The Image of the Enemy in the Publications of Donald Trump Administration (on the Material of the US-Iran Relations)mpa-na-materiale-amerikano-iranskih-otnosheniy_105016

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

The Department of Foreign Languages

Maria A. Bazhatarnik

The Image of the Enemy in the Publications of Donald Trump Administration (on the Material of the US-Iran Relations)

BACHELOR'S THESIS

Field of study: Linguistics

Degree programme: Foreign languages and intercultural communication

Moscow, 2019



Table of Contents

Introduction

Literature Review

1. Sociopolitical Context

1.1 An Account of Iranian Policy

1.2 US-Iran Relations over the Last Decades

1.3 US-Iran Relations under the Trump Administration

2. Discourse Context

2.1 Political Discourse

2.2 The Image of the Enemy

2.3 The US Political Discourse and the Enemy Images

3. Text Analysis

3.1 Procedure and Limitations

3.2 Publications Made in Government-run Websites

3.3 Publications Made in Twitter

Conclusion

References

Attachement



Introduction

The opposition between the United States and Iran is now four decades long. The two countries severed official diplomatic relations following the turmoil of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. Since that time, the US-Iranian relationship has been characterized by mutual distrust and hostility. The signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or the Iran nuclear deal) in 2015 was therefore regarded as a historic breakthrough. It helped to ameliorate the situation, reduce the likelihood of an armed conflict and open channels for possible negotiations. However, the Trump administration put an end to this short period of engagement. In 2018 Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed harsh economic sanctions. The increasing anti-Iranian rhetoric of American officials indicates that the US intends to pursue the path of confrontation.

The present research is done in the field of political linguistics. The study focuses on the publications of the Trump administration concerning the US-Iran relations. More specifically, its subject matter is the functioning of the linguistic tools used in the US political discourse in order to promote the enemy image. The principal objectives of the study are

to provide a comprehensive overview of the research works addressing the topic;

to collect the data set according to the chosen criteria;

to examine the discursive techniques employed for the enemy image construction;

to identify the most frequently used patterns and pinpoint their features.

Considering the above, the following research questions are addressed:

RQ1. How is Iran represented in the official statements made by Donald Trump Administration?

RQ1.1. What discursive strategies are used for negative depiction of the Islamic Republic?

RQ1.2. What lexico-grammatical means are employed in the US political discourse to shape the enemy image of Iran?

Thus, the purpose of this research is twofold. First, it aims at describing the existing image of Iran in the US political discourse; secondly, it is intended to assess the linguistic tools used by American officials in the construction of this image.

The relevance of the study is rooted in the fact that the US-Iran confrontation is an issue of a major global concern. Given the prolonged stand-off between the states, there is an utmost need to analyze discursive features of its supporting legitimization. A number of studies investigated political discourse of the previous Administrations exploring the enemy construction techniques. Some of the scholars focused specifically on the US-Iran relationship (e.g. Adib-Moghaddam, 2007, 2011; Rasamny, 2016; Tirman, 2009). No study, however, has yet examined the discursive techniques used in this context by Donald Trump and his officials. The present research is based on the newest data available and hence seeks to fill this gap by providing an insight into the current state of affairs.

The work's theoretical significance stems from the importance of the results anticipated for wide range of investigations in the field of humanities and social sciences. The study is intended to contribute to the existing knowledge base on the construction of sociopolitical realities within textual discourse. Besides, the outcomes are to enhance our comprehension of the US political culture.

Not only may the study form the foundation for further research, but it may also be of interest to educators. The practical significance of the paper is based on the assumption that it could be used in educational practices in order to refer to up-to-date information when covering such areas of expertise as applied linguistics and discourse studies, political studies, cross-cultural communication, conflictology and sociology.

The study is based on the ideas of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and follows the tradition of research in the area. The connections between the linguistic and the social aspects of discourse are accounted for in a three-dimensional framework consisting of text, discourse context and social context (Fairclough, 1995).

The paper is structured in accordance with its objectives. It consists of Introduction, Literature Review, 3 Parts, Conclusion, References and Attachments.

Literature Review lays out the theoretical background to support the research presenting the analysis of the previous studies on political discourse and the enemy image construction.

Part 1 `Sociopolitical Context' covers the past and present of the US-Iran bilateral relations in order to shed light on the agenda and the logic behind the discourse.

Part 2 `Discourse Context' defines the notions, which are subsequently examined in greater detail, and outlines the peculiarities of discursive manipulation within political texts.

Part 3 `Text Analysis' starts with an overview of the data collection procedure. Thereafter, critical discourse analysis is provided.

Finally, in Conclusion the summarized results are presented, as well as the outlook on the further examination of the topic.



