The Discourse of Dominance and Resistance: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the 2026 United States vs Iran Conflict

By

¹Aliyu Uthman Abdulkadir & ²Oluwatomi Adeoti

Department of English, Kwara State University, Malete, Kwara State, Nigeria

Corresponding author’s email abdulkadir.aliyu13@kwasu.edu.ng

Abstract

This study examines how dominance and resistance are simultaneously enacted at ideological and linguistic levels in wartime political discourse during the 2026 U.S.–Iran conflict, focusing on political leaders in the United States and Iran. Drawing on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) with particular emphasis on van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive approach and Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), the research analyzes how ideology, power, and social cognition are linguistically realized in wartime political discourse. The data consist of 6 purposively selected excerpts drawn from the United States presidential and defense briefings by President Donald Trump and diplomatic statements by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Findings reveal that the United States wartime discourse constructs dominance through ideological strategies such as positive self‑presentation, negative other‑presentation, threat amplification, historical legitimation, and inevitability framing. These strategies are linguistically realized through high‑certainty modality, material processes foregrounding the United States agency, evaluative intensification, imperatives, and thematically controlled sequencing that normalizes military force. In contrast, Iranian discourse constructs resistance through legal‑moral counter‑framing, humanitarian appeals, victim positioning, and civilizational identity construction. Linguistically, resistance is realized through relational processes emphasizing affectedness, categorical assertions, humanitarian listing, norm‑based appraisal, and thematic foregrounding of suffering and accountability. By integrating van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive framework with Halliday’s SFL, the study demonstrates how wartime political discourse functions as a constitutive force that shapes audience mental models, legitimizes action, and negotiates power. The research contributes methodologically by bridging ideological analysis and linguistic realization, and empirically by offering a comparative account of how dominance and resistance are discursively enacted in high‑stakes international conflict. The study demonstrates that wartime political discourse functions not only to describe conflict but to actively shape ideology, legitimacy, and public understanding.

Introduction

The outbreak of open hostilities between the United States and Iran in early 2026 marked a significant escalation of long‑standing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. What began with coordinated the U.S–Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military and nuclear‑related sites on 28 February 2026 rapidly intensified into a sustained military confrontation involving missile retaliation, targeted assassinations, attacks on strategic infrastructure, and regional disruption (Reuters, 2026; POLITICO, 2026). President Donald Trump announced the commencement of “major combat operations in Iran,” framing the attacks as a defensive response to “imminent threats” rooted in decades of alleged Iranian aggression against the United States interests and allies (CNBC, 2026). By 2 March 2026, the United States defense officials outlined the objectives of Operation Epic Fury, presenting the campaign as a decisive response to what was described as 47 years of hostility and emphasizing the dismantling of Iran’s military capabilities (Defense News, 2026; ABC News, 2026).

Within this context, political rhetoric functioned as more than commentary; it became a strategic instrument for legitimizing military force, mobilizing public support, and shaping domestic and international perceptions of the conflict (Fairclough, 2010; van Dijk, 1998). The United States leadership consistently articulated a discourse of dominance characterized by moral certainty, threat amplification, and demands for unconditional surrender, framing the conflict as a zero‑sum struggle of will rather than a negotiated political contest (POLITICO, 2026; TIME, 2026). In contrast, Iranian leadership advanced a discourse of resistance centered on sovereignty, legality, and moral legitimacy, depicting the conflict as an asymmetrical struggle against external coercion and unlawful aggression (Al Jazeera, 2026).

These competing narratives illustrate how wartime political discourse actively constructs dominance and resistance through ideological polarization rather than merely describing military realities. Drawing on van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive Critical Discourse Analysis and Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics, this study analyzes three key political texts used by the United States executive statements and an Iranian diplomatic address used to demonstrate how ideology and linguistic form jointly shape power, legitimacy, and identity in contemporary international conflict.

Statement of the Problem

The 2026 United States and Iran conflict provides a critical context for examining the role of discourse in wartime political communication. High profile interventions, including President Donald Trump’s declaration of “major combat operations in Iran” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s briefing on Operation Epic Fury, demonstrate how political discourse is used to justify military action, construct adversarial identities, and mobilize nationalist sentiment. In these texts, Iran is framed as a long-standing existential threat, while the United States military action is presented as morally justified and historically necessary. Conversely, Iranian political discourse emphasized resistance, sovereignty, and defensive legitimacy. Iranian leaders framed their actions as necessary responses to external aggression and sought to maintain ideological coherence through appeals to national identity and moral legitimacy. Despite the significance of these discourses, limited research systematically examines how dominance and resistance are enacted simultaneously at ideological and linguistic levels in wartime speech. While Systemic Functional Linguistics reveals how meaning is constructed grammatically, it is rarely integrated with socio cognitive frameworks such as van Dijk’s Critical Discourse Analysis. A combined van Dijk and SFL approach is therefore necessary to illuminate how language constructs power, legitimacy, and national identity during international conflict.

