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

The end of the statement presents an ample illustration of polarization technique. Here is the full quote: “Those who, for whatever reason, choose not to work with us will be siding with the Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions, and against the people of Iran and the peaceful nations of the world.” As follows, the dichotomy of “we” versus “the enemy”' is established through the assertion that there is no neutral ground.

May 8, 2018: Remarks by President Trump on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

Since neither Iran nor the other parties of the JCPOA followed the conditions set by the Trump administration, in May 2018 the US withdrew from the Nuclear Deal. This announcement aimed to explain the decision taken.

As already been noted, Trump's insistence on pulling out of the JCPOA appears to stem from several implications realized in discourse through a combination of manipulative techniques. One of them is his contempt for Obama and matching conviction that any deal reached by his predecessor can and must be improved. Trump asserts that a better, more constructive deal “could easily have been struck at the time.” Anything that is positive for Iran as perceived as negative for the United States, and the Obama administration is depicted as incompetent and pro-Iranian.

The other conceptual model formed and constantly repeated is the necessity for action in the present to forego the risk of unknown harm in the future. The text is filled with evidentialities used to suggest factuality as self-evident, especially when given arguments are questionable. Some examples of this practice are:

“we have definitive proof ”;

“embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States”;

“if we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen”;

“everyone would want their weapons ready by the time Iran had theirs.” Mental conceptualization serves to discourage oversight and strengthen public support.

At the level of imagery, the arguments are supported by metaphors, idioms and allegories serving to produce certain associations and thus frame the meaning of the statements. For instance, Iranian political leadership is personified and portrayed as a terrorist, while the United States are depicted as its victims. So are the Iranians, later on referred to as “rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land”:

“America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail”;

“this dictatorship seized power and took a proud nation hostage.”

Not only is this representation remarkable in terms of imagery, but it also serves as an allusion to the Iran hostage crisis. Such a historical allusion, as well as any reference to the September 11 attacks, taps into America's collective victimhood fostering fear, insecurity, resentment and hatred. In other words, it triggers an emotional mode that is ideal to later on legitimize political actions based on the effects of those emotions.

A variety of epithets, such as “bloody ambitions”, “malign behavior” and “sinister activities”, is used to enhance the negative evaluation of Iran's foreign and internal policy.

The Trump administration also does not lose sight of “the friend of my enemy” logic. As follows from the statement, “Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.”

May 21, 2018: After the Deal: A New Iran Strategy

Short after the US violation of the JCPOA US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo presented the Trump administration's new strategy on Iran in a speech at the Heritage Foundation. This speech was to clarify the policy pursued by the current administration with regard to Iran along with its strategic implications. His statement included the list of 12 demands for Iran and was characterized as “a bold vision - clear, concise, unambiguous.” Pompeo emphasized that among the addressees of the speech are “the ayatollah, President Rouhani, and other Iranian leaders.” Pompeo also intended to reach out to Iranian civilians, especially those involved in protests.

The rhetorical strategy he pursued describing Iran as the source of the US primary concern is built on the repetition, loaded language and idiomatic expressions used to get an emotional response:

“No more. No more wealth creation for Iranian kleptocrats. No more acceptance of missiles landing in Riyadh and in the Golan Heights. No more cost-free expansions of Iranian power. No more.”

He refers to the group of Iranian physicists, allegedly linked with Iranian nuclear program, as “Mohsen Fakhrizadeh Mahabadi and his gang of nuclear scientists.” The proxies of Iran are, in his view, “now armed to the teeth” while its population have to experience “the hard grip of repression.”

Figurative comparisons are employed into the text so that it acquires the additional connotations:

“The regime has been fighting all over the Middle East for years. After our sanctions come in force, it will be battling to keep its economy alive.”

Proceeding with the conceptual metaphor of sanctions regarded as punishment/revenge, he expresses confidence that “sting of sanctions” will be “painful” for the Iranian leadership.