Literature Review

Primarily, it should be stated that there is still considerable controversy concerning the concept of political discourse. In the present study it is referred to in its narrow sense, as a politically restricted genre that has its own thesaurus and specific functions; a discourse of a politician that represents an institutional form of discourse (van Dijk, 1998, pp. 12-15). Political discourse possesses a wide variety of functions (persuasive, argumentative, integrative, coercive, legitimizing/delegitimizing, etc.).

This area of scholarship has received an extensive level of a multidisciplinary academic scrutiny. Linguistic study of political discourse has been particularly associated with critical discourse analysis, the genesis of which is traced back to the end of the 1970s. The early works in CDA aimed to identify the social meanings that were expressed through the linguistic means (Fairclough, 1995; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; van Dijk, 1998 etc.). The scholars focused on the role of language in creating and reinforcing ideologies, proposing and developing theoretical constructs of political discourse and thus popularizing the discussion on the interconnection between political will, language and social action.

One of the main functions of political discourse is the opinion-shaping process. Since the public viewpoint on the reality often stems from the information people get about it, the authorities tend to shape and promote such images that would meet their intentions. The enemy image construction can be regarded as one of the most vivid examples of this practice. In a group application of the concept, both the target group and its members are allocated with negative qualities, resulting in suspicion and animosity towards them (Merskin, 2004, pp. 159-160). Policy makers apply to this practice through discursive manipulation in order to justify the actions they take, provide the society with ideological foundations or deflect attention. Enemy images also constitute an important factor in the dynamics of international relations (Boulding, 1956, 1959; Frank & Melville, 1988).

Although the concept of the enemy image has been utilized since the ancient times, until the mid 20th century the exploration of the way how it is shaped did not represent a systematized process but rather fragmentary observation attempts. However, nowadays there are numerous theoretical and empirical studies on this matter.

Enemy narratives in international relations often correlate with the justification of war. Thus, traditionally, many works covering enemy image creation are closely related to war rhetoric studies as a subfield of rhetorical and discourse analysis.

The last decades have witnessed a huge growth in the number of studies on the topic of discursive coverage of the regional policies pursued by the United States. First and foremost, considerable attention was drawn to the coverage of September 11, 2001 and its aftermath. For instance, Graham, Keenan and Dowd (2004) analyzed George W. Bush's declaration of the “war on terror”, identifying the main techniques followed (e.g. referring to an ultimate moral force to legitimize the actions; providing historical and cultural references to consolidate the addressed audience, constructing the enemy as an evil other). The other scholars focused on the way mainstream news coverage reinforced the narratives promoted by the officials (e.g. Hodges & Chad, 2007; Kellner, 2003, 2004; Reese & Lewis, 2009), the representations of warfare through the use of conceptual metaphors (e.g. Lakoff, 2004, pp. 69-75), the narrative of fear in political discourse (Altheide, 2006).

It is noteworthy that scholarly literature covering the US-Iran relations is rather limited. In this context most of the researchers tend either to examine the issue from diachronic perspective (Adib-Moghaddam, 2007, 2011) or to conduct concise case studies (Ghasemi & Kadkhodee, 2018; Moradi-Joz, Ketabi & Tavakoli, 2018a). The major drawback of these trends is that the studies mentioned analyze the problem separately from each other lacking an integral approach. In this regard, the book “The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs”: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other” (2007) written by William O. Beeman is a remarkable exception. Though it was published more than a decade ago, it is still useful for general understanding of conflict dynamics and the discursive strategies the sides tend to choose. In his perceptive analysis, Beeman evaluates the US rhetoric and punitive diplomatic maneuvering, as well as dominant ideologies and social practices that, in his view, play pivotal role in the US and Iranian political courses. All these observations are taken into account in the present research.



1. Sociopolitical Context

1.1 An Account of Iran's Policy

The Islamic Republic of Iran owns a land rich in history, tradition, and culture. It is a diverse country, inhabited by a variety of ethnic and linguistic groups united through a shared Iranian nationality. Persians comprise the largest ethnic group at approximately 61%. The population of the country is 81 million people, ranking 18th in the world. The official state religion practiced by the majority is Shia Islam.

Iran is a theocratic Islamic Republic. Its unique political system was established in the 1979 Constitution. The Supreme leader is ultimate political and religious authority in the country. Currently, this position is held by Ali Khamenei. The armed forces, the judiciary, state television, and other organizations affiliated with the government are subject to control by him; all major decisions demand his approval. Since he is the commander-in-chief, he is the only person empowered to declare war and peace. In theory, the Supreme Leader is elected and overseen by the Assembly of Experts. However, in practice the Assembly of Experts has never questioned his decisions, at least publicly. It is noteworthy that all the candidates for membership at the Assembly of Experts are appointed by the Guardian Council, the members of which in turn are nominated by the Supreme Leader himself.

The president of Iran is the head of government. He is democratically elected and considered to be the highest ranking official. The current President of Iran is Hassan Rouhani. The national legislative body of the country is called the Islamic Consultative Assembly and possesses the power to adopt laws, ratify treaties, and approve the national budget.