Justification of the Study

Political discourse, particularly during periods of armed conflict, has long attracted scholarly attention due to its capacity to shape ideology, reproduce power relations, and influence public perception. Within this tradition, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has been widely employed to examine how political language constructs social realities, legitimizes authority, and normalizes violence. Scholars such as Fairclough (2010), van Dijk (1998), and Wodak (2001) emphasize that political discourse is inherently ideological, functioning strategically to guide public opinion, authorize political action, and sustain unequal power structures across diverse sociopolitical contexts. A growing body of research has focused specifically on wartime and crisis rhetoric. Chiluwa and Ruzaite (2024), for example, analyze discourse surrounding the Russia–Ukraine conflict and demonstrate how political leaders mobilize language to legitimize military action and construct national identity. Similarly, Solopova and Naumova (2023) apply van Dijk’s socio-cognitive framework to the United States wartime presidential speeches, identifying recurrent strategies such as positive self-presentation, negative other-presentation, and threat amplification. Beyond Western contexts, Addae, Alhassan, and Kyeremeh (2019) show how political discourse in African leadership communication reproduces ideology and dominance through pronoun use, metaphor, and evaluative language.

Despite these contributions, significant gaps remain. Much existing research addresses single national contexts or isolated genres of political discourse, without systematically comparing opposing actors within the same conflict. Moreover, while CDA has been effective in uncovering ideological meaning, many studies prioritize macro-level interpretation at the expense of detailed analysis of linguistic mechanisms such as transitivity, modality, and evaluative lexis This study addresses these gaps by conducting a comparative Critical Discourse Analysis of United States and Iranian political speeches produced during the 2026 conflict, specifically examining wartime statements and briefings delivered by the United States President Donald Trump and the diplomatic addresses by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. By integrating van Dijk’s socio-cognitive CDA with Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics, the study links ideological strategies with their linguistic realization, offering a comprehensive account of how dominance and resistance are discursively constructed in high-stakes wartime communication.

Literature Review

Critical Discourse Analysis: Foundations and Key Approaches

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a multidisciplinary framework concerned with examining how language functions in the construction, maintenance, and contestation of power relations within society. Its development is closely associated with the work of scholars such as Norman Fairclough, Teun A. van Dijk, and Ruth Wodak, whose seminal contributions helped establish CDA as a distinctive and influential research paradigm (Fairclough, 2010; van Dijk, 1998; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Central to CDA is the conceptualization of discourse as a form of social practice, premised on the assumption that language does not merely reflect social reality but actively shapes it by reproducing or transforming social structures, ideologies, and inequalities.

Among the foundational models within CDA, Fairclough’s three‑dimensional framework which integrates textual analysis, discursive practice, and sociocultural practice has been particularly influential. This model enables researchers to link detailed linguistic analysis with processes of interpretation and broader sociopolitical contexts, thereby demonstrating how discourse contributes to the production and stabilization of ideological meanings and power asymmetries (Fairclough, 2010). Fairclough’s approach underscores the importance of examining both the formal features of text and the institutional and historical conditions under which discourse is produced and consumed.

Complementing this perspective, Wodak’s Discourse‑Historical Approach (DHA) places strong emphasis on the role of historical context, intertextuality, and collective memory in shaping political discourse. DHA illustrates how political actors strategically draw upon historical narratives, shared cultural knowledge, and identity constructions to legitimize authority, justify political actions, and exclude opposing voices (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). This approach is particularly valuable for analyzing political and wartime discourse, where appeals to history and national identity are frequently mobilized to foster legitimacy and cohesion.

Teun A. van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive model adds a crucial dimension to CDA by foregrounding the interface between discourse, cognition, and society. van Dijk argues that discourse structures influence and are influenced by social cognition in the form of shared beliefs, attitudes, and mental models. His work demonstrates how political elites employ discursive strategies such as positive self‑presentation and negative other‑presentation to shape public perceptions of in‑groups and out‑groups, thereby reproducing ideological polarization and reinforcing dominance (van Dijk, 1998; van Dijk, 2006). This model is particularly relevant for analyzing wartime political speeches, where leaders seek to legitimize violence, construct enemy images, and align public opinion with strategic objectives.

Collectively, these approaches underscore the analytical strength of CDA in examining political discourse as a site of power struggle. CDA scholarship consistently highlights political communication, such as speeches, policy statements, and institutional briefings as a domain in which asymmetries of power are most visibly enacted. Through systematic analysis of language use, CDA exposes mechanisms of dominance, exclusion, persuasion, and ideological framing across different institutional and national contexts (Fairclough, 2010; van Dijk, 1998; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Foundational surveys of the field further emphasize CDA’s normative commitment to uncovering the often-opaque ways in which power operates through discourse, with applications spanning media analysis, ethnopolitical conflict, and wartime rhetoric.

Systemic Functional Linguistics and Its Contribution to Political Discourse Analysis

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), developed by M. A. K. Halliday, conceptualizes language as a resource for meaning‑making through three interrelated metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual. The ideational metafunction concerns how language represents experience and construes social reality; the interpersonal metafunction regulates social relations and enacts attitudes, judgments, and degrees of commitment; while the textual metafunction organizes information to ensure coherence and flow within discourse (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). Because these metafunctions link grammatical form to social function, SFL has been widely applied to political discourse analysis, where language is strategically used to construct ideology, authority, and social positioning (Eggins, 2004; Martin & White, 2005).

SFL’s analytical strength lies in its capacity to reveal how ideological meanings are embedded in linguistic structure rather than surface content alone. In political texts, choices in transitivity patterns, modality, thematic organization, and evaluative lexis are rarely neutral; instead, they encode particular representations of agency, responsibility, obligation, and moral stance. As such, SFL provides a systematic framework for identifying how political actors linguistically construe events, assign blame or credit, and position themselves vis‑à‑vis audiences and adversaries (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Eggins, 2004).