Considering Iran's role in international affairs, Pompeo dwells on a number of points that should be paid attention to. First, he consistently refers to Iran as the rogue state isolated from the global community. It is the US who imposes and regulates conditions for Iran to “rejoin the league of nations” and “gain acceptance in the international community.” According to Pompeo, in exchange for major changes, the US could “take actions which will benefit the Iranian people”, for instance, to allow Iran to have “advanced technology” and to support “the modernization and reintegration of the Iranian economy into the international economic system.”

The Iranian government is portrayed as week, incompetent, irresponsible, unwise and merely insane. Personified, it is called upon to “look itself in the mirror.” It is noteworthy that, despite the Trump administration claims itself to call for the changes in the Iranian government's behavior, not for the change of the government, Pompeo's remarks appear to indicate that such an outcome reached either through the collapse of the regime or through internal turmoil is regarded as desirable. Though the idea of regime change was not promoted in an explicit way, Pompeo spoke directly to the Iranian people urging them to think critically of their elected president Hassan Rohani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who have been widely portrayed as moderates willing change the country's path. Pompeo refers to the Iranians with the questions, which appears to be somewhat rhetorical:

“Are they not the most responsible for your economic struggles? Are these two not responsible for wasting Iranian lives through the Middle East?”

It is also pointed out by Pompeo, that the Iran's supreme leader Khamenei, born in 1939, “will not live forever.” “Nor will the Iranian people abide the rule of tyrants forever,” he added.

November 2, 2018: Statement by the President Regarding the Reimposition of Nuclear-Related Sanctions on Iran

Announcing unprecedented measures of financial pressure put on Iran by the United States, President Trump reflected both on their consequences and on the overall state of Iran's economy.

The sanctions are described as “historic” and “the toughest that the United States has ever levied against Iran.” Given that they have already proven to have “devastating effect on the Iranian economy”, their strengthening is to pave the path toward “economic disaster.” In order to confirm this statement with figures, Trump refers to statistics noting the falling value of Iran's currency, the growth of inflation rate and exit of transnational companies from the Iranian market.

Right after that Trump emphasizes that the US actions are “at the regime and its threatening behavior--not at the long-suffering Iranian people.” There is an evident discrepancy between this apparently compassionate remark addressing Iranians, traditionally perceived as allies, and the satisfaction with which the economic damage caused by sanctions was just presented to the auditory. Given Trump's determination to destroy Iranian economy, which has already affected the lives of millions and is supposed to target more, any verbal assurance of support seem at least unethical. Thus, the present statement provides a clear example of a pragmatic, ad hoc approach taken by the Trump administration in regards to Iran and resulted in controversies over its discursive coverage. Ostentatious benevolence towards “the oppressed nation” hardly combines with the ferocity of severe policies and measures that firstly hit ordinary Iranians. This presupposes the focus change in covering the image of Iran as an enemy depending on whether the target audience is the global community, American citizens or Iranian people.

As follows from the end of the statement, the United States “remains open” to reach a new deal. Trump asserts that his administration is ready to renegotiate. However, it is Iran who is supposed to “return in good faith to the negotiating table” after the US unilaterally withdrew the international agreement. Put another way, Trump wants the adversary to step forward, as this will be taken as an unequivocal sign of its surrender and victory of the US administration.

December 2018: Confronting Iran: The Trump Administration's Strategy

This article of Mike Pompeo first appeared in the November/December 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs. Lengthy and detailed, it presents a review of the Trump administration's position on the US-Iran relations. It is clear from the very headline that this relationship is built on confrontation. The titles of the article's subsections - “The Trump Doctrine”, “The Iranian Threat”, “The Pressure Campaign”, “Iran Exposed” and “The Power of Moral Clarity” - are quite symbolic as to how this confrontation is justified. As we have already figured out, representing Iran as a threat (“The Iranian Threat”) and a criminal actor (“Iran exposed”) are the most common ways of its portrayal. Besides, they are frequently reinforced by rhetoric in defense of democracy.

Sticking upon the discourse of confrontation, Pompeo labels the opposing parties as “adversaries”, “staunchest adversaries” and “US rivals.” Reflecting on Iran's position on the global stage, Pompeo characterizes it in the following way:

“chief among outlaw regimes are North Korea and Iran.”

