Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies

Abstract Israel's radical policy in the War on Gaza is dehumanizing and absolutely contrary to international norms and standards. Dehumanization refers to the deprivation of humans and other groups of all their basic rights. This article argues that Zionist discourse has enabled Israel's radical policy through the reproduction of dehumanizing narratives. Such narratives are influenced by Western anthropological perspective, which values Western lives more highly than non-Western ones. Zionist discourse enables such radical policy for Israel by reproducing narratives such as Legitimizing Self and Delegitimizing the Other, Denial of Coevalness, Viewing the Other as an Object, Representation of a Superior Extended "We", and Belonging to a Different Place. This radical policy includes elements such as diplomatic weakness, voluntarism, disproportionality between capabilities and actions, maximalism, and reactive behavior. This policy has deviated from realist elements such as prioritizing diplomacy to secure national interests, avoiding risk-centered approaches, respecting the vital interests of others, and operating within the framework of power. Using discourse analysis methodology and examining texts reproduced by Israeli officials and leaders, this article seeks to explain Israel's dehumanizing narratives and radical policy in the War on Gaza.  

Abstract This article discusses the digital performance of cultural identity by Rishi Sunak, Britain’s first Prime Minister of Indian descent, through thematic analysis of 50 strategically selected X (Twitter) posts spanning his political ascendancy (2020-2025). Employing Hall’s representation theory, the analysis reveals a deliberate curation of Indian identity privileging ceremonial multiculturalism (Diwali commemorations, UK-India diplomatic exchanges) alongside neoliberal meritocratic narratives, while systematically excluding engagement with the history of colonialism or structural inequities. The analysis particularly highlights how UK-India diplomatic exchanges became a strategic site for Mr. Sunak to perform his hybrid identity. The project then advances the framework of “controlled visibility” to elucidate the dual mechanisms of such phenomenon in digital representation: strategic self-presentation by political actors intersecting with platform governance policies. The research contributes to an emerging field at the intersection of digital politics, ethnic studies, and British political discourse by highlighting how ethnic identity can be subtly embedded or strategically leveraged in the digital sphere.

Abstract Israel's foreign policy at times diverges from realist expectations based on rationality, proportionality, and prudence. This article argues that Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon exemplifies such divergence, driven by what Ernst Cassirer terms "mythical thought," or a myth-based discourse that constitutes the mindset of Israeli policymakers. Within this discourse, quantity and quality acquire specific characteristics, resulting in maximalist goals, voluntarism, reactive strategies, and disproportionate actions in foreign policy. Initially, Israel’s stated aim was a limited security operation; however, influenced by myth-based discourse, the mission expanded dramatically, seeking the elimination of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the expulsion of Syrian forces, and the establishment of a pro-Israeli government in Lebanon—goals far exceeding Israel’s strategic capabilities. Ultimately, encountering international structural constraints forced Israel to retreat and recalibrate its objectives temporarily. Employing discourse analysis of statements and texts produced by Israeli decision-makers during this war, the article illustrates how mythical thinking enabled unrealistic and expansionist elements to shape Israel’s foreign policy.

Abstract The chronic problem of police brutality against Black communities prompted the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Rising protests revealed that the killings of African Americans were not isolated events, but symptoms of a system of racial injustice. Literature, in this respect, emerged as an important locus through which marginalized groups voice counter-narratives that oppose hegemonic racial logics and stereotypical representations of Blackness as criminality. While the sociopolitical implications of BLM have been thoroughly analyzed, there has been relatively less scholarly focus on how African-American Young Adult Literature (YAL) engages with, rearticulates, and negotiates these discourses. This article bridges that gap by subjecting Angie Thomas’s The Hate U Give to the hotly debated Critical Race Theory to examine how the novel engages with the ideas of BLM and illuminates the structural dimensions of racism in America. The critique indicates that Thomas constructs a counter-narrative revolving around systemic racism, racial profiling, police brutality, white privilege, implicit bias, and the intersection of race with other forms of marginalization. Situating the novel in literary and activist contexts, this study highlights YAL’s potential to mirror, challenge, and redefine cultural consciousness, thus positioning the genre as an essential site of contemporary social justice activism.