A crucial point of convergence between SFL and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is found in Fairclough’s pioneering work, which explicitly draws on Hallidayan linguistics to connect linguistic form with social power. Fairclough’s Language and Power (1989) demonstrate how grammatical features such as transitivity, modality, nominalization, and thematic structure function as sites where ideology is realized and naturalized. Subsequent SFL‑based CDA studies have expanded this approach by incorporating appraisal theory, showing how political discourse evaluates actors, actions, and events to legitimize authority and delegitimize opposition (Fairclough, 2010; Martin & White, 2005). Scholars have emphasized that SFL provides the empirical and methodological rigor that CDA sometimes lacks, enabling systematic and replicable analyses of how discourse constructs power and ideology. In political speeches, process types, participant roles, and modal expressions are often ideologically motivated, making SFL particularly effective for identifying the linguistic realization of dominance, resistance, persuasion, and legitimization (Eggins, 2004; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). These linguistic patterns are especially salient in wartime discourse, where leaders must simultaneously justify violence, mobilize support, and construct moral legitimacy.

The historical and theoretical compatibility between SFL and CDA has led many scholars to advocate their integration as a comprehensive analytical framework for political discourse. By combining CDA’s macro‑level concern with ideology, power, and social context with SFL’s micro‑level precision in linguistic analysis, researchers can bridge the gap between what ideological meanings are communicated and how those meanings are linguistically realized (Fairclough, 2010; van Dijk, 2006). This integrated approach is particularly suited to the analysis of conflict discourse, in which political, military, and diplomatic texts rely on complex grammatical and evaluative strategies to construct competing narratives.

Critical Discourse Analysis and Wartime Political Communication

Wartime political discourse has long attracted the attention of critical discourse scholars because it constitutes a concentrated site of ideological persuasion, identity construction, and power negotiation. Foundational CDA research emphasizes that discourse in conflict situations plays a central role in legitimizing military action, defining enemies, mobilizing public support, and normalizing exceptional political measures (Fairclough, 2010; van Dijk, 1998; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Within such contexts, language does not function merely as a descriptive tool but as a strategic resource through which political leaders frame violence as necessary, lawful, and morally justified.

Scholars examining wartime political communication consistently identify recurring discursive strategies employed by leaders to shape public understanding and consent. These include threat construction, moral justification, emotional appeals, and narratives of national unity, all of which serve to simplify complex geopolitical realities and align audiences with state objectives (Chilton & Schäffner, 2002; Hansen, 2011). Through such strategies, political actors frame conflict in emotionally resonant terms, often invoking fear, security, duty, and patriotism to consolidate support and suppress dissent.

Historical accounts of CDA’s development demonstrate that political and media discourse rapidly became central areas of application for researchers seeking to uncover hidden ideologies and asymmetries of power in institutional communication (van Dijk, 1998; Wodak, 2001). Wartime rhetoric, in particular, frequently relies on polarizing binaries such as us versus them, good versus evil, or civilization versus barbarism, to delegitimize adversaries while reinforcing in‑group solidarity (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). Such binary constructions naturalize state violence and render alternative interpretations politically or morally illegitimate. These insights provide a critical foundation for analyzing the United States and Iranian political discourse during the 2026 conflict, where similar oppositional framings are evident.

Despite the strengths of CDA in uncovering ideological dimensions of wartime discourse, scholars have noted that many studies prioritize macro‑level thematic or ideological interpretation, often with limited systematic attention to the linguistic structures through which these ideologies are enacted (Fairclough, 2010; van Dijk, 2006). Reviews of CDA scholarship highlight ongoing challenges in integrating detailed grammatical analysis with broader socio‑cognitive and ideological interpretation, underscoring the need for analytical frameworks that address both content and form in political discourse (Eggins, 2004; Martin & White, 2005).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study is grounded in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), with particular emphasis on Teun A. van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive approach, and is complemented by Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) for the analysis of the linguistic realization of ideological meanings. This integrated framework enables a multi‑level examination of wartime political discourse by systematically linking linguistic structures, ideological strategies, and social cognition in the construction of dominance, resistance, legitimacy, and national identity.

van Dijk’s Socio‑Cognitive Approach

Key analytical components of van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive approach include the following:

• Ideological structures, which refer to socially shared systems of beliefs and values that define group identity and interests. In political discourse, these ideologies are encoded through representations of “self” and “other,” often framing the in‑group as legitimate, rational, and moral while portraying the out‑group as dangerous, irrational, or illegitimate.
• Discursive strategies, such as positive self‑presentation and negative other‑presentation, which function to reinforce ideological polarization. Additional strategies include threat amplification, presupposition, implication, and polarization, all of which guide audience interpretation by foregrounding certain meanings while backgrounding or excluding alternatives.
• Mental models, which are internalized cognitive representations of events, actors, and causal relations. These models explain how audiences make sense of political messages and why repeated discursive patterns can normalize particular interpretations of conflict, responsibility, and legitimacy.
• Contextual knowledge, encompassing historical memory, national narratives, socio‑cultural schemas, and shared assumptions. Such knowledge shapes how discourse is interpreted and legitimized, allowing political actors to evoke collective experiences and ideological continuity.