“today, no regime has more of an outlaw character than that of Iran”

“Iran's actions have made the country a pariah.”

The text is overloaded with political cliches and historical references. Iran is repeatedly compared to the Soviet Union, e. g.

“This phenomenon is similar to what occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s, when the spirit of 1917 began to ring hollow on account of the hypocrisy of its champions. The Politburo could no longer with a straight face tell Soviet citizens to embrace communism when Soviet officials were themselves secretly peddling smuggled blue jeans and Beatles records”

“US President Ronald Reagan understood the power of exposure when he cast the Soviet Union as “an evil empire.” By throwing a spotlight on the regime's abuses, he was pledging solidarity with a people who had long suffered under communism. It is likewise for the sake of the Iranian people”

“Untold numbers of Iranians are tortured and die in Evin Prison--a place no kinder than the basement of the Lubyanka, the dreaded headquarters of the kgb”

“It is in keeping with the character of the United States that we expose these abuses. As President Reagan said in a speech at Moscow State University in 1988…”

Continuing to delegitimize the Iranian government and, consequently, to justify the political course followed by the Trump administration, Pompeo states that “Iran's elite resembles a Mafia in its racketeering and corruption.” His sharp criticism of sociopolitical situation in Iran is full of imagery. Let us consider the following examples:

“This malaise is a problem of the regime's own making”

“Officials have wrapped themselves in the cloak of religion while robbing the Iranian people blind”

“The regime's greed has created a chasm between the people of Iran and their leaders”

Thus, the Iranian administration and Iran in general, in addition to previously mentioned characteristics, is represented as ill and hypocritical. The article depicts Iran's leaders as lawbreakers seeking to cover up their crimes, which are “illicit revenue streams, malign activities, crooked self-dealing, and savage oppression.” Their worst fear is “the lid blown off their true workings.” The declared US intention to reveal these activities is supported by the vague assertion that “moral confrontation leads to diplomatic conciliation.”

The Iranian leadership is also labeled “recalcitrant”, “retrograde” and “wedded to ideological principles.” Although “the difficulties (sic!) of Iraq fresh in mind”, as well as previous attempts to neutralize the nuclear threat, have shown the need for new strategy, the heavy-handed approach is still present in political rhetoric. Though the Trump administration strives to persuade the public and political counterparts that the US does not seek war, it does not prevent Pompeo from turning to military language. It appears from his words, that “the Iranian regime understands and fears the United States' military might” since “the Islamic Republic cannot match the United States' military prowess.”

3.3 Publications Made in Twitter

Close reading of the sample revealed that discursive representation of Iran in Twitter posts of the US policy-makers is consistent with the strategies applied in the above-mentioned publications. However, 280-character limit for tweets (was expanded from 140 characters in 2017) makes any message transmitted via this medium look focused and concise. It is largely for this reason that political statements delivered through Twitter are widely reported on by other media and capture the public's attention. No doubt, the Trump administration take this significant consideration into account to present a distillation of their views on the US-Iran relations. It is therefore essential to analyze the content of their tweets with respect to prioritized thematic ideas.

We have already defined the most common ways of Iran's portrayal in the texts addressing international relations. It is typically depicted as

a global threat (undermining world peace and security);

a lawbreaker (acting outside the normative and legal constraints);

an oppressive regime (violating human rights and principles of democracy).

The last point results in division between the Iranian authorities and Iranian people, which are portrayed as longtime regime opponents and victims. Accordingly, Iranian population is regarded as acting alongside the Trump administration to promote freedom and human rights while Barack Obama and his team are presented as accomplices of Iranian regime.

