Unilateral Western sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran have been one of the central issues in the country's foreign policy in the last three decades. Each of the political currents and elites influencing foreign policy seek to provide an analysis of the way existing challenges are formed on the solution of sanctions issues and the ways out of it, based on the discourse in which they live. The formulation of the issue of sanctions by the political elites and the explanation of the trends leading to the formation of the current situation have received a wide range of diverse analyses. The present variation in the formulation of the issue of sanctions has taken place within the framework of the third order of domination. In this period of order, the two theories of revolutionary system and balanced Westernism have been placed against each other as the most important discourses influencing foreign policy and the formulation of sanctions challenges. The question of  the current research is, how was the formulation of the embargo issue in the two theories of the revolutionary system and the balanced Westernism, and how did the domination order in the third period affect this space? In response to the above question, the current hypothesis is proposed, the theory of the revolutionary system with the concept of producing endogenous power and confronting the third order of domination seeks to defeat the sanctions, and on the opposite point, the theory of balancing Westernism with the concept of Atlantic-oriented extraversion seeks to cooperate with the third order of domination. It is the way out of the challenge of sanctions. The difference between these two theories is in the perceptual and computational gap arising from how to deal with the third order of domination. The method of analysis in the current research is descriptive-explanatory, and documentary method is used to collect sources.