Document Type : Original Article from Result of Research Project
Highlights
Introduction
Before any confrontation and war, a battle over meaning, legitimacy, and ethical framing takes place. In contemporary international politics, this process is called narration. Narration is not merely a rhetorical device, but an instrument of strategic power. This article examines how Donald Trump’s second‑term foreign policy toward Nicolás Maduro and the Islamic Republic of Iran was shaped through a structured and conscious narrative process. The main research question is: What role did the narrative pattern play in advancing the military doctrine of Trump’s foreign policy against Venezuela and Iran? It is assumed that Trump’s narratives were not spontaneous or scattered reactions, but components of a coherent strategy to generate pressure, construct threat, and legitimize intervention. Ultimately, by highlighting the failure of diplomacy and representing military action as the only possible solution, the goal of the narrative was to justify the idea of regime change in the two countries.
Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative approach and is based on documentary analysis. The primary data consist of Trump’s speeches, interviews, official statements, and social media posts during periods leading up to heightened tensions. Purposeful sampling was employed to select statements containing explicit narrative content, direct relevance to Iran and Venezuela, and sufficient discursive density for coding. The analytical process involved sequential coding, identification of central signifiers, and reconstruction of narrative clusters. Particular attention was devoted to the use of labels, metaphors, and evaluative descriptions as mechanisms for legitimizing U.S. actions while simultaneously delegitimizing the opposing side.
Results and Discussion
The findings show that in both cases, a fixed and repetitive narrative architecture can be observed. In the case of Venezuela, the central signifier was formed around representing Maduro as an illegitimate dictator. Through targeted labeling, Venezuela’s political crisis was reduced to the personal fault of a corrupt ruler, while structural economic factors, sanctions, and historical contexts were marginalized. This central signifier was reinforced by the floating signifier of “saving democracy.” Human suffering, mass migration, and economic collapse were represented as direct consequences of dictatorship, thereby portraying intervention as a moral obligation. Another layer of the narrative turned Venezuela into an epicenter of broader threats, including drug trafficking and the geopolitical influence of rival powers to the US. In this way, the fall of the Venezuelan government was introduced not only as the collapse of an authoritarian regime, but also as a strategic responsibility for the US in the Western Hemisphere. Thus, by persistently emphasizing the ineffectiveness of diplomacy and the futility of negotiation, other policy options were eliminated from the field, and military action was normalized as a proportionate and inevitable necessity. Indeed, the narrative provided the necessary interpretive groundwork not after the intervention, but before it, and the removal of Maduro was presented as the restoration of order and justice.
In the case of Iran, a similar but more complex structure is observed. The central signifier of Trump’s narrative field presented the Islamic Republic as a terrorist regime, thereby undermining the political legitimacy of the government. The floating signifier emphasized two axes: protecting the Iranian people and preventing nuclear proliferation. The rhetorical separation between the regime and the people allowed pressure to be represented as support for the people. At the same time, nuclear capability was portrayed as an existential danger, reinforcing the urgency of military action. Thus, as with Venezuela, diplomacy was depicted as an ineffective option, and through this discursive restriction, regime change was highlighted as a durable solution. However, Iran’s geopolitical and strategic differences, including its regional standing, deterrent capacity, and institutional cohesion, made the realization of such a scenario unlikely, unlike in Venezuela.
Conclusion
The research shows that Trump’s narration against Maduro and the Islamic Republic of Iran follows a coherent and repetitive pattern aimed at legitimizing regime change through the hegemonization of military action. In effect, narrative acted as a mechanism for delegitimization, threat escalation, and the elimination of diplomatic options. In Venezuela, the coherence of the narrative, together with geopolitical conditions, facilitated intervention and the fall of Maduro. But in Iran, despite the similarity in narrative structure, structural constraints and strategic complexities made achieving a similar outcome impossible.
