Critical Discourse Analysis of Iran-Israel Conflict Rhetoric: Media Narratives and Political Motives

Abstract

This research thesis examines the political rhetoric and media narratives pertaining to the Iran-Israel conflict, using Fairclough’s 3D approach of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). This research examines how political leaders from Iran and Israel use language to rationalize their actions, influence public perception, and solidify their stances, alongside the role of regional and worldwide media in framing the war. Analyzing the political language used by leaders in Iran and Israel will reveal linguistic strategies such as metaphor, tone, and framing that substantiate their policies and actions. The second objective examines the manner in which media narratives construct the conflict and how various outlets-regional (e.g., Press TV, Al Jazeera) and international (e.g., BBC, CNN) influence both global and local perceptions. Fairclough's approach categorizes these discourses into three levels: the textual analysis of language, the examination of discursive practices (the production and reception of these texts), and the elucidation of how these discourses mirror wider social, political, and ideological contexts. The research indicates that both parties utilize rhetoric reflecting entrenched ideological stances, resulting in a cycle of justification and counter-justification that exacerbates the conflict. Media narratives often amplify these discourses, shaping public opinion and impacting foreign diplomatic responses. This study examines the potential for discourse changes that can help in conflict de-escalation, emphasizing the influence of rhetoric and media in either upholding or contesting the status quo