Overall, there are three centers of power in Iran, represented by the Supreme Leader, the president, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a paramilitary organization, intended to protect the country's political system and promote the ideals of the Islamic Revolution. The latter is deeply involved in domestic policy, economic activities and foreign affairs, maintaining a solid presence in Syria. It also trains and assists Shiite militias in Iraq which have played a crucial role in the war on the Islamic State fighting alongside government forces.

Iran's foreign policy stems from the interplay of Persian heritage and revolutionary Shiism. Many experts believe that Iran's foreign policy strategy is aimed to challenge regional power system which, from Iran's perspective, favors the US and its allies, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries. Iran defines its stance as the support for the “oppressed” and accuses Saudi Arabia stirring up sectarian tensions.

The guiding principles of the 1979 Revolution continue to influence Iranian political inclinations. Right after the Revolution, Iran attempted to export its revolution to neighboring Muslim countries and this, though underwent a change over the years, in some way is still relevant. Iran's leadership states that the political and economic institutions of the Middle East are strongly biased towards “'oppressed'” peoples in favor of the US and its allies. Among oppressed peoples are the Palestinians and Shia Muslims, underrepresented and/or disadvantaged minorities in a number of Middle Eastern countries.

Although Iran is commonly associated with the support provided for other Shia states. For instance, it has supported Christian-majority Armenia rather than Shia-majority Azerbaijan. Iran has also refrained from supporting non-governmental actors in Central Asia, presumably to avoid tensions with Russia, one of its closest allies.

Hezbollah, a Shiite political and militant organization based in Lebanon and engaged in the Lebanese political system, is known as Iran's key non-state ally. Its origins and ideology stem from the Iranian Revolution. Hezbollah has been involved in numerous conflicts defending Iran's interests.

Yemen does not represent a core security interest of Iran. However, Iranian leadership views the Yemeni Crisis as an opportunity to increase leverage on Saudi Arabia, which shares a vast border with Yemen, by supporting the Huthis, a Zaidi Shia movement, with arms and financial aid.

1.2 US-Iran Relations over the Last Decades

Historically, bilateral relations between Iran and the United States can be divided into two periods, Pre- and Post-Revolutionary. Each of the stages contributed to the formation of Iran's image in the US political discourse.

The first close contact between the two countries relates to the Second World War with Iran playing the role of a collaborator with the allies to transfer weaponry through Iran to the Russian region of Caucasus. As soon as the Cold War started to emerge, the United States sought cooperation from Iran to deter communist expansion in Asia. In return Iran received military assistance as well as advanced machinery for exploitation of the country's oil reserves. However, at the same time the US explicitly interfered in Iran's affairs. It culminated in the 1953 coup, in which the popularly elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown by the British and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in violation of Iranian sovereignty.

With Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's return to power, the relations gradually improved as Iran turned into the biggest ally of the US in the region. The ties became so close under the Carter presidency that Jimmy Carter and his wife established family relationship with Shah's family.

The Islamic Revolution, which triumphed in February 1979, put an end both to 2500 years of monarchy and to the cordial relations between Iran and the US. The shah fled Iran; in October 1979 he entered the United States. Islamic militants responded by storming the US embassy in Tehran and taking the staff hostage. With the approval of Khomeini, the leader of the Revolution and the founder of the Islamic Republic, the militants demanded the return of the shah to Iran to stand trial for his crimes. The United States refused to negotiate, and 52 American hostages were held for 444 days.

This was a turning point in bilateral relationship where broad American antipathy towards the Iranian political system stems from. That event, described by Beeman as “one of the most devastating non-war related events to have ever occurred between two nations” (Beeman, 138), traumatized the entire American nation.

In 1980 Iraq launched a full scale invasion on Iranian soil. During the Iran-Iraq War which lasted for 8 years the United States supported Iraq despite being aware of its chemical weapons attacks against Iran. The tensions escalated as a series of bombing occurred in the US embassy in Beirut resulting in the death of 17 Americans. It was soon followed by deadly attack on the Marine barracks, which took the lives of 241 American peacekeepers. The US accused Iran-backed Hezbollah of these attacks. These incidents led to several acts of retaliation against Hezbollah.

In July 1998 Iranian passenger carrying airplane was shot down by a US guided missile launched from USS Vincennes Navy in the Persian Gulf, killing all the 290 people on board including 66 children.

Four months after the September 11 attacks, in a historical speech delivered by George Bush Iran was included into an ''Axis of evil'' along with North Korea and Iraq.

With Barack Obama coming to power, the atmosphere of bilateral relations has changed for the better. Obama tried to take distance from Bush's policy. Though the Obama administration also perceived Iran's nuclear ambitions as a threat, it tried to bring Iran to negotiating table with the United States and its allies.

