Discourse Analysis of the "JCPOA" Content in Telegram Political Channels; Case Study: Comparison of the Second Rouhani Administration and the Raisi Administration

This study examines how two dominant discourses in Iran’s political sphere—the Raisi discourse and the Rouhani discourse—construct contrasting representations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and its consequences. These differences appear not only in the substantive content of their messages but also in tone, keywords, and representational strategies on the social media platform Telegram.

The Raisi discourse frames the JCPOA as a symbol of economic failure, a violation of national red lines, and a pathway for enemy infiltration. Rooted in a long-standing mistrust of the West, this perspective draws on concepts such as “struggle” and “the field.” Within this framework, supporters of the agreement are often portrayed as “Westoxified” or excessively oriented toward Western values. The central concern of this discourse is the protection of national independence and identity against foreign influence.

By contrast, the Rouhani discourse presents the JCPOA as the outcome of rational diplomacy and a mechanism for de-escalation and economic opening. Subsequent setbacks are largely attributed to U.S. non-compliance and domestic political obstruction, while engagement and dialogue remain central to its proposed solutions. Advocates emphasize rational policymaking and its alignment with national interests.

Despite these differences, both discourses use Telegram as a strategic medium to construct mediated realities, reinforce power relations, and mobilize public opinion. Media texts in this environment rarely operate as neutral reports; rather, they present ideologically informed interpretations of events. Consequently, competing narratives on Telegram have evolved into a struggle over the authoritative meaning of the JCPOA.