Though these clichés are often pulled together when being implemented into rhetoric, it is of importance to assess the frequency of their manifestation in the texts. Preceding conceptualization allowed us to start the analysis with concept-driven coding. In order to gain more accurate insight into the US political discourse, we found it reasonable to approach the tweets written by Donald Trump, Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo separately. The following graphs illustrate the distribution of themes referred to in their Twitter posts:

Graphs 1 - Discursive strategies



Graphs 2 - Discursive strategies

Graphs 3 - Discursive strategies

It should be noted that while undertaking the analysis of textual information an additional thematic line related to the idea of renegotiations was identified and distinguished from other categories. Moreover, though the themes labeled “Iran as an oppressive regime” and “Support for Iranian people” are interrelated and tend to correlate with each other, they were regarded as separate categories instead of adoption of a broader concept. The latter was singled out only in the cases when the US advocacy for Iranians was expressed explicitly.

Since the data at the beginning may be coded in a slightly different way than material approached later, the whole dataset of 133 tweets was reviewed for the definitional drift to ascertain the quality of coding process.

It is evident from pie charts visualizing the observations that “Iran as a global threat” concept is a predominant model of representing Iran in tweets of Pence and Pompeo. It takes the second position in posts of Trump replaced by “Iran as a lawbreaker” narrative, which is also of high priority for Pompeo. When treating Iran as a threat is intended to trigger the feeling of fear and instability, the focus on the illegality of Iran's actions, corrupt and deceitful nature of its leadership aims to delegitimize it, challenging its credibility in the international arena. The percentage of “Iran as an oppressive regime” rhetoric relative to the discourse as a whole is also high enough. Though the representations frequently complement each other, during December 2017-January 2018 public protests in Iran became fertile ground for sharp criticism of Iranian government, and during this period of time Iran's depiction as tyranny was prevailing. It was often combined with the appeal to the Iranians to fight for their freedom and the assurances of the US and the world's genuine support.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the accusations against the last leadership, though present in all the datasets, reached dramatic proportions in tweets of Trump. Their unparalleled frequency suggests that the president is persistent in his willingness to delegitimize and criminalize the Obama administration and, consequently, enhance his own reputation in the eyes of the public. Thus, it turns out that Anti-Iranian rhetoric clearly serves the purpose of gaining advantage in domestic contestation. That is an emblematic case of how the US internal political considerations are reflected in development of the state's strategic policy.

The remarkable fact is that, against all the odds, the idea of further negotiations is still present in the rhetoric of all three policy-makers. However, such a perspective is rarely mentioned, and when the topic is raised the US almost invariably shifts the responsibility to Iran. The opposing party is supposed to seek opportunities to make amends as if transition from confrontation to an acceptable compromise should not involve any efforts of the US.

The results show that within the US political discourse Iran is approached both as a military threat and a state with humanitarian concerns, depending on the agenda. The rhetoric has little focus on addressing challenges through the possibility of new negotiations is not excluded.

Social actor analysis

Social actors as a discourse analytical category are viewed as the textual instantiations of models of the self and others, both individual and collective (Hart, 2014; van Leeuwen, 2008). In order to analyze how the US represents itself and its adversaries all the social actors mentioned in the dataset were classified in such categories as

Iranian government

The allies of Iranian government

The Obama administration

Iranian people

The US

The allies of the US & global community

Complete list of the actors mentioned is provided in tables in the Attachment.

Our first observation concerns the incorporation of the Iranian people into the in-group associated with the United States. Not only the US is presented as the “natural ally” of the Iranians, but the borders between Iranian-American community - the US citizens - and the population of Iran are blurred by the use of such reference as “our Iranian-American and Iranian friends.” Similarly, the idea of the US as the voice of the global community is actualized when stating “America and the world”, “every freedom-loving American and people who cherish freedom around the world” and, ultimately, “a leading champion of freedom.” The in-group is commonly referred to as “we” or “our” (nation, alliance, countries, allies, partners) in opposition to the out-group represented by Iranian government, their associates and the members of the Obama administration blamed for illegal ties with the Iranian authorities. The out-group is marked by the pronoun “it”, not “they”, what would be more typical of We - They dichotomy (Zur, 1991). Since the regime is perceived as an enemy, it is held accountable for everything what happens on its own.