The 2013 phone call between Obama and Rouhani turned out to be the closest high-level diplomatic contact between the counties since 1980.

In 2015, following two years of intensive negotiations, Iran and six other nations - the US, Russia, Britain, Germany, France and China - has signed the Nuclear deal. The accord was also enshrined in a UN Security Council resolution, making it international law.

During the nuclear talks the US-Iran bilateral relations underwent significant improvement. During one of the sessions of the 70th United Nations General Assembly, Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif coincidentally bumped into Barack Obama and John Kerry while leaving the room. They greeted each other and shook hands. This was the highest level of diplomatic engagement between the two states in recent decades, widely reflected in the media.

1.3 US-Iran Relations under the Trump Administration

With the arrival of the Trump administration, US-Iran policy was transformed from cautious attempts to interact to hostile confrontation. Iran was mentioned 17 times in the 2017 National Security Strategy. Trump and his officials declared prevention of Iran's dominance in the region as their top priority. Their preoccupation with Iran was driven by the conviction that the Obama administration's diplomatic outreach toward the Islamic Republic empowered its leadership and contributed to the growth of its regional influence.

One of first actions undertaken against Iran was the issuance of the Executive order 13780, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. The Travel Ban meant that citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen would be barred from visiting the US. It also put a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the country.

On May 8, 2018, Donald Trump announced the US withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal despite clear indications that Iran was abiding by the deal, and the US certification of previous stages of the agreement. Trump insisted that he can coerce Iran into reaching a “better deal” that would also address Tehran's ballistic missile program and expansion across the Middle East. President Trump's decertification of the deal has seen a massive decline in engagement between the two countries and a return to old mistrust and suspicion. However, Trump failed to convince the other signatories to abandon the nuclear deal and rejected international consensus that endorsed the JCPOA.

Trump's pressure on Iran to renegotiate a deal continued with the imposition of several rounds of economic sanctions. On November 5, 2018, the Trump administration introduced new sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The sanctions targeted the energy sector, banking, transportation and shipbuilding industry.

Trump seeks to gain Iranian acquiescence to a number of demands from the withdrawal of its troops from Syria to rigorous inspections of the country's nuclear facilities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and economic advantages. However, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei prohibited any direct talks with the United States. From the Iranian perspective, once he reneged on the agreement, Trump proved that he could not be trusted to keep any promises.

The Trump administration's mindset finds its analogue in Tehran, since Iranian leaders has long been convinced of the immutability of American belligerence and are prepared to respond likewise. With mutual hostility, suspicion, and determination to demonstrate strength ascendant in both capitals, the US-Iranian standoff is hard to avoid and potentially even more hard to contain.

2. Discourse Context

2.1 Political Discourse

The context is of fundamental importance for discourse to be categorized as political. Political discourse unfolds in institutional situations (e.g. political debates, government sessions, parliamentary discussions, etc.) where the participants undertake political actions, such as ruling, governing, legislating, voting or protesting. There is a clear and inextricable link between text and context in political encounters. They mutually define each other, since the main purpose of political discourse is to accomplish specific goals, such as struggling for political power in its different manifestations, making or influencing political decisions, challenging the distribution of social resources, establishing or changing norms and regulations. Simultaneously, sociopolitical change manifests itself in discursive practices.

Since pragmatic intention of political discourse is making the recipients share the actors' view on certain matters, rhetorical devices and linguistic means applied mainly serve not to describe but to persuade. They often reflect political ideology, understood as a socio-cognitive aspect of political system, the basic belief system that underlie and organize the shared social representations of groups and their members (Zur, 1991). According to Austrian scholar Ruth Wodak, political language exists between two poles. On the one hand, it represents a special, functionally determined language whereas, on the other hand, it can be regarded as a political jargon of an ideologically united group of people (Wodak, 1989).

In the process of naturalizing ideologies as common sense and shaping the way of sociopolitical reality, policy-makers refer to a wide variety of tools. One of the most distinct characteristics of political discourse is the abundance of slogans and clichés used to reinforce particular concepts. Texts produced and delivered by politicians are embedded with symbols. The progress made in fulfillment of political goals varies according to the extent to which these symbols correlate with public consciousness. A politician that manages to address his audience in the most favorable way stemming from their attitudes, opinions and beliefs is capable to succeed in discursive manipulation on public issues that are the object of political attention.

Thus, in order to understand and interpret political discourse it is pivotal to consider background information, speaker's and recipient's expectations, imbedded motives, plots and logic determining the word choice and rhetoric strategies pursued.

2.2 The Image of the Enemy

Any political actor faces the need for consolidating the audience, winning supporters and defeating opponents to maintain his hold on power. The dynamic of political discourse is therefore closely tied to ingroup-outgroup relations and enemy construction process. It is typical of politicians to highlight all the meanings that are positive about themselves and their own group (party, ideology, nation, etc.) and negative about competitors. They tend to hide, mitigate or leave implicit such factual information that would discredit their reputation and/or enhance the reputation of their competitors. This process results in the incorporation of the image of the enemy into policies and the popular conscience.

