This study introduces the concept of political analysis as a thermodynamic system to provide a conceptual framework for evaluating the internal quality of political analyses. Within this framework, the elements and pillars of analysis are regarded as active and structural components of a system, whose degree of coordination determines the level of analytical entropy. Analytical entropy serves as an epistemological indicator for assessing the degree of disorder or inconsistency between analytical elements (actors, data, motives) and analytical pillars (theoretical paradigm, methodology, and logical reasoning).

Methodologically, the research is analytical–conceptual and descriptive–explanatory, relying on metaphorical modeling and general systems theory. Inspired by thermodynamic concepts such as energy, equilibrium, and entropy, the study designs a mechanism for diagnosing epistemic coherence in political analysis.

Applying this model to the case of the legal dispute over the “snapback” mechanism after the expiration of UNSC Resolution 2231 reveals that analytical entropy in the international system stems not from political data but from epistemological divergence between two rival analytical frameworks (Iran–Russia–China vs. the U.S. and Europe).

Findings indicate that the thermodynamic model can serve as a reliable instrument for measuring coherence, stability, and internal quality in political analyses, thus opening new interdisciplinary horizons for political science research.