MORALIZING WAR AND CONSTRUCTING ENEMIES IN TRUMP’S 2025 IRAN SPEECH

Agwin Degaf, Hamadah Ashfiya

Abstract


The growing intersection of political communication and ideological persuasion raises concerns about how language is used to legitimize state violence. Although previous research has addressed themes of populism and nationalistic rhetoric, limited attention has been given to how wartime speeches function as discursive practices that construct moral legitimacy for military intervention. Addressing this gap, this study investigates how Donald Trump’s June 2025 Iran speech constructs the enemy, moralizes war, and normalizes pre-emptive military violence. Using qualitative critical discourse analysis, the study examines both the transcript and delivery of the speech through Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model of discourse, focusing on the ideological square and micro-level strategies such as actor description, metaphor, hyperbole, euphemism, presupposition, religious authority, victimization, and lexicalization. The findings show that the speech constructs a polarized moral framework in which the United States and its allies are represented as morally virtuous and divinely sanctioned, while Iran is framed as an irrational and existential threat. Military aggression is legitimized through hyperbolic glorification, religious invocation, euphemistic framing of destruction, and the strategic omission of civilian suffering, presenting war as a moral necessity rather than a political choice. While limited to a single case and not supported by corpus-based analysis, the study contributes to the literature on wartime political discourse by extending Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model to contemporary conflict rhetoric and identifying a morally framed adaptation of the burden argument, shifting from economic to security and ethical justification. These findings underscore the ideological power of political language in shaping public consent for military action and highlight the need for sustained critical scrutiny of wartime political communication.

Keywords


political discourse; ideological legitimation; wartime rhetoric; critical discourse analysis;

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdel-Raheem, A. (2020). Mental model theory as a model for analysing visual and multimodal discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 155, 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.012

Aboh, R., Oni, F. J., & Uwen, G. O. (2025). Framing and stereotyping of two frontline presidential candidates in Nigeria’s 2019 general election: Evidence from Nairaland virtual community. Canadian Journal of African Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2025.2462775

Abuelwafa, M. A. (2021). Legitimation and manipulation in political speeches: A corpus-based study. In Procedia Computer Science, 189, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.05.066

Alyeksyeyeva, I., Kaptiurova, O., & Orlova, V. (2021). World war flu: War rhetoric of the Australian prime minister on coronavirus. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 27(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2021-2701-07

Al Jazeera. (2025, June 22). Full speech: Donald Trump’s address to nation after attack on Iran. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/22/full-speech-donald-trumps-address-to-nation-after-attack-on-iran

Al-Tarawneh, A., Alhalalmeh, A.-H., & Al-Badawi, M. (2024). The influence of political discourse language on worldwide communication. In Studies in systems, decision and control (Vol. 226, pp. 1457–1468). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73545-5_136

Appiah, K. A. (2009). Causes of quarrel: What's special about religious disputes? In T. Banchoff (Ed.), Religious pluralism, globalization, and world politics (pp. 27–48). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323405.003.0002

Balkan-Sahin, S. (2020). Tracing discursive strategies to understand the U.S. withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal. Uluslararasi Iliskiler, 17(66), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.720631

Barber, R. J. (2010). The proportionality equation: Balancing military objectives with civilian lives in the armed conflict in Afghanistan. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 15(3), 467–500. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krq017

Baydhowi, B., Preston, M., Syahputra, W., Cahyani, A. D., & Rabitha, D. (2024). Building national identity from within: The role of self-competence in strengthening national identity. Social Psychology and Society, 15(4), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2024150410

Bentzen, J. S., & Gokmen, G. (2023). The power of religion. Journal of Economic Growth, 28(1), 45–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-022-09214-4

Bouvier, G., & Machin, D. (2018). Critical discourse analysis and the challenges and opportunities of social media. Review of Communication, 18(3), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1479881

Cauthen, B. (2004). Covenant and continuity: Ethno-symbolism and the myth of divine election. Nations and Nationalism, 10(1–2), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-5078.2004.00152.x

Clarke, B. (2012). Contemporary research on proportionality in armed conflicts: A select review. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 3(2), 391–414. https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-00302002

