From political tribalism to geopolitical polarization: Democratic virtues in an era of U.S.–Iran conflict

Political polarization is commonly examined within domestic electoral politics, while its role in geopolitical discourse remains underexplored. This study investigates how communicative dynamics associated with political tribalism and affective polarization operate within elite political discourse surrounding the United States–Iran conflict. Using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the study analyzes fourteen official speeches, diplomatic statements, and policy communications produced between 2017 and 2025 by U.S. and Iranian political actors. The analysis identifies competing geopolitical narratives through which each side constructs legitimacy, threat, sovereignty, aggression, and international responsibility. While democratic virtues expressed through dialogue, peace, and legal legitimacy remain present, they coexist with broader narratives of antagonism and distrust. The findings extend scholarship on affective polarization and propose geopolitical polarization as a distinct discursive phenomenon characterized by moralized threat, competing legitimacy claims, and symbolic divisions within international politics.