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)

While van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive model provides a robust framework for identifying ideological strategies and cognitive effects, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) supplies the analytical tools necessary to examine how these ideologies are linguistically realized in discourse. Developed by M. A. K. Halliday, SFL conceptualizes language as a social semiotic system in which meaning is constructed through three interrelated metafunctions (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Martin & White, 2005).

These metafunctions include:

• The ideational metafunction, which represents experience through processes, participants, and circumstances. Analysis at this level reveals how agency, causality, and responsibility are encoded, for example through material processes, actor roles, and grammatical choices that assign blame or credit.
• The interpersonal metafunction, which enacts social relations through modality, evaluation, and appraisal. This metafunction captures how speakers’ express certainty, obligation, judgment, and stance, thereby shaping authority, persuasion, and moral positioning in political speech.
• The textual metafunction, which organizes discourse through thematic structure, information flow, and cohesion. This level of analysis reveals how speakers guide interpretation by foregrounding particular elements of the message and structuring discourse for persuasive effect.

Methodology

The empirical basis of this study consists of primary political texts produced during the 2026 the United States and Iran conflict. On the United States side, the corpus includes President Donald Trump’s 28 February 2026 national address announcing the commencement of major combat operations in Iran, a speech that frames Iran as a long‑standing existential threat and justifies military escalation through references to decades of alleged Iranian aggression. On the Iranian side, the study analyzes a diplomatic address delivered by Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, during the early phase of the conflict. In this speech, Araghchi articulates Iran’s official response to the United States military action by emphasizing national sovereignty, the illegitimacy of unilateral aggression, and Iran’s right to self‑defence under international law. The address frames Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities as defensive and lawful deterrents, while portraying the United States strikes as destabilizing acts that violate global norms and regional security. As a diplomatic text, Araghchi’s speech provides an institutional counter‑narrative that contrasts sharply with the United States executive and military rhetoric. For analytical consistency and balance, three representative excerpts were purposively selected from each of the speeches delivered by Trump and Araghchi, resulting in a total of nine excerpts used for detailed Critical Discourse Analysis.

DATA PRESENETATION AND ANALYSIS

Excerpt 1a (Trump)

“A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people,”

The statement foregrounds a clear strategy of positive self‑presentation. The United States is represented as a defensive and morally justified actor, with the clause “our objective is to defend the American people” framing military aggression as a protective necessity. This aligns with van Dijk’s assertion that dominant groups legitimize controversial actions by emphasizing benevolent intentions, thereby shaping audience mental models in which such actions appear necessary and justified. The construction of the United States as a defender implicitly invokes shared values of security and national protection, encouraging audience alignment with the speaker’s position.

Simultaneously, the excerpt deploys negative other‑presentation, a central component of van Dijk’s ideological square. The Iranian regime is described as “a vicious group of very hard, terrible people,” a formulation that relies heavily on evaluative and emotive lexis. This representation delegitimizes the opponent while contributing to a process of moral degradation, in which a complex political entity is reduced to a threatening and morally inferior out‑group. Such framing reinforces a polarized cognitive schema of “us versus them,” a defining feature of wartime rhetoric that simplifies the conflict and suppresses nuance. The discourse also constructs urgency through threat amplification, particularly in the phrase “imminent threats.” By presenting danger as immediate and unavoidable, the speaker narrows the interpretive space available to the audience and legitimizes military action as the only viable response. Within van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive framework, this strategy functions to construct mental models of causality and necessity, leading audiences to interpret military intervention as a direct and unavoidable reaction to external danger.

At the level of linguistic realization, SFL analysis shows how these ideological meanings are encoded structurally. The clause “the United States military began major combat operations” is realized through a material process, positioning the United States as an active, powerful agent and foregrounding its capacity for decisive action. Iran, by contrast, is absent as an agentive participant and appears only as the object of action, reinforcing an asymmetrical representation of agency that aligns with discourses of dominance. The second sentence introduces a relational process of purpose “our objective is to defend” which functions to justify the preceding military action. This grammatical construction connects violence directly to a protective goal, embedding legitimation within the clause structure itself. The infinitive clause “to defend” and the accompanying phrase “by eliminating imminent threats” establish a causal sequence in which military force is represented as a necessary means to achieve security. In terms of appraisal, the description of the Iranian regime is saturated with negative evaluative lexis. Adjectives such as “vicious,” “hard,” and “terrible” operate within the interpersonal metafunction to express judgement and condemnation, shaping the audience’s emotional and moral orientation toward the out‑group. These evaluative choices reinforce the ideological framing established at the macro‑discourse level, ensuring coherence between ideological strategy and linguistic realization.

Excerpt 1b (Trump)

 “Among the regime's very first acts was to back a violent takeover of the US embassy in Tehran, holding dozens of American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, Iran's proxies carried out the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel. In 2000, they knew and were probably involved with the attack on the USS Cole. Many died. Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq. The regime's proxies have continued to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East in recent years, as well as US naval and commercial vessels in international shipping lanes,”

Ideological Framing and Historical Legitimation

The excerpt exemplifies historical framing as a central strategy of ideological legitimation. By sequencing events from the late 1970s through the early 2000s and extending into the present (“in recent years”), the speaker constructs a continuous and uninterrupted narrative of Iranian aggression. This temporal ordering aligns with van Dijk’s concept of mental model construction, whereby audiences are guided to interpret current military action as part of a long‑standing and recurring pattern rather than an isolated political decision. The past is thus mobilized to explain and justify the present.