In short, an enemy image is a representation of the enemy. It could be defined as “the commonly-held, stereotyped, dehumanized image of the outgroup.” First, this pressupposes the opposition between two or more groups. It is not simply hostility, threat or aggression at the interpersonal level. Secondly, there is an emphasis on the practice of dehumanization exercised through externalization, projection and cognitive biases to justify antipathy and de/legitimize the actions taken by one of the sides.

The phenomenon of enmity is based on the archaic dichotomies of `us vs. them' and `good vs. evil'. Ultimately, the enemy has to be eliminated so that “we” can feel safe. A preconceived negative judgement of the enemy's activities is frequently accompanied by such predictions of the their intentions that far exceed what can be determined by the facts. As most people are likely to perceive enemies as more hostile and dangerous than they really are, they are expected to act more aggressively and violently than can be assumed from the facts available. This often leads to the escalation of the conflict, since negative anticipation appears to promote defensive or deterrent actions, commonly referred to as preventive measures.

One of the universal ways to portray the enemy as the source of evil is stereotyping. Stereotype is a widely held but oversimplified, exaggerated and biased conception or image. Stereotyping does not differentiate between individuals and rigidly perceives all members of the group as the same. Prejudiced associations could be imposed by means of manipulative techniques. The lack of representation, also known as symbolic annihilation, also entrenches stereotypical images. The predominance of stereotypes conveyed via political propaganda and associated with violence and threat in the absence of coverage of the enemy's actual culture results in the representation of the opposing party as primitive, ignorant, dangerous and unpredictable.

Referential strategies used to promote the image of the enemy are often based on comparing the other party to animals or matural phenomena. Historical comparisons are also frequently used to relate persons, organizations or phenomena to the events of the past and trigger the desired response.

Above all, four of unspoken rules of enmity state that

The enemy of one's friend is one's enemy.

The friend of one's enemy is one's enemy.

The enemy of one's enemy is one's friend.

One's enemies are friendly with each other. (Zur, 1991)

These discursive strains can be addressed to separately or in combination resulted in inconsistencies and contradictions.



2.3 The US Political Discourse and the Enemy Images

One of the most vivid manifestations of the aforementioned principles in the context of political discourse is dichotomous representation of “us” and “them” while covering military operations. This topic has been broadly debated over the recent decades, especially in regard to the war on terror. As a result of 9/11, the administration of George W. Bush adopted a specific and consistent type of discourse aimed at the justification of interventions to Afghanistan and in Iraq (Altheide, 2006). Though some of its characteristics played a stronger role than others (stereotyping and deindividualization, identification with evil, zero-sum thinking), it is clear that the carefully chosen, mostly scripted words in President Bush's statements were grounded in powerful connections to universal notions of enmity. Pre-existing stereotypical media portrayals of the Middle Eastern nations and presidential verbiage consistent with dominant ideology about Arabs provided the context for rigidifying the constructed terrorist stereotype in a way that made such associations seem normal and logical (Merskin, 2004). Presidential rhetoric thereby became a powerful tool in the organization of public support.

Besides, as noted by Chilton (2004, p. 159), an important strategy of the US political discourse is to assert that there was no neutral ground: the world and leaders from other countries are supposed to be either “with us” or “against us”, thus reinstalling the idea of polarization.



3. Text Analysis

3.1 Procedure and Limitations

The research is based on a qualitative perspective. It is designed drawing upon the CDA paradigm.

The theory of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) can be approached in a number of different ways. This study used Fairclough's perspective, which moves beyond text analysis and places the results of text analysis in the contextual framework of the discourse. By doing this, CDA helps uncover dominant structures in a discourse based on the historical and social contextual aspects (Fairclough, 1995).

Data collection process

Influential CDA literature stresses the significance of data authenticity and contextual information about collected material. In order to conduct a representative analysis of the discursive strategies used by the US authorities, a considerable number of texts are to be selected.

The timeline for the data set is 2017-2018, the first years of Trump's presidency.

The sample was obtained in two stages. The first part of the data set consists of the texts and transcripts of speeches delivered by the officials and published on government-run websites (www.whitehouse.gov, www.state.gov).

Overall, the data set include the publications produced by

Donald John Trump, the 45th and current president of the United States;

Michael Richard "Mike" Pence, US Vice President

Michael Richard "Mike" Pompeo, US Secretary of State;

The following criteria were taken into account when selecting the materials:

direct reference to the US-Iran relations;

the magnitude;

the coverage of all the major points of the confrontation (as the strategies pursued depend on the particular context, any situational change may modify them, and such cases should be noted).

Table 1 provides the list of the texts that appear to be relevant for the study on the grounds mentioned.