Degterev, D. A. (2019). Multipolar world order: Old myths and new realities. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 19(3), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-3-404-419

Dupont, P.-E. (2014). Compliance with treaties in the context of nuclear non-proliferation: Assessing claims in the case of Iran. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 19(2), 161–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krt017

Elnakkouzi, R. (2023). In the name of the nobility of the cause, what I did is right: Legitimating the use of force via the hero-protector narrative used as argument. Journal of Language and Politics, 22(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22066.eln

Eneyo, V. B., Talib, J., Attah, F. M., & Offiong, E. E. (2022). Iran’s nuclear policy: Nature, ambition, and strategy. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, 8(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.47305/JLIA2282202e

Franch, P. (2018). Praising the fallen heroes: Storytelling in US war presidential rhetoric, from Johnson to Obama. Language and Literature, 27(4), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805651

Fayyaz, S., & Shirazi, R. (2013). Good Iranian, bad Iranian: Representations of Iran and Iranians in Time and Newsweek (1998–2009). Iranian Studies, 46(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00210862.2012.740899

Flynn, M. J. (2008). First strike: Preemptive war in modern history. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203929261

Guillem, S. M. (2009). Argumentation, metadiscourse and social cognition: Organizing knowledge in political communication. Discourse & Society, 20(6), 727–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509342368

Harris, O. (2005). Power, morality, and foreign policy. Orbis, 49(4), 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2005.07.004

Homolar, A., & Scholz, R. (2019). The power of Trump-speak: Populist crisis narratives and ontological security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1575796

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2021). Multilevel governance and the coordination dilemma. In M. Bauer & J. Trondal (Eds.), A research agenda for multilevel governance (pp. 19–36). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Jalalian Daghigh, A., & Guo, L. (2024). A socio-cognitive account of ideological manipulation in Chinese translation of political opinion articles. Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2373183

Ji, Q., & Pupcenoks, J. (2024). Ideology matters: The influence of competing message framings on public attitudes toward humanitarian interventions. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 29(1), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221082063

Kampf, Z. (2016). Rhetorical bypasses: Connecting with the hearts and minds of people on the opponent’s side. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2016.1181639

Kaussler, B. (2013). Iran's nuclear diplomacy: Power politics and conflict resolution. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203079874

Kim, A. I. (2022). (De)legitimation of monolingual ideologies in a US teachers’ online forum. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(3), 1021–1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1740163

Koch, B. (2015). Patterns legitimizing political violence in transcultural perspectives: Islamic and Christian traditions and legacies (Vol. 1, pp. 1–253). De Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781614515661/html

Koreivaite, I. (2013). Projections of Iran's threat. Politologija, 2(70), 124–168. https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2013.2.1424

Kumar, R. (2014). Iraq war 2003 and the issue of pre-emptive and preventive self-defence: Implications for the United Nations. India Quarterly, 70(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974928414524649

Kupolati, O. O., & Boluwaduro, E. (2018). Gubernatorial debate sessions in Nigeria: A socio-cognitive analysis. Discourse & Communication, 12(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317735710

Lusthaus, J. (2011). Religion and state violence: Legitimation in Israel, the USA and Iran. Contemporary Politics, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2011.552683

Magil, K. (2022). Justifications for violence. In L. R. Kurtz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of violence, peace, & conflict (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 308–318). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820195-4.00095-9

Miskimmon, A., O'Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2014). Strategic narratives: Communication power and the new world order. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315871264

Molendijk, T. (2024). War is back in post-heroic Europe: Change and continuity in the relationship between the armed forces and society. Armed Forces & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X241281663

Molodychenko, E. N. (2019). “Us” vs “them” in political discourse: The instrumental function of the “evil other” in American presidential rhetoric. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, Filologiya, 59, 67–86. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/59/5

Montiel, C. J., Uyheng, J., & Dela Paz, E. (2021). The language of pandemic leaderships: Mapping political rhetoric during the COVID-19 outbreak. Political Psychology, 42(5), 747–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12753