This chronological accumulation creates a sense of inevitability and moral certainty. By presenting decades of conflict as linear and unbroken, the discourse minimizes ambiguity and forecloses alternative interpretations, reinforcing the perception that confrontation with Iran is historically necessary. In van Dijk’s terms, such framing strengthens ideological coherence by embedding current policy within shared collective memory and perceived historical continuity. The excerpt also reflects strong negative other‑presentation, a core element of van Dijk’s ideological square. Iran and its “proxies” are consistently associated with acts of violence, death, and destruction. Lexical items such as “violent takeover,” “bombing,” “killed,” “maimed,” and “attacks” operate cumulatively to construct the out‑group as inherently aggressive and morally illegitimate. No contextual mitigation or counter‑narrative is provided, reinforcing a polarized “us versus them” cognitive schema that simplifies the conflict for public consumption.

Closely related to this is threat amplification, achieved through both repetition and quantification. The explicit reference to “444 days,” “241 American military personnel,” and “hundreds of American service members” provides numerical specificity that intensifies emotional impact and enhances the credibility of the narrative. Within van Dijk’s framework, such strategic use of detail functions to strengthen audience identification with the in‑group while increasing perceived threat severity. The phrase “countless attacks” further extends this threat temporally, suggesting an ongoing and uncontrollable pattern of violence that persists into the present.

Linguistic Realization of Ideology

From an SFL perspective, these ideological patterns are realized through specific transitivity and agency choices. The passage is dominated by material processes, such as “back,” “carried out,” “killed,” “maimed,” and “launch,” which consistently assign agency to Iran, Iranian forces, or Iranian “proxies.” This repeated construction of Iran as the actor of violent processes reinforces its representation as an active and persistent aggressor.

Conversely, the United States is positioned primarily as the affected participant, particularly in constructions such as “killed 241 American military personnel” and “killed and maimed hundreds of American service members.” This asymmetrical distribution of agency establishes a clear perpetrator–victim relationship, linguistically encoding dominance and resistance through participant roles. Such transitivity patterns align with the ideological framing identified at the discourse level, ensuring cohesion between grammatical form and ideological meaning. The use of lexical cohesion further strengthens this representation. Recurrent nominal groups “the regime,” “Iran’s proxies,” and “Iranian forces” create a cohesive chain that links all acts of violence to a single, unified antagonist. This linguistic strategy simplifies complex geopolitical relations into a coherent enemy figure, facilitating audience comprehension while reinforcing ideological polarization.

Excerpt 1c (Trump)

“To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces and all of the police, I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity. Or, in the alternative, face certain death… When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,”

 

Coercion, Ultimatum, and Ideological Polarization (CDA Perspective)

The excerpt is anchored in coercive dominance articulated through an ultimatum structure. The binary formulation “lay down your weapons and have complete immunity” versus “face certain death” constructs a rigid either/or framework that eliminates negotiation and neutral alternatives. This aligns with van Dijk’s concept of ideological polarization, whereby discourse simplifies complex political realities into mutually exclusive outcomes, guiding audience cognition toward a predetermined interpretation.

The speaker positions himself as the ultimate authority capable of granting “complete immunity” or imposing “certain death,” thereby constructing an extreme asymmetry of power. Within van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive framework, such discourse shapes mental models of inevitability and control, encouraging audiences to perceive resistance as futile and submission as rational. The repeated emphasis on certainty “certain death,” “will be yours,” “only chance” functions to erase doubt and reinforce the speaker’s dominance over both consequences and future outcomes.

The discourse also employs conditional legitimation, a strategy in which compliance is framed as morally and pragmatically favorable, while resistance is associated with absolute destruction. The conditional promise of “complete immunity” introduces a veneer of fairness and choice, although the structure of the ultimatum ensures that the choice is coerced rather than voluntary. This combination of threat and incentive functions to normalize domination by presenting it as rational and unavoidable.

Linguistic Realization of Authority and Control

These ideological strategies are realized through high‑value modality, imperative structures, and asymmetrical transitivity patterns. The modal verb “must” in “you must lay down your weapons” encodes maximum obligation, leaving no room for negotiation or dissent. Similarly, “will face certain death” expresses absolute certainty, reinforcing the inevitability of punitive consequences.

The transitivity patterns further encode dominance through constrained agency. Iranian military actors appear as Actors only within imposed conditions (“lay down your weapons”), while the force responsible for “certain death” remains implicit yet omnipotent, suggesting uncontestable external control. The clause “when we are finished” foregrounds the United States agency through the first‑person plural pronoun “we,” positioning the United States as the determinant of temporal progression, outcome, and closure.

Excerpt 2a (Abbas Araghchi)

“Iran stands today amid the throes of an illegal war imposed by two bullying nuclear armed regimes, the United States and Israel. This war of aggression is blatantly unjustified and brutal,”

Reversal of Dominance and Victim Positioning

This excerpt exemplifies a strategic inversion of dominance discourse. Whereas the United States wartime rhetoric constructs legitimacy through defense, inevitability, and capability, Araghchi’s statement begins with an explicit claim of illegality. The phrase “illegal war” immediately reframes the conflict in normative terms, invoking international legal principles rather than military logic. Within van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive framework, this move functions to reshape audience mental models by redefining the conflict not as a justified intervention but as a violation of global norms.