The choice between generic and specific reference is one more significant dimension of the portrayal of social actors (van Leeuwen, 2008). They can be represented as classes, or as identifiable individuals. For instance, while the countries that share the US view on global affairs are frequently referred to by the collective “partners” or “allies”, the actors affiliated with Iran are commonly presented as “dictators” and “terrorists.”

Further, negative evaluation of the actors belonging to the out-group marked by the epithets is matched by equally strong positive evaluation of the in-group actors.

The lines between the parties are drawn so sharply that these characteristics mutually exclusive. The values that are respected and defended by the US and its allies are the ones that are neglected and threatened by Iran.

An ongoing concept formation takes place, with the resulting concept fusing the semantic features of all of the expressions used as synonyms. New shades of meaning are added each time a new or slightly modified expression is used, gradually building up a more multifaceted image.



Conclusion

This part of the thesis outlines the main ideas of the research and reports on the results which have been obtained. The study focused on the image of the enemy constructed by the current US administration with regard to Iran. More precisely, it examined the discursive and rhetorical means of creating such an image. It therefore aimed to fill a vacuum in the understanding of the topic that, being a subject of special concern, has been largely overlooked from the linguistic stance.

Seen as a whole, the findings of the research helped to recognize the discursive strategies used by the US decision-makers to target public opinion and legitimize the state policy. An interpretive textual analysis of the data set elucidated the discursive strategies of the present US administration and revealed the linguistic means applied to create the enemy image of Iran. Characteristics presented in the analysis were provided with excerpts illustrating its functioning within the text. The findings were carefully evaluated to mitigate the risk of any bias or misinterpretation.

As was expected from the study of sociopolitical and discursive contexts these means are constistent with what is already known about the practice of the enemy image construction as sociopolitical phenomenon. However, the emphasis was put on the trends determined by the context of the US-Iran relations.

Now, there is a need to summarize the discovered image of the enemy promoted by the Trump administration. Furthermore, the correlation between such an image and the peculiarities of the US political way of thinking should be outlined to enhance our understanding of the US political discourse.

Throughout the whole period of observation the enemy was depicted as:

direct threat to the USA and the global security;

criminal acting outside international law, who should never be trusted;

oppressive authoritarian regime.

These concepts are interconnected, stem from each other and are chosen in accordance with the primary intention of the text and the audience addressed.

Representations of Iran as a dangerous terrorist state have pervaded US discourse for decades, with George W. Bush's 2002 State of the Union `axis of evil' speech just one notable example. Showing the enemy as an aggressor and exploiter abusing its long-suffering population as well as ostentatious display of empathy with the population, positioned America as the world's leader of freedom, is not a recent development too. However, this representational dynamic has intensified under the Trump administration. Expanding the range of connotations, Trump and his officials use and combine them depending on the context, audience and political goal.

Most often, Iran is referred to as a threat endangering stability, peace and security both of the Middle East and of the whole world. It is frequently constructed through historical comparisons employed into the texts to cement the emotion of fear. Modalities and evidentialities, repetitions, loaded words and political clichés assist to accomplish the language manipulation.

By reinforcing the danger of the potential threat, it is easy to draw upon hypothetical evidence in support of the strategy taken. In this respect, it was suggested by Oddo (2011, p. 289) that “by representing an enemy that is completely evil and ready to strike, the discourse practically necessitates only one course of action.” If a political administration focuses on purely pejorative representation of its counterpart contributing to misrecognition, fostering hatred and exacerbating tensions between the two countries, it limits options available. Bent not on coercive diplomacy but on coercion without diplomacy, the US closes itself from other strategic possibilities that may be more suited to bringing peace.

Speaking about the future prospects of research on this topic, it is imperative to for more comprehensive research to be conducted on the ground of the analysis of the US image from Iranian perspective and their comparative evaluation. In addition, it is important to expand the chronological framework including the most recent statements issued.

References

1. Adib-Moghaddam, A. (2007). Manufacturing war: Iran in the neo-conservative imagination. Third World Quarterly, 28(3), 635-653.

