Shutter communication diplomacy and US nuclear policy making in Comprehensive Joint Action Program

Document Type : Research Article


Prof. of Political Science Tehran University


Shutter communication theory can be considered as the center of the US security policy models used in the Comprehensive Joint Action Program. In the model of communication, the various interests of nuclear diplomacy act on the basis of multilateral cooperation with each other actors. In this process, the policy-making model will only cross the diplomatic route. The main task of contributing countries in multilateral strategic cooperation, such as nuclear diplomacy, is based on an accurate assessment of the opportunities created to maximize benefits.
The basic technique for implementing shutter communication model in US strategic planning has been used on diplomatic mechanisms. Diplomacy in strategic policy making can change the pattern of relations between cooperative countries. This process is based on the structure of the international system. The US nuclear policy process against Iran is shaped by the cooperation of executive structures, social institutions and think tanks. Each of the three subjects performs their duties and activities in the organizational, structural, social and international contexts.
The policy making knowledge in the United States focuses on how strategic decision-making are interlinked with strategic and international necessaries. The main question in this article is that: "What are the characteristics of US strategic planning in the process of comprehensive joint action program?" The hypothesis of the article points that "nuclear diplomacy has been carried out through the co-operation and participation of the Iran and great powers. This process has led to an international agreement." For explaining the article, has used the Paul Sharp's shutter communication theory. In this theory, the diplomatic path will have a decisive role in the final results. Diplomatic cohesion has affective role for achieving the best result.