Nasution, S. S., Sukmawati, N. N., Lubis, A. A., Hastomo, T., & Sesriyani, L. (2020). Using critical discourse analysis to explore an authentic teaching material: A focus on language and power. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16636

Niyazova, G., & Niyazov, N. (2021). Speech image of a political leader: Cases of President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. In Springer Geography (pp. 446–452). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78690-8_38

Nourani, H., Danesh, A., Nouri, M. R., & Latifi, F. (2020). Discursive (de)legitimization of the Iran Nuclear Deal in Donald Trump’s tweets. Strategic Analysis, 44(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2020.1809205

O’Boyle, G. (2017). Theories of justification and political violence: Examples from four groups. In A. M. Bloom (Ed.), Insurgent terrorism (pp. 471–494). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351155564-18

Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing 'us' and 'them' in four US presidential addresses. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395442

Orford, A. (2013). Moral internationalism and the responsibility to protect. European Journal of International Law, 24(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs092

Pettys, T. E. (2010). Sodom's shadow: The uncertain line between public and private morality. Hastings Law Journal, 61(5), 1161–1216.

Prasch, A. M. (2021). The rise of the global rhetorical presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 327–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12713

Rathbun, B. C., & Pomeroy, C. (2022). See no evil, speak no evil? Morality, evolutionary psychology, and the nature of international relations. International Organization, 76(3), 656–689. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818321000436

Ríos, A. M. (2023). How to justify a war: Critical discourse analysis of the speeches given by Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Pragmalingüística, 31, 239–263. https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2023.i31.11

Rojecki, A. (2008). Rhetorical alchemy: American exceptionalism and the war on terror. Political Communication, 25(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701807935

Ronda, M., Wulan, R. H. H., Irwandi, M., & Widowati, D. (2024). Teun A. van Dijk’s Critical Discourse Analysis on page three of the Parliamentary Bulletin Edition 1200–1210. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 23(2), 52–76. https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2024.23.2.052

Saputri, N. N., & Suratnoaji, C. (2015). Corruption and elite politician: A critical discourse analysis on Seputar Indonesia daily in reporting the former Democrat Party leader corruption scandal. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 13(7), 4793–4805.

Schmitt, M. N., & von Heinegg, W. H. (2023). The conduct of hostilities in international humanitarian law: Volume I. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003417255

Solopova, O. A., & Naumova, K. A. (2021). Address to the nation as a genre of military-political discourse. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 12(4), 945–968. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2021-12-4-945-968

Tammi, I.-M. (2022). The humanitarian frame of war: How security and violence are allocated in contemporary aid delivery. Third World Quarterly, 43(5), 963–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2055538

UNHCR. (2025, June 21). UNHCR calls for de-escalation as Israel-Iran strikes create humanitarian fears. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. https://www.unhcr.org/news/press-releases/unhcr-calls-de-escalation-israel-iran-strikes-create-humanitarian-fears

Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). War rhetoric of a little ally: Political implicatures and Aznar’s legitimatization of the war in Iraq. Journal of Language and Politics, 4(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.4.1.04dij

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology, and discourse. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 9, pp. 728–740). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00722-7

Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273

Villalobos, J. D., & Sirin, C. V. (2017). The relevance of emotions in presidential public appeals: Anger's conditional effect on perceived risk and support for military interventions. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 47(1), 146–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12349

Yasmin, M. (2024). (De-)Legitimizing war: A linguistic analysis of Indian and Pakistani civil and military conflict discourses. Critical Military Studies, 10(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2023.2188997




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18860/prdg.v8i2.36758

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Member of:

Crossref

Indexed by:

SintaGoogle Scolar Sinta  MorarefSintaSintaSinta

Editorial Office

Department of English Literature

Faculty of Humanities, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang
Jalan Gajayana 50 Malang, Jawa Timur, Indonesia 65144
Phone (+62) 341 551354, Facsimile (+62) 341 572533
e-mail: paradigm@uin-malang.ac.id

Creative Commons License
PARADIGM: Journal of Language and Literary Studies by Department of English Literature is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://ejournal.uin-malang.ac.id/index.php/paradigm.

View My Stats | Follow Us on Instagram