JCPOA's Online Discourse: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015, limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The U.S. withdrew in 2018, but talks continue to revive the deal. Aim: This meta-analysis examines how academic research from 2017 to 2024 has analyzed the JCPOA through the lens of critical discourse studies, revealing the interplay of language, power, and identity in constructing meaning around the agreement. Methodology: This meta-analysis synthesizes 27 peer-reviewed studies (2017-2024) to examine the discursive construction of JCPOA through critical discourse analysis (CDA) frameworks. Discussion: The study reveals how competing narratives shaped the agreement’s trajectory, focusing on three key dimensions: (1) transatlantic policy divergences, where EU multilateralist discourses clashed with U.S. unilateralist "America First" rhetoric under Trump, exacerbating diplomatic rifts; (2) domestic Iranian narrative battles, where reformist and conservative factions framed the JCPOA as either pragmatic diplomacy or ideological betrayal, leveraging media and social media to delegitimize opponents; and (3) diplomatic communication strategies, where translational asymmetries and linguistic negotiation underscored the politicized nature of interstate dialogue. Conclusions: The study demonstrates how discourse not only reflected but actively produced geopolitical realities, generating new identities (e.g., Iran as "resistant"), policies (e.g., maximum pressure), and material outcomes (e.g., renewed uranium enrichment).