This paper suggests how, over time, a state like Iran could deliberately develop a number of different reputations in connection with international law and international relations. The theoretical and empirical findings confirm the hypothesis that states with a weak reputation in both international law and international relations should probably put more emphasis on reputation building for ‘resolve’ rather than for ‘compliance’ if intended to get the results in the short term. Using reputation as a causal variable to explain Iran’s status in the international arena, one could find out that reputational sanctions imposed on Iran, is actually due to its reputation for resolve and toughness in international relations. The paper not only justifies why states, as rational actors, change their dispositional behavior in security area but also provides an empirical study into the analysis of the interdisciplinary function of reputations in this area.