Ideological Representation of the US-Iran Conflict in American and Iranian Newspapers: A Systematic Review of Critical Discourse Analysis Studies

Representations of international conflicts are rarely neutral; ideological, political, and institutional frameworks shape them. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) offers a robust tool for scrutinizing how media representations construct social and political realities. The U.S.-Iran Conflict, a persistently featured geopolitical issue in Western media, has been interpreted through divergent ideological lenses; however, existing CDA findings remain fragmented across different countries, media outlets, and methodologies. This systematic review synthesizes prior research using van Dijk's socio-cognitive model to examine the ideological construction of the U.S.-Iran Conflict in American and Iranian newspapers. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive search of major databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, and Sage) was conducted for studies published between January 2000 and May 2021. From 780 initial records and 45 eligible full-text assessments, 6 studies met the strict inclusion criteria for in-depth thematic synthesis. The analysis reveals consistent use of van Dijk's "ideological square," with discursive strategies such as lexicalization, evidentiality, and appeals to authority shaping opposing viewpoints. Western media frames Iran as a security threat, while Iranian media portrays the US as a hegemon and emphasizes national autonomy. The review identifies critical research gaps (e.g., cyber conflicts, longitudinal studies) and provides methodological directions, contributing significantly to applied linguistics and political media discourse analysis.