The goal I pursue in this study is to explain the constitutive function of the newspapers’ opinion discourses from the perspective of securitisation theory. I discuss how the opinion articles and editorial collected from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and New York Post constructed the social reality (the Iran nuclear programme and deal) differently, as a result of their differing political ideologies, and sought to influence American foreign policy in line with their interests. Integrating securitisation theory with CDS, I investigated three types of discursive strategies (representational, dialogical and argumentative strategies) employed by these articles and discussed their contribution to the construction of elements of securitisation. The findings showed that American newspapers’ commentary articles systematically securitised Iran (but sometimes desecuritised its nuclear programme).1
AustinJLBeaulieu-BrossardP (2018) (De)securitisation dilemmas: Theorising the simultaneous enaction of securitisation and desecuritisation. Review of International Studies44(2): 301–323.
2.
BalzacqT (2005) The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations11(2): 171–201.
3.
BalzacqT (2011) A theory of securitization: Origins, core assumptions, and variants. In: BalzacqT (ed.) Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. London: Routledge, pp. 15–44.
4.
BellA (1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society13(2): 145–204.
5.
BlommaertJ (2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BuzanBWaeverODe WildeJ (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
7.
DuncombeC (2016) Representation, recognition and foreign policy in the Iran -US relationship. European Journal of International Relations22(3): 622–645. DOI: 10.1177/1354066115597049.
8.
FaircloughN (2001) Language and Power. London: Pearson Education.
9.
FaircloughNWodakR (1997) Critical discourse analysis: An overview. In: van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse and Interaction. London: SAGE, pp. 67–97.
HurstS (2016) The Iranian nuclear negotiations as a two-level game: The importance of domestic politics. Diplomacy & Statecraft27(3): 545–567.
13.
KadkhodeeEGhasemi TariZ (2019) Otherising Iran in American political discourse: Case study of a post-JCPOA senate hearing on Iran sanctions. Third World Quarterly40(1): 109–128.
14.
KaganRKristolW (eds) (2000) Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.
15.
LeonardSKaunertC (2011) Reconceptualizing the audience in securitization theory. In: BalzacqT (ed.) Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. London: Routledge, pp. 57–76.
16.
LupoviciA (2014) Securitization climax: Putting the Iranian nuclear project at the top of the Israeli public agenda (2009–2012). Foreign Policy Analysis12(3): 413–432.
17.
McDonaldM (2008) Securitization and the construction of security. European Journal of International Relations14(4): 563–587.
18.
MidgleyJ (2007) Global inequality, power and the unipolar world: Implications for social work. International Social Work50(5): 613–626.
19.
MirilovicNKimM (2016) Ideology and threat perceptions: American public opinion toward China and Iran. Political Studies65(1): 179–198.
20.
Reinke de BuitragoS (2016) The role of emotions in US security policy towards Iran. Global Affairs2(2): 155–164.
21.
ShoaibM (2015) US-Iran nuclear standoff: A constructivist approach. Journal of Strategic Affairs1(1): 49–73.
22.
StritzelH (2007) Towards a theory of securitization: Copenhagen and beyond. European Journal of International Relations13(3): 357–383.
23.
StritzelH (2012) Securitization, power and intertextuality: Discourse theory and the translations of organized crime. Security Dialogue43(6): 549–567.
24.
StritzelHSchmittchenD (2011) Securitization, culture and power: Rogue states in US and German discourse. In: BalzacqT (ed.) Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. London: Routledge, pp. 170–185.
25.
van DijkTA (1998) Discourse and ideology. Discourse & Society9(3): 307–308.
26.
van LeeuwenT (2008) Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
27.
WaeverO (1995) Securitization and desecuritization. In: LipschutzRD (ed.) On Security. Chichester, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 46–86.
28.
WaltonDN (1996) Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
WodakR (2001) What CDA is about – A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 1–13.
30.
WodakRMeyerM (2009) Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 1–33.
