This paper applies the method of narrative analysis to investigate the discursive contestation of the Iran Nuclear Deal in the United States. Specifically, it explores the struggle between narratives constituting the deal as a US foreign policy fiasco and counter-narratives constructing the deal as a significant foreign policy success of the Obama administration. The paper argues that foreign policy fiascos are socially con-structed through narratives and suggests how narrative analysis as a discourse analytical method can be employed to trace discursive contests about such constructions. Based on insights from literary studies and narratology, it shows that convincing stories of fiascos include a number of key elements, including a particular setting which delimits appropriate and inappropriate behavior; a negative characterization of the main individual and collective actors; and an emplotment of the 'fiasco' through the attribution of blame and responsibility. The paper concludes with identifying discursive and contextual conditions under which fiasco narratives and the respective counter-narratives in foreign policy are most likely to resonate in political discourse.