By asserting that the war is “imposed,” the discourse removes agency from Iran and attributes responsibility to external actors. This lexical choice foregrounds coercion and asymmetry, reinforcing a narrative of victimhood rather than aggression. The framing positions Iran as subjected to violence rather than instigating it, thereby contesting the United States narratives of self‑defense and threat prevention. The clause “imposed by two bullying nuclear‑armed regimes” further reflects negative other‑presentation, though in a reversed ideological configuration. Unlike the United States discourse, which casts Iran as the aggressor, Araghchi attributes aggression to the United States and Israel. The adjective “bullying” carries strong moral condemnation, while the emphasis on “nuclear‑armed” highlights power disparity, portraying Iran as a state facing coercion from overwhelmingly powerful adversaries. This aligns with van Dijk’s ideological square, but with polarity inverted: “them” (the United States and Israel) are positioned as morally illegitimate, while “us” (Iran) is framed as unjustly targeted.

Moral Condemnation and Legal‑Rhetorical Framing

The excerpt also employs strong moral evaluation and condemnation. Expressions such as “blatantly unjustified” and “brutal” function as explicit judgments, operating within the interpersonal metafunction to evoke moral outrage and ethical condemnation. Unlike Hegseth’s technically framed and operational discourse, Araghchi’s rhetoric is overtly normative, foregrounding injustice rather than military capability. This contrast illustrates a clear shift from dominance discourse to resistance discourse grounded in moral authority. A central feature of this passage is its reliance on legal‑rhetorical framing. By labeling the conflict a “war of aggression,” Araghchi draws on established international legal terminology associated with violations of state sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force. This framing situates Iran’s position within globally recognized legal norms, thereby enhancing its legitimacy beyond national or ideological boundaries. Such discourse reflects a broader Iranian diplomatic strategy of appealing to international law as a counterweight to military power.

Linguistic Realization of Resistance

These ideological meanings are realized primarily through relational processes and attributive structures. The clause “Iran stands today amid the throes of an illegal war” positions Iran as a Carrier of an adverse circumstance, emphasizing affectedness rather than agency. This grammatical construction contrasts sharply with the United States wartime discourse, where the United States is consistently realized as the Actor in material processes associated with action and control. Here, Iran is linguistically constructed as the Goal or victim of imposed conditions.

The clause “this war of aggression is blatantly unjustified and brutal” employs a relational attributive process, assigning inherently negative qualities to the conflict itself. By embedding evaluation within the clause structure, the speaker presents moral judgment as an objective property of the situation rather than a subjective opinion. This grammatical choice strengthens the perception of truthfulness and legitimacy, aligning with resistance discourse that seeks validation through legal and moral universals.

 

Excerpt 2b (Abbas Araghchi)

“More than 600 schools have been demolished or damaged… more than 1,000 students and teachers martyred or wounded… the aggressors… have been attacking hospitals… residential areas… War crime and crime against humanity are not sufficiently describing the gravity of the atrocities they are committing,”

Amplified Victimhood and Cumulative Indictment

The excerpt exemplifies amplified victimhood through a strategy of cumulative indictment. The repeated use of numerical quantification “more than 600 schools” and “more than 1,000 students and teachers” functions as a form of empirical legitimation, where statistics are mobilized to enhance credibility and emotional force. Within van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive framework, such quantification contributes to the construction of mental models in which destruction appears vast, systemic, and indisputable. This statistical framing positions the reported atrocities as exceeding the bounds of isolated incidents and reflecting a sustained pattern of violence.

This approach contrasts sharply with the United States wartime discourse, which often emphasizes precision, control, and targeted operations. Araghchi’s narrative instead foregrounds scale and human suffering, guiding audiences toward an interpretation of the conflict as indiscriminate and destructive. The repetition of “more than” reinforces a sense of excess and accumulation, intensifying perceptions of magnitude and severity. The excerpt further reinforces negative other‑presentation by repeatedly referring to the perpetrators as “the aggressors.” This term is ideologically charged, drawing on international legal discourse that differentiates between lawful defense and unlawful aggression. By invoking “the aggressors” without qualification, the discourse collapses distinctions among adversarial actors and unifies them under a single morally illegitimate category. This aligns with van Dijk’s ideological square, though inverted relative to the United States discourse: the out‑group (the United States and allies) is portrayed as morally corrupt, while the in‑group (Iran) is constructed as a victim of injustice.

Linguistic Realization of Humanitarian Resistance

These ideological meanings are realized through characteristic process types, participant roles, and lexical patterns. The passage is dominated by material processes such as “demolished,” “damaged,” “martyred,” “wounded,” and “attacking” which depict concrete actions and assign clear responsibility to the aggressors. The affected participants (“schools,” “students,” “teachers,” “hospitals”) are foregrounded, reinforcing the humanitarian focus and highlighting the human consequences of violence. The discourse also makes strategic use of nominalization and listing. The enumeration of damaged institutions and harmed individuals creates a cumulative textual effect, emphasizing both breadth and diversity of targets. This listing contributes to textual cohesion while simultaneously reinforcing the claim of systematic and indiscriminate violence.

