The U.S. Discursive Logic in Defining Terrorism: Representation of Hezbollah and Tahrir al-Sham

Counterterrorism is one of the key strategies of the United States in the international system. However, evidence suggests that this effort lacks fixed principles and criteria, being primarily defined within the framework of U.S. geopolitical interests and discursive logic. A clear example of this approach is the U.S.’s dual stance toward Hezbollah and Tahrir al-Sham. This research, therefore, seeks to answer the question: How does the U.S. discursive logic shape the representation of terrorism? The study hypothesizes that the U.S. discursive logic leads to the representation of terrorism based more on the political and ideological identity of groups rather than their actual nature. Consequently, groups opposing U.S. interests are labeled as terrorist, whereas those aligned with its interests are less likely to receive this designation. Based on a descriptive-analytical approach and document-based research within Teun A. van Dijk’s ideological framework, the findings reveal that the binary opposition of "us" versus "them," or the "with us or against us" logic, is the fundamental principle in the U.S. definition of terrorism. According to this perspective, regardless of their actual nature, Hezbollah is categorized as the "other" under the concept of terrorism, whereas the terrorist label applied to Tahrir al-Sham, as an "insider," is significantly downplayed.