Table 1 Texts Selected for Analysis

	Title	Author	Date
1	Remarks by President Trump on Iran Strategy	Donald Trump	October 13, 2017
2	The President Will Not Be Silent on Iran	Mike Pence	January 4, 2018
3	Statement by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal	Donald Trump	January 12, 2018
4	Remarks by President Trump on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action	Donald Trump	May 8, 2018
5	After the Deal: A New Iran Strategy	Mike Pompeo	May 21, 2018
6	Statement by the President Regarding the Reimposition of Nuclear-Related Sanctions on Iran	Donald Trump	November 2, 2018
7	Confronting Iran: The Trump Administration's Strategy	Mike Pompeo	December 2018

The second part of the data set is based on the publications made by Donald Trump, Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo on their Twitter pages. The focus on the social media along with traditional forms of discourse contributes to a broader understanding of our subject matter. It is apparent that nowadays political leaders are increasingly relying on digital diplomacy, which occurs in full view of the global audience. President Trump regards Twitter as a channel through which unfiltered opinions can be sent directly to the populace. In June 2017 he tweeted, “The fake MSM [mainstream media] is working so hard trying to get me not to use Social Media. They hate that I can get the honest and unfiltered message out.” Such an approach appears to be effective. According to the public opinion poll conducted in 2018 by Gallup, 76% of Americans say that they see, read or hear about Trump's tweets a lot or a fair amount (Newport, 2018).

At the same time, it should be emphasized that the influence of the US policy-makers' activity in Twitter goes far beyond their domestic audience. Given the impossibility of direct high-level contacts between the United States and Iran, the interactions through which diplomacy unfolds take place within the space of social media. Depending on the intentions of the parties, it could facilitate interstate dialogue as much as trigger further misunderstanding and confrontation. That heightens the magnitude of Twitter publications making them worthy of special attention (Bjola & Holmes, 2015; Duncombe, 2017; Ott, 2017).

The data set includes 133 posts. First, all the materials containing words “Iran” and/or “Iranian” and corresponding to the data range were found; then the posts that has no reference to the topic under question (e.g. Iran mentioned when covering the relations between the US and other countries) were excluded from the sample.

Table 2 - Twitter Publications Selected for Analysis

Author	Timeline	Total number of tweets concerning Iran	Number of tweets selected
Donald Trump @realDonaldTrump	Jan 2017 - Dec 2018	61	30
Mike Pence @VP	Jan 2017 - Dec 2018	48	38
Mike Pompeo @SecPompeo	Apr 2018 - Dec 2018	72	65
	181	133

The sample was then subjected to analysis to reveal the inner logic of the discourse and identify how it functions at the micro-textual level.

Limitations

The US-Iran political stand-off is a bilateral process. However, the present study focuses on the US perspective only. It does not intend to provide a comparative analysis.

Furthermore, the research is based upon the linguistic approach. It therefore aims to examine the rhetorical mechanisms of the US political discourse, not to provide an in-depth explanation of the processes behind the confrontation unless it is a necessity for clarifying the context.

It should also be pointed out that there remains a risk of analytical subjectivity. When facing challenges, corpus linguistic techniques were applied to provide conclusive evidence in support of intuitive interpretations and to avoid over-interpretation.

3.2 Publications Made in Government-run Websites

October 13, 2017: Remarks by President Trump on Iran Strategy

This lengthy, thoroughly prepared speech of Donald Trump aimed at providing solid basis for him to push forward with new anti-Iranian sanctions and cast doubt on Iran deal. Given that the last administration regarded negations with Iran as one of their principal achievements, discrediting the JPCOA was inevitably linked to criticism of the previous US leadership. However, in order to take full advantage of the steps taken, President Trump faced the need to justify altering both the established conditions of the international agreement and the overall US strategy concerning Iran. Being the first address comprehensively elucidating the stance of Trump and his officials with regard to US-Iranian relationship, this speech was intended to lay the foundations that their future rhetoric would be build on. Thus its comprehensive analysis is of utmost importance for us to understand the means of shaping the image of Iran.

The speech is characterized by deep intertextuality expressed through frequent references to historical events and sociopolitical practices. Trump starts with the outline of the US-Iran confrontation history from 1979 up to the present time. The number of discursive patterns that manifested themselves in this context should be explored in greater detail.

Most of the patterns could be attributed to three broad categories. The first discursive strategy followed is building the opposion between the Iranian political system and the principles of democracy. Iran therefore embodies the opposite of what the US is commited to strive for, Iran neglects its core values, that is why it must be unanimously condemned.