In terms of modality, the passage combines factual assertion with evaluative certainty. The absence of modal hedging in statistical claims (“more than 600,” “more than 1,000”) presents them as uncontested facts, while the categorical judgment in the final clause conveys absolute conviction. This blend of empirical precision and moral certainty enhances persuasive force by coupling apparent objectivity with strong ethical evaluation. The appraisal system is heavily engaged, particularly through judgment and graduation. Lexical items such as “arrogantly,” “no mercy,” and “atrocities” carry explicit negative evaluation, while quantitative expressions intensify the perceived scale of harm. The cumulative effect is a discourse that is both emotionally charged and evidentially grounded, combining affective appeal with claims of factual authority.

Excerpt 2c (Abbas Araghchi)

 “You all need to call out the aggressors and let them know that the community of states, the human collective conscience, hold them accountable for the abhorrent crimes they are committing against Iranians. Iran has never sought war. Iranians are a peaceful, noble nation, inheriting one of the richest civilizations on earth. Yet they have demonstrated absolute resolve and determination to defend themselves against the brutal aggressors who know no boundary in perpetrating all sorts of crimes. A defense that shall persist as long as needed”

This excerpt exemplifies a strategic evolution of resistance discourse, shifting from evidential accusation toward normative appeal, collective identity construction, and legitimation of sustained resistance. Unlike earlier excerpts that focus primarily on illegality or humanitarian harm, this passage actively mobilizes international judgment while reinforcing Iran’s moral, cultural, and civilizational positioning.

Normative Mobilization and International Moral Appeal

From a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) perspective, the opening clause “You all need to call out the aggressors” constitutes a direct appeal to the international community. The deictic expression “you all” constructs a collective audience, implicitly invoking the global community of states and international institutions. The modal construction “need to” encodes strong obligation, positioning listeners as ethically responsible actors rather than neutral observers. Within van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive framework, this operates at the interface between discourse and shared norms, activating collective moral schemas tied to justice, accountability, and international responsibility. The subsequent reference to “the community of states” and “the human collective conscience” elevates the discourse from bilateral conflict to a universal moral plane. By invoking both institutional authority and shared humanity, Araghchi aligns Iran’s position with globally accepted values rather than national interest alone. This strategy exemplifies what CDA identifies as normative legitimation, where moral universals are mobilized to challenge material power asymmetries.

Positive Self‑Presentation and Civilizational Identity Construction

The passage strongly reinforces positive self‑presentation, a core component of van Dijk’s ideological square. The assertion “Iran has never sought war” functions as a disclaimer, pre‑emptively rejecting accusations of aggression. This is followed by explicit identity construction, as “Iranians are a peaceful, noble nation” frames the in‑group through moral and ethical attributes.

By invoking “one of the richest civilizations on earth,” the discourse draws on historical and cultural capital, embedding contemporary political claims within a broader civilizational narrative. This appeal to collective memory and heritage aligns with socio‑cognitive processes of group identity formation, strengthening in‑group cohesion while legitimizing Iran’s stance through continuity, dignity, and historical depth. Such framing contrasts sharply with The United States dominance discourse, which foregrounds capability and control rather than cultural identity.

Sustained Negative Other‑Presentation and Justification of Resistance

Simultaneously, the excerpt sustains negative other‑presentation through the depiction of the adversary as “brutal aggressors who know no boundary in perpetrating all sorts of crimes.” This formulation intensifies earlier delegitimization by emphasizing not only violence but also the limitlessness and indiscriminateness of that violence. The phrase “know no boundary” suggests a total absence of moral and legal restraint, reinforcing a stark ideological polarization between a restrained, ethical in‑group and an unbounded, lawless out‑group.

A significant discursive move in this passage is the explicit legitimation of resistance. The clause “they have demonstrated absolute resolve and determination to defend themselves” frames Iran’s actions as defensive necessity rather than aggression. This aligns with van Dijk’s notion of justification through self‑defense, where violence is morally validated by presenting it as a compelled response to external threat. The concluding assertion “a defense that shall persist as long as needed” introduces temporal extension and inevitability, signaling endurance and unwavering commitment. This serves both as a warning to adversaries and a reassurance to domestic and international audiences that resistance is principled and sustained.

Linguistic Realization of Moral Authority

From a Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) perspective, these ideological meanings are realized through a combination of process types, modality choices, and evaluative resources. The passage employs relational processes in identity construction (“Iranians are a peaceful, noble nation”), assigning enduring moral qualities to the in‑group. Material processes such as “call out,” “defend themselves,” and “persist” depict purposeful action and resistance, positioning Iran as an agentive yet justified actor responding to aggression.

Modality plays a crucial role in constructing authority and certainty. The phrase “need to” encodes strong deontic obligation, compelling international actors to respond, while “shall persist” conveys high epistemic certainty and determination. This combination of obligation and inevitability enhances the authoritative tone of the discourse, presenting Iran’s resistance as both morally required and unavoidably enduring.

Discussion of Findings

RQ1: How do the United States political leaders construct narratives of dominance, and which ideological strategies are central to this construction?