Abstract This paper reexamines the economic security dynamics of the Persian Gulf by applying a neoliberal institutionalist framework to the evolving relationship between Iran and the United States, with particular attention to recent geopolitical shocks, including the 12-day war between Iran and Israel and the US's direct involvement in that conflict. The study explores how shifting patterns of sanctions, trade disruptions, and maritime security risks affect regional economies, particularly those of Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Using process tracing, the analysis identifies causal pathways linking US policy changes to Iran’s economic resilience and the adaptive strategies of Persian Gulf actors. Special emphasis is placed on the mediating and stabilizing role of Qatar, whose neutral diplomacy has grown in importance amid heightened tensions. Findings suggest that economic interdependence, institutional cooperation, and pragmatic mediation—especially by Persian Gulf states like Qatar and Oman—offer pathways to mitigate conflict and preserve economic stability in a region increasingly shaped by sanctions, oil market volatility, and asymmetric warfare. The paper concludes with actionable policy recommendations for Iran to improve regional integration, crisis response, and economic diversification under ongoing US pressure.

Abstract These days, celebrities play an extensive role in people’s lives. They have entered cultural, social, economic—and also political—spheres and influence their audiences. One area that, over recent decades, has been affected by and entangled with celebrities’ involvement is elections in various countries. By endorsing a like-minded candidate, celebrities call on their audiences to support that person and thus advocate for them.



This study, using a comparative approach and Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis method, examines how celebrities expressed support during Iran’s 2017 election and the United States’ 2016 election at the candidates’ campaign rallies. To that end, three celebrities from each country were selected for analysis: Beyoncé, Katy Perry, and Demi Lovato from the U.S., and Sahar Dolatshahi, Baran Kosari, and Leili Rashidi from Iran. The findings indicate that in both countries, celebrity discourse is shaped by the political, cultural, and social context. Iranian celebrities tended to present themselves as aligned with the people and sharing their vote, criticizing existing structures, the previous government, and obstacles to civil liberties, with a stronger emphasis on reform. American celebrities, by contrast, focused more on the values of freedom and on welfare issues.

Abstract This article examines how political rivals are represented in Persian-language discussions on X and identifies the point at which ordinary political disagreement develops into deeper relational conflict. Focusing on the relationship constructed toward political opponents, the study analyzes three major political cases: Iran’s 2024 presidential runoff election, debates over the enforcement of the Chastity and Hijab Law, and controversies surrounding negotiations between Iran and the United States. Using a qualitative, text-centered, and processual-comparative design, the research takes the interactional-discursive cluster as its primary unit of analysis. The findings are based on six clearly documented and auditable sets of evidence. Results show that differences among the cases cannot be explained solely by conflict intensity. In the electoral case, conflict intensifies mainly through challenges to legitimacy and belonging. In the hijab case, moral judgments concerning coercion, humiliation, and harm shape the dominant pattern. In the negotiation case, evidence is more fragmented, with strategic distrust sometimes approaching moral interpretations of compromise. Across all three cases, evidence does not support political hatred as the dominant logic of interaction

Abstract Barack Obama entered office promising engagement with Tehran; by the end of his first term, his administration had assembled an exceptionally broad multilateral sanctions regime. This article explains that reversal and uses the case of Iran’s nuclear program to extend the Copenhagen School's theory of securitization in two ways. First, it treats sanctions and institutional measures not just as consequences of a completed securitization but as part of the securitizing process itself: UN Security Council Resolution 1929, the IAEA's 2011 report on possible military dimensions, and the 2012 oil embargo each reset the discursive ground and enabled the next move, so discourse and material action co-produced one another. Second, it theorizes the target state's responses as a structural enabling condition of securitization rather than a factor external to it. Using explanatory-outcome process tracing, the analysis follows the campaign through four stages - discursive entrapment (2009), institutional coalescence around Resolution 1929 (2010), scientific validation through the IAEA (2011), and the normalization of sanctions (2012) - and identifies the United States and its allies as the securitizing actors. Iran's legalism, its missed diplomatic openings, and the timing of its enrichment disclosures emerge as conditions that facilitated the campaign without being its cause.

Abstract Intelligence challenges such as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), terrorism, and cyber threats create uncertainty and incomplete information for the decision makers and people. This uncertainty could manage by the president through persuasive communication. This article examines how Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama employed rhetorical strategies to persuade domestic and international audiences in the face of intelligence-related matters. The study draws on a qualitative content analysis of presidential speeches. The study apply a new seven-category persuasion framework consisting of 25 subcategories that expands the traditional Aristotelian modes of ethos, pathos, and logos. This framework offers a more systematic framework for capturing the complexity of presidential persuasion strategy. The analysis revealed clear differences in presidential styles: Bush consistently relied on pathos, using fear appeals, urgency, and moral clarity to justify preemptive actions related to WMD and rally public support, whereas Obama focused on logos and ethos, appealing to reason, institutional trust, and credibility while framing responses as collaborative and strategic in cases involving technological intelligence activities.