This paper seeks to explore novel perspectives on securitization by examining how Iran’s involvement in the Yemeni conflict since 2014 has been securitized by Saudi, US and Iranian political elites. By combining Copenhagen School securitization theory with Carol Lee Bacchi’s WPR (What’s the Problem Represented to Be?) framework for discourse analysis, this study demonstrates how elements of speech acts which are assumed, implicit, unproblematized or “silent” can contribute to securitization. The analysis finds that statements by Saudi and US political elites consistently represent Iran as a security threat without addressing the complexities of internal Yemeni dynamics. At times, it is assumed that the audience accepts and understands why Iranian involvement is inherently problematic. When the nature of the threat posed by AnsarAllah is discussed in detail, the Saudi perception of Iran’s involvement implicitly becomes a prerequisite for AnsarAllah’s perceived agency and operative capabilities. In accepting Saudi Arabia’s securitizing moves, US political elites reproduce this narrative, despite contradictory scholarly conclusions about Iranian involvement. This contributes to securitization by leaving assumptions about Iran and its role in Yemen unproblematized. The failure to address Iran’s shifting rhetoric also allows for the same narrative to be reproduced by the US, reinforcing the understanding of Iran as an inherently destabilizing force.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-529750 |
| Date | January 2024 |
| Creators | Demitz-Helin, Daniel |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0025 seconds