The findings indicate that the United States political leaders construct narratives of dominance through a coherent cluster of ideological strategies that include positive self‑presentation, negative other‑presentation, threat amplification, historical legitimation, and inevitability framing. Across President Trump’s speeches (Excerpts 1–3), the United States is consistently represented as a morally justified, defensive, and rational actor. Positive self‑presentation is realized through repeated depictions of the United States action as protective (“defend the American people”), decisive (“acts decisively”), and morally clear (“moral clarity”). This foregrounding of benevolence aligns with van Dijk’s argument that dominant groups legitimize coercive action by emphasizing their ethical intentions and responsibility.

At the same time, negative other‑presentation constructs Iran as an aggressive, irrational, and morally deficient adversary. Iran is discursively associated with violence, terrorism, brutality, and lawlessness, often without contextual nuance. This polarization produces a simplified cognitive model of “us versus them”, which facilitates public alignment with state policy and suppresses alternative interpretations. Another central strategy is threat amplification, particularly through temporal urgency (“imminent threats”), quantification of casualties, and assertions of future danger (“before they can strike again”). These strategies shape audience mental models by framing military action as unavoidable and preventive rather than optional. Historical framing further reinforces dominance by embedding contemporary intervention within a longer narrative of Iranian aggression, constructing the conflict as historically inevitable. Taken together, the United States dominance discourse operates by naturalizing power asymmetry and presenting military supremacy as both morally necessary and strategically unavoidable, thereby securing ideological consent for escalation.

RQ2: Which linguistic features realize ideological dominance in the United States wartime discourse (SFL perspective)?

Linguistically, the United States dominance is realized through material processes, high‑certainty modality, imperatives, evaluative intensification, and thematic control. SFL analysis reveals that the United States discourse overwhelmingly positions the United States as the Actor in material processes (“began,” “controls,” “crushing,” “unleashed”), foregrounding agency, initiative, and control. Iran, by contrast, is often constructed as either the Goal or entirely absent from agency, reinforcing asymmetrical power relations.

Modality plays a crucial role in encoding dominance. Repeated use of high‑value modal verbs and categorical assertions (“will never,” “will have,” “unstoppable,” “certain death”) eliminates contingency and frames outcomes as inevitable. This supports an ideological narrative of absolute control and foreclosed alternatives. The frequent use of imperatives (“lay down your weapons,” “take over your government”) and unmitigated commands further constructs interpersonal dominance, positioning the United States leaders as legitimate authorities issuing non‑negotiable directives. In terms of appraisal, dominance discourse relies heavily on graduation and force, intensifying claims through adverbs (“decisively,” “devastatingly,” “without mercy”). These evaluative choices amplify certainty and authority while normalizing extreme violence within operational language.

RQ3: Which linguistic features realize ideological resistance in Iranian wartime discourse?

Iranian resistance discourse is linguistically characterized by relational processes, humanitarian participant foregrounding, normative appraisal, categorical assertions, and thematic victim positioning. Unlike the United States discourse, Iranian speech frequently employs relational and attributive processes (“Iran stands amid…”, “this war is unjustified and brutal”), which emphasize states and conditions rather than action. This grammatical configuration constructs Iran as an affected participant rather than an aggressor.

Humanitarian resistance is further realized through material processes with civilian Goals (“schools demolished,” “students wounded”), foregrounding harm and victimhood rather than military engagement. Listing and nominalization create cumulative textual cohesion that reinforces the scale and systematic nature of violence. Modality in Iranian discourse is largely categorical and unhedged, asserting moral certainty without probabilistic language. High‑obligation modality (“need to call out the aggressors”) extends responsibility to the international community, mobilizing shared moral obligation. Appraisal patterns strongly polarize moral evaluation: Iran is positively judged (“peaceful,” “noble”), while adversaries are negatively evaluated (“brutal,” “aggressors,” “crimes”). Graduation intensifies condemnation through quantification and escalation beyond legal categories (“not sufficiently describing the gravity”).

Conclusion

This study set out to examine how political leaders in the United States and Iran discursively constructed dominance and resistance during the 2026 the United States and Iran conflict, employing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) with particular emphasis on van Dijk’s socio‑cognitive approach and Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as complementary analytical frameworks. By analyzing selected wartime speeches and briefings delivered by President Donald Trump and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the study demonstrated that political discourse in times of armed conflict functions not merely as a descriptive account of events but as a constitutive force that shapes ideology, cognition, legitimacy, and public understanding.

References

Addae, E. A., Alhassan, A., & Kyeremeh, K. (2019). Ideology and power relations in political discourse: A

critical discourse analysis. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 7(2), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20190702.12

Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (2002). Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse.

John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4

Chiluwa, I., & Ruzaitė, J. (2024). War discourse and moral legitimation in the Russia–Ukraine conflict.

Discourse & Society, 35(1), 3–25. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17405904.2024.2331186

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a

social‑semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.).

Routledge.

Hansen, L. (2011). The politics of securitization and the Muhammad cartoon crisis. Security Dialogue,

42(4–5), 357–369. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354066110388593

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave

Macmillan. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2554805

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism.

Routledge.

Reuters. (2026, March 5). U.S.–Israeli airstrikes on Iran trigger regional escalation and missile retaliation.

Reuters News Agency.

Solopova, O. A., & Naumova, A. R. (2023). Ideological polarization in the United States presidential

wartime addresses. Journal of Language and Politics, 22(4), 567–590.

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. SAGE Publications.

van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383.

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.

This article is published in ALQALAM: A Journal of Language and Literary Studies, FUGUS, Volume 1, Issue 2 - June 2026