2. Adib-Moghaddam, A. (2011). Discourse and violence: the friend-enemy conjunction in contemporary Iranian-American relations. In Ehteshami, A., & Molavi, R. (eds.), Iran and the International System, 150-167. Abingdon: Routledge.

3. Altheide, D. L. (2006). Terrorism and the politics of fear. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

4. Beeman, W. O. (2007). The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs”: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other. (Paperback ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

5. Boulding, K. E. (1956). The image: knowledge in life and society. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

6. Boulding, K. E. (1959). National images and international systems. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3(2), 120-131.

7. Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

8. Duncombe, C. (2017). Twitter and transformative diplomacy: social media and Iran-US relations. International Affairs, 93(3), 545-562.

9. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

10. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: Papers in the critical study of language. New York: Longman.

11. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse as social interaction, 258-284. London: Thousand Oaks.

12. Frank, J. D., & Melville, A. Y. (1988). The Image of the Enemy and the Process of Change. In Gromyko, A. A, & Hellman, M. E. (eds), Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking, 201-211. Palo Alto, California: Beyond War Foundation.

13. Ghasemi Tari, Z., & Kadkhodee, E. (2018). Otherising Iran in American political discourse: case study of a post-JCPOA senate hearing on Iran sanctions. Third World Quarterly, 39(6), 1-20.

14. Graham, P. W., Keenan, T, & Dowd, A.-M. (2004). A call to arms at the end of history: A discourse-historical analysis of George W. Bush's declaration of war on terror. Discourse and Society, 15(2-3), 199-221.

15. Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology: functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.

16. Hodges, A., & Chad, N. (2007). Discourse, War, and Terrorism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

17. Kellner, D. (2003). From 9/11 to terror war: The dangers of the Bush legacy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

18. Kellner, D. (2004). 9/11, Spectacles of terror, and media manipulation: A critique of jihadist and Bush media politics. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(1), 1-26.

19. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. The essential guide for progressives. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.

20. Lewis, S. C., & Reese, S. D. (2009). What Is the War on Terror? Framing Through the Eyes of Journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(1), 85-102.

21. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

22. Merskin, D. (2004). The Construction of Arabs as Enemies: Post-Sept 11 Discourse of George W. Bush. Mass Communication and Society, 7(2), 157-175.

23. Moradi-Joz, R., Ketabi, S., & Tavakoli, M. (2018a). On conductive argumentation: President Trump's United Nations address on Iran in focus. Journal of Language and Politics, Published online 31 Oct, 2018, 1-24.

24. Ott, B. L. (2017). The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(1), 59-68.

25. Rasamny, T. (2016). Political Prioritization: American-Iranian Discourse Leading Up to the Nuclear Deal. Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects, 962.

26. Tirman, J. (2009). Diplomacy, Terrorism and National Narratives in the United States-Iran Relationship. Critical Studies on Terrorism 2(3), 527-539.

27. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). What is political discourse analysis? In Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, Ch. (eds.), Political Linguistics, 124-142.

28. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29. Zur, O. (1991). The love of hating: The psychology of Enmity. History of European Ideas, 13(4), 345-369.

30. 

Attachment

Social Actor Analysis

Donald Trump

Iranian government	The allies of Iranian government	The Obama administration
Iran Iranian President Hassan Rouhani Iranian President Rouhani Iranian govt the world's leading state sponsor of terror the Number One State of Sponsored Terror the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime corrupt government murderous regime oppressive regime regime	Anyone doing business with Iran Participants in the deal North Korea Iraq	the Obama Administration President Obama Obama John Kerry
Iranian people	The US	The allies of the US & global community
Iranians the long-suffering people of Iran the people of Iran the people the great Iranian people the good people of Iran Iran's people Iranian citizens	the USA the United States the U.S. the people of America	the world the entire world many people Israel