Secondly, though Iran is never explicitly refered to as the enemy, it is presented as a direct threat to the US and global peace and security. Negative anticipation is used to denote the presumed goals and targets of Iran as objectively true. For instance, Trump notes that “given the regime's murderous past and present, we should not take lightly its sinister vision for the future.” The inner logic of the text indicates that all the steps made by Iran in the past, present, and future stem from its destructive intentions. Whatever the Iranian authorities undertook since the Islamic Revolution, it was meant either to harm the US and its allies or to destabilize the region. Iran is considered to be the source of numerous dangers; it “spreads death, destruction, and chaos all around the globe.” The emphasis on Iran's pervasive negative influence on the global affairs is placed through transitivity structures of sentence syntax, e.g. mentioning of actors affiliated with Iranian leadership in topical positions.

It brings the audience to the conclusion that “the full range of Iran's destructive actions” should be addressed with appropriate measures. As pointed out by Trump, “We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror, and the very real threat of Iran's nuclear breakout.” Thus, while challenging the status quo, the US administration presents their actions as a natural defense reaction brought about by the necessity to protect the nation and the world from Iran's hostile attacks. What is more, Iran is depicted as an active force, the menace of which is only increasing and thus requires immediate action.

Historical reference (“Beginning in 1979… The Iranian dictatorship's aggression continues to this day. The regime remains…”) and allusions (“As we have seen in North Korea...”) work together to provide the ground for further vilification of Iran. However, if one has a closer look on the `facts' behind the negative evaluation, it becomes evident that a number of claims made could not be regarded as credible. For instance, Trump states that “there are many people who believe that Iran is dealing with North Korea.” Though no evidence of cooperation happening between Iran and North Korea is presented apart from the beliefs of “many people”, this argument perfectly corresponds with “the friend of my enemy” logic. Since Iran is depicted as an ally of the DPRK, Bashar Assad's government in Syria and “terrorist networks” around the world, it should be treated with suspicion. In this context Trump appeals to zero-sum thinking in categories “what is good for Iran is bad for the US” and vice versa, connecting with the audience through emotionally-charged storytelling: “Just imagine the sight of those huge piles of money being hauled off by the Iranians waiting at the airport for the cash. I wonder where all that money went.”

The third pattern that could be identified when analyzing Trump´s justification of US-Iran standoff is the reference to the rule of law violated by Iranian authorities. Reporting on Iran's policy as if it fell outside the purview of the law contributes to the formation of “Iran is a criminal” stereotype. It implies the logic of legal discourse, in which it is the US who takes responsibility for punishing the criminal and restoring the order.

At the level of language these discursive strategies are implemented in the text through different linguistic and rhetorical mechanisms. The text deploys words with a common contextual background to proceed with each of three ways of representing Iran. The violation of human rights and democratic values is highlighted by the use of such lexemes and collocations as “dictatorship”, “fanatical regime”, “extremist rule”, “campaign of bloodshed”. Iran is mainly referred to as “regime” and “dictatorship”. The word “regime” is repeated 28 times throughout the text. The word “dictatorship” appears 5 times.

The threat, which Iran poses to the global community, is accentuated through the emphasis placed on “dangerous aggression” and “destabilizing activity” as the main characteristics of Iranian foreign policy. The words “threat” and “threaten” occur 9 times throughout the text.

Dishonest and unlawful motives of Iranian authorities are revealed through the prevalence of moral and legal rhetoric, e.g. in the view of the Trump administration Iran “committed multiple violations”, “failed to meet our expectations”, “intimidated international inspectors”, “imprisons Americans on false charges” and, ultimately, “is not living up to the spirit of the deal.” While the US and their allies fully adhere to their commitment, Iran is accused of “clandestine” and “illicit” actions.

The image of Iran promoted in the statement was to trigger such reactions and feelings as fear, anxiety, and anger. It was supposed to legitimize the shift in the White House's approach toward Iranian leadership. However, what it resulted in was global apprehension over the future of the Nuclear Deal.

January 4, 2018: The President Will Not Be Silent on Iran

The article of Vice President Mike Pence, saying the United States “will not be silent on Iran” covers the US position concerning anti-government protests, which occurred at the end of 2017 and beginning of 2018 in several Iranian s cities. Since the protests broke out, the US leadership has endorsed them, culminating with the suggestion that the US could offer “unwavering support and assistance in the days ahead” to protesters, as follows from the present article. The Trump administration “stands with” the Iranian protesters and “will continue to support them,” Pence wrote. He also announced that the US “is weighing additional actions to punish the regime.”

This example makes it apparent that in order to deconstruct the image of Iran in the US political discourse we should consider not only the paradigm of US-Iran confrontation, but also polarization between the Iranian government and the opposition, represented in discursive practice as the regime vs. the people. From this perspective, Iran as an actor is associated with its anti-American authorities, whereas its population is perceived as “sided with” the US. Hence, it appears that in terms of foreign policy the Trump administration's strategy targets to exploit growing tensions within Iranian society.

Furthermore, taken into account that there are an estimated 1 million Iranian-Americans living in the United States, what is the highest number of Iranians outside the country, domestic affairs is what such a stance is justified by alongside geopolitical pragmatism. As the growth of Iranian diaspora owes much to those who fled the country after the 1979 Revolution, an official statement of support for protesters has been highly appreciated amongst the diaspora members.

