Language and discourse can create a space where political decision-making and action is accepted despite its untypical nature. The goal of the study is to un-derstand how political discourse is constructed with the aim of legitimizing ex-traordinary action in relation to the framework of securitization. The study revolves around how and why President Trump discursively attempts to legitimize his order that led to the assassination of Iranian Major General Soleimani, on the 2nd of Jan-uary 2020, by conducting a discourse analysis of two speeches delivered within the first week following the event. The study contributes with insight on the particular case, and shows how Maj. Gen. Soleimani is represented as an irrational terrorist, who posed imminent danger to the American people. The act attempted legitimized is presented as done in the name of ‘security’ which seeks to justify the notion of President Trump ‘breaking free’ of usual procedures. The main conclusions of the study are the presented legitimatization strategies, including the linguistic constella-tion of an existential threat, the allusion of a hypothetical future and the exploitation of emotional trauma. Moreover, the findings uncover that a securitization move has taken place within the analyzed speeches.

On January 3, 2020, Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani was killed through a targeted drone strike at the authorisation of the US President Donald Trump. This thesis examines if, and in that case how, the arguments presented by the Trump administration used to justify the killing of general Soleimani are in line with the principles of Just War theory. By conducting a case study, through a qualitative content analysis, analysing four official statements made by the Trump administration during a two months period after the killing, this thesis will examine the moral discourses in the arguments presented. Drawing on insights from studies regarding the justification of War on Terror, preemptive war, and targeted killings according to the Just War theory, lays the foundation for a deeper reasoning of the legality of the argumentation based on the principles of Just War. This thesis will show that in some aspects, the arguments presented by the Trump administration can be interpreted to be in accordance with one of the principles, but none of the statements satisfy the criteria in all of the principles. Therefore, the overall conclusion of this analysis is that the Trump administration has the intention of justifying the attack, but the arguments used are not rooted in Just War theory. Further, this thesis will also show an inconsistency over time in the arguments presented. The contribution from this study lays in the analysis of the arguments on the basis of the principles of Just War theory, not from the perspective of international law. The intention from this thesis is not to analyse if the attack itself can be seen as just according to Just War theory but looking at the argumentation presented by the Trump administration.

No / The widespread protests of November 2019 may be marked as the bloodiest recent chapter of the Islamic Republic of Iran's history in terms of popular dissent. The two major protests in December 2017 and November 2019, followed by the public reaction to the shooting down of the Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752 by the IRGC over Tehran after the US killing of General Soleimani, suggest that the prevailing dynamics of political protest in Iran are changing. There is an increasing sense of radicalisation among protesters, while the state is prepared to resort to extreme violence to maintain control. The geography of political protest has changed. The declining economic situation has had a profound impact on the more vulnerable segments of the society who are now increasingly playing a more proactive role in challenging the state. The methods of protest have been evolving over the last four decades, especially in the cultural arena. Last but not least, the willingness of the protesters both to endure and inflict violence is precipitously transforming state-society relations beyond recognition. This article begins by providing a brief overview of protest in the history of the Islamic Republic, up to the public reaction to the 2020 downing of the Ukrainian airline over Tehran. This provides a historical context to assess the ways in which both the political climate and protests have changed over the last four decades. A section identifying and analysing the factors which have created the current political cul-de-sac then follows. The changing dynamics of the protests are the result of the existing political gridlock and the economic crisis, and it is thus important to evaluate the prevailing conditions which have paved the way for the radicalisation of political climate in Iran. The final section examines the changing dynamics of political protest.