. بر این اساس، هرگاه عقل در خدمت «روح» قرار گیرد، الگوی رفتاری عزت‌طلب، استقلال‌خواه و مبتنی بر شناسایی شکل می‌گیرد؛ و هرگاه عقل در خدمت «اشتها» باشد، سیاست‌ورزی معطوف به منافع مادی، رفاه و محاسبه اقتصادی غلبه می‌یابد. پرسش اصلی مقاله آن است که چرا مصدق سیاست تقابل با قدرت‌های خارجی را برگزید، در حالی که روحانی راهبرد تعامل و همکاری را دنبال کرد؟ فرضیه پژوهش این است که غلبه مؤلفه‌های روح‌بنیان در دوره مصدق و اشتهابنیان در دوره روحانی، به تکوین دو الگوی متفاوت در سیاست خارجی انجامیده است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد در نهضت ملی شدن صنعت نفت، کرامت ملی و استقلال سیاسی بر ملاحظات اقتصادی تقدم یافت و سیاست خارجی ماهیتی تقابلی پیدا کرد. در مقابل، در دوره روحانی، حل بحران هسته‌ای و رفع تحریم‌ها به‌منظور جذب سرمایه خارجی و بهبود معیشت عمومی در اولویت قرار گرفت و سیاست خارجی به ابزاری برای توسعه اقتصادی بدل شد. مقاله با روش توصیف تحلیلی و با بهره‌گیری از منابع تاریخی و اسنادی نتیجه می‌گیرد که تفاوت این دو الگو، ریشه در برداشت متفاوت از انسان، منافع ملی و نسبت عزت و رفاه دارد. در عین حال، تجربه هر دو دوره نشان می‌دهد فقدان توازن پایدار میان روح و اشتها می‌تواند به بروز چالش‌های ساختاری در سیاست خارجی بینجامد. https://ipes.razi.ac.ir/article_4272_a60e5973aa1934c6e5686205750f0387.pdf