الف) فارسی
1- دانایی‌فرد، حسن ؛ صادقی، محمدرضا و مصطفی‌زاده، معصومه .(1394). واکاوی و تحلیل تبعات سیاست‌زدگی بوروکراسی در نظام‌‌های سیاسی. فصلنامه اندیشه مدیریت راهبردی: پاییز و زمستان۱۳۹۴، دوره ۹، شماره۲؛ از صفحه 57 تا صفحه 86.
2- طهماسبی، رضا. (1390). درآمدی بر نظریه‌های مدیریت دولتی، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
3-        Bach, T., & Veit, S. (2016, July). Pathways to the Top: the Consequences of Individual Career Patterns for Recruitment to High Public Office in Germany. In IPSA World Congress (Vol. 23, p. 28).‏
4-        Bach, T., Hammerschmid, G., & Löffler, L. (2015, August). More delegation, more political control? Politicization of senior level appointments in 18 European countries. In EGPA annual conference in Toulouse.‏
5-        Bersch, K., Praça, S., & Taylor, M. M. (2017). State capacity, bureaucratic politicization, and corruption in the Brazilian state. Governance, 30(1), 105-124.‏
6-        Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
7-        Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640-654.‏
8-        Connaughton, B. (2017). Political-administrative relations: The role of political advisers. Administration, 65(2), 165-182.‏
9-        Cooper, C. A. (2016). The politics of bureaucratic mobility: historical changes across public service bargains in Canada's provincial governments.‏ Thesis for degree of Philosophy of Doctor (PhD) political Science, University of Montréal.
10-      ‏Dahlström, C., & Niklasson, B. (2013). The politics of politicization in Sweden. Public Administration, 91(4), 891-907.‏
11-      Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V. and Teorell, J. (2010) Dimensions of Bureaucracy A Cross-National Dataset on the Structure and Behavior of Public Administration. QoG Working Paper Series, 13, pp.3–59.
12-      Demir, T., & Nank, R. (2012). Interaction quality in political-administrative relations in the United States: Testing a multi-dimensional model. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(5), 329-339.‏
13-      Demir, T., & Nyhan, R. C. (2008). The politics–administration dichotomy: An empirical search for correspondence between theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 81-96.‏
14-      Demir, T., & Reddick, C. G. (2012). Understanding Shared Roles in Policy and Administration: An Empirical Study of Council‐Manager Relations. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 526-535.
15-      Demir, T., & Reddick, C. G. (2015). Political Orientation and Policy Involvement of City Managers: An Empirical Study of the Value-Activity Relationship. Public Organization Review, 15(4), 581-598.‏
16-      Demir, T., Reddick, C. G., & Nank, R. (2015). The relationship between public service values and administrative involvement in policymaking. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 79-98.‏
17-      ‏‏‏Gherghina, S., & Kopecký, P. (2016). Politicization of administrative elites in Western Europe: an introduction.
18-      Goodnow, F. (1900). Politics and Administration‏: a study in government.‏ New York.
19-      Hartlapp, M. (2016). Integrating across policy sectors: how the wider public impacts on the drafting process of EU trans-border healthcare. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 0020852316648225.‏
20-      Hood, C. and Lodge, M. (2006) The Politics of Public Service Bargains: Reward. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21-      Huber, J.D. and Lupia, A. (2001). Cabinet instability and delegation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 18–32.
22-      Hulst, R., Mafuru, W., & Mpenzi, D. (2015). Fifteen Years After Decentralization by Devolution: Political‐administrative Relations in Tanzanian Local Government. Public Administration and Development, 35(5), 360-371.
23-      Jacobsen, D. I. (2006). The relationship between politics and administration: The importance of contingency factors, formal structure, demography, and time. Governance, 19(2), 303-323.‏
24-      King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage.
25-      Kopecký, P., Mair, P. and Spirova, M. (eds.). (2012) Party Patronage and party Government in European Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26-      Krause, R. M., Feiock, R. C., & Hawkins, C. V. (2014). The administrative organization of sustainability within local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 113-127.‏
27-      Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
28-      Maykut, p., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A Philosophic and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.
29-      Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2008) The changing colours of the post-communist state: The politicisation of the senior civil service in Hungary. European Journal of Political Research 47(1): 1–33.
30-      Moynihan, D. P., & Soss, J. (2014). Policy feedback and the politics of administration. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 320-332.‏
31-      O'Dwyer, C. (2006). Runaway state-building: Patronage politics and democratic development. JHU Press.‏
32-      Öhberg, P., MUNK CHRISTIANSEN, P. E. T. E. R., & Niklasson, B. (2017). Administrative politicization or contestability? How political advisers affect neutral competence in policy processes. Public Administration, 95(1), 269-285.‏
33-      O'Leary, R. (2013). The ethics of dissent: Managing guerrilla government, 1st Edition Washington, DC: CQ Press.
34-      Oliveros, V., & Schuster, C. (2016). Merit, Tenure, and Bureaucratic Behavior: Evidence From a Conjoint Experiment in the Dominican Republic. Comparative Political Studies, 0010414017710268.‏
35-      Page, E., & Wright, V. (Eds.). (1999). Bureaucratic elites in Western European states. Oxford University Press.‏
36-      Peters, G.B., and Pierre, J. (2004) Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
37-      Petridou, E. (2014). Theories of the policy process: Contemporary scholarship and future directions. Policy studies journal, 42(S1).‏
38-      Rahman, M. S. (2015). Politics-Bureaucracy Relations, Governance and Development in Bangladesh: The Case of Local Government (Doctoral dissertation).‏
39-      Roman, A. V. (2017). The determinants of public administrators’ participation in policy formulation. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 102-129.‏
40-      Sarker, M. N. I., Bingxin, Y., Sultana, A., & Prodhan, A. Z. M. S. (2017). Problems and challenges of public administration in Bangladesh: pathway to sustainable development. International Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 2(1), 008-015.‏
41-      Sowa, J. E., & Lu, J. (2017). Policy and management: Considering public management and its relationship to policy studies. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 74-100.‏
42-      Svara, J. H. (1999). Complementarity of politics and administration as a legitimate alternative to the dichotomy model. Administration & society, 30(6), 676-705.‏
43-      Svara, J. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public administration review, 61(2), 176-183.‏
44-      Van Biezen, I. (2003). Political parties in new democracies: Party organization in Southern and East-Central Europe. Springer.‏
45-      Van Biezen, I., & Kopecký, P. (2007). The state and the parties: public funding, public regulation and rent-seeking in contemporary democracies. Party politics, 13(2), 235-254.‏
46-      Wilson, Woodrow. )1887(. The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2): 197–222.
47-      Zhang, Y., & Feiock, R. C. (2009). City managers’ policy leadership in council-manager cities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 461-476.