Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Rohollah Eslami ¹
• Mohammadali Baniasadi ²

¹ Associate Professor of Political Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

² M.A. in Political Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

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

Keywords

• Affective polarization
• representation of the political rival
• othering
• moralization of conflict
• Persian X

Main Subjects

• Civil Society
• Cultural Studies
• Iran
• Political Sociology
• Sociology of Cinema, Media & Communication