The option on the table: Obama's rhetoric and the case for military conflict with Iran

The following analysis seeks to demonstrate how the Obama administration, through its rhetoric, is attempting to build public support for a potential military conflict with Iran. Further, the study seeks to show how the language of the Obama administration rhetorically creates the reality of the foreign policy relationship between Iran and the United States. The study begins with a brief overview of the US-Iran foreign policy relationship over the course of President Obama's first term. The analysis then focuses on three primary areas: the political myth of the inevitability of military conflict with Iran, the Just War rhetoric of the Obama administration, and the relationship between official-level rhetoric, the media, and public opinion. Finally, future possibilities of peace and military conflict are considered. The study analyzes official-level speeches, addresses, debates, and press briefings delivered between January 2012 and March 2013. The study of political rhetoric exposes the ways in which language informs foreign and military policy. Understanding the rhetorical construction of foreign policy relationships and exploring how public support for military conflict is acquired may offer insights into how military conflict could be prevented in the future.