geopolitical representation of the united states from nuclear energy in the middle east

Abstract

the present research , using critical discourse analysis , examines the geopolitical representation of the united states policy about the iranian nuclear program in the united states government . this article , in view of  theoretical concepts of " " orientalism " " and " " ideological square " " and " " square " " , analyzes the discourse of american leaders about the nuclear program of middle eastern countries , especially the islamic republic of iran . the findings of the research show that is one of the most significant changes in the september 11 discourse of " terrorism " and " " weapons of mass destruction " " as two elements of " " threat " " . with many countries , they own the nucleus of the nucleus , but george w . bush , when they are " axis of evil " , defends nuclear energy , recalling these as weapons of mass destruction , and called those countries to become a continuation of terrorism . bush 's usual and frequent use of words such as criminals , non - violent , illegal , etc. , also opposed the act of bringing iraq into law and justification of the geopolitical intervention against the country , which is armed with weapons of mass destruction . the findings also show that obama in his lectures use east themes and themes to represent the united states " nuclear policy from the countries . the analysis of obama 's orientations suggests that he , like bush , will close the ranks of himself as the " friendly group " and others in the middle east as " outsiders " who seek to achieve the weapons of mass destruction .

Keywords


  1. - Agnew, J. and Corbridge, S. (1995), Mastering Space, London:
  2. Routledge.
  3. - Dodds, Klaus (2007), Geopolitics; A Very Short Introduction, New York:
  4. Oxford University Press.
  5. - Fairclough, Norman (2005), “Blair’s Contribution to Elaborating a
  6. New ‘Doctrine of International Community”, Journal of Language and
  7. Politics 4 (1).
  8. - Gallaher, Carolyn & et al (2009), Key Concepts in Political Geography
  9. (Key Concepts in Human Geography), SAGE Publications Ltd.
  10. - Jones, Martin, Rhys Jones & Michael Woods (2004), An Introduction
  11. to Political Geography: Space, Place and Politics, London: Routledge.
  12. - Lazar, Anita and Lazar, Michelle M. (2004), “The Discourse of the
  13. New World Order: ‘Out-casting’ the Double Face of Threat”, Discourse &
  14. Society 15, pp 223–242.
  15. - O´Tuathail, G. (2002), “Theorizing Practical Geopolitical Reasoning:
  16. The Case of U.S. Bosnia Policy in 1992”, Political Geography, 21(5), pp.
  17. -628.
  18. - O´Tuathail, G. (2004), “Geopolitical Structures and Cultures:
  19. Towards Conceptual Clarity in the Critical Study of Geopolitics”, In L.
  20. Tchantouridze (Ed.), Geopolitics: Global Problems and Regional Concerns
  21. (pp. 75-102), Winnipeg: Centre for Defense and Security Studies.
  22. فصلنامه علمی- پژوهشی آفاق امنیت / سال نهم/ شماره سی ام - بهار 1395
  23.  
  24. - Rediehs, Laura J. (2002), “Evil”, In: Collins, J., Glover, R. (Eds.),
  25. Collateral Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War, New York:
  26. University Press, New York.
  27. - Said, Edward (1978), Orientalism, New York, Pantheon.
  28. - Sharp, J. (1993), “Publishing American Identity: Popular Geopolitics,
  29. Myth and the Reader’s Digest”, Political Geography, 12(6), pp. 491-503.
  30. - US National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats, 2009.
  31. - US National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,
  32. December 2002.
  33. - van Dijk, T. (1998), “Opinions and Ideologies in the Press”, In A. Bell
  34. & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to Media Discourse (pp. 21-63), Malden,
  35. MA: Blackwell.