Nuclear Talks

In this article, a contrastive analysis of reformists and fundamentalists’ press texts, related to nuclear talks has been performed in specific periods of time, before and after the last round of nuclear talks between Islamic Republic of Iran and the 5+1 group, especially the United States’ related texts in Iran’s Persian newspapers as representatives of the two opposite discourses, from the perspective of the Critical Discourse Analysis approach by using socio-semantic features of Van Leeuwen’s model (2008). This study goes beyond the structural description of the discourse practices and examines the ways through which a system and structure make possible a special type of action. To do so, discursive texts of the two Iranian Persian publications belonging to two rival groups: E’temad as the representative of reformists and Keyhan, the fundamentalists’ representative, have been analyzed, both qualitatively and quantitatively. In response to the research questions (How is the linguistic realization of the discursive structures performed in the given texts? And are Socio-Semantic features determined by power relations?)The result shows that the opposite ideologies dominating the minds of journalists of the two political groups are reflected in the texts and statistical analysis of the corpus also states that the Socio-Semantic features are determined by different ideologies, related to power relations. In other words, language and discourse at underlying levels are laden with ideology, power relations and dominance, and at surface levels, with discursive features and structures.

The US presidential election has always been influenced by the competition of candidates in the context of explaining domestic and foreign policy issues and providing solutions to overcome the crises ahead. During the election campaign in the field of foreign policy, several issues are raised. These include threats from Russia, China, North Korea, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the present article, the issue of Iran in the 2020 US presidential election has been examined in two levels: strategic imagery and tactical approaches. The question of the present study is what are the similarities and differences between the issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the foreign policy of Biden and Trump during the election campaign at both strategic and tactical levels? In response to this question, the following research hypothesis is proposed. In Biden and Trump's campaign policies at the level of strategic explanation, the Islamic Republic of Iran is in a similar situation in terms of being at the macro level of security threats, but at the level of tactics and methods of dealing, Trump seeks to score points all at once in the form of pressure policy. It was maximal, and Biden sought to take advantage of transatlantic multilateralism and gradual and gradual scoring by criticizing Trump's approach. The data collection method in the present study is documentary and the analysis method is descriptive-descriptive.