Legitimizing war: continuity and change in US just war discourse on Iraq (2003) and Iran (2026)

This article examines the continuity and transformation of US just war discourse by comparing George W. Bush’s 2003 Iraq address and Donald Trump’s 2026 Iran remarks. It investigates whether the 2003 pattern of just war legitimation persists in 2026 and how its discursive realization has shifted. Using Critical Discourse Analysis and the Discourse-Historical Approach, the study reconstructs a five-element pattern of just war discourse: conflict management, negative other-presentation, positive self-presentation, historical contextualization, and a call to action. The analysis shows this pattern remains structurally stable, with elements realized through recurrent discursive mechanisms. Across both speeches, negative other-presentation constructs just cause through threat amplification, atrocity narratives, and regime labeling; positive self-presentation establishes legitimate authority through victimhood, state power, and exceptionality. Continuity is also evident in tricolons, quantification, and historical anchoring. However, shifts emerge: Bush foregrounds institutional authority and global responsibility, while Trump reorients them toward personal authority, national self-interest, and military supremacy. These findings show that the same five-element structure is identifiable in both speeches, although its linguistic expression and historical references differ between the cases. The study contributes to political communication and international relations scholarship by specifying how presidential rhetoric legitimizes force.