Mike Pence

Iranian government	The allies of Iranian government	The Obama administration
Iran the world's leading state terror sponsor the leading state sponsor of terrorism a regime that sponsors terrorism across the region a regime that continues to menace & threaten the world a regime that continues to focus resources on threatening the world the corrupt regime in Tehran the dictatorship in Iran the regime in Tehran the Iranian regime brutal regime the ayatollahs in Tehran the Iranian Revolutionary Guard	radical Islamic terrorists, backed by Iran brutal dictators and terrorists abroad	the Obama administration the White House in 2009 the last administration
Iranian people	The US	The allies of the US & global community
the Iranian people the people of Iran people in Iran hardworking Iranians Iranians who want a better, more prosperous & freer future the courageous people of Iran freedom-loving people in Iran the freedom-loving people of Iran who continue to fight against their government's corruption and tyranny the people of Iran rising up to demand change in their country the people on the streets of those cities across Iran protestors rising up in cities across Iran the brave Iranian protesters who are risking their lives for freedom peaceful protestors in Iran who are speaking out for freedom innocents protesters in Iran	the United States of America the US the U.S & the people of this country - their [Iranians] natural ally President Donald Trump's Administration the Trump Administration our Admin President Trump the President Pompeo American leadership The House of Reps. our Marine Barracks a leading champion of freedom American heroes American people	the world the United Nations freedom loving people everywhere all the Middle East our alliance & all the world our countries or allies our allies across Europe many of our European partners Israel
	every freedom-loving American and people who cherish freedom around the world America and the world



Mike Pompeo

iranian policy trump pompeo

Iranian government	The allies of Iranian government	The Obama administration
Iran the Islamic Republic of Iran the Islamic Republic Tehran Rouhani & Zarif Khamenei who fancies himself the leader of the Islamic world Ayatollah Khamenei Khamenei Iranian leadership Iran's leaders their leaders the world's top state sponsor of terror Iran's regime the regime in Iran the Iranian regime Iran's ruling regime the Ayatollah's regime the ruling regime the regime the mullahs Iran's outlaw regime Iran's morally corrupt regime Iran's malevolent regime Iran's criminal regime Iran's corrupt regime the corrupt regime an oppressive government IRGC a politically-connected member of the regime's elite an Iranian regime assassin two Iranian agents who plotted terrorist attacks in Albania an Iranian “diplomat” in Vienna Iranian “diplomat” Asadollah Assadi	anyone who wants to engage in economic activity with the regime in Iran China--the top buyer of Iran's oil Russia Assad Hizballah, Hamas, Taliban, and alQaeda Assad, Hizbollah, Hamas & Houthis Assad, Hizballah, Hamas, and other terrorists Assad, Hizballah & Hamas Hizballah and Hamas Hezbollah terrorists who endanger the Palestinians' lives & livelihoods Iran-backed terrorism terrorists Houthis in Yemen Yemen Syria Iraq Baghdad	John Kerry
Iranian people	The US	The allies of the US & global community
the Iranian people Iranians Iranian families Iran's youth its own people the people ordinary Iranians its citizens unarmed citizens the proud people of Iran the people, who have suffered the pain of their government's mismanagement, theft, and brutality struggling people the regime's longest-suffering victims Iranians yearning for freedom Christians, Jews, Sunnis, Baha'is & Zoroastrians over 800 prisoners of conscience journalists 5,000 Iranians arrested in January's protests. 30 women jailed for protesting the hijab. Hundreds of Sufi dervishes, dozens of environmentalists, 400 Ahwazis, 30 Isfahan farmers Mohammad Salas, a member of the long-persecuted Iranian Gonabadi Sufi Dervish community a Gonabadi Sufi dervish Mohammad Salas	the United States the U.S. the Trump Administration Iran Action Group, led by Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook Iran Action Group the American people our colleagues the innocent Americans held hostage by Iran, and their families Bob Levinson and all other U.S. hostages	the world UN Security Council the International Monetary Fund other nations any nation that seeks peace and prosperity in the Middle East many countries our allies and partners our allies our partners our countries Europe European nations the government of Denmark PM Edi Rama Saudi Arabia & UAE Saudi Arabia the Palestinian people the Yemeni people Canada
the Persian poet Nezami our Iranian-American and Iranian friends the Iranian-American community

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru