![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Using van Dijk’s critical discourse analysis, this paper attempts to analyse the ways in which the Islamic Republic of Iran is constructed as a security threat in US congressional hearings. The article is based on the case of the two-day congressional hearing on post-JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) held by the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on 24–25 May 2016. The session was presumably held to examine ‘sanctions relief’ provided to Iran; however, the study reveals that through the use of discursive tools such as lexical style and argumentation, Iran is framed and evaluated as a security threat to (1) the US; (2) US allies, specifically Israel; and (3) the international community. This construction reflects the established political and ideological stereotypes and also orientalist clichés which have led to Otherisation and vilification of Iran. Therefore, by representing Iran as an ‘irrational’, ‘radical’ and ‘barbaric’ entity, the US discrimination against Iran through sanctions and other unilateral political decisions is legitimised and justified.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Izadi and Saghaye-Biria, “Discourse Analysis,” 140.
2 Murray, “Threat of Security,” 28.
3 Adib-Moghaddam, “Discourse and Violence,” 512.
4 Adib-Moghaddam, “Manufacturing War,” 637.
5 Pillar, “Role of Villain,” 366.
6 Ferrero, “Iran Narrative,” 41.
7 Duncombe, “Representation, Recognition and Foreign Policy,” 629.
8 Ibid., 630–1.
9 Pollack, Unthinkable.
10 Adib-Moghaddam, Iran in World Politics.
11 Jones, American Rhetorical Construction, 1.
12 Ibid., 7.
13 Cullinane and Ryan, US Foreign Policy and the Other, 2.
14 Beeman, Great Satan vs. the Mad Mullahs, 15.
15 Gusterson, People of the Bomb, 21.
16 Mousavian and Shahidsaless, Iran and the United States.
17 Mousavian, Iranian Nuclear Crisis.
18 Parsi, Losing an Enemy.
19 Javadi Arjmand, “Role of Congress,” 29.
20 For further discussion of discourse and media representation of Iran’s nuclear programme see Jones’ American Rhetorical Construction; Atai and Mozaheb, “Representation of Iran’s Nuclear Program”; Sheyholislami, “Discourse, Identity and Legitimacy”; Esfandiary, “How the New York Times Portrayed”; Oborne and Morrison, Dangerous Delusion; and Porter, Manufactured Crisis.
21 US Department of State, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
22 van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Analysis”, 352–71.
23 van Dijk, “What Is Political Discourse Analysis?,” 18.
24 van Dijk, Elite Discourse and Racism, 49.
25 Ibid., 50.
26 Mills, Power Elite; and Domhoff and Dye, Power Elites and Organizations.
27 van Dijk, “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis,” 256.
28 Clegg, Frameworks of Power; van Dijk, “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis”; and Lukes, Power: A Radical View.
29 van Dijk, “Discourse, Power and Access,” 86.
30 Huitt, “Congressional Committee,” cited in Diermeier and Feddersen, Information and Congressional Hearings, 51.
31 Galloway, Development of the Committee System, 56.
32 Truman, Governmental Process.
33 Davidson, Oleszek, and Lee, Congress and Its Members.
34 Talbert, Jones, and Baumgartner, “Nonlegislative Hearings and Policy Change.”
35 Van Leeuwen, “Representation of Social Actors in Discourse.”
36 Ibid., 39.
37 Sahimi, “Iran’s Nuclear Program.”
38 IAEA, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards.
39 Dilanian, “US Does Not Believe Iran.”
40 Milne, MacAskill, and Swisher, “Leaked Cables Show Netanyahu’s Iran Bomb.”
41 Borger and Dehghan, “Iran Unable to Get Life-Saving Drugs.”
42 Hafezi and Amiri, “Iran’s Rial Falls to Record Low.”
43 US Department of State, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, 2.
44 Ibid, 13.
45 Ram, Iranophobia, 16.
46 Merom, “Israeli Perceptions,” 88; for a deeper analysis of how the Holocaust is used to frame an Iranian threat to Israel, see Nili, “The Nuclear (and the) Holocaust.”
47 Eiran and Malin, “Sum of All Fears,” 85.
48 Merom, “Israeli Perception,” 117.
49 Kaye, Israel’s Iran Policies, 1.
50 Mousavian and Shahidsaless, Iran and the United States, 250.
51 Said, Covering Islam; Heiss, “Real Men Don’t Wear Pajamas”; McAlister, Epic Encounters; and Leverett and Leverett, Going to Tehran.
52 van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Analysis,” 352.
53 van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Studies,” 62.
54 Wodak and Meyer, “Critical Discourse Analysis,” 8.
55 Ibid.
56 van Dijk, “Ideology and Discourse Analysis.”
57 Ibid., 115.
58 van Dijk, “Opinions and Ideologies in the Press,” 24.
59 van Dijk, “Ideology and Discourse Analysis.”
60 Wodak and Meyer, “Critical Discourse Analysis.”
61 van Dijk, Elite Discourse and Racism, 18.
62 van Dijk, “Opinions and Ideologies in the Press.”
63 Ibid.
64 van Dijk, “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis,” 264.
65 See Karim, Islamic Peril; McAlister, Epic Encounters; and Little, American Orientalism.
66 Said, Orientalism.
67 Patai, Arab Mind; Hamady, Temperament and Character of the Arabs; Vatikiotis, “Middle Eastern Studies in America”; Lewis, “Islamic Revolution”; Lewis, “Roots of Muslim Rage”; and Huntington, Clash of Civilizations.
68 Esposito, Islamic Threat, 105.
69 Said, Covering Islam, 7.
70 van Dijk, “Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis,” 25–6.
71 Ibid.
72 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 24, 2016, 11.
73 Ibid., 2.
74 Ibid., 4.
75 Fowler, Language in the News; van Dijk, Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis.
76 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 25, 2016, 3.
77 Ibid., 4.
78 The same year that Benjamin Netanyahu declared to world leaders in the UN that Iran was about a year away from making a nuclear bomb, leaked cables in 2012 show Netanyahu’s Iran bomb claim was contradicted by Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, based on a secret report shared with South Africa. Mossad had concluded that Iran was ‘not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons’. IAEA, Implementation of NPT Safeguards, 6.
79 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 24, 2016, 22.
80 Porter, “When the Ayatollah Said No.”
81 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 24, 2016, 2.
82 van Dijk, “Opinions and Ideologies in the Press,” 59–60.
83 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 25, 2016, 2–3.
84 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 24, 2016, 3–4.
85 Ibid., 3.
86 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 25, 2016, 3.
87 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 24, 2016, 3.
88 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 25, 2016, 10.
89 Ibid., 16.
90 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 24, 2016, 1.
91 Ibid., 4.
92 Ibid., 18.
93 Ibid., 21.
94 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 25, 2016, 4.
95 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 24, 2016, 1.
96 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 25, 2016, 9.
97 Hussain, “ISIS: The ‘Unintended Consequences,’” para. 1.
98 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 24, 2016, 1.
99 Financial Tribune, “Iranian Parliament to Discuss.”
100 Amnesty International, Death Penalty 2015, para. 3.
101 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 24, 2016, 4.
102 Ibid., 3.
103 Ibid., 6.
104 Ibid., 3.
105 Ibid.
106 Biswas, Nuclear Desire.
107 Barkawi, “Nuclear Orientalism.”
108 Maddock, Nuclear Apartheid.
109 Said, Orientalism.
110 van Dijk, “What Is Political Discourse Analysis?,” 42.
111 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Understanding the Role of Sanctions, May 25, 2016, 8.
112 Ibid.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Elham Kadkhodaee
Elham Kadkhodaee is an Assistant Professor in the department of West Asian & North African Studies at the Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran. She is interested in constructivist international relations and also critical discourse analysis. Her research is mainly focused on the US–Israeli relationship, and the relationship between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran, with a multidisciplinary approach to understanding international relations.
Zeinab Ghasemi Tari
Zeinab Ghasemi Tari is an Assistant Professor of American studies at the Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran. She is interested in colonial and post-colonial studies, Orientalism, Iranian diaspora and Iran–US relations. Her current research and writing interests include an interdisciplinary approach to media representation of Iran in United States, Iran–US relations and Iranian studies in the United States.