LEGITIMIZATION OF MILITARY INTERVENTION An Argument Analysis of Donald Trump’s Legitimization of the 2026 Attacks Against Iran

Abstract

Legitimization is crucial in democratic systems for gaining support, maintaining power, and shaping public acceptance of policies. Political rhetoric affects how citizens perceive war, threats, and security policy. Legitimization is central in creating public support for military intervention and in framing actions as necessary or morally correct. Based on the five legitimization strategies identified by Antonio Reyes (2011), this study examines which arguments Donald Trump uses to legitimize the 2026 attacks against Iran. The findings show that Trump uses all five legitimization strategies, although their frequency and expression vary across communicative contexts. Formal presidential communication relies on a more structured argumentation, while social media communication is more emotional, simplified, and confrontational, relying on the delegitimization of criticism and media narratives. However, some arguments do not fit within Reyes’s framework, especially those based on outcome-based legitimacy, leadership credibility, and moral authority. These findings suggest that contemporary political legitimization extends beyond traditional rhetoric into personalized and social media-based communication.