موسسه پژوهشی مبانی و مدل‌ های اقتصادی بومی تعاملات دیپلماتیک 3041-9395 3 11 2025 09 23 Iran’s Diplomatic Discourse in the June 2025 Crisis: A Discursive Resistance Analysis Against Structural Inequality گفتمان دیپلماتیک ایران در بحران ژوئن ۲۰۲۵: تحلیل مقاومت گفتمانی در برابر نابرابری ساختاری 240622 10.22034/dpiq.2026.565473.1066 FA امین صادقی بکیانی دکتری علوم سیاسی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران. 0009-0000-9291-005X Journal Article 2026 02 16 Introduction In contemporary international relations, diplomacy has shifted from a purely institutional practice to a dynamic discursive arena in which power, meaning, and ideology interact dialectically. This transformation is particularly evident in states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, which operates under sustained geopolitical pressure and seeks to construct an alternative, resistance-oriented foreign policy discourse. Following the military aggression by the Zionist regime against Iran in June 2025, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi delivered a series of official statements, letters, speeches, and social media posts that collectively constitute a strategic and multi-layered diplomatic response. This study analyzes this discourse through Norman Fairclough’s (2009) Dialectical–Relational Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which conceptualizes discourse not merely as text, but as a form of social practice embedded within—and actively shaping—structures of power, ideology, and global inequality. Research Objectives Existing scholarship on Iran’s foreign policy has explored the concept of “resistance discourse” from historical, strategic, and ideological perspectives (Wu & Moshirzadeh, 2025; Karemefard, 2025; Koohkan et al., 2020). However, most studies either adopt macro-level theoretical approaches or focus on speeches by senior leadership, overlooking the nuanced and crisis-driven diplomatic discourse articulated by operational actors such as foreign ministers. Although a limited number of studies have applied Fairclough’s CDA to Iranian diplomatic texts (e.g., Rahimi Tehrani & Chalak, 2021; Asadi, 2014), none have examined a complete corpus of texts produced in direct response to a military attack. Moreover, previous research has often neglected the triadic relationship between textual strategies, discursive practices (such as multi-channel dissemination), and the broader sociopolitical context of global hegemony. This study directly addresses this gap. Methodology This research adopts a qualitative design based on Fairclough’s (2009) three-dimensional CDA framework: (1) textual analysis, (2) discourse practice, and (3) sociocultural practice. The data consist of 14 publicly available texts issued by Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi between 13 and 21 June 2025, including formal letters to the UN Security Council and the IAEA, official statements, diplomatic speeches, and posts on the X (formerly Twitter) platform. Data were collected through document analysis and coded using NVivo 14 software. The analytical process followed three stages: open coding (identification of surface themes), axial coding (categorization into conceptual clusters), and selective coding (derivation of core discursive strategies). Trustworthiness was ensured through peer debriefing, dual coding by independent researchers, and thick contextual description. Results The analysis reveals four dominant thematic clusters structuring Araqchi’s discourse: (1) legitimate self-defense, grounded in Article 51 of the UN Charter and the NPT; (2) illegal aggression, framed as a “heinous violation” of international law and a “crime against humanity”; (3) destroyed diplomacy, emphasizing that Iran was engaged in negotiations (including the Muscat talks) at the time of the attack; and (4) Western hypocrisy and injustice, highlighting structural double standards within Western powers and international institutions. At the linguistic level, the discourse combines formal legal terminology with moral and emotive metaphors (“diplomacy was destroyed,” “shameful silence”) alongside binary oppositions such as “us/them,” “victim/aggressor,” and “justice/hypocrisy.” Strategically, the texts were disseminated