The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the fundamental assumptions underlying the "Moderation" and "Strong Iran" discourses and to examine their implications for Iran's political education system. Employing a qualitative approach—specifically utilizing Laclau and Mouffe’s critical discourse analysis and Frankena’s practical syllogism based on library research—this study investigates the central signifiers and meta-discursive concepts of these two discourses. It further elucidates their consequences across three dimensions of political education: content, methodology, and the student's lifeworld. The findings indicate that the Moderation discourse, centered on "prudence and engagement," rests on assumptions such as neoclassical realism (ontology), pragmatism (epistemology), a welfare-oriented view of the human being (anthropology), and values emphasizing "order, diplomatic prestige, and stylish modernity." This has led to the formation of a meta-discursive concept of "rational-engagement-oriented education" and the cultivation of a subject characterized by rational agency. In contrast, the Strong Iran discourse, centered on "national authority and civilization-building," relies on assumptions such as civilizational ontology, the integration of science and faith (epistemology), a civilization-building agent (anthropology), and values highlighting "the glory of authority, resolving people's problems, and scientific-military advancements." The result is the emergence of a meta-discourse of "civilizational-authority-generating education" and the creation of a subject embodied as the "Jihadi scientist." Ultimately, the results indicate that while the discourse of moderation emphasizes "normalization" and engagement with the global order, the discourse of a "Strong Iran" focuses on "endogenous authority," self-confidence, and redefining Iran's position in the global system through civilization-building