Argumentation patterns in conflict contexts: Exploring context-specific topoi in news media discourse on the JCPOA

Abstract

Arguments over the success or failure of the JCPOA (the Iran nuclear deal) have been frequently covered by mainstream media in the years following its signing and implementation. To understand how such arguments are constructed discursively, this article builds on existing studies on argumentation patterns and delves deeper into the ‘context-specific topoi’ in several news articles on the JCPOA. The selected news articles were published by the Iranian newspaper Kayhan in the post-JCPOA era (2015–2020). Drawing on a discourse-analytical approach to argumentation analysis within the framework of Critical Discourse Analysis, the study identifies various recurrent context-specific topoi that present context-abstract causal conclusions moving from causes to results. The topoi are used as justifications for and against the measures and actions taken related to the JCPOA, and more broadly, to the relations with the West. The ‘topos of failure’ is dominant in the corpus, which is structured in three domains: (a) ‘failure of the JCPOA’, (b) ‘US policy’s failure in dealing with Iran’ and (c) ‘failure of Iran’s reformist government’. The findings show that Kayhan’s discourse draws on shared ideological imaginaries, portraying perceived flaws in the JCPOA to support its stance against Iran’s diplomatic relations with the West. The article provides insights into how the media in an authoritarian context constructs political reasoning and influences public perceptions of international agreements in the conflict context.