through both formal diplomatic channels (UN, IAEA) and digital platforms (X), targeting international institutions, global public opinion—particularly in the Islamic world—and domestic audiences simultaneously. Reception patterns indicate strong solidarity from several Muslim-majority states, muted or cautious responses from Western governments, and procedural inaction by international organizations. Discussion Araqchi’s discourse functions not merely as a reactive justification, but as a deliberate form of resistance discourse aimed at challenging hegemonic Western narratives that delegitimize non-Western sovereignty. By invoking universally recognized legal norms while simultaneously exposing their selective enforcement, Iran repositions itself from a “security threat” to a “victim of illegal aggression,” thereby subverting dominant security discourses. The integration of digital diplomacy (particularly through X) with traditional diplomatic channels reflects a hybrid communicative strategy designed to bypass Western-controlled media structures and engage transnational audiences directly. In Fairclough’s terms, this illustrates how discourse is both shaped by and shapes social structures: despite operating within an unequal international order, Iran uses language strategically to create discursive space for justice, resistance, and alternative legitimacy. However, the effectiveness of this discourse remains constrained by structural power asymmetries, as Western media and international institutions largely marginalize or reframe Iran’s narrative. Conclusion This study demonstrates that Iran’s diplomatic discourse in the aftermath of military aggression constitutes a sophisticated and multi-dimensional strategy of discursive resistance. It simultaneously legitimizes defensive action, delegitimizes the aggressor, exposes systemic double standards, and constructs an alternative geopolitical imaginary grounded in justice and South–South solidarity. While this discourse may not immediately alter material power relations, it performs a crucial symbolic function by asserting moral and political agency in a global system where both the “right to speak” and the “right to defend” are contested. Future research should further examine audience reception dynamics and conduct comparative analyses with other Global South states facing similar structural asymmetries. این پژوهش با هدف تحلیل گفتمان دیپلماتیک ایران در پی حمله اسرائیل به ایران در ژوئن ۲۰۲۵ و پاسخ به این سؤال انجام شده است: «گفتمان دیپلماتیک ایران در پاسخ به حمله اسرائیل چگونه شکل گرفته است و آیا می‌توان آن را به‌عنوان یک عمل مقاومتی در برابر نظم گفتمانی مسلط تفسیر کرد؟» روش تحقیق کیفی و بر اساس چارچوب تحلیل انتقادی گفتمان (CDA) فرکلاف (۲۰۰۹) است. جامعه پژوهش شامل تمامی متون منتشر شده توسط وزیر امور خارجه ایران، در بازه زمانی ۱۳ تا 23 ژوئن ۲۰۲۵ است که با روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند، ۱۴ متن رسمی و عمومی (نامه، بیانیه، سخنرانی، پیام شبکه اجتماعی) انتخاب شدند. داده‌ها از طریق تحلیل مستند جمع‌آوری و برای ساماندهی و کدگذاری داده‌ها از نرم‌افزار NVivo (نسخه ۱۴) به‌عنوان ابزار کمکی استفاده گردید و با روش تحلیل گفتمان فرکلافی (تحلیل متن، عمل گفتاری، بافت اجتماعی) تحلیل شدند. روایی و پایایی از طریق بررسی همتا، کدگذاری دوبل و توصیف غنی تأمین شد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که گفتمان وزیر امورخارجه حول چهار مضمون کلیدی شکل گرفته است: «دفاع مشروع»، «تجاوز غیرقانونی»، «دیپلماسی نابودشده» و «بی‌عدالتی غرب». این گفتمان با استفاده از زبان حقوقی، استعاره‌های اخلاقی و دوگانه‌سازی، اقدامات ایران را به عنوان واکنشی قانونی و اخلاقی مشروعیت می‌بخشد و در مقابل، رژیم صهیونیستی و حامیانش را به عنوان متجاوز و بی‌اخلاق ترسیم می‌کند. تحلیل عمل گفتاری نشان می‌دهد که متون هم از طریق کانال‌های رسمی (شورای امنیت، آژانس) و هم دیجیتال (شبکه X) تولید و توزیع شده‌اند تا هم نهادهای بین‌المللی و هم افکار عمومی جهانی را هدف قرار دهند. در بافت اجتماعی، این گفتمان نشان‌دهنده‌ی تلاش آگاهانه‌ای برای ساخت یک گفتمان مقاومتی در برابر سلطه‌ی گفتمانی مسلط است، هرچند تأثیر آن در سطح بین‌المللی هنوز نیازمند بررسی‌های بیشتر است. «نتیجه‌گیری نشان می‌دهد که گفتمان دیپلماسی ایران یک استراتژی پیچیده و چندلایه است که فراتر از مشروعیت‌بخشی به اقدامات دفاعی، سعی دارد از طریق چالشِ نظم گفتمانی مسلط، گفتمانی جایگزین برای مقاومتِ سیاسی-ایدئولوژیک ارائه کند.»