The arguments behind the statement deserve particular attention. As follows from the article, the US advocates for the Iranian people “because it is right” and “because the regime in Tehran threatens the peace and security of the world.” This contributes to the depiction of the Iranian leadership as criminals neglecting both moral law and stability throughout the globe. The stress on the positive evaluation of the US actions in terms of moral authority bears a relation to a legitimizing nature of the text, as well as most of the references to moral goodness within political discourse (van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 21). The second argument is even more remarkable in the context of different perspectives on the matter. By highlighting the global threat coming from the Iranian government, Pence leads the public to conclusion that there is an ample legal basis for the US to intervene in the domestic affairs of the Islamic Republic, as “Iran's tyrannical rulers” endanger the entire international community, not only their own population.

Turning back to the analysis of the thematic structure of the text, it should be pointed out that, apart from the words of support addressed to the protesters, sharp criticism of the Iranian government and promotion of Trump's position on the subject, the article strongly condemns the policy of the last administration. Its restraint during the 2009 Iranian protests is presented as a betrayal of democratic values. According to Pence, “the deadly silence on the streets of Iran” matched “the deafening silence from the White House.” Obama and his officials “repeatedly failed to express America's solidarity”, “declined to stand with a proud people”, “abandoned the Iranians in their hour of need.” Pejorative judgments and constructions with negative meaning put forth in virtually every paragraph reflect the article's orientation towards domestic political scene. The repetition of the same idea by using synonymous phrases serves to intensify its impact on the reader. The inner logic of the text functions as follows:

Iran's regime threatens peace and democracy.

The Iranian people oppose Iran's regime.

The Obama administration did not support the Iranian people.

The Obama administration did not oppose Iran's regime.

The Obama administration did not defend peace and democracy.

The Obama administration did not deserve to lead the US.

The Trump administration supports the Iranian people.

The Trump administration opposes Iran's regime.

The Trump administration defends peace and democracy.

Who deserves to lead the US is the Trump administration.

Thus, the presence of an external enemy and the way it is represented serves the interests of the current administration in scoring political points.

Meanwhile, the rhetoric surrounding the assistance provided to protestors by the US government occurs to be more wishful thinking than reality. The intentional mystification of time and vagueness of responsibility in discourse are evident in such expressions as “he has also committed to provide assistance in the days ahead” and “the president is weighing additional actions.” Based on this text, there is no explanation for what exactly is meant by these actions.

One more vivid example of exaggeration and portrayal of what is desirable as being the actual state of affairs is Trump's prediction that the day of the Iranian regime are numbered followed by the remark: “much like another president who made similar predictions about the Soviet Union, the president was mocked.” Though the historical allusion was supposed to demonstrate the accuracy of Trump's observation, his judgment appeared to be quite hasty.

January 12, 2018: Statement by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal

In Jan. 2018, when the time came to renew the statutory waivers of the JCPOA, President Trump indicated that this would be the last time. Addressing the other parties to the Nuclear Deal, Trump demanded that the agreement be “fixed” as a condition of continued US participation. The rhetoric behind this high-profile statement is subject to our further consideration.

The statement starts with the outline of the US position on Iranian foreign and domestic policy. In accordance with what we already know of the Iran's image from the perspective of the Trump administration, it relates to Iranian leadership, which presented as a terrorist supporter that challenges regional and global security, suppress its population and commits economic crimes.

Further on, Trump refers to his speech delivered on Oct. 13, 2017. Its content has already been examined in our research. The present statement should therefore be regarded as a natural continuation of the approach adopted.

Proceeding with critical evaluation of Iranian political system, Trump stresses that “the corrupt regime” is “denying its citizens the opportunity to build better lives for their families”, adding that this opportunity is “a God-given right.” Thus, Trump appeals to sacred, or protected values, namely, moral imperatives that cannot be compromised on no matter what the benefits of doing so may be. The Iranian leadership is represented as having neither legal nor moral obligations. Not only do they neglect international norms and standards, but they act against fundamental principles of humanity.

Adressing the implied question of how it was made possible to conclude an agreement with the party, which violates the fundamental values, Trump depicts Obama as a traitor who “curried favor with the Iranian regime.” Here again, we encounter reshaping the image of the last administration as affiliated with hostile force. It contributes to an image of weakened, subdued nation put in imminent danger, what is the opposite of Trump's intention to “make America great again.”

The tone of the statement is far from being reserved. It corresponds to coercive negotiation style pursued by the Trump administration. The text is full of modalities - “must” regarding the new measures taken against Iran, “should” for instructing the partners. It shows the Administration's confidence in the impossibility of seeking further compromises with regard to the matter. This discursive move also creates a sense of urgency serving as a call to action.