PROFANITY, ULTIMATUMS, AND IDEOLOGY: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVE ON TRUMP'S TRUTH SOCIAL POSTS CENTERED AROUND IRAN'S WAR WITH US-ISRAIL ALLIANCE

Abstract

The increasing use of social media by political leaders has transformed digital platforms into influential spaces for constructing political authority, ideological narratives, and international conflict. This study examines how profanity, ultimatum expressions, and ideological positioning are discursively constructed in Donald Trump's Truth Social posts related to the US–Iran conflict. Guided by Fairclough's Three-Dimensional Critical Discourse Analysis and Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory, the study employs a qualitative approach to analyze selected Truth Social posts. The findings reveal that profanity functions as a strategy for delegitimizing political opponents and reinforcing authority, while ultimatum expressions operate as mechanisms of coercive political communication through conditional demands and explicit consequences. These linguistic strategies collectively contribute to the construction and legitimation of hegemonic geopolitical authority by portraying military superiority, strategic control, and political dominance as justified and necessary. Unlike previous studies that have examined these linguistic features separately, this study demonstrates that profanity, ultimatum expressions, and ideological positioning operate as interconnected discursive strategies through which geopolitical authority is constructed and legitimized.By integrating Critical Discourse Analysis with Politeness Theory, the study offers a comprehensive framework for understanding how digital political discourse constructs power, legitimizes coercion, and shapes geopolitical realities